Editing MarioWiki talk:Good writing

This is a great policy, but I think this it should refer to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] maybe somewhere in the intro, or at least a "See also" at the top of the page. Both policies are going into depth about article standards, just two different kinds.

{{User:YoshiKong/sig}} 05:57, 7 November 2012 (EST)

:The intro's good as-is, but linking to MW:MOS was a good idea, so I added a "See Also" section with that and some extra policy page links. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 20:41, 8 November 2012 (EST)

== How Ironic... ==

I found bad writing in the Good Writing article. This sentence is not grammatically correct.<br>
"''Pirate Goomba are NPCs that appears in Mario Party 8''"<br>
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 10:54, 25 January 2017 (EST)

I need to edit the pages. [[User:Brandon Quek|Brandon Quek]] ([[User talk:Brandon Quek|talk]]) 21:51, 16 November 2017 (EST)

== Captain Goomba link==
It needs changed to [[Captain Goomba (Mario Party 8)]], but as this is an only-alterable-by-admins page, I can't do that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:36, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

:Fixed. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 21:43, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

=="Subspecies" example==
The current explanation implies without stating otherwise that Lakitu is a derived species of Koopa Troopa, which is not right. They are separate from the get-go. Also, I think that a further addendum should be added to the sprite explanation to distinguish textures from them as well, as we occasionally get those uploaded (primarily for the pre-release and unused content pages). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:45, 10 April 2018 (EDT)

== Another word I think should be added ==
"Acronym" refers to abbreviations that are intended to be pronounced as words. However, it is commonly misused to refer to abbreviations in general. <span style="font-family:Mario Party 2/3 Textbox">[[User:RickTommy|RickTommy]] ([[User talk:RickTommy|talk]])</span> 22:33, 13 August 2018 (EDT)

:That is a term I occasionally see misused so I've added this in. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 01:55, 14 August 2018 (EDT)
::Another request: should "pun"/"play"/"portmanteau" get added as well? I've seen those terms get misused as well. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 18:19, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
:::Another request from me: "electrocute". People use it to refer to being zapped, even though it correctly means when someone dies after being zapped. Also, though it's more community-related than writing-related, and because it annoys me: "ban". I've seen users on this Wiki (and other Wikis) use it to refer to being blocked, even though on a Wiki, it refers to a specific kind of block (and sometimes not even one). <span style="font-family:Mario Party 2/3 Textbox">[[User:RickTommy|RickTommy]] ([[User talk:RickTommy|talk]])</span> 19:20, 26 November 2018 (EST)
::::Note that you yourself are not following good writing, as you are putting the quotation marks inside of punctuation, even though in quoting, the punctuation is considered part of the quote. Just....note that, please. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:24, 26 November 2018 (EST)
:::::Apparently, that's dependent on where you live. At least according to this: https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:35, 26 November 2018 (EST)
:::::I'd say cut him some slack, this is just another specific Americanism like the whole use of imperial in modern age. That said, I do follow this rule on the wiki without question, since the writing guidelines explicitly impose American writing standards, but I admit I find it weird. -- {{User:Super Radio/Sig}} 19:46, 26 November 2018 (EST)
::::::Correct, it's weird. And illogical. Another Wiki where I'm active makes a point of not following this "rule" for this very reason. Anyway, can we please get back on topic? <span style="font-family:Mario Party 2/3 Textbox">[[User:RickTommy|RickTommy]] ([[User talk:RickTommy|talk]])</span> 21:20, 26 November 2018 (EST)
:::::::It's perfectly logical. If a sentence were, for example:
:::::::Bowser asked "Where are you hiding Peach"?
:::::::....it would seem like the narrator is questioning that Bowser said that, since the punctuation isn't part of the quote. However, if it were:
:::::::Bowser asked "Where are you hiding Peach?"
:::::::....then it's clear that Bowser is the one asking the question, since the punctuation is within the quote itself. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:11, 26 November 2018 (EST)

@Rick Tommy: Yes, we can. Maybe "electrocute" can be added. After all, it does seem to have a scope as big as "outer space" and "subspecies" in the category of non-meta words, since there are many electrical enemies that users might want to describe mechanically but confuse the act of zapping Mario with killing him through zapping. As for "ban", it would be quite nitpicky to tell users what language to use outside of the main space, wouldn't it? Courtesy issues notwithstanding of course. Maybe the correct use of the word can be noted as an extra fact, but it definitely shouldn't be enforced on talk/user/whatever else pages. -- {{User:Super Radio/Sig}} 22:32, 26 November 2018 (EST)

@Doc: In the example you gave, the question mark is originally from the quote. If I were to quote something else now, say, "how now brown cow", you may notice how I put the comma after the quote because it has a syntactic role in this very sentence I'm typing, whereas American punctuation dictates putting it inside the quote--which is illogical because then it would seem as if it originates from the quote. -- {{User:Super Radio/Sig}} 22:32, 26 November 2018 (EST)
:The obvious solution would be to have it be dependent on whether it's a quote or simply an emphasis, and not this all-or-nothing thing various rulemakers impose. But I'm not one of them. Anyways, as for the ban thing, "tempban" and "permaban" are both types of bans, so I wouldn't really see the problem, even going into the nitty-gritty of non-mainspace. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:39, 26 November 2018 (EST)
:::That's what everyone is arguing for. The punctuation stuff I mean. -- {{User:Super Radio/Sig}} 22:46, 26 November 2018 (EST)
::::I usually use it in circumstantial terms. If the quote includes the punctuation, I include the punctuation in the quote. If it doesn't, I don't.
::::Anyway, on topic, looking up the definition of "[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electrocute electrocute]", (note comma :P) it also means to severally injure by way of electricity. In terms of execution, it does mean to kill, but I don't think the word needs to be added given this. 
::::For "ban", I use it more frequently than "block", even though what shows in logs is called a "Block Log". Looking them up, they mean pretty much the same thing. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 23:00, 26 November 2018 (EST)
:::::"Block"/"ban" are not terms used on mainspace so they don't need to be listed. Per Alex on "electrocute". {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 04:48, 27 November 2018 (EST)
::::::While "ban" and "block" can be used to refer to different kinds of blocks, it does not seem necessary to add it here, as this specifically refers to the mainspace. "Ban" is used pretty frequently, and it seems strange to request that it is not used on places like talk pages. Also, I completely agree with what has been said for both "electrocute" and the punctuation stuff. --{{User:TheFlameChomp/sig}} 06:55, 27 November 2018 (EST)
I have a misused word suggestion: {{wp|Obake}}. People often misinterpret this word as "ghost", when its actual definition is a being that has taken on a temporary form (basically, a shapeshifter), though modern usage associates obake with any form of monster. "obake" creatures in the Marioverse have ranged from [[Fluffy Phantom|"I guess it's a ghost"]] to [[Thwomp|"clearly not a ghost"]] to [[Attacky Sack|"That's literally just a ball"]], and it just seems silly to refer to every "obake" creature as a ghost. [[User:Somethingone|Somethingone]] ([[User talk:Somethingone|talk]]) 07:57, April 26, 2022 (EDT)

== "Similar" used as an adverb ==

{{talk}}
By far one of the most [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=%22similar+to%22&ns0=1&ns102=1 recurring] and annoying errors I encountered during the decade I've been active here was the word "similar" being used when "similarly" should be used. I think this should be added to the list of frequently misused terms. What say other wiki editors? {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:32, July 23, 2023 (EDT)
:Hmmmmm, very interesting. Most of the results I get show "similar to", which IS correct. "Similarly" is mainly used at the BEGINNING of a sentence. I agree that "similar to" SHOULD be replaced, BUT only if it is used in the beginning of a sentence. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 09:18, February 1, 2024 (CST)
::"Similar to", used as an adverb, is never correct. I can't find a dictionary entry for "similar" classifying it as an adverb. Its use as such is like "should of", popular but incorrect. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:03, February 1, 2024 (EST)
:::Yes, but I see NOTHING that shows "similar to", NOT IN THE BEGINNING OF A SENTENCE!, as an adverb. When it IS used at the beginning of a sentence, it SHOULD be replaced with "similarly". Like this: "Mega Moles are similar to Monty Moles" compared to "Mega Moles are similarly Monty Moles". {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 10:35, January 1, 2024 (CST)
::::do you know what an adverb even is {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:44, February 1, 2024 (EST)
::::Anyway, "similar" is primarily an adjective, so "Mega Moles are similar to Monty Moles" is perfectly fine. On the other hand, "Mega Moles walk from side to side, similar to Monty Moles." is not correct; it should be "Mega Moles walk from side to side, '''similarly''' to Monty Moles." Here, you need to modify the verb "walk", so you need to use "similarly", an adverb. Instead, the wiki currently uses "similar" for that purpose a ridiculous amount. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:00, February 1, 2024 (EST)

Similar is an adjective, whereas similarly is an adverb. Similar should be used when comparing two nouns (Susie and Emma are '''similar'''; Susie is '''similar to''' Emma), while similarly should be used when comparing two verbs or adjectives (Susie and Emma '''similarly''' enjoy apples; Susie enjoys apples '''similarly to''' Emma. For adjectives: Susie and Emma are '''similarly''' blonde; Susie is blonde '''similarly to''' Emma).

In the examples listed in the linked search results, I see:

*"Some Remix and Bonus stages have the graphics switch between normal graphics and a filter with white background and black sprites, similar to the Game Boy." The switching is the similarity here and switch is being used as a verb, so it should be similarly.
*"In Yoshi Touch & Go, no concrete plot was revealed, similar to the puzzle games." It's unclear if we're modifying plot or the reveal thereof here. If we're trying to say the simplistic plot is the similarity, plot is a noun, so similar is correct. If we're saying the lack of reveal is the similarity, reveal is a verb, so it should be changed to similarly. I would recommend revising this sentence entirely to clarify what comparison is being made.
*"Unlike the entries directly before, however, Paper Mario: The Origami King has levels that are directly connected rather than being segregated through a level select screen, similar to the first two games in the series." The similarity here is the direct connection, connected is a verb, it should be similarly.

So on so forth. I would agree this is a common enough error to justify a mention. [[Special:Contributions/73.171.104.211|73.171.104.211]] 12:07, February 1, 2024 (EST)
:You know what? FINE! You win. I give up. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 12:58, February 1, 2024 (CST)

== Yet another misused word ==
I've noticed, at least almost entirely recently, that "render" is often misused to refer to all official artwork. <span style="font-family:Mario Party 2/3 Textbox">[[User:RickTommy|RickTommy]] ([[User talk:RickTommy|talk]])</span> 23:50, September 17, 2023 (EDT)
:Any fully-processed three-dimensional work is a render. {{file link|Mario - Mario Party 10.png|This is a render.}} {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 09:27, February 8, 2024 (EST)

=="Cameo" as a frequently misused term==
{{talk}}
The word "cameo" is short for "cameo role". It originally referred to a celebrity playing themself rather than a fictional character, and expanded to refer to celebrities making brief but instantly recognizable appearances in movies and songs.

In colloquial use, it is an absolutely valid metaphor to extend the word further, to describe any single brief appearance as a cameo. In fan wikis, however, I've grown to consider it a widespread mark of poor writing. It describes background appearances of little-known characters and inanimate objects as if a famous person showed up. And if the reader doesn't recognize the subject of the "cameo", the phrasing will feel especially ridiculous.

In videogames, the concept of a ''brief'' appearance is also stretched, since the player can often linger on a setpiece for as long as they want, or return to it multiple times throughout the experience.

There are further issues with the phrase "''making'' a cameo". This phrase strikes me as overly casual, and assigns even greater importance to what is usually minor information. I would replace "makes a cameo" with "appears", or at least something like "''has'' a minor appearance".

Here are some examples that I have recently edited:

<blockquote>Pinna Park makes a cameo in the background of the Delfino Plaza stage&hellip;</blockquote>

This is about a landmark not being removed from a recurring setting. Phrasing it as a surprise bonus appearance implies that one should expect Pinna Park to be absent from the background, even though there's no reason to have that expectation. Pinna Park is also not a celebrity, nor a particularly well-known location among videogame fans.

<blockquote>Pauline's parasol, or at the very least a similar item, makes a cameo in the arcade version of ''Donkey Kong Jr.''&hellip;</blockquote>

It can't be a cameo if we're saying that no one can tell whether it's the same entity in the first place. Pauline's parasol is also not a celebrity, nor a particularly well-known item among videogame fans.

<blockquote>In ''Yoshi's Crafted World'', a ? Block makes a cameo on a sticker labeled "HANDLE WITH CARE"&hellip;</blockquote>

Need I go on? Just write "appears"! Even when the subject ''is'' a famous piece of videogame iconography, this is awkward phrasing. There's no need to gas up the ? Block, of all things. Most people will not find it unusual to see it referenced in a ''Mario''-franchise platformer. Besides, while ? Blocks aren't in most ''Yoshi'' games, they were in ''Yoshi's Story'', so this "cameo" is not especially significant.

I've brought this up on the server, but I thought I should also post here and consider making a proposal if necessary. [[User:AgentMuffin|AgentMuffin]] ([[User talk:AgentMuffin|talk]]) 07:20, October 23, 2023 (EDT)

== Better definition of “fan worship” ==

This has bugged me for a while, as an editor who loves descriptions. I've noticed that a lot of descriptive edits are reverted or trimmed down and flagged as "fan worship"; while this may be useful in some cases to maintain the wiki professional (I've edited some overly detailed sections myself), I think the word is a little bit misused in certain context (and often straying away from the original definition).

Technically, as the name implies, "fan worship" should mean POV-ridden edits '''from a fan of said character'''. However, I've often met other editors here who call "fan worship" any description that covers more than three or four lines. Even though overly detailed descriptions may appear unprofessional (but even then, what is "overly detailed"? We should reach a clear public consensus imo), I do not think they count as ''fan worship'', as they do not give any indication that the editor is a ''fan'' of said character, and/or is describing the character from a "loving" perspective that may blind out "negative/ugly" traits. 

Anyway, I will provide some examples (made up now, ''not'' actual edits, to avoid targeting specific users) just for thinking it out a bit.

*''"Rosalina is a tall woman with blonde hair, blue eyes and a long blue dress. She wears a silver crown and shoes, and star-shaped jewelry."''
*''"Rosalina is a tall, youthful-looking woman with a strong resemblance to Princess Peach in terms of facial features. She has pale skin, aqua eyes, and long, platinum blonde hair with a large bang covering her right eye, a small pointed nose and full lips not unlike Peach's, but flesh-colored. Her usual outfit includes a floor-length aqua dress with a shoulder-cut neckline […]"'' (this is what most looks like the current description on her page.)
*''"Rosalina is a very beautiful woman, especially for her tall stature, which is superior to Peach's. Her eyes are particularly pretty, due to their shiny, vivid hue that mimics that of the ocean; her hair is a more realistic hue of blonde than Peach's, looking like the color of the moon, and is cut into a bang that reflects her profound sadness derived from the perpetual mourning of her mother, who tragically died leaving a poor child Rosalina behind alone. Her dress is exquisitely crafted to add a graceful, elegant silhouette to Rosalina's already stunning appearance, and it has the color of the outer space sky when the sun rays hits the earth at a specific angle […]"''

Now, I think it's safe to say the majority of the physical description sections in any character article looks like the second example. 
The third one is what in my opinion should be clearly regarded as fan worship (full of POV-ridden adjectives, speculation, specific comparisons that may not even be correct- what color is the moon anyway, and is platinum blonde actually a "realistic" color?).
The first example may be what most editors on this wiki aim to, but it is, in my honest opinion, too short. It is too summarized compared to other sections of the same article (story, personality, concept and creation), and the adjectives used, while concise, are actually misleading (her dress is not simply "blue", and her hair is not simply "blonde").
I've seen lots of sections like the second example being labeled as fan worship, even though it provides what I think is a fair level of detail for the character. Maybe an unpopular opinion of mine, but I'd argue that detailed descriptions do not actually indicate a ''preference'' for a character. Unless the editor has explicitly stated a preference towards said character, accusing an editor of fan worship just because of a detailed description is pointless projecting. Some people simply like describing a bit more than [character] has [color] eyes and [color] hair, for a reason or another. Many elements of a character or outfit's design contain specific cultural references, be them traditional or pop-culture, or say something about what the creator intended when designing the character (like comparisons to other characters of the same series, or sometimes even another.)

In summary, the scope of all this blathering of mine is pretty much to spark a debate over the concept of fan worship. Just let me know about what you think, and maybe we can update and clarify the criteria for it. [[User:Wallowigi|Wallowigi]] ([[User talk:Wallowigi|talk]])
:I think "fan worship" is when a fan is so passionate about a character so much that they describle it in much excruciating detail. Such excessive detail might make readers uncomfortable, so it is best to keep it succinct and straight to the point. I remember when I was writing for the [[Dr. Crygor]] article, I was passionate at the time, so I described his various versions in great detail. {{User:PnnyCrygr/sig}} 09:48, July 25, 2024 (EDT)