Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
There's no need to overthink things and just translate as is. The same applies to cultural nuances and differences; there's nothing stopping us from using "-chan," "-kun," etc., in the English text. Even someone completely unfamiliar with these things wouldn't need significant intellectual effort to understand the general meaning after a two-minute Google search. But it's like with dyslexic fans of dubbing who "want to observe what's happening rather than read subtitles."
If the work clearly emphasizes the Japanese cultural context, using "-chan" and "-kun" is logical.
If, however, they are a feature of the language of the work, but the work itself develops in a different cultural space (neutral or, even more so, distinctly non-Japanese), and the author confirms that it can be translated, then why not translate it. For example, "sensei" in a British school is clearly "mister" or "teacher," etc.
Dubbing fans are completely irrelevant here. The absence of translation guaranteed does not interfere with the work itself, but a poor translation can easily do so, in both cases (either by not translating everything that could be translated for the most accurate transmission of the idea, or by translating what shouldn't be translated, as the idea is better perceived in its original form, even if it requires using loanwords or something else).