Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-4698889-20180724122634/@comment-2600:1702:3EC0:4B80:AC31:5DC9:98A7:D1CF-20180907145511

Yes, Misstress. It's clear what your preference is but you haven't actually made a single conclusive argument as to why it needs to be "gulatronomy" over "gluttronomy" or "gluttonomy". Gluttony is romanized as "guratonii". The research field Banica says is "guratoronomi". The only reason one could argue strongly for "gula" being the intended translation of that is because it's Latin, but we've already established there's a conflict with that and our translation of "Gula" (which isn't changed by what the original romaji is because most people won't see that, unless you're trying to argue we should change Gula despite having already discussed that in the past and decided against it iirc).

Unless you're going to go talk to mothy and ask him what he intended with the word (which you're welcome to do), it's a pointless aesthetic argument.