Correct Chinese (Simplified) translation of "Pacific Ocean"

[qyjoy]

Inconsistent Geographic Information Within the Same Field

The original text uses “Pacific Ocean” in both occurrences. However, the translation introduces a contradiction:

• The first occurrence (location/title line) correctly translates it as “Pacific Ocean”
• The second occurrence (main description) incorrectly translates it as “Atlantic Ocean”

This results in a direct internal inconsistency within the same field, where the same mission description refers to two different oceans.

As a result, within a single mission narrative:

• It first refers to the Pacific Ocean
• Then switches to the Atlantic Ocean

These two locations are thousands of kilometers apart and introduce no coherent semantic relationship in the context of the mission description.

---

Issue

Pacific Ocean ≠ Atlantic Ocean

This is a basic geographic inconsistency that should not occur in localization, as it directly alters the meaning of the original content.

---

Fix

Replace the incorrect term in the main body:

Change “Atlantic Ocean” → “Pacific Ocean”

No other modifications are required.

---

Additional note on consistency

It is worth noting that the “location header” and the “main body” exist within the same string context, separated only by @@, with a total distance of fewer than ~30 characters.

This makes cross-field inconsistency especially noticeable and preventable.

---

Recommendation

For mission/quest-related localization fields, it is recommended to introduce a geography consistency validation check, ensuring that:

• Identical entities within the same string remain consistent
• Location names are not silently altered across segments

This would help prevent similar issues in future localization passes.

Concerns about Review Standards and Uncritical Approval of PRs

If a PR is being approved primarily based on the author’s perceived “experience” or affiliation with a certain DIY/community background, rather than the actual quality of the changes, this raises serious concerns about the review process.

In this case, there are reasonable grounds to question the reviewer’s attention to detail and responsibility. A small number of minor issues might be acceptable in a large localization change, but the presence of multiple basic and obvious errors makes it difficult to understand why such a flawed PR was merged without proper scrutiny.

Setting aside translation fluency or stylistic accuracy for the moment, even a junior-level geography term error appearing in a mission description is simply unacceptable and objectively incorrect.

At that point, the issue is no longer about stylistic preference, but about basic correctness and quality assurance.

It is difficult to justify why a PR containing such evident mistakes passed review, especially when the expectation in an open-source project should be at least a minimal standard of careful validation before merging.

---

Summary

• Approval based on “credentials” or affiliation rather than actual correctness is not a reliable review standard
• The PR contains multiple low-level errors that should have been caught during review
• Even basic geographic terminology is incorrectly translated, which is unacceptable for localization work
• The review process appears insufficiently rigorous given the number of issues present
• This translation set still requires further careful inspection before it can be considered stable

[MahBoiDeveloper]

@SadPencil @DeathFishAtEase help with review guys, please

[SadPencil]

Thanks for pointing out this translation issue made by Westwood Pacific. This incorrect geographic term, "Atlantic Ocean", was introduced in the official Traditional Chinese release of YR in the CSF label Brief:Sov05md. So, congratulations again. You did successfully find a translation issue that has been ignored for more than 20 years.

We acknowledge receiving your concerns about both the translation quality and the review standard, however, there are several statements that do not match the facts. To ensure all aspects of your feedback are addressed accurately, we are preparing a formal response. Please be advised that it will take some time to complete. We will follow up with you as soon as the details are finalized.