Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

Clean up name orders

posted
Total Posts
9
Noffy
Nomination Assessment Team
1,685 posts
Joined April 2012
Topic Starter
Noffy
The way community/forums/topics/1317453?n=20 was implemented is extremely messy and confusing


proposal:

1. Remove this rule

An artist's name is to be romanised in the order it is printed in the unicode field, unless an alternative order for the romanised name is provided by the artist.

_________________
2. remove allowance

If an artist has provided an official translation for their name, this may be used in the romanised artist field. Official romanisation may be used for the spelling of an artist's name, but the name order must follow the related rule.

_________________
3. revise this allowance

If a Unicode Song title has either an official translation or romanisation provided by the artist, either or may be used in the romanised title field.


to

If a Unicode Song Artist or Title has either an official translation or romanisation provided by the artist, either or may be used in the respective romanised field.



_________________

Keeping the rule makes no sense if it was rewritten to completely contradict itself. This aims to simplify 3 things into 1 thing for clarity and ease of reading. It being written as an allowance only means that consistency should be kept across maps for artists where you could use either direct romanization or their preferred romanization.


To be honest I have huge misgivings about the change happening at all and think the rule being pushed through for the sake of one case was foolishness, it's only made things more confusing. But it looks like others supported the change so I won't take it upon myself to stop it, but it should at least make sense in the process.
Nao Tomori
osu! Alumni
3,107 posts
Joined December 2014
Nao Tomori
"either the official translation or the official romanization *should* be used instead of the standard method" - is that the idea? That makes more sense to me. Giving the option to potentially overwrite official titles and artist names seems strange.
UberFazz
Medal Hunter
163 posts
Joined July 2016
UberFazz
honestly 100% agree that this should be reverted, we have such a precedent for one way of ordering names already that having any variance just turns it into an inconsistent mess... the big problem with it is that the technically "correct" way of romanization is "(first name) (last name)" so any official source would write it like that, while our standardization has that flipped, so any source with a romanization would be "(first name) (last name)" and any source without would be "(last name) (first name)"

this implementation seems like a huge oversight

id love to use the "correct" way of romanizing names but this isn't possible without having huge inconsistencies... maybe when we can edit ranked meta we could make this happen
Last edited by UberFazz , edited 1 time in total.
Noffy
Nomination Assessment Team
1,685 posts
Joined April 2012
Topic Starter
Noffy
Basically it'd be expanding the allowance just like we've been doing for titles since some "official" stuff is in reality very obscure and expecting people to find it is meh. Also for better compatibility with keeping consistency since "oh this followed the rule before but now it COMPLETELY CHANGED and your consistent map is wrong!" is always stupid and imo best to minimize that kind of thing happening
momoyo
Nomination Assessment Team
247 posts
Joined June 2018
momoyo
I already said this in my post regarding the RC change but whatever

We've been having the same artists in the same order for years, flipping the order for this messy change is not something I can agree with. That would mean to change every CV: artists order for the sake of it completely ignoring consistency with previous sets. If I knew about the change proposal before it got applied I would 100% be against it since it ruins the purpose of having consistency with old sets. Regardless if name order is wrong, we should at least have it the same way to avoid confusion (also it would be extremely weird).

Vouch
Annabel
Beatmap Nominator
565 posts
Joined October 2013
Annabel
1 or 2 seem the cleanest. what i liked about how the rc was before this change (cuz this same ambiguity was the issue with the rc before all names were to be romanised based on what the unicode said) is that things were simpler and you didn't have to look and see what name the artist was using being on the time period. using beatmapsets/1557051/discussion/-/generalAll#/2582978 as an example where she flip flopped her name is just really confusing and not practical to expect people to keep track of. this isn't even the only case where this exists and one of the reasons i didn't want this to be implemented to begin with

rn breaking consistency we have had for years is not really smth i am glad to see since it just makes things harder to understand why and how things are to be applied on a general level.
Last edited by Annabel , edited 2 times in total.
StarCastler
osu! Alumni
151 posts
Joined June 2018
StarCastler
Not a huge fan of the current rule implementation, I was hesitant to see this change go through so quickly in the first place. I do like the idea of being able to use the more recognizable ordering of artist names however it really feels like the current rules contradict each other way too much.

I suppose you could say if the artist does indeed prefer to be referred to with a certain name order, it would be respectful to credit them in that order. However, I am concerned that this is going to be more difficult to source especially depending on the artist.

Personally for simplicity's sake, I would rather revert to consistently follow one name order rather than having to rely on additional source verification to name order as I feel that leads to inconsistencies and/or difference in preferences. However I can understand the reasoning behind such a change, so I am open to see if the rules can be revised further rather than be outright removed.

If we're going to keep this sort of thing I really think it will really need some revision and clarification.
Noffy
Nomination Assessment Team
1,685 posts
Joined April 2012
Topic Starter
Noffy
Hello this is a pull request to show what the CHANGE LOOKS LIKE

it is NOT FINAL UNLESS MERGED

https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/6079

Edit: as posted on the pr eph is gonna let it stew for a few days to see what y'all think before we push it more
Last edited by Noffy , edited 1 time in total.
Purplegaze
115 posts
Joined October 2015
Purplegaze
I don't personally understand why consistency in the ranked section because of our previous standardizations has to take priority over what the artist actually wants.

Not only are there plenty of ranked section inconsistencies with flipped names in the past anyway (e.g. multiple mapsets of Kanon Wakeshima - Tsukinami), but more importantly, using officially-provided name orders allows for artist names to be recognized as they are supposed to be outside of osu!. We shouldn't be going against artists' wishes and labelling already-ranked artists using an order not recognizable to people who know the artists from outside of osu! just for the sole purpose of maintaining that the same two mapsets ranked a year apart share the same unicode name order.

In the long run, the recognizability of all new mapsets using official name orders will be a greater benefit than the names being inconsistent with a specific chunk of mapsets that gets older over time.

(and it would be great if old incorrect metadata gets fixed with lazer too so that inconsistencies can stop being annoying)
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 9