Secondary Canon Clarification: Official Translator Notes

[Iamunanimousinthat]

In a recent, thread, there was a debate as if translation notes included in an official medium could be considered as secondary canon, ala a databook. I was given permission to make this thread.

The Translation notes in question, are notes written to give context to the meaning of words, references, and explaining cultural niches and jokes. They are printed in the same volume as the actual manga. Also meaning, everyone who reads the work, will also have access to the same notes providing context.

@Qawsedf234 provided this link in the debate, and here it says:

If the author authorizes a translation, the author owns the copyright in the translation since the translation is a work for hire. This is because in case of a work for hire, the employing party is the author.

These notes have authorized by the author as she outright owns them as shown here. I also want to mention, authors do not automatically own translations of their work. Here is an example of a translation that Naoko doesn't have sole copyright over. Here is another example of an unrelated book where the author does not own the translation copyright. In this example, please note that the translation afterword is also not under the author's copyright as well. Naoko owning the translation and the translation notes, shows that it is was directly authorized by her and isn't the result of a third party unrelated to her. She would also have final approval.

My argument is that considering that these notes are official and directly authorized by Naoko, using them is no different than using a databook or novelization. The standards that they can be used for arguments unless it contradicts the primary source should apply.

Agree: Random-Helper323, LephyrTheRevanchist, Reiner04
Disagree: Antvasima, Amorchompy, Damage3245
Neutral:

 

[Random-Helper323]

If the notes come from the official translators and appear in an official release approved by the author, it should have at least some credibility. It is still a third party's commentary though.

 

[Reiner04]

@LephyrTheRevanchist @DontTalkDT @Antvasima @Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Planck69 @LordGriffin1000 @Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234 @Vietthai96 @Theglassman12 @Armorchompy @KingTempest

 

[KingTempest]

If the notes come from the official translators and appear in an official release approved by the author, it should have at least some credibility. It is still a third party's commentary though.

^

 

[Antvasima]

If the notes come from the official translators and appear in an official release approved by the author, it should have at least some credibility. It is still a third party's commentary though.

Agreed.

 

[Reiner04]

I am also in agreement with RH.

 

[Armorchompy]

Official material =/= canon material. This thread was just made to bypass a downgrade from a thread that pointed out Sailor Moon's cosmology was based on a single TL note. I think we can all agree it's a stretch to justify a tiering jump of such magnitude based on a single bit of text written not with the intent to expand on canon but with the purpose of making the translation more intelligible.

The purpose of a translation is to deliver the original meaning of the work to a wider audience, not to create extra content or present new aspects of it. So any inaccuracy or addition is either a mistake or made for the sake of a smoother read (artistic license, if you will). The fact that it's copyrighted is smoke and mirrors, it doesn't actually mean anything other than "they own it" - which of course they do, that's just business.

This also just engenders a toxic habit of looking through various languages' translations to find any that might just so happen to have any nugget of wank within them - and I don't know about you but I don't really wanna be arguing about the German translation of Boruto or something.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Official material =/= canon material. This thread was just made to bypass a downgrade from a thread that pointed out Sailor Moon's cosmology was based on a single TL note. I think we can all agree it's a stretch to justify a tiering jump of such magnitude based on a single bit of text written not with the intent to expand on canon but with the purpose of making the translation more intelligible.

The purpose of a translation is to deliver the original meaning of the work to a wider audience, not to create extra content or present new aspects of it. So any inaccuracy or addition is either a mistake or made for the sake of a smoother read (artistic license, if you will).

The translation note giving the definition of a word used in the story is not creating content or presenting a new aspect.

Let’s be for real here. How is this any different from a guide book written by editors that give more context on a scene that later gives an upgrade?

Do you think the translators were rubbing their hands in hopes of giving the verse an upgrade, or did they want the readers to have more context of the text.

The fact that it's copyrighted is smoke and mirrors, it doesn't actually mean anything other than "they own it" - which of course they do, that's just business.

Calling something smoke and mirrors means its a lie or a con. I think that’s grossly inappropriate here.

It’s not a lie that Naoko owns these notes outright legally. And i posted evidence that suggests that means she personally authorized these notes, instead of publishing company (which I have provided evidence of occurring before too)

These notes would have had to pass several official hands, including Takeuchis. All these people felt these notes added the correct context and didn’t change the meaning of story being told.

It’s included in the manga itself. Meaning every reader who reads the manga and the notes will all have the same context.

and i think its extremely telling that the argument here isn’t “the note contradicts the primary story, so we cannot use it” but rather “the note doesn’t contradict the primary story but we cannot use it because it would upgrade the verse”

So again, which I ask, which you haven’t answered, why is it okay to use guidebooks for upgrades but not this?

 

[Armorchompy]

It’s not a lie that Naoko owns these notes outright legally.

It's not a lie, it's just irrelevant.

And i posted evidence that suggests that means she personally authorized these notes, instead of publishing company (which I have provided evidence of occurring before too)

That's not my concern, I didn't vote on the thread I just disagreed with a claim Lephyr made.

These notes would have had to pass several official hands, including Takeuchis. All these people felt these notes added the correct context and didn’t change the meaning of story being told.

We're not arguing Sailor Moon here, we're arguing standards. But... do you think they were concerned about potentially misrepresenting the verse's tiers, or did they want the readers to have a good reading experience?

and i think its extremely telling that the argument here isn’t “the note contradicts the primary story, so we cannot use it” but rather “the note doesn’t contradict the primary story but we cannot use it because it would upgrade the verse”

Well, I think it's extremely telling that you're trying to portray it that way, but what either of us thinks isn't very important. Whether it contradicts things or not isn't the point, the point is it's not valid evidence to begin with.

So again, which I ask, which you haven’t answered, why is it okay to use guidebooks for upgrades but not this?

You're barking up the wrong tree with that, I've been against the use of most guidebooks. Something like a Prima guide is in my opinion absolutely not usable. My personal standard is I only use them if they have interviews or clear behind the scenes information provided by the writers. (Or more simply as a shorthand to refer to in-game mechanics - it's easier for me to show a statement that a move has a 100% chance of stunning the foe than recording a video of me getting the stun over and over) - Still there's a fundamental difference here in that a guidebook is meant to be providing extra information regarding the original work, a translation isn't.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

That's not my concern, I didn't vote on the thread I just disagreed with a claim Lephyr made.

I was referring to the OP, i am not bringing up anything in that thread.

Do you think they were concerned about potentially giving the verse an upgrade, or did they want the readers to have a good reading experience?

I think they wanted the readers to not only have a good reading experience, and included the translation notes clear up any confusion and provide extra information.

You're barking up the wrong tree with that, I've been against the use of most guidebooks. Something like a Prima guide is in my opinion absolutely not usable. My personal standards is I only use them if they have interviews or clear behind the scenes information provided by the writers. (Or more simply as a shorthand to refer to in-game mechanics - it's easier for me to show a statement that a move has a 100% chance of stunning the foe than recording a video of me getting the stun over and over)

Look, I understand that and if you want to push for stricter standards across the board, go right ahead. But this is about applying the current policy fairly. If guidebooks that don’t fall under your personal standards, can still be used, then so can these notes. I don’t agree with fragmented application.

And included in the extras of the new edition includes new artwork by Naoko and a letter from her as well. She also fixed up the art. So she was heavily involved with putting together this edition, and was curating an experience for her global fans. This was not a simple reprint.

 

[Armorchompy]

Look, I understand that and if you want to push for stricter standards across the board, go right ahead. But this is about applying the current policy fairly. If guidebooks that don’t fall under your personal standards, can still be used, then so can these notes. I don’t agree with fragmented application.

We don't really have specific rules on guidebooks. Nothing says "if a guidebook exists it must be treated as canon" or anything that suggests your proposed revision would be in-line with current standards. A lot of users would be and have been more liberal with their use than I am but they're not any more right than I am regarding the standards, arguably less so given we have disqualified media on similar grounds, sometimes specifically guidebooks (several Mario statements that come from this kind of source have been rejected in the last few years)

Besides I've clearly outlined why it's sort of a different situation no matter what.

And included in the extras of the new edition includes new artwork by Naoko and a letter from her as well. She also fixed up the art. So she was heavily involved with putting together this edition, and was curating an experience for her global fans. This was not a simple reprint.

This is not a Sailor Moon thread.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

We don't really have specific rules on guidebooks. Nothing says "if a guidebook exists it must be treated as canon" or anything that suggests your proposed revision would be in-line with current standards.

The wiki says guidebooks are secondary canon and can be used if they do not contradict the primary canon. I am asking for official translation notes to be included in that.

Let’s try not to mischaracterize what I am saying.

A lot of users would be and have been more liberal with their use than I am but they're not any more right than I am regarding the standards, arguably less so given we have disqualified media on similar grounds, sometimes specifically guidebooks (several Mario statements that come from this kind of source have been rejected in the last few years)

yes, if they contradict the primary cannon. Again, this is so that they can be used and evaluated on a case by case basis and not wholesale denied.

This is not a Sailor Moon thread.

You gave a bunch of stipulations and I am giving an example that translation notes can fall under some of those categories.

 

[Armorchompy]

The wiki says guidebooks are secondary canon and can be used if they do not contradict the primary canon.

What rule in particular are you referring to?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

What rule in particular are you referring to?

Databooks are considered secondary canon since scans tend to contradict them. It should be noted that this is often evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Armorchompy]

That's referring to databooks (manga), not guidebooks (games). A databook exists with the primary purpose of dispensing lore and information about a work, obviously it would be considered as a canonical source of information if not contradicted, that's its whole purpose. It's completely different from a translation note. If this is what you've been referring to this whole time then it's a completely pointless avenue of discussion.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

That's referring to databooks (manga), not guidebooks (games). A databook exists with the primary purpose of dispensing lore and information about a work, obviously it would be considered as a canonical source of information if not contradicted, that's its whole purpose. It's completely different from a translation note. If this is what you've been referring to this whole time then it's a completely pointless avenue of discussion.

People use term guidebook and databook interchangeably. I will change the OP, to remove confusion but I was not specifically talking about game manuals.

The translation notes are also literally dispensing information about the manga its included in. It’s not a pointless conversation.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We've already basically had a thread here going over details in great length when it comes to officially published works or author involvement. But yeah, simply being author approved/involved or being officially published doesn't really make something part of the primary canon. And my post here also elaborated other issues current with the canon page. There is definitely outdated wording here and there and other flaws. It's always been common sense that the native language of the original work is always the primary canon; if made in Japan, then Japanese text is primary canon. If made in the west with English (Or any other language) being the original text, the original language text is also the primary canon. But there should be a staff discussion to add that I will be making if someone else doesn't first. And I also critiqued how it mostly talks about verses where Comics or Manga are primary mediums; and lots of people assume it doesn't apply to video game verses just because they aren't mentioned. One size fits all interpretations worked for years, but as of a few years ago, lots of newer users and even newer staff are in the collectively mentality that video game verses are different just because they aren't mentioned; which is an another thing on the list of things to update.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

But yeah, simply being author approved/involved or being officially published doesn't really make something part of the primary canon.

Yes, this I agree with and I am not trying to change at all. I am asking that official translation notes which are provided to give contextual information about the primary source can be considered as a secondary canon (like databooks). Obviously the primary canon takes precedent. If something in the notes contradict what's on paper, then the paper takes over. However, if the notes simply clarify something, point out the historical context of a joke or phrase or give a definition for terms being used, then it can be used to help arguments.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

If the notes come from the official translators and appear in an official release approved by the author, it should have at least some credibility. It is still a third party's commentary though.

To be noted, for the specific case that spawned this discussion, it had the added context that the note added a detail that didn't exist in the original source. When they translated the statement, they added a sort of glossary that explained the origin of that cosmological concept alluded to, then added that it's in reference to an "infinite cosmos". <---- if taken at face value, that single line would've upgraded the verse, when the original work did not have such reference neither in the line translated nor on supporting details (there is something, but that's being debated right now).

We should prioritize the original work as much as possible, and the argument used to disqualify this in the thread was that, quite simply, translators shouldn't have the authority to add such details without explicit confirmation from the author they have the authority to do so. Which is when the issue of copyright came from. If the author directly owns the translation, does it make it a confirmation from them by proxy?

That's the issue here.

Nevertheless, I also agree that as long as the work doesn't contradict the note, if it comes from an official source, it can be used. But I want all of you in the thread to be aware of what exactly is being argued here.

 

[Antvasima]

Official material =/= canon material. This thread was just made to bypass a downgrade from a thread that pointed out Sailor Moon's cosmology was based on a single TL note. I think we can all agree it's a stretch to justify a tiering jump of such magnitude based on a single bit of text written not with the intent to expand on canon but with the purpose of making the translation more intelligible.

The purpose of a translation is to deliver the original meaning of the work to a wider audience, not to create extra content or present new aspects of it. So any inaccuracy or addition is either a mistake or made for the sake of a smoother read (artistic license, if you will). The fact that it's copyrighted is smoke and mirrors, it doesn't actually mean anything other than "they own it" - which of course they do, that's just business.

This also just engenders a toxic habit of looking through various languages' translations to find any that might just so happen to have any nugget of wank within them - and I don't know about you but I don't really wanna be arguing about the German translation of Boruto or something.

Yes. This makes sense. I agree.

 

[Antvasima]

We've already basically had a thread here going over details in great length when it comes to officially published works or author involvement.

If we have already handled this issue, should we close this thread?

 

[Reiner04]

If we have already habdled this issue, should we close this thread?

I believe the purpose of this thread is to add a specific note or clarification on our Canonicity page regarding the use of official translations overseen by the author. Depending on the conclusion we reach, this will help us avoid similar or relative confusion in the future.

 

[TiltedFN]

Got permission from @Qawsedf234 to post.

Official material =/= canon material. This thread was just made to bypass a downgrade from a thread that pointed out Sailor Moon's cosmology was based on a single TL note. I think we can all agree it's a stretch to justify a tiering jump of such magnitude based on a single bit of text written not with the intent to expand on canon but with the purpose of making the translation more intelligible.

The purpose of a translation is to deliver the original meaning of the work to a wider audience, not to create extra content or present new aspects of it. So any inaccuracy or addition is either a mistake or made for the sake of a smoother read (artistic license, if you will). The fact that it's copyrighted is smoke and mirrors, it doesn't actually mean anything other than "they own it" - which of course they do, that's just business.

This also just engenders a toxic habit of looking through various languages' translations to find any that might just so happen to have any nugget of wank within them - and I don't know about you but I don't really wanna be arguing about the German translation of Boruto or something.

Yes I agree. And this user has done this multiple times in the past.
Using multiple translations for the same scan to try and get the result that fits their argument best which causes a ton of confusion.
Here's the first example in his High 1-A thread, and he did this again in the recent Sailor Moon thread which he was specifically told not to do.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Got permission from @Qawsedf234 to post.

Yes I agree. And this user has done this multiple times in the past.
Using multiple translations for the same scan to try and get the result that fits their argument best which causes a ton of confusion.
Here's the first example in his High 1-A thread, and he did this again in the recent Sailor Moon thread which he was specifically told not to do.

This is derailing and just poisoning the well. Can a mod please delete this. It addresses none of the arguments. Also this. Like you're attacking me for using evidence to support my arguments. The horror.

 

[Random-Helper323]

This is derailing and just poisoning the well. Can a mod please delete this. It addresses none of the arguments. Also this. Like you're attacking me for using evidence to support my arguments. The horror.

They got permission from Qawsedf. They're allowed to question the impact of intended changes.

 

[Random-Helper323]

To be noted, for the specific case that spawned this discussion, it had the added context that the note added a detail that didn't exist in the original source. When they translated the statement, they added a sort of glossary that explained the origin of that cosmological concept alluded to, then added that it's in reference to an "infinite cosmos". <---- if taken at face value, that single line would've upgraded the verse, when the original work did not have such reference neither in the line translated nor on supporting details (there is something, but that's being debated right now).

The glossary you're describing would have to have been describing a statement from the original source material and just explaining it, correct? Maybe we need to look at the meaning of that original source material. Find out how accurate the translation is.

We should prioritize the original work as much as possible, and the argument used to disqualify this in the thread was that, quite simply, translators shouldn't have the authority to add such details without explicit confirmation from the author they have the authority to do so. Which is when the issue of copyright came from. If the author directly owns the translation, does it make it a confirmation from them by proxy?

Sort of secondary, I'd say. Primary sources vs secondary sources.

Nevertheless, I also agree that as long as the work doesn't contradict the note, if it comes from an official source, it can be used. But I want all of you in the thread to be aware of what exactly is being argued here.

You're describing exactly how secondary sources are treated when studying history.

I agree.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I will put down Random-Helper323 and LephyrTheRevanchist as agree. Reiner, you can like this comment and I'll put you down as agree as well since you originally stated you agreed with Random-Helper.

I will put down Antvasima and Armorchompy as disagree.

I am unsure of where to put DarkDragonMedeus. So he will have to clarify. If I placed anyone wrong or missed someone, please let me know.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

^

King Tempest, since you seemed to agree with Helper as well, if you like this comment, I'll put you down as agree too.

 

[Random-Helper323]

In keeping with the previous thread discussing canon standards about adaptations, I think we'd need to see the original source material being referred to and see if the translator notes are describing something from the source material or adding something completely out of left field. Case by case basis, in other words.

For example, if the character is referred to as being about to destroy the universe, with the translation notes saying that the original source material used the word world which can mean many things including universe, but the source material also elaborated that distant stars and galaxies would be destroyed at the same time, this would probably be fair. If on the other hand the translation notes talk about distant planets being destroyed and meanwhile the original source material describes specifically only destroying the Earth, that translation note would be adding things that aren't there.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

In keeping with the previous thread discussing canon standards about adaptations, I think we'd need to see the original source material being referred to and see if the translator notes are describing something from the source material or adding something completely out of left field. Case by case basis, in other words.

For example, if the character is referred to as being about to destroy the universe, with the translation notes saying that the original source material used the word world which can mean many things including universe, but the source also elaborated that distant stars and galaxies would be destroyed at the same time, this would probably be fair. If on the other hand the translation notes talk about distant planets being destroyed and meanwhile the original source material describes specifically only destroying the Earth, that translation note would be adding things that aren't there.

Yes.



Essentially the scan is talking about the Lambda power, and how the word lambda is also a used for Einstein's cosmological constant, in that explanation defines static universe as being both temporal and spatial infinite. I used that definition to define the term static universe used in the primary scan. (I included both scans that I used in the thread for clarity).

 

[Random-Helper323]

Essentially the scan is talking about the Lambda power, and how the word lambda is also a used for Einstein's cosmological constant, in that explanation defines static universe as being both temporal and spatial infinite. I used that definition to define the term static universe used in the primary scan. (I included both scans that I used in the thread for clarity).

This isn't supposed to be a Sailor Moon thread. Still, you're allowed to use this scan as an example I suppose. Any such revisions would require a look at the source material to see firstly whether the terms Lambda Power and static universe are used in the original version, and in turn we'd need to look at Einstein's theories to see how accurate the description was of that as well. The notes are describing two sources, so we'd be well served taking a look at those sources anyway.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

This isn't supposed to be a Sailor Moon thread. Still, you're allowed to use this scan as an example I suppose. Any such revisions would require a look at the source material to see firstly whether the terms Lambda Power and static universe are used in the original version, and in turn we'd need to look at Einstein's theories to see how accurate the description was of that as well. The notes are describing two sources, so we'd be well served taking a look at those sources anyway.

My complete misinterpretation. I thought you were asking to see the scans and materials which started the conversation in the first place. But yes, use it as an example for future references.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Bump.

 

[Damage3245]

I agree with ArmorChompy.

 

[Da3ggman]

I’m also in agreement with Armor atm.