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

[Proposal - Metadata] Discourage romanisation/translation mixing for romanised artist & title field

posted
Total Posts
15
Ryu Sei
2,898 posts
Joined October 2013
Topic Starter
Ryu Sei
In a really edge case, a song might have official translation for both artist and song name which is different from the romanisation. I simply propose to add this in allowances (see bolded text):

・ If a Unicode song title or artist has an official translation or romanisation provided by the artist, it may be used in the respective romanised field. If both a translation and romanisation are available, either may be used. Both romanised fields should use the same preferred metadata choice between translation or romanisation.

This solves the headache and confusion of inconsistent metadata (for example this discussion), since the translations are official, but the romanisation isn't wrong either due to the song being popular on Japan first before reaching the rest of world.

What is the implication of this proposal? More consistent language on beatmap listing. Since in the listing both artist and song title uses same translation or romanisation, it will make the listing become more consistent. Mixing up translation and romanisation when both exist for both artist and song title will make the beatmap listing looks ugly and unprofessional.

Original proposal
The original proposal was to completely disallow romanisation/translation mixing. However it's not feasible as it will ultimately fall to the mapper's discretion and preferrence. It is now been edited to simply discourage such mixup.
Last edited by Ryu Sei , edited 2 times in total.
aceticke
Global Moderator
244 posts
Joined August 2016
aceticke
i haven't seen any issues related to this arise, even the discussion linked you just said pick one and mapper was okay with it. i disagree generally with adding more notes to an already confusing ranking criteria, after all, what bn is going to be confused by staying consistent with language choice. if anyone is, that's a bit of a blunder on their record.
Ryu Sei
2,898 posts
Joined October 2013
Topic Starter
Ryu Sei
Probably my proposal is a bit harsh on the side of enforcing language consistency. Perhaps lowering it as guideline to the point only "discourages" instead of "disallows" a better trade?

My point is still stands on. Mixing up metadata language when both exist for both artist and title just looks unprofessional.
gzdongsheng
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator II
139 posts
Joined July 2016
gzdongsheng
i feel like artist thingy tends to be have consistency itself in ranked section overall because they're likely to be used for many many times, either translation or romanisation

in this case enforcing the consistency between artist and title as you said would probably cause more inconsistency imo
Last edited by gzdongsheng , edited 1 time in total.
Ryu Sei
2,898 posts
Joined October 2013
Topic Starter
Ryu Sei
Artist name tend to be consistent because there are not so many artists who have different name on different language. If anything, it's the name order, but that's another story because it's out of this topic.

This proposal addreses a rare case where the translated artist/title is different than what would it be if it's romanised.
Last edited by Ryu Sei , edited 2 times in total.
Antalf
Beatmap Nominator
261 posts
Joined August 2016
Antalf
Majority of the times that this has happened it was resolved by choosing one of the two available metadata for the song.
Last edited by Antalf , edited 2 times in total.
Ryu Sei
2,898 posts
Joined October 2013
Topic Starter
Ryu Sei

Antalf wrote:

Majority of the times that this has happened it was resolved by choosing one of the two available metadata for the song.
Yes, it's simply like that. However we still need to at least discourage metadata language mixing between romanisation or translation.

EDIT: The mixing between romanisation/translation is when both metadata exist for both fields, not just one. The romanised artist/title which already contains loaned word is out of this context. There should be a difference between romanisation that contains, or only contains loaned words, and translation with vastly different spelling or even meaning with the romanised metadata.

I'm open for more rewording.

OP edited to lower the priority to simply discouraging mixing up metadata.
Last edited by Ryu Sei , edited 2 times in total.
h3oCharles
1,502 posts
Joined July 2016
h3oCharles
unsure how i feel about this

1. there's no "Translated Artist" and "Translated Title" fields
2. whether a song is known mostly for its translated title is a case-by-case thing

beatmapsets/1508883 -- should be "That's Why I Gave Up on Music" IMO since that's officially the translated title
beatmapsets/1175337 -- could be "Daichi no o Sagashite", but it's known as the broken English translated title "Looking for Edge of Ground"

when should the romanized title field be in romaji or translated? is it a case-by-case thing when searching for metadata sources?
Ryu Sei
2,898 posts
Joined October 2013
Topic Starter
Ryu Sei
To respond your statement,
  1. It's already in RC that translated metadata is valid to use in romanised metadata.
  2. True, but there is a chance it's not. Sometimes by romanisation, sometimes not.
Both cases you gave are NOT valid use cases of this proposal. The song in question must have both translated artist and title that is vastly different than romanised.
This proposal won't touch songs with only available translated artist or title, but not both available. It won't change anything, but maintains consistency of languages.
Without the guidelines, it's completely fine to mix up languages between metadata. This is unwanted, and even though people can argue to change it to be consistent, it's not on guidelines, thus there is no ground base to discourage or even DQ it. It will be always 'subjective, no change' and it's really a bad image especially if this will keep happening. A guide will steer the inconsistency away to value the consistency better.
Last edited by Ryu Sei , edited 2 times in total.
Serizawa Haruki
1,690 posts
Joined June 2015
Serizawa Haruki
I think applying this to the source field as well might be better because it's more common for source material to have translations than artist names. So if someone is using a romanized/translated song title, they also have to use the romanized/translated source (if available), and vice versa.

But the problem is that there's also the following guideline:
If multiple metadata options are available, priority should be given to the option which is most easily recognisable and traceable back to the original song or source. Official romanisations and translations are preferred for romanised fields so long as they are easily found and commonly recognised.
There might be cases where one option is more recognizable for the artist and the other option is more recognizable for the source or title, so I'm not sure if this proposal can be impletemented at all.
Ryu Sei
2,898 posts
Joined October 2013
Topic Starter
Ryu Sei
Good point. However, the guidelines can be broken when there are enough justifications. This might contradicts with the existing guideline, so I'm not sure how to reword this proposal...
h3oCharles
1,502 posts
Joined July 2016
h3oCharles

Serizawa Haruki wrote:

But the problem is that there's also the following guideline:
If multiple metadata options are available, priority should be given to the option which is most easily recognisable and traceable back to the original song or source. Official romanisations and translations are preferred for romanised fields so long as they are easily found and commonly recognised.
probably unrelated, but how does one judge when a certain set of metadata is "most easily recognizable" for a specific song?
Ryu Sei
2,898 posts
Joined October 2013
Topic Starter
Ryu Sei

h3oCharles wrote:

probably unrelated, but how does one judge when a certain set of metadata is "most easily recognizable" for a specific song?
This does really subjective, and it should be asked to the community, both from osu! and the fans of the song, be it from the game/anime or fans of the artist themselves.

There is a word "should" in the guideline you give, however mixing up languages for translation/romanisation should be discouraged at all. The exceptions are some loan words being romanised which uses the loaned word's souce language instead. (I believe there are a lot of songs written in Japanese for example, but actually uses loan words partially/fully). If the translation and romanisation is the exact same result, then the guideline I give doesn't apply, or both treated as correct translation/romanisation.
Last edited by Ryu Sei , edited 1 time in total.
Ryu Sei
2,898 posts
Joined October 2013
Topic Starter
Ryu Sei
Bumping this with an ongoing issue that can be considered on.

beatmapsets/1897775/discussion/-/generalAll#/3710327
Okoayu
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator
4,956 posts
Joined May 2012
Okoayu
will clarify this w/ community/forums/topics/1894663?n=1
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 15