Talk:Frieren

Orphaned references in Frieren
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Frieren's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "vol5": From Fly Me to the Moon (manga):  From Sōbōtei Kowasubeshi:  From Kimi wa 008:  From Kiyo in Kyoto:  From Tokachi Hitoribocchi Nōen:  From Ariadne in the Blue Sky:  From Mao (manga):  From Amano Megumi wa Sukidarake!: </li> <li>From Aozakura: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Article name
Should it be changed to the official English title or Japanese? Its currently neither. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean? the article is just named "Frieren" and not "Frieren: Beyond Journey's End" simply per WP:CONCISE, similarly "Shomin Sample" is not named "Shomin Sample: I Was Abducted by an Elite All-Girls School as a Sample Commoner", "WorldEnd" is not named "WorldEnd: What Do You Do at the End of the World? Are You Busy? Will You Save Us?", and "Rurouni Kenshin" is not named "Rurouni Kenshin: Meiji Swordsman Romantic Story". Xexerss (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah but on this instance the main character is also called Frieren which makes it a bit of an odd case, don't you think? WillsEdtior777 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. It would be an issue if the character had an article, but even if that were the case, the article could be called "Frieren (character)" like Inuyasha (character). Xexerss (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand, thanks. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the literal translation of the title
葬送のフリーレン, the use of の here is the same as its use in 大統領のブッシュ氏 which means "Mr. Bush, the President", not "Mr Bush at the President" So how come the title translation became "Frieren at the Funeral"? What's "at" in japanese is で or に, not の. Fan translations of the manga should not be used as a reference, since many of those fan translators don't even understand basic Japanese and only translate using machine translation, in order to get donation money. Yorukusa777 (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Xexerss If you want to go literal then it would be "Frieren the Funeral" (without at), or "Frieren the Final Farewell to the Dead" Not "Frieren at the Funeral" It baffles me how such an absurd translation can stay there for so long. Yorukusa777 (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Now that I did a little more research, I've seen that many people don't agree with that translation as well. I think that "Frieren the Final Farewell to the Dead" sounds good. Now, I personally think that we could just link the word to Wikitionary and don't leave any translation to avoid conflict, but if you want to add that one, I think it's fine too. Xexerss (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, done. :) Yorukusa777 (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xexerss, @Yorukusa777, I changed the literal translation of the title to “Frieren the Sepulture”, since it’s shorter and I think cooler than the previous one, what do you think? Rekshaha (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that "Frieren, the Final Farewell to the Dead" is closer to the meaning of the original title. Xexerss (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies for adding lit without discussion, i did not see the talk page.
 * , Your last edit was about more than a year ago, so, I'm not sure whether you'd see this but just for the record, in response to your original post, 大統領のブッシュ氏 is not "Mr Bush at the President" because of the context. Now I am not sure how to simplify this, but I cannot think of a single instance where you would read 大統領 as standalone kanjis. Let me explain. 大 can be read as "great", "ultimate", "prominent", "general" etc; 統 can be read as "relationship" or "ruling"; 領 can be read as "collar" or "territory". Now you would not read it as "Great Ruling King Mr. President".
 * I am sure you would agree with that, right? Now, how do you not apply the same to frieren? if you agree with what I previously said, then you would also agree to not read 葬送 in 葬送のフリーレン as standalone kanjis but as a whole, that is, 葬 "funeral/burial/bury" and 送 "to send/escort/to see someone off" roughly as "attending a funeral/observing a burial", and that is where "at the" works as the substitute for it, "の" indicates possessiveness, and here Frieren's.／talk 08:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You also stated "の" would be "the" here in one of your edit summaries, but that is incorrect. You cannot translate "a", "an", "of", "the", and so on directly into japanese, that is just not how it works.
 * I believe some word play and meaning are lost in the translation, but "Frieren at the Funeral" is the closest we get to the original meaning while also keeping it legible. If you have watched the series, you'd also be familiar with how it is also translated as "Frieren the Slayer," which is also correct depending on the context. ／talk 08:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

All character names are German
The charakter names are all German words which are reflecting the character.

For example "Heiter" means "cheerfull", "Fern" means "far/far away", "Stark" means strong.

Himmel" means "Heaven", and what is it about? Frieren (to freeze/to be cold) wants to meat Himmel in Heaven to talk with him. And look at Frieren, when it is cold. Heiter is always laughing. Draht skills with wies of magic while Draht litteraly translates to wire.

So, choosen these names for all charakters is no coincidence.

So why are my changes considered "unneeded". It might be unneeded, if this was only for the English translation, but in Hepburn the words Sound all like their German counterparts, and the German meaning always fits the character.

Here is a list:


 * Frieren: to freeze, to be cold
 * Fern: far, far away
 * Stark: stron
 * Himmel: Heaven
 * Eisen: Iron
 * Sein: to be
 * Flamme: Flame
 * Serie: Sequence
 * Qual: Agony, pain
 * Aura: aura, Charisma, and a backtranslation of the meaning "Ausstrahlung" also could mean "Anima"
 * Lügner: Liar
 * Line: Line
 * Draht: Wire

German words are often used in Mangas and Animes. For example in the Phantom Bullet Arc of SAO Death Gun used the the German word "Sterben" as Name which means "Dying". 77.22.216.120 (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @77.22.216.120 sorry for misstyping, writing on a mobile with the App.
 * This should be the most crippled autocorrection: "Draht kills with wires... " 77.22.216.120 (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That kind of information sounds interesting, but it rathers fall into WP:FANCRUFT and is irrelevant to the site's purposes. It's not our standard to include the literal translation of personal names of fictional characters. This kind of info more suitable for specific sites such as Fandom. Xexerss (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xexerss I thought a lot about it and came to the conclusion, to let it go.
 * Agree to disagree would be the right term.
 * While you considered this fancruft and not worth mentioning, I considered this a main conceptual part and therefor worth mentioning it.
 * So, as long as it is only the two of us, I do not want to start a discussion about it, that would definitiv not worth it.
 * Perhaps some others might say something about it or will came up with a different solution. 77.22.216.120 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's common for manga to give meanings to character names but adding them will add nothing unless we were to find an interview where the writer explains them himself/herself. Tintor2 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a single-line note to the top of #Characters to state that all the character names are German, similar to GochiUsa's edible naming theme. However, I agree that it's not necessary to put any name translation/meaning in the section unless it has significant plot relevance. In the case of GochiUsa, they're kept as significant trivia because they're puns rooted in English and their meanings are overt. Erik Humphrey (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Separate entry for Anime?
The anime has become very popular and has received plenty of coverage. We should consider a separate page for that. Manasbose (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If there was enough coverage for a potential production section of the anime and a expanded reception section, it could be considered to make a split, but as it is now, I don't think it warrants a split yet. Xexerss (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Links to the series' theme music
To respond to the question from Xexerss in the edit summary, I deem the video of the theme music as part of "a legally distributed copy of the work," which is true as normally the opening and ending animation accounts for more one-tenth of the work in terms of length of time (a few minutes every episode). Therefore, according to WP:ELYES: "[a]n article about [...] some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work [...]," I suggest the links to the articles as shown in the right. NinetyNineDragon (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean that because we mention the title of the songs used in the series we need to post links to the videos of those songs. The MOS is not stating that is REQUIRED to add those links. The section merely mentions the titles and the artists of the songs, it is not analyzing nor describing them, so adding links to visualize these opening and ending videos doesn't provide the reader anything more significant than what is already mentioned there. Also, the article is about the series, and links to its official sites are already placed in the 'External links' section, it's not about its theme songs, which have their own articles. Xexerss (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * While WP:EL is not part of the Manual of Style, "to visualize the work" is probably the biggest reason to add any links for any media with visual portion. To avoid any confusion, please let me clarify: why I suggest to add these link is not to "visualize these themes" but to "visualize (part of) the anime series itself", so our discussion should not be relevant to what you mentioned like "the titles and the artists of the songs". I did mention I deem the videos as part of work above.
 * Besides, it is explicitly stated in WP:EL that "use of templates like external media, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia" as an exception of putting the links in the body of the article. NinetyNineDragon (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The template is used to contextualize the information provided to the reader. As I said before, the section is merely mentioning those songs and artists. Adding links to visualize the opening and ending doesn't contribute anything significant to the reader beyond what is mentioned in the section. The article already includes a link to the official anime website if they need to know more details about the adaptation. Xexerss (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * People can easily find those links by themselves. On the other hand, if you make an article about the soundtrack in general backed up by notable sources, I guess examples can be used. At least I've seen video game articles about music like Final Fantasy VII's putting example of songs like the One Winged Angel. Tintor2 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Banning of doujinshi
I rarely find these type of articles like in Kuroko's Basketball, but is this banning of doujinshi worth mentioning in Wikipedia? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting, but I'm not sure. Maybe we should wait and see if this gets more coverage. Compared to Kuroko's case, it seems like that controversy was more buzzed. Xexerss (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Best selling manga
The lede currently says that "the manga [has] over 20 million copies in circulation, making it one of the best-selling manga series of all time". If the claim about "best selling manga" is only based upon the number of copies, it might be original research. The link to the List of best-selling manga is nice. However, since the cutoff limit for inclusion is chosen by Wikipedia editors, inclusion in the list does not justify the claim, by WP:CIRC. (I notice that there are about two hundred mangas that have sold better according to the list.) The claim itself is rather exceptional ("one of the best-selling manga series of all time"), so we would need good sourcing to justify it. (WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:ACCLAIMED are tangentially relevant). —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 11:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok. Sounds fair to me. I reverted your edit because the sentence "making it one of the best-selling manga series of all time" is usually included in the lead of the series included in the list, but looking at it more objectively, perhaps something more is needed to support the statement than simply having reached 20 million copies. Xexerss (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So do you think the version where "best selling" is removed, but the link to the list remains through the sales figure, can be restored? Or do you prefer some other solution? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 11:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your edit was fine, so I will simply revert my last edit. Xexerss (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Viz Media translation of the title
What is the problem with adding sources on a site that precisely prioritizes the use of references? Why it would be incorrect to add official sources to reinforce the legitimate use of a translation when the current note, at most, only implies a possible translation of the Japanese title? None of the Wiktionary links directly include the word 'Slayer', so the translation just seems like a possibility and not something that has been used in practice. Xexerss (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I should also add that at no time did I remove the explanation of the translation (which you accuse me of at my talk page). As I'm saying here, I only added an official source that legitimizes the 'Frieren the Slayer' translation. If a possible translation of the title has been used even by the own English publisher, why do you think it is not worth mentioning in the article? Xexerss (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, as I just explained on your talk page. I mixed up the edit previews. ／talk 20:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you didn't like about the translation explanation? You yourself refer to the official translation from Viz Media, where Aura's line (demon) was translated as "Frieren the Slayer" (葬送). 2A03:D000:1603:D365:D9AF:76B:A28:9C16 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, limit yourself to referring to the series title. Your explanation goes beyond that and includes statements that have nothing to do with the content of the series and cannot be verifiable there, such as "human metaphor" or "demons don't have graves". Xexerss (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the manga and anime, demons are vaporized, they have no graves. Or are you opposed to any explanation of the translation? 2A03:D000:1603:D365:D9AF:76B:A28:9C16 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Translations are enough. Mentioning the events of the series to exemplify is unnecessary and that would entering on WP:ORIGINAL territory. Xexerss (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be lost about what literal translation is about. A literal translation is a word-for-word translation without context, while what you are incorporating is context for the series into the lit. translation, which is incorrect. Now that doesn't mean we ignore the conjunctions, here which is の. Let me give you an example. Say, there's a show with the protagonist titled Musashi Onigiri (武蔵 お握り), the show explains for whatever reason that お握り actually means samurai in context to the show; we're not going to write the lit. translation as Musashi Samurai, we'll write it as Musashi Riceball. This is not a very good example, but I believe it suffices.
 * Anyhow, you seem to be aware of No original research, then you must also be aware of 3RR. Please heed this as a final warning, and do not continue to restore your edits as you did earlier, as you have already been reverted plenty. But at least you are discussing it now. ／talk 20:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the length of the current explanation is fine as it is, the only thing I want to know here is why Lunar-akaunto objects to mentioning that Viz Media used the translation 'Frieren the Slayer'. Xexerss (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so hear me out. The reason I'm opposed to that is because I am treating it differently than the title of the manga itself, if that makes sense. So, the manga chapters do not use literal translations, right? They translate it upon context; it's just that we're at convenience here that they happen to use the translation matching the one we agreed to keep, but technically, it is incorrect to cite a translated chapter title (official or not) as a reference . for a lit. title. Which is why I'm sticking to the current explanation. As you stated above, wiktionary does not directly include the word "slayer," which is also true. What we have is hōmuru and okuru together in context to the sentence and not the series as "Frieren who sends/sending consigns/consigning to oblivion". Is it better to write that instead? The sentence clearly implies killing someone. Maybe we could say "frieren the killer" or "frieren the annihilator,"  but I thought slayer would be better, but maybe we could add a slash for all words possible? I thought we agreed to this previously, which is why I let it be.
 * Though I believe we might have walked a little over the literal translation definition here; it describes it as word-for-word translation; if we were to impose it here, it would literally not be legible at all. I believe a little alteration was necessary, but again, the context I have used is for the present sentence and not the show itself. Xexerss, do you agree with this? ／talk 20:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your point to some extent, but I don't agree that the fact that the English title of a chapter may not be a literal translation is a reason to avoid mentioning it in the article, in fact this is the first time I see a discussion involving whether or not it is appropriate to mention the translation (literal or not) of a chapter that matches the title of a series, so without precedents, I don't find this part very convincing. I know that chapter titles are not always translated literally, but assuring that they are always "translated upon context" is simply not true. I think that including 'Frieren the Slayer' is enough, but if we can somehow mention that 'Sōsō no Frieren' has been officially translated in some instance as 'Frieren the Slayer', whether it's the title of the series itself or something related to it, I don't think it would hurt to mention it in the article, and that way we can also avoid future discussions where someone else may come along to say that the translation was arbitrarily placed by a bunch of Wikipedia editors. Xexerss (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing it because of the assumption that it may not be a literal translation, but because the rest of the chapter names are not literal translations, and this one would not be either unless otherwise noted by the source. We could definitely and would use the ref. if we were going for something like , but since we are not, in fact, we cannot because of how it is a chapter name.
 * The ip user currently opposing the consensus has very baseless reasons. First and foremost, they do not understand what a literal translation is; secondly, they do not act upon reasoning but over their personal preference of what the explanation should be. Again, we could entertain it as well, but it clearly falls under WP:ORIGINAL and goes way beyond literal translation. Please also note that an average of about 5k people view this article daily; if the existing explanation was really irrational, it would not have stayed here for about a week. The IP address is the first to modify it, and as i said above, i would address it if it were genuine, but they just wish to jostle their edit, as displayed by their most recent edit to the article, by using me as a scapegoat. ／talk 02:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When I added the reference to the chapter, I explicitly noted "additionally" that it was the chapter that was translated as that, and that's why I included it in the same explanatory note and not just in lead without further ado. Excuse me, but I remain unconvinced by your reasoning, especially when we are talking about a chapter that has the same translation of the series title when it is (supposedly) read in another way. So let me get your point; 葬送のフリーレン (series title) can be "literally translated" as 'Frieren the Slayer', but 葬送のフリーレン (chapter title) cannot be "literally translated" as 'Frieren the Slayer' because it's a chapter, and since Viz Media supposedly didn't make any literal translation of any chapter, this one is no exception (despite the fact that it was pointed out that 'Frieren the Slayer' is indeed a literal translation of 葬送のフリーレン)… I'm sorry, but I really don't understand this logic. So 葬送のフリーレン literally means (in kun'yomi) 'Frieren the Slayer', but just when it is the title of a series and not when is the title of a chapter? How does that even make sense? Also, why are we assuming that a translation should only be noted if it is a literal one? Xexerss (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Frieren: Beyond Journey's End is a translation of the title; Frieren at the Funeral / Frieren the Slayer are literal translations of the title. I do not know how to simplify it any further than that. Your answer is definitely correct, but you insisting on adding the ref. for the literal translation and reasoning remain incorrect. As I said above, . I never said that the chapter cannot be literally translated; it can, and that's exactly what we have done. You are confused because you are wrapped up in how the chapter translation matches that of the lit. translation. To repeat, 葬送のフリーレン is "Frieren the Slayer" when read in kun'yomi, be it in the series title or in the chapter title, but using the reference (presumed translation) is most certainly incorrect to be used for the literal translation, and there is just no way to go about it.
 * At this point, it would be very helpful if someone else weighed in on the discussion and provided their input. ／talk 04:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this? ／talk 04:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know I mentioned WP:OTHERSTUFF before when you mentioned Attack on Titan, but I was referring to the Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba and Jujutsu Kaisen articles that don't include literal translations, but I'm getting off topic. Anyway, my point here is… what does it matter whether 葬送のフリーレン is the title of the series or the title of a chapter? It's the exact same text! I'm not saying that we should place right next to the English title "also titled "Frieren the Slayer"", because obviously Viz Media never used that translation specifically for the title of the series. What I'm saying is that Viz Media has, in one instance, translated the text 葬送のフリーレン as 'Frieren the Slayer', and I think that is not out of place to denote that this translation has been officially used for that set of Japanese characters, regardless of whether it was for the series title or a chapter title, and that's why I think that this could be "additionally" mentioned in an explanatory note. Am I making myself understood? My intention with the note would be to reinforce the idea that the set of words “Sōsō no Frieren” has been officially translated as 'Frieren the Slayer' (regardless of whether it is the title of the series or the title of a chapter). And that's also why I mentioned the stuff about just including literal translations; what does it matter if the other chapter titles in English are not literal translations when the translation of the "Frieren the Slayer" chapter is literal anyway? Why should Viz Media clarify when and when it's not using literal translations for the chapters to make them valid for whatever reason? Xexerss (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late reply; I was out of town. Anyhow, yes, now you're making a valid point. The reason we've still not reached a conclusion is because you deviated from your original statement. I was confused by your latest reply, and I had to re-read this discussion for this.
 * You originally said ; here you are saying why it is not appropriate to use the chapter title as a ref. for the lit. translation whilst also bringing the legibility of the existing lit. translation into question, something we previously agreed upon. You also said the same in your edit summary here.
 * Later, you dropped using it as a ref. and shifted to why it was not appropriate to mention the chapter title itself whilst also bordering between using it as a ref.
 * To clarify things, right now you wish to just restore the explanation listed as the translation and not use it as a reference for the lit. translation, right? If it's just the former, I would definitely agree with this, but as i said, I thought we were disputing over whether to add this explanation in the footnote and also use it as a reference for the lit. translation. If it's just the former, I do not have any problem with it. To answe your last line, Viz media does not need to clarify whether it uses translation or literal translation. Since the chapter name here bears value, it is appropriate to add it but not appropriate to use it as a reference for lit, as I explained earlier, and because the alternative lit. translation is in place precisely because of the explanation because by default it's read "Frieren at the Funeral" and it is only in kun'yomi that it is read as "Frieren the Slayer". It's only after I wrote the explanation that we reached this conclusion.
 * This discussion was not needed if you just wanted to add it listed as a translation, something you did in your latest edit to the article, which is absolutely correct but was misleading because of your edit summary. I was also confused because you originally removed it.／talk 14:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding that last edit, it was not me who removed the citations that I myself added. In fact, it was you, arguing that "we really do not need a reference for this" (and you removed them again in this edit). That was the reason I started this discussion in the first place, to find out why you objected to include this claim and why you removed it (twice), so it's kinda funny that you're now saying that I was the one who removed my own addition when it's quite the opposite. Please read my comments and tell me where exactly I'm saying or implying that this must be to support the use of a "literal translation". I only said "translation", at no point did I specify whether this should be literal or not. Xexerss (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? That makes no sense. What–like–there are only two translations in place, both literal. What other translations are there left that you might be referring to? None; leaving only the chapter one that you were trying to add, what do i even say to this?
 * , you clearly mean to use the chapter title as a ref. for lit. translation.
 * Also, I only restored it because your edit removed the explanation for the alternative lit. itself! I reverted it later amid the edits of another editor, and because I did not scrutinize your edit, I only read the summary; which also implies that you meant to use it to reinforce the existing lit. translation. ／talk 10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to say you're often bringing up the already existing lit. translation into question. To point out a few：／ I would only say you were supposed to bring this up when we first discussed it in the section Regarding the literal translation of the title, and not when we are discussing another issue. But again, I thought you agreed to this; yes, not so explicitly mentioned in the discussion itself but from your edits. I have replied to you regarding this above, which you have yet again shunned. Please answer clearly what you agree and do not agree with. ／talk 15:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to say is very simple: Viz Media has used the translation 'Frieren the Slayer' for 'Sōsō no Furīren' (it doesn't matter if it was for the title of the series or the title of a chapter, if it is literal or not) and I think this fact should be left in an explanatory note, that's all. In no comment I stressed that this should be done to support the fact that this is a literal translation (I don't care if it is or not), but it's simply to point out that it is indeed a translation that has been used officially. Also, please note that I am only focusing on this specific discussion. I have not taken the time to reread the one above also related to translation. Xexerss (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That ends the discussion, since now you are only wanting to add the explanation and not use it as a reference. But it still remains that you did imply several times that you wanted to do it. But I do not blame you; the words "translation" and "literal translation" are confusing, and I myself had to re-type to make sense of what I typed because of how confusing they'd get. I was not referring to the previous discussion we had, but to this discussion itself only. ／talk 10:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, one more thing: you're a long-time user, and you'd already know this. But I would still say that I do not oppose you, but only your edit. I would only request that you not carry any grudges. This discussion was a little too long; I'm not sure, but maybe it will be helpful if someone insists on the same in the future. That is all. ／talk 10:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, the discussion definitely went on longer than it should have, but I wanted to defend my stance and clarify assumptions unrelated to my intentions. Anyway, despite the heated discussion, of course I don't hold any grudge. Likewise, I always simply address user edits and not the users themselves. I appreciate the fact that you have made your points and I will keep them into account in case a similar situation occurs again. So it's all good. Xexerss (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was asked to weigh in on this off the back of another translation discussion and my two cents is to strongly resist the "Slayer" reading, particularly as a rendering of the manga's title. I don't know the translator's specific rationale for that translation in that chapter title, but I do feel it's entirely inappropriate on a linguistic basis in this case to offer it as a translation of the series title. You can read those characters differently in another context, but that's not the context we have here. 葬送 is the word used, with its conventional kanji, so there's no reason to break it down to its constituent parts, any more than it would be to read an English word according to its etymology rather than its definition. "Frieren at the Funeral" is a good rendering and hardly seems incongruous given that the manga's big thematic through-line is Frieren coming to terms with the mortality of shorter-lived people she has become attached to.
 * If the mangaka had wanted it to read "Frieren who sends others to their burial" they could have worded it as 葬に送るフリーレン. They didn't, though - which means the "Slayer" reading relies on two separate leaps of logic. The first is that the mangaka intended a fanciful meaning to be hidden behind their use of an entirely normal and pertinent word. Some writers do make marked and artistic use of kanji, but this is not a safe assumption to make without precedent or any further indication, because most of the time people are just using the language to communicate, and the lexical meaning of a word is its most useful aspect in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. The second leap of logic is rendering 葬 and 送 into "slayer" which is... fanciful on the face of it, isn't it? If we accept this reading, "Burial" and "Send" would be rather a euphemistic way of putting this, whereas "Slayer" is markedly visceral.
 * Looping back around to the mentioned chapter title, I want to clarify that that's not a criticism of its use in the Viz translation; there is a fundamental difference between what the article is doing here and what the manga translation is doing. The Viz translator is tasked with rendering the story in a way that is engaging and, as convincingly as possible, replicates the experience of the story that a Japanese-speaking reader would have. There is a creative element, and this is the reason we have the title "Frieren: Beyond Journey's End", and the chapter title "Frieren the Slayer". You make substitutions sometimes when translating creative works. The translation given immediately after that in this article is informational. It's there to inform an interested reader, potentially with limited knowledge of Japanese, how the title was originally rendered. In that capacity, "Slayer" is explicitly misleading. 葬送 doesn't mean "Slayer", there's no compelling reason to read its constituent characters instead of the word used, and the constituent characters don't mean "Slayer" either. It's not only not a literal translation, it isn't really a translation of the manga's title at all.
 * I hope this opinion is helpful and not too effusive - this gets into some nuances of Japanese language and basic translation theory that I think are underappreciated. Ichigoichigo (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll answer in reverse order since it's easier that way. Yes, it is certainly the creative liberty of the translator who translated the said chapter title, which is also why i opposed adding the chapter note in the first place, and as you have said too, there has been no indication whatsoever why they have translated the said chapter as such. So i went with my own interpretation; I didn't know of 葬送 myself; this is the first time i have ever heard it. So what i have put together here is based on what i could gather.
 * It not being a literal translation at all is also correct. Literal translation is a word-for-word translation, but here we have just split the word, so it is more like a half-word-to-half-word translation, and too, as suggested by the word order as vague. Also, by no means do i want to push the 'slayer' translation; I just put it there because i considered it to have some significance, or at least i consider it to be scratching the surface as to why it can be read as 'frieren the slayer' or something similar.


 * Now 葬送 by no means means slayer; I understand your skepticism about it being misleading to non-Japanese speakers, but i thought it'd be easier to understand the same because of the explanation and wikilinks put there, namely the kun'yomi. If you see above, you'll see that i have in several instances said that 葬送 is not 'slayer', and i only have put it as such for convenience and because i do not know how to substitute it with another better word. Like i was able to do for the first lit, 葬送 normally means 'attending the funeral', 'observing the funeral', or probably 'seeing off the dead'. So, it would be Frieren's attending a funeral, and i thought to substitute it with "at" for simplicity. To conclude, I agree that it's better to just remove it from the lit, and perhaps it can stay in the footnote—that is, if we can faithfully make something of it. How exactly do we phrase it other than "slayer"? Can you help dissect the constituent characters, or do we just mention that it has been translated as such in context to the show, using the episode or manga chapter it was used in as a reference?
 * From this, slightly above, there was also a previous discussion regarding this initiated by someone else. They had suggested removing "at" from the lit. Though i have addressed them above and they don't seem to be active anymore. Is my reasoning for the change plenty? Could you also take a look at it?
 * Lastly, your opinion is definitely helpful, which is precisely why i asked you this. ／talk 03:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Lastly, your opinion is definitely helpful, which is precisely why i asked you this. ／talk 03:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)