> The more common problem is the opposite. People who think they speak Japanese because they know what "-chan" means demand "unlocalized" works, by which they mean works translated into "English but we left in a few Japanese words the readers know".
Isn't "unlocalized" the base state? Just translate it, and don't replace the references with others? At least that's how I understand it.
> This provides essentially no benefit because the act of translating into English already removed way more meaning than a few honorifics can keep. Sometimes it even means translating Japanese words into other ones, since the readers don't even know every honorific, they just think they do.
Are we talking about the same things? What I refer to as localizations is when people substitute references for other references more familiar to the target audiance. It's not about losing something or not losing it, since by translating you always lose something, but creating an entirely new experience. The split is then on people that prefer a worse but more genuine experience (by that I mean closer to the original) vs the people that want a better but less genuine experience.
> Amateur translations also like to leave in English words in the original text, not knowing they have totally different meanings in Japan.
Localized vs unlocalized is a different debate from amateur vs professional translation I think.