Clarify "Matching original language title fields" rule

[Hans5958]

I feel a disdain how the (second) demo image for a concept of a feature is misused here. It is to the point that I made this PR replacing it with a better one (along with some other changes).

I tried to pick another song that is undeniably English. While I understand ECHO is quite popular, it might be too short to be confused with another language. That's why I picked another one with a longer name. I also replaced the non-English one with a song that has singular name on it (no "Romanized") just to make it clearer.

Oh, the word "title" in "title fields" is quite confusing.

• It's not "title" as in "song title" since it is "Primary name".
• It's not "title" as in the HTML title.
• It's not that obvious for "title" as in "what is written"; "fields" and "selection" are better options.

I really wanted to also rename the rule to "Matching original language": Don't need the "fields" since it's quite obvious on which "original language" it is (there's only one). Don't need the "title" since, see above. I saw that the former was "Matching default language"; renaming "default language" to "original language" is suffice enough IMO. I will do this in another PR just in case anyone disagrees, which also includes fixing the case (Matching-original-language-title-fields.mdx has the first M capitalized).

[CatgirlFrostmoon]

Your images are good, though I really don't think the current example is nearly as bad as you say, nor at all misused. That, and if we're talking about odd choices for songs, I think the non-English example may be a bit hard to immediately understand - something in a different script may've been better, or at least something shorter and less repetitive (it reads as potential gibberish).

Please be careful with changing the name of this. This rule is incredibly obtuse, and "matching original language" could refer to the Language system instead.

[Hans5958]

I really don't think the current example is nearly as bad as you say, nor at all misused.

I feel an aversion on the second image because it was supposed to show a (feature) concept of showing the relation of original language selection to the primary name fields. It is not fit to be used to describe this rule, and the fact that it is animated just makes it confusing. ("okay the editor choose Japanese, huh, then romanized? then went back to Japanese? this is weird"). The static example that is given is better, as it just show the correct state.

something in a different script may've been better

The reason I chose a Latin example is that if there is something on "Romanized" it might be confusing ("huh, why Japanese instead of Romanized"?), though it should still be fine and implicit enough since most of entries here are Japanese. I will think about it.

This rule is incredibly obtuse, and "matching original language" could refer to the Language system instead.

When developing an app, I usually could find how a user might confuse something to another by not really being attached to the application and try to approach it as a user. I also try to write (technical) documents in a way that is not confusing, supplemented with various viewpoints. (This is a "quality assurance" thing, but I digress).

But then, I'm not sure how this can be confused, how it is ambiguous, or how it is "obtuse". Even if the rule is complicated, that would be the work of the description (where the main guidelines is), not the name.

Also, how could "original language" could be confused as "system language" in this context? As it is a part of the entry guidelines, the context is "editing an entry". How could, when it is linked on an entry report, it means that "you have to adjust your system language, duh", especially with what it is explained on the page? It's quite reaching.

[CatgirlFrostmoon]

I actually found the GIF relatively clear, but it's good to know that you didn't - that shows off a big issue with it, and it's good to change it to something that's probably more understandable for people.

This is why, however, I must still object to your wish to change the name of this. The rule is definitely obtuse still, and it is both an issue of description (something I have worked on repeatedly to try and get it be at least somewhat more clear), and of title. We probably should do yet another run on this rule for both (mainly for consistency), but my main objection is with your view of "Language" in it. While you think of the Language system on VocaDB as the "System Language" of an entry, most people just think of it as the "Language" of an entry - and we have, in fact, gotten multiple people thinking that that is what the title of this rule means before it was changed for clarity. "Language Title Fields" inarguably forces people to look at the title of a work, and thus keeps them from making an understandable mistake.

In other words: people think quite differently from one another. When I say that this rule is obtuse, I say that because we continuously get "what does this mean?" questions about it. Removing words that gives context or clarity is an incredibly bad idea.

[Hans5958]

I have to state that this PR does not change the name. I understand the disagreement and I also have opinions on it, but I expected this to be long, That's why I didn't change it in this PR and reserve it in for later. I will reserve my opinions about the name for later, unless it involves the changes on the rule description.

Just in case it is missed, I said this on the first comment, emphasis added:

I really wanted to also rename the rule to "Matching original language" [...] I will do this in another PR just in case anyone disagrees.