Editing MarioWiki talk:Generic subjects

:::::Personally, I don't see how the X-Z-Y format is any better or worse than the X-Y-Z format. Neither of them read as "awkward and strange"; they're both natural syntax constructions that would be used by people as openings to a topic. I feel like it's a bit extreme to call one "awkward".

:::::As for why X-Z-Y is being used in generic subjects now; I'm not the one who decided that, but I would take a look at your prior statement to see why it might be considered optimal. "No, it is about what a trapeze is in the Super Mario franchise." - "Trapezes appear in Z as platforms" may accomplish this better than "Trapezes are platforms that appear in Z", ''if'' your priority is discussing what a trapeze is in the Super Mario franchise in the context of it as a generic<!--For lack of a better term. I don't really know how else to describe it, but I mean generic as in "Word that is loaded with the context of an entity you would normally see in the real world"--> object. The latter is better if you're discussing what it is in the context of a unique<!--As in, not fitting the definition of 'generic' I described in the other hidden note here-->object. '''But again''', the difference is nowhere near as big as you're making it out to be, in my opinion. {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 23:06, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I don't see such article openers as inherently awkward. They presuppose that readers already know what a certain subject is, which is a natural consideration with regard to an object as ubiquitous in the real world as, say, [[grape]] or [[Soccer Ball|soccer ball]]. To use grapes as an example: though it's true that their appearances in games are merely virtual symbols of the real world fruit, and not the actual fruit that you can just grab from the screen using your actual arm and eat, the identity of the object remains the same by virtue of being a representation of grapes, and you'd expect anyone with the requisite mental faculties to access this site to make this difference on their own. Frankly, "Grapes are fruits in the Mario franchise" sounds more awkward because it implies they're an invention of Shigeru Miyamito et al. Sure, no one would believe that to be the case, but it's precisely the absurdity of that statement that occasionally makes the wiki [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEoUeUeFDpE an object of ridicule] and I'd like to avoid that where possible. (The Super Mario Facts twitter account is also a trove of statements of that ilk taken out of context; you should see the replies to those.)<br>With all that said, I only apply this sentence structure to things with some degree of ubiquity in the real world, and not to just about any real world thing that is immortalized in the Mario franchise. I wouldn't agree on using it on an article such as [[Abraham Lincoln]] because (a) not everyone knows who this person was in real life, even if they've seen references to him in pop culture (god knows I learned about his role in American history long after I saw him in cartoons as a child), and (b) he ought to be contextualized the same way other real world people are in the wiki, otherwise there would exist an inconsistency, [[David Grenewetzki|especially]] since [[Satoru Iwata|sometimes]], real world people with involvement in the making of Mario media also end up being represented in said media.<br>As for where I'd place a cutoff between "generic" and "not generic enough", I don't exactly know. In a [[User talk:Koopa con Carne#Generic and real content|brief convo]] with Super Mario RPG (the user) I mentioned "[[Avalanche (obstacle)|avalanche]]" as being situated somewhere in that ballpark. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 03:14, July 8, 2024 (EDT)

:Further, I did not even say I am opposed to noting a subject is of conceptual real-world origin, just that saying "X in Z is a Y" is poor syntax. Part of the subtext of my problem is that I think it mitigates user choice. Additionally, I think many of the articles where this syntax has been integrated cover subjects that are not generic. For example, the [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Seesaw&diff=4289025&oldid=4287300 seesaw] article is not about playground equipment and they do not look like it either. What is localized into English as "seesaws" are categorically a type of [[Lift]], which are discretely defined platforms in the ''Super Mario'' series, and they are often floating in the air above bottomless pits. [[Snow sculpture]]s are [[Bowser Statue]] analogs. The [[trapeze]] article is about a platforming tool in the 3D ''Super Mario'' games, not about the concept of a trapeze wherever it may arise in the franchise. There are plenty of other examples like this as well, where I think a subject is assumed generic due to its available English name, at the disregard of its design, mechanical or spatial context, or categorical intent.

:For subjects I would agree are generic or are at least intended to be viewed as the same as their real-world analogs like the [[T-Rex]] article I have written, I still would not lead with this syntax. I would rather specify its real-world analog later in the opening paragraph. I think it reads more organically that way. I appreciate what {{User|Somethingone}} said yesterday, but I disagree. I lack the terminology necessary to articulate my point and I may be in the minority, but I do not encounter openings where a subject is said to be from or within another subject before being directly told what it actually is. It reads comparably to saying "Lions from Narnia are big cats" or "Basilisks in ''Delicious in Dungeon'' are monsters."... in companion books about Narnia or ''Delicious in Dungeon'', respectively. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:32, July 8, 2024 (EDT)