| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 30: |
Line 30: |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| {{Settled TPP}} | | {{SettledTPP}} |
| {{Proposal outcome|red|do not merge 6-9}} | | {{ProposalOutcome|red|don't merge 6-9}} |
| The two articles are too similar to remain separate, as proven by a list of differences above, which is: | | The two articles are too similar to remain separate, as proven by a list of differences above, which is: |
| *The Chancellor has a black mustache, while the Toad Minister has a white one. | | *The Chancellor has a black mustache, while the Toad Minister has a white one. |
| Line 84: |
Line 84: |
| == Merge to Minister: REDUX == | | == Merge to Minister: REDUX == |
|
| |
|
| {{Settled TPP}} | | {{SettledTPP}} |
| {{Proposal outcome|no consensus|7-8}} | | {{ProposalOutcome|no consensus|7-8}} |
| These characters not only have the same lang-of-orig name and role between games of which the latter is an ''intentional'' spiritual successor to the former, they have a very similar appearance, the exact same personality, and basically the same speaking patterns. Let's compare some lines: | | These characters not only have the same lang-of-orig name and role between games of which the latter is an ''intentional'' spiritual successor to the former, they have a very similar appearance, the exact same personality, and basically the same speaking patterns. Let's compare some lines: |
| {| class="wikitable" | | {| class="wikitable" |
| Line 194: |
Line 194: |
|
| |
|
| ==Merge with Minister: Take 3== | | ==Merge with Minister: Take 3== |
| {{Settled TPP}} | | {{TPP}} |
| {{Proposal outcome|passed|7-3-1|Merge Chancellor with Toad Minister}}
| |
| Giving this a shot. Above, I mentioned that after the second proposal's failure, I'd make another [[Talk:Shaman|Shaman proposal]] for consistency. What changed? [[Talk:Goomboss#Have the Chesnut King on the List of implied characters redirect to this page|Goomboss]]. That merge has been tried several times, but finally succeeded in no small part due to Swallow's suggestion. So, I'd like to apply that reasoning here. I've changed my mind mid-proposal last time, so I've laid out my support and oppose reasons in the comments, which you can refer to if you need a refresher. But to get to the point, the bottom line still stands: whether or not these are literally supposed to be the same individual is not the true takeaway here, but rather, it is that both characters are the same proto-Toadsworth concept. They serve the exact same role, and the mannerisms of both portrayals are extremely similar to Toadsworth, especially in Japanese versions. In the end, covering prototypical Toadsworth in one article is reasonable. Unlike the above proposals, I'm adding a vice-versa option: merge ''Toad Minister'' with ''Chancellor'' instead, so that Chancellor will be the title of the merged article rather than Toad Minister. The main reason for this is that "Chancellor" has more screentime and has dozens of instances where his name shows up in game text, whereas the full name "Toad Minister" only shows up in a single semiobscure line of text (Goombario's Tattle) and "Minister" outweighs it few more times, so the latter was probably the intended name all along. | | Giving this a shot. Above, I mentioned that after the second proposal's failure, I'd make another [[Talk:Shaman|Shaman proposal]] for consistency. What changed? [[Talk:Goomboss#Have the Chesnut King on the List of implied characters redirect to this page|Goomboss]]. That merge has been tried several times, but finally succeeded in no small part due to Swallow's suggestion. So, I'd like to apply that reasoning here. I've changed my mind mid-proposal last time, so I've laid out my support and oppose reasons in the comments, which you can refer to if you need a refresher. But to get to the point, the bottom line still stands: whether or not these are literally supposed to be the same individual is not the true takeaway here, but rather, it is that both characters are the same proto-Toadsworth concept. They serve the exact same role, and the mannerisms of both portrayals are extremely similar to Toadsworth, especially in Japanese versions. In the end, covering prototypical Toadsworth in one article is reasonable. Unlike the above proposals, I'm adding a vice-versa option: merge ''Toad Minister'' with ''Chancellor'' instead, so that Chancellor will be the title of the merged article rather than Toad Minister. The main reason for this is that "Chancellor" has more screentime and has dozens of instances where his name shows up in game text, whereas the full name "Toad Minister" only shows up in a single semiobscure line of text (Goombario's Tattle) and "Minister" outweighs it few more times, so the latter was probably the intended name all along. |
|
| |
|
| Line 204: |
Line 203: |
| #{{User|Arend}} Primary choice: similar roles, similar Japanese names, similarly minor compared to the rest of their respective games, similar cap spot color, and also the fact that ''Paper Mario'' was originally intended to be ''Super Mario RPG 2'', so of course ''Paper Mario'' has a couple concepts originally from ''Super Mario RPG'', such as the Merlon family being directly inspired from the Shamans, and the Shooting Star Summit having a nearly identical Japanese name to that of [[Star Hill]] (and is merged with said article, as is ''Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time's'' Star Hill). I'm fine with either option, but I pick this one as primary because "Toad Minister" is the more recent name; plus that SMRPG's translator [[Ted Woolsey]] has given classic enemies completely different names that only appear in SMRPG (such as Cheep Cheep to Goby). | | #{{User|Arend}} Primary choice: similar roles, similar Japanese names, similarly minor compared to the rest of their respective games, similar cap spot color, and also the fact that ''Paper Mario'' was originally intended to be ''Super Mario RPG 2'', so of course ''Paper Mario'' has a couple concepts originally from ''Super Mario RPG'', such as the Merlon family being directly inspired from the Shamans, and the Shooting Star Summit having a nearly identical Japanese name to that of [[Star Hill]] (and is merged with said article, as is ''Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time's'' Star Hill). I'm fine with either option, but I pick this one as primary because "Toad Minister" is the more recent name; plus that SMRPG's translator [[Ted Woolsey]] has given classic enemies completely different names that only appear in SMRPG (such as Cheep Cheep to Goby). |
| #{{User|LadySophie17}} Primary choice per Arend. | | #{{User|LadySophie17}} Primary choice per Arend. |
| #{{User|Seandwalsh}} Per Arend. <small>And the Goomboss merge shouldn't have happened, but this is long overdue.</small> | | #{{User|Seandwalsh}} Primary choice, per Arend. <small>And the Goomboss merge shouldn't have happened, but this is long overdue.</small> |
| #{{User|Somethingone}} Per Arend. | | #{{User|Somethingone}} Per Arend. |
| #{{User|Killer Moth}} Per Arend. | | #{{User|Killer Moth}} Per Arend. |
| #{{User|Wikiboy10}} Honestly, this is less about a character and more about generic chancellor-type characters that have similar broad names. If these chancellors had two completely different names (like the first one being Bob and the other being Tom), I think this would be a different story. Merging to this, since it's the latest name.
| |
| #{{User|Blinker}} Similar concept, similar name. Using the most recent (English) name makes enough sense.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Merge Toad Minister with Chancellor=== | | ===Merge Toad Minister with Chancellor=== |
| Line 214: |
Line 211: |
| #{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per my "concept, not individual" preference. | | #{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per my "concept, not individual" preference. |
| #{{User|Arend}} Secondary choice. | | #{{User|Arend}} Secondary choice. |
| | #{{User|Wikiboy10}} Honestly, this is less about a character and more about generic chancellor-type characters that have similar broad names. If these chancellors had two completely different names (like the first one being Bob and the other being Tom), I think this would be a different story. |
| | #{{User|Seandwalsh}} Secondary choice. |
|
| |
|
| ===Keep Chancellor and Toad Minister split=== | | ===Keep Chancellor and Toad Minister split=== |
| Line 232: |
Line 231: |
|
| |
|
| I want to support this, but I'm unsure what option to choose. It would be silly if the merge ended up as a tie due to collective indecision over the article name. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 12:09, December 23, 2022 (EST) | | I want to support this, but I'm unsure what option to choose. It would be silly if the merge ended up as a tie due to collective indecision over the article name. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 12:09, December 23, 2022 (EST) |
| :Well, I can give another reason why I believe "Toad Minister" is a translation mistake. If you speak to him early in Peach's Castle, he introduces himself with the following line:<blockquote>わたしが キノコ城の だいじんです<br>(''I am the Minister of Mushroom Castle.'')</blockquote>Which is pretty close to the English localization, but if you Tattle him later in Bowser's Castle, Goombario says:<blockquote>この人が 『だいじん』なんだ<br>(''This person must be the “Minister”.'')</blockquote>I think what happened is someone thought his full title was「キノコ城のだいじん」(Minister of Mushroom Castle / Mushroom Castle's Minister), remembered that「キノコタウン」(Mushroom Town) was localized as "Toad Town", and so the line was contextualized as "''This is the Toad Minister.''" That, or the line was supposed to be translated as "''This Toad is the Minister.''" Incidentally, you can compare that phrase to how Toad initially mentions the Chancellor at Mario's Pad in ''Super Mario RPG'': キノコ城の 「キノコ大臣」(Mushroom Castle's “Mushroom Minister”). [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 09:42, December 25, 2022 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| == Toad Minister moved to Chancellor ==
| |
|
| |
| For record sake: a talk page proposal ([[Talk:Toad_Minister#Move_to_Chancellor]]) in [[Toad Minister]] succeeded, so I've moved the page to here. {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:01, November 19, 2023 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| == Split Chancellor and Minister ==
| |
| {{Settled TPP}}
| |
| {{Proposal outcome|failed|4-9|keep merged}}
| |
|
| |
| Please allow to begin by apologizing for reopening another can of worms, but I really feel this is an injustice that absolutely needs to be corrected. The Toad Minister and the Chancellor are clearly two different characters, made by two different developers for two different games (yes, I know PM was developed as a "spiritual successor" to SMRPG). I also apologize in advance for the length of what became a dissertation on the subject, but there’s so many points that I feel went unaddressed in previous debates.
| |
|
| |
| The TLDR is that there are ample examples across the wiki of minor characters receiving independent coverage and discouragement of speculation, so this merge should have never happened in the first place.
| |
|
| |
| '''Concept vs. character debate'''
| |
|
| |
| A prevalent argument in previous debates on this subject was that we’re making an article for a “concept” (Toadsworth prototype) rather than a “character”, but I have to disagree with that premise. The articles are about two, distinct characters; not about the concept of what Toadsworth evolved from. We differentiate between the [[Toad Brigade]] and the toads that appeared in ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]''. That [[Talk:Toad_Brigade#TPP:_Toad_Brigade_in_SMS_or_not.3F|proposal]] passed overwhelmingly, so why would we classify the Chancellor and the Minister as the same character? There was an argument that both Minister and Chanellor were “Toadsworth-prototypes”, but is the same not true for the SMS Toads vs. the Toad Brigade? We also differentiate between [[Proto Piranha]] and [[Piranha Plant]] and [[Mecha King Bob-omb]] and [[King Bob-omb]]. Whereas Porto Piranha and MKB aren’t a “prototype” in the same developmental sense as Chancellor and Minister may be to Toadsworth, they are closely related characters that are clearly based on another character. Perhaps they are considered unique enough to have their own page because, as enemies, they have stats and are more than just an NPC, but I think the pure fact that they are not the same thing is enough to constitute two different pages.
| |
|
| |
| Moreover, with the introduction of [[Toad General]], who is basically Toadsworth 2.0 (outrageously replacing him, but that’s a conversation for a different time), are we just going to merge Toadsworth into his 2.0 counterpart’s page? Obviously not. Do we want to have one page for all the Toadsworth-adjacent characters, including Minister, Chancellor, Toad General, and even [[Toadsworth the Younger]]? That doesn’t seem right. If we can have different pages for all the various enemy prototypes, then surely Minister and Chancellor can exist as separate pages (just as Toad General and Toadsworth the Younger should exist as separate pages from Toadsworth). Using that logic, why not just merge [[Pauline]] into [[Princess Peach]] or all the baby pages ([[Baby Mario]], [[Baby Rosalina]], etc.) into their adult counterparts? For goodness sake, we even differentiate between [[Bee]] and [[Honeybee]] (as we should). Why do we differentiate between Bee and Honeybee? For the same reason we should differentiate between Chancellor and Minister; they are two different species / characters from different games, from different studios, that are directly (or indirectly for that matter) implied to be the same thing. Add the speculation about Chancellor, Minister, and Toad General being Toadsworth-adjacent to Toadsworth’s History or Trivia section if we really have to have some kind of coverage on the concept of a Toadsworth prototype, which I don’t think we need in the first place.
| |
|
| |
| '''Related studies'''
| |
|
| |
| [[Bruce]] and [[Rob (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)]], two different characters from two different games, are both black Bob-ombs. They are two, distinct, unique characters. What’s the difference between saying Chancellor and Minister should be merged and saying Rob and Bruce should be merged? Chancellor and Minister don’t look identical, but Rob and Bruce do, san Rob’s hat. Rob may speak with a “Russian” accent while Bruce does not, but that’s no different from dismissing the evident age gap between Chancellor and Minister, unless we really want to get wild and speculate that not only do PM and SMRPG take place in the same timeline but there’s a significant time game between the events of PM and SMRPG. Who’s to say that Rob isn’t the same person as Bruce; he just moved to Fahr Outpost, changed his name, and put on a hat? I don’t see how that is less speculative than saying Minister and Chancellor are the same person because they occupy similar roles and have a somewhat similar appearance. Where do we draw the line?
| |
|
| |
| More to the point, both [[Harry (Paper Mario)]] and [[Herb T.]] are Toads with green caps that appear in the ''Paper Mario'' series as shopkeepers. The same argument that led to Chancellor and Minister being merged applies to these two characters; they both look similar, fulfill similar roles, and appear in related games. Obviously they are different characters that deserve their own pages, no matter how minor they are, so I argue the same logic should apply to Chancellor and Minister.
| |
|
| |
| [[1 UP Heart]] and [[1-Up Mushrooms]] functionally share the same purpose, but they appear in different games, made by different studios, and have a different appearance. The list can go on and on of pages that exist as extremely related or inspired by other subjects, but I’m hard-pressed to find many examples where pages were merged solely based on speculative similarities between subjects rather than confirmation they are the same. That is not to say that such examples do not exist, as they do, but it is far more common to see splits than merges, particularly when it concerns different subjects from different games with different appearances.
| |
|
| |
| A notable example is [[Talk:Goomboss#Move_the_information_about_the_.22Chesnut_King.22_currently_on_the_List_of_implied_characters_to_this_page|Chestnut King]] being merged from [[List of implied characters]] into [[Goomboss]]. As the proposal stated, “The Chestnut King is identical to the Goomba King’s name in Paper Mario in every version of the game except English”, which eliminates much of the speculation over whether or not they are the same character. The same is not true for Chancellor and Minister. They use variations of “minister” and “chancellor”, but this case is not as concise as Goomboss / Chestnut King, so I argue the merging of Chestnut King is incomparable to the Chancellor-Minister debate.
| |
|
| |
| '''Speculation'''
| |
|
| |
| The [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]] discourages speculation. I have observed from some of my own ideas how speculation can be counterproductive to maintaining a coherent and factual wiki. The fact that there is so much debate over whether or not these two are the same characters inarguably proves that we are engaging in speculation to assert they are the same character. I’ve learned that speculation is a slippery slope that is best avoided when possible, so why are we giving a pass on speculating that Chancellor and Minister are one and the same? There is some evidence to suggest that might be the case, just as there is some evidence to suggest [[Talk:Podley#Consider_Podley_.2F_Podler_Beanish|Podley is Beanish]], but making a decisive conclusion (such as merging the pages) necessitates absolute clarity, which is lacking on this subject.
| |
|
| |
| '''Japanese Text'''
| |
|
| |
| The article states that the translation of both of their Japanese names amounts to “Chancellor/Minister”, but these titles usually mean different things in English. A [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chancellor chancellor] is normally the head of a government, whereas a [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minister minister] is merely an official within a government. This isn’t ''always'' the case, but it is how the titles are generally used. I don’t speak Japanese, so I don’t know if this difference, or to what extent, exists in Japanese. I find this the most compelling reason to merge the articles, but I don’t think it absolutely disqualifies them existing as separate characters, especially given all the other points I previously made. We have many characters who share the same name (in Japanese or English), but that doesn’t mean they’re the same person, particularly when their “name” is just their title. For example, there's no question that [[Minister of Massage]], an inarguably more minor character than either Chancellor or Minister, has no relation to either Chancellor or Minister despite a similar name in Japanese to Minister.
| |
|
| |
| There have been a few good debates about Japanese translations on [[Talk:Wilt_Shroom]]. The consensus on that page for several years was to keep Wilt Shroom and [[Dried Mushroom]] despite their names being similar in Japanese, though they were more recently merged by a proposal with four participants. Not to belittle the validity of a smaller turnout in voting, but the fact that several more users had historically argued against the change speaks to a greater desire to keep subjects such as these separate. This is a point currently being debated in [[Talk:Clothing#Keep_the_Mario_.26_Luigi_Clothing_pages_as_list_articles]], where there's multiple convincing arguments that sometimes such a small turnout on a proposal that could have easily been overlooked results in a change that isn't necessarily reflective of a sound majority, particularly when its an issue that has been debated multiple times over the years. On this page specifically, it took three proposals to merge the pages. The last proposal saw a higher voter turnout than the example I provided, but we've seen 15 unique votes in favor of merging and 15 unique votes in flavor of keeping separate. It's clear this has been a controversial debate, and I hope that by adding some additional arguments we can settle it with a stronger majority.
| |
|
| |
| (* ''"Unique votes" refers to votes from individuals, i.e. not recounting votes from people who voted in multiple proposals.)
| |
|
| |
| '''Conclusion'''
| |
|
| |
| The full TLDR with what I believe are the most important points is as follows:
| |
| #A similar proposal differentiates between [[Talk:Toad_Brigade#TPP:_Toad_Brigade_in_SMS_or_not.3F|The Toad Brigade and the SMS Toads]].
| |
| #The argument for having a "prototype" page for an existing character has little grounds, per everything from baby pages being different from adult counterparts to similar examples like Peach and Pauline existing separately.
| |
| ##This argument is further derailed / complicated by the introduction of the Toad General.
| |
| #There is nothing in any official material that even remotely suggests these are the same character; its all speculation.
| |
| ##Their Japanese names may share some similarities but are nevertheless dissimilar enough, especially when considering they appear in different games developed by different studios, that it is speculation to definitively classify them as the same person.
| |
| #There is a plethora of examples of minor characters having their own pages rather than being merged into pages of similar but not identical characters. See literally any NPC in a Mario RPG game.
| |
| #This has historically been a divisive debate; the cumulative consensus is currently tied, but prior debates lacked many of the points raised in this debate, as well as new information such as the introduction of the Toad General. I argue that this, therefore, provides framework an additional review.
| |
|
| |
| All these debate points aside, consider this from the perspective of someone playing PM or SMRPG. If someone played PM and said “Hey, this Minister guy is pretty cool. I’d like to learn more about him, so let me go to Mario Wiki.”, they are met with a page that is mostly devoted to a different character from a different game that has nothing to do with the character they were interested in reading about. That person was me.
| |
|
| |
| Thank you for reading my dissertation on Toadsworthology and related studies, and please vote to split this into the two, independent articles both characters deserve to have.
| |
|
| |
| '''Proposer''': {{User|DrBaskerville}}<br>
| |
| '''Deadline''': July 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
| |
|
| |
| === Support: Split Chancellor and Minister ===
| |
| #{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Hewer}} This is one of the most speculative merges I've ever seen pass and the idea of merging based on similarity rather than being the same thing conflicts with [[Talk:Grab Block#Merge White Block with Grab Block 2|plenty]] [[Talk:Poison Mushroom#Merge Rotten Mushroom into this page|of]] [[Talk:Mushroom Genie#Re-merge Mushroom Genie and Genie of the Lamp|other]] [[Princess|splits]] [[Talk:Warp Block#Warp Box and Warp Block merge?|on]] [[Talk:Super Mini Mario World#Split this article into Super Mini Mario World, Mini Land Theme Park, and Mini Toy Carnival|the]] [[Talk:Golden Pipe#Split this page into Star Pipe and Golden Pipe|wiki]]. Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Hewer especially; we don't see why we shouldn't split these considering we split things that are even more identical than the Chancellor and Minister.
| |
| #{{User|DesaMatt}} Per all.
| |
| <s>#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} I haven't changed my stance on this. Per proposal, and per all. Although, saying "outrageously" replacing Toad General is a bit biased/subjective and redundant (i'd deem it'd need to be removed), but whatever. I still am not convinced SMRPG and Paper Mario's Ministers/Chancellors are the same guy.</s>
| |
|
| |
| === Oppose: Keep merged ===
| |
| #[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - As was argued in the original proposal, it doesn't really matter so much if they are or are not the same specific ''character'' s'long as they have the same in-universe ''role'' - look at all the different-looking characters on the [[Mushroom King]] article, for example. A "chancellor" and a "minister" are for all intents and purposes the same thing, and it's best in my opinion to keep all the unnamed proto-Toadsworths from what started as a spiritual successor in one basket.
| |
| #{{user|Blinker}} Even if they may not be the same individual, that doesn't mean they aren't the same character. Just look at Merlon. I also don't understand why this proposal is focusing so much on, erm, Toadsworthology. SMRPG's Chancellor and Paper Mario's Minister have a lot more in common than just being similar to Toadsworth.
| |
| #{{User|Arend}} Per fellow opposers, and what I previously iterated [[#Merge Chancellor with Toad Minister|here]].
| |
| #{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all. They're the same picture.
| |
| #{{User|Seandwalsh}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|PaperSplash}} To me, it's less about them both being being "Toadsworth-prototypes" to me and more that they share the exact same title in the source language of their respective games, per Doc von Schmeltwick's Mushroom King argument (and said title lacks the significant additional qualifier and contextual difference in role that the Minister of Massage has). The distinction in title was purely introduced in translation which in my opinion makes arguments about their respective semantic differences irrelevant (again, especially given the lack of a significant difference in role in actual context). I feel that this is another case of "this wouldn't even be a debate if the translations stayed consistent" as argued with the Chestnut King/Goomba King in the merge proposal. And as for why their respective translated titles in all other languages don't match unlike the latter's, that mainly comes down to the other European translations of PM and the SMRPG remake (and the Chinese one in the former's case) being largely based on the English one, and the original version of TTYD in contrast had each European language largely refer directly to the original Japanese script and then do their own thing from there (along with them each evidently doing their homework on the Japanese terminology used in the first game and mostly staying consistent with how it initially ended up in their language whenever applicable, except for English which stumbled quite a bit in this area and Italian which didn't have a native translation of the first game to compare with, although they did refer to the English one in some cases). I also don't think the "different studios" argument holds much water in the first PM's case; it ''is'' a spiritual successor to SMRPG and as LinkTheLefty mentioned in the merge proposal, there are [[Star Hill|several]] [[Star Way|other]] [[Dried Mushroom|apparent]] [[Snowman Doll|references]] to SMRPG in the Japanese script of PM that the English translation overlooked, but we still acknowledge all of them to varying extents, so deeming this pure speculation would result in us refusing to acknowledge the clear connections that we acknowledge elsewhere. I also agree with the the arguments Blinker made in this proposal and the previous one in favor of them being merged.
| |
| #{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Come to think of it...
| |
| #{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all. Plus, I think it's likely that the Minister was intended to be the same character as the Chancellor considering their similar looks (albeit with some color differences), identical Japanese title (''daijin''), and the fact that ''Paper Mario'' was originally conceived as a ''Super Mario RPG'' follow-up.
| |
|
| |
| === Comments ===
| |
| @Doc von Schmeltwick: This argument is one I completely fail to understand since it could be used to justify countless other weird merges, as mentioned in the proposal and my vote. If this article is supposed to just be a dumping ground for Toadsworth-like characters, what about [[Toad General]] and [[Toadsworth the Younger]], and even Toadsworth himself? Why are [[Dash Mushroom]] and [[Mushroom]] split? Why are [[Rotten Mushroom]] and [[Poison Mushroom]] (and [[Talk:Poison Mushroom#Split Cursed Mushroom?|potentially Cursed Mushroom]]) split? Why are [[Goombario]] and [[Goombella]] split? The list goes on. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:26, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :In-universe role (as in, their occupation title), not out-of-universe role (as in, their gameplay function). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:41, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::Okay, [[Mushroom Genie]] and [[Genie of the Lamp]]. [[Baby Mario]] and [[Toddler Terrors of Time Travel|baby Mario]]. [[Princess (Paper Mario: Color Splash)|Princess]] and [[Princess (Paper Mario: The Origami King)|Princess]]. [[Kamek]] and [[Wizakoopa]]. And again, [[Toad General]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:00, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :::Don't know too much about ''Party'', I had nothing to do with that decision, I'd be happy merging those Chomps, "Kamek" in that game is the species, and Toad General has no counterpart. And again, this doesn't count ''named'' characters, otherwise we could merge both of these to Toadsworth. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:06, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::::My point with Wizakoopa was that he fulfills the same role in that game as Kamek in other games, and my point with Toad General was that he could be merged to Chancellor for the same reason as Toad Minister, being another Toadsworth stand-in, high-ranking Toad. And I disagree that Chancellor and Toad Minister are unnamed. Chancellor and Toad Minister are names, creative or not. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:15, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :::::They're titles. Again, the [[Mushroom King]]'s various appearances have more differences here, yet they are merged. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:33, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :Mushroom King is actually a great example, but for a different reason than I think you're arguing. There can only ever be one king in a kingdom, so it makes sense that all references to the Mushroom King are contained on the same page; the same is not true for a minister. There are almost invariably multiple ministers in a government, e.g. Minister of Defense, Minister of State, Minister of Education, Minister of Culture, etc. I believe the Toad Minister is specifically referred to as the "Minister of Peach's Castle" or more closely to the original Japanese text "Minister of Toad Town". He's the minister of a specific domain, suggesting there are other ministers of other domains, unlike a king. Chancellors are ''typically'' like kings in that there is generally only one; they are heads of state / government, so there is generally only one. A difference exists in real-world politics between chancellor and minister, and I don't know we wouldn't assume that a difference between ministers and chancellors exist in the Mushroom Kingdom as well. We assume a difference exists between wood and stone in the Mushroom Kingdom, but that's never expressly stated. You're trying to prove a negative. I highly doubt we'll ever get an extensive breakdown of the government structure of the Mushroom Kingdom, so to assume that minister and chancellor are the same is speculation that I believe is best resolved by treating the characters as unique rather than evolved forms of one another or saying that one page is sufficient to cover the "office" because the offices, from my perspective, are not the same. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 15:12, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::In terms of real world equivalents, I view Toad Minister as more like the caretaker of Peach's Castle (like a mayor of a city) and Chancellor more like the head of government (like the president of a country). President and mayor are different offices, just as minister and chancellor are different offices. Again, this is not confirmed by anything in the games, but I think it is clear based on the fact that they are given different titles in both Japanese and English. If they were intended to occupy the same office, they would be referred to by the same office in the original Japanese as well as translations. Even if they are meant to hold the same office, we've seen multiple instances of different characters holding the same "office" but still being treated as unique individuals. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 15:25, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :::"If they were intended to occupy the same office, they would be referred to by the same office in the original Japanese as well as translations." What. First of, they ARE referred to by the same office in the original Japanese version, that being ''daijin''. The fact that SMRPG '''usually''' specifies that he's the "'''Mushroom''' minister" doesn't change that. And don't you think the different names in English are better explained by the fact that the two games were translated by different people? It's not particularly helpful to be theorizing about the lore implications of a glorified translation difference... [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 16:41, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::By the way, regarding that difference between chancellor and minister, I give you the "'''Chancellor''' of the Exchequer", who, according to Wikipedia, "is a senior '''minister''' of the Crown within His Majesty's Government" in the United Kingdom. There is also the "Lord '''Chancellor'''", who "is the highest-ranking traditional '''minister''' among the Great Officers of State in Scotland and England in the United Kingdom". Not exactly wood and stone. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 11:10, June 30, 2024 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| @Blinker: It doesn't mean they aren't the same character, but it also doesn't mean that they are. If there's nothing actually telling us that they are the same, this remains speculation. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:00, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| This [[MIPS]]hole again, huh? This brought a lot of new arguments to the table; I won't lie; I think this proposal brought a lot of new points and I do appreciate that this addresses most arguments. My two cents at the time was that we are exploring the concept of a generic Toad chancellor character that happened to nearly identical names in Japan and have the same colors for their caps. I think one of the biggest things I have is that while Nintendo has never stated outright they are the same character, they ''have not stated the opposite either,'' leaving it up in the air. There's the also the concept of [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|Canonicity]] and that can leave its own can of worms in regard of whether or not these instances of Toad chancellor are the same character. Part of me feels that another possibly is to put a [[Template:Part conjecture|part conjecture]] as we can definitely say, they could be the same, but they not be, so don't this an official confirmation. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:General disclaimer|Wikis aren't really meant to be reliable information after all.]] This concerns the instances of [[Krash|Kremlings riding minecarts.]] The big thing here is that it is obvious they take inspiration from each other to the point common knowledge suggests they are the same thing. Yes, common knowledge should not be a total qualifier, but it is the reason why this issue is as difficult. I do feel this proposal does attack a strawman to certain degree because, we're not considering merging Pauline with Peach. That's just silly and it's so obvious they are not the same character and no none is suggesting that nor is that it even remotely comparable to two green chancellors who have nearly similar names, with minister being a homage. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 14:53, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :To be clear, I'm absolutely not suggesting Pauline and Peach should be merged; that's just an example I provided against the "prototype" argument that prevailed in previous proposals. I appreciate you saying this proposal brings up new points that makes another review plausible. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 15:12, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :"Wikis aren't really meant to be reliable information after all" ...What? Even if we can't guarantee that the wiki is 100% accurate and correct at all times because of its editable nature, that doesn't mean we don't try to be as accurate as possible. Anyway, we should default to splitting rather than merging if we don't know whether two things are the same, since merging would imply that they are the same. See examples linked in my vote. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:57, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| ::Seconding what Hewer said about accuracy. I overlooked that in my response. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 20:32, June 28, 2024 (EDT)
| |
| :::I know this is irrelevant to the points being made, but the use of the word "outrageously" here feels subjective and redundant. --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 16:24, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
| |
