| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 48: |
Line 48: |
| :That's exactly what I thought too. If only we still had the Super Mario 64 game guide. {{User:BabyLuigiOnFire/sig}} 23:33, 2 April 2013 (EDT) | | :That's exactly what I thought too. If only we still had the Super Mario 64 game guide. {{User:BabyLuigiOnFire/sig}} 23:33, 2 April 2013 (EDT) |
| ::Well the game itself refers to Dorrie as he and the game usually takes precedent over game guides. {{User|Marshal Dan Troop}} | | ::Well the game itself refers to Dorrie as he and the game usually takes precedent over game guides. {{User|Marshal Dan Troop}} |
|
| |
| Update: Dorrie is referred as a female in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, page 113 (''New Super Mario Bros.''), BUT as a male in page 85 (''Super Mario 64''). {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 02:33, 4 February 2019 (EST)
| |
| :Ultimately irrelevant, as not only are there implied to be different identical members of the same species in different games and locations, but SMBE dosn't hold any water. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:48, 4 February 2019 (EST)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Dorries (species?) == | | == Dorries (species?) == |
| | {{talk}} |
| There's multiple dorries, they're all on this page, so should we make all the dorries into their own page and this one separate, or make all the dorries this page collectively? [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 14:58, 28 October 2017 (EDT) | | There's multiple dorries, they're all on this page, so should we make all the dorries into their own page and this one separate, or make all the dorries this page collectively? [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 14:58, 28 October 2017 (EDT) |
| :I know there are multiple Dorries in ''Super Mario Odyssey'', but do other games have multiple Dorries, too, like ''Mario Party''? {{User:Alex95/sig}} 15:00, 28 October 2017 (EDT) | | :I know there are multiple Dorries in ''Super Mario Odyssey'', but do other games have multiple Dorries, too, like ''Mario Party''? {{User:Alex95/sig}} 15:00, 28 October 2017 (EDT) |
| Line 68: |
Line 66: |
| :::::It's because [[Hulu]] and [[Goombob]] and [[Coach (Mario Party Advance)|Coach]] and others all get articles. When all of them have just as much screen time, dialogue, and general interactivity, if not more, then a single name should not be the deciding factor (and they ''do'' have names, albeit generic ones). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 23:38, 28 October 2017 (EDT) | | :::::It's because [[Hulu]] and [[Goombob]] and [[Coach (Mario Party Advance)|Coach]] and others all get articles. When all of them have just as much screen time, dialogue, and general interactivity, if not more, then a single name should not be the deciding factor (and they ''do'' have names, albeit generic ones). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 23:38, 28 October 2017 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Now, I'm no expert on Dorries but I would make a page for Dorrie (Character) which would include information on the Dorrie from Hazy Maze Cave in 64/64 DS, the Dorrie from NSMB and the Dorrie from the Lake & Mushroom Kingdoms in Odyssey. The Page Dorrie (Species) should include all other Dorries Including the Crazy Cap & Mario Party 5 Dorries. The Mario Party Advance Character should have its own page however. [[User:Seandwalsh|Seandwalsh]] ([[User talk:Seandwalsh|talk]]) 00:26, 29 October 2017 (EDT) | | Now, I'm no expert on Dorries but I would make a page for Dorrie (Character) which would include information on the Dorrie from Hazy Maze Cave in 64/64 DS, the Dorrie from NSMB and the Dorrie from the Lake & Mushroom Kingdoms in Odyssey. The Page Dorrie (Species) should include all other Dorries Including the Crazy Cap & Mario Party 5 Dorries. The Mario Party Advance Character should keep its own page however. [[User:Seandwalsh|Seandwalsh]] ([[User talk:Seandwalsh|talk]]) 00:26, 29 October 2017 (EDT) |
| :Presuming the solitary Dorrie from ''Super Mario 64'' is taken as a character appearance, what links it to the ''New Super Mario Bros.'' and ''Super Mario Odyssey'' Dorries besides generic appearance? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 00:36, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::It was treated as an individual back then and recycles the model directly from ''64 DS''? I don't know. Size didn't stay consistent for Bowser in that game either. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:49, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::Bowser's size changed because he was powered up when revived by the cauldron, not to mention multiple Dorries did appear across different bodies of water in the same level. Point is, saying that these are all appearances of the character Dorrie is playing it far too loose. Additionally, why even have a character article if the ''Mario Party Advance'' Dorrie will be arbitrarily split from that as well? It will literally just be ''Super Mario 64'', minus the ''Mario Party Advance'' appearance which is actually a character depiction (even getting its own cast roll ending and all), plus an overlapping guessing game for basically everything else that this article already covers adequately. It's really unneeded for something that realistically only amounts to a minor writing inconsistency. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 01:38, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Soooo....what is your position on how it should be handled then? Keep them merged? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:07, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::Right now, it's to keep the article in one piece except perhaps for the ''Mario Party Advance'' appearance, for consistency with those characters as well as other ''Super Mario 64'' creatures such as [[Unagi]], [[Klepto]] and [[Fwoosh]], who are all in the same boat as Dorrie. At this point, our default option should be splitting a "(character)" article off of the species, not the other way around, especially considering most such articles are increasingly appearing to be in legacy status if anything (that, and our guide source implying singular Dorrie also obviously writes the likes of [[Ukiki|Ukkiki]], [[Sushi]], [[Cheep_Cheep#Super_Mario_64_.2F_Super_Mario_64_DS|Bub]] and [[Boss_Bass#Super_Mario_64_.2F_Super_Mario_64_DS|Bubba]] in singular tense, even though there was two of them each in-game). [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 10:30, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| Besides the generic appearance there's the fact that the ones I think should be on the page Dorrie (Character) are in most cases referred to simply as "Dorrie" rather than "A Dorrie". There's also the fact that they're blue but that might just be a common colour for the species, similar to how green is a common colour for Yoshis or Red is a common colour for Toads. [[User:Seandwalsh|Seandwalsh]] ([[User talk:Seandwalsh|talk]]) 00:54, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :I think as small amount of appearances as are here, that may not be necessary, especially with the ambiguity of some. I may propose that the MPA articles be re-merged, as they're relatively short with information in what can be easily put in the articles, and from a very obscure game to boot. There's been talk to re-merge [[Mouser (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!)]], after all, and [[Klump (character)]] probably should as well, as manuals treat the species as one individual typically. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:16, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::Unless you're also planning on merging [[Hulu]] and the rest, no. Merging them just makes it that much harder to find information. Shall we merge every NPC to their species' page and save people the trouble of having to look for them? Also, what relevance does the obscurity of the game have when it comes to making articles? Every named character gets an article regardless of where they come from. You don't get to just write them off like that. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:15, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::[[Goomba#Super Mario Bros.: Peach-hime Kyushutsu Dai Sakusen!|Hmm]], [[Koopa Paratroopa#Super Mario Bros.: Peach-hime Kyushutsu Dai Sakusen!|lemme]] [[Koopa Troopa#Super Mario World television series|think]], [[Tryclyde#The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!|other]] [[Lakitu#The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!|generic]] [[Faster Than a Speeding Penguin|individuals]] [[Yurarin Boo|without]] [[Mouser#Nintendo Comics System|articles]]..... [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:27, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::First of all, that doesn't respond to anything that I said. Second, something being inidiviualized is not, in and of itself, enough for something to receive a separate article. It involves the character's role in the story and gameplay (especially in comparison to other characters). This is why we're fine with giving articles to subjects that have no official name. All of that's a moot pint anyways, since their generic names are very much used as proper names for them, and a single name shouldn't be the single element that causes a subject to not get articles. If you tell me that [[Goombob]] deserves an article and [[Goomba (character)|Goomba]] doesn't deserve an article solely because of their names, then I'll call that ridiculous. Third, what if I put forth that somebody of the examples you linked to ''should'' receive separate articles? What then? Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do anything. Fourth, your examples are kinda hard to fully appreciate if you're only willing to give a vague and sarcastic comment about them. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:35, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::I wouldn't call it ridiculous. More depth to my statement? I don't see why the individual [[Lakitu|LaKEEtu]] in Super Show needs no more article than [[Blooper (character)|some random squid thing]] and is instead lumped with the LAKihtus. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:38, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::Can you elaborate on why it isn't ridiculous, especially when you're again not responding to the majority of my points? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:40, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::I believe I have responded to most of your points. A character with a generic name who has an important role and decent screen time has ''more'' right to have their own page than "someone you talk to in one game and oh yeah they given you a minigame thing''. And yes, the generic named ones ''do'' have less reason to have their own articles, especially given there apparently is no central "Yoshi" character anymore. Apparently a lot of species just have members with the species name, and appearing in one instance for a few minutes should not make it gain an article if an important, lengthier instance in another won't. It's arbitrarity, and that's bad. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 03:25, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::You still haven't touched on the uniquely named characters in ''Mario Party Advance'' whose roles are equal to those of the generically named (but still ''named'') characters, nor my proposition about giving articles to the examples you listed, nor did you actually go into detail about your examples (I still don't know how [[Yurarin Boo]] and [[Faster Than a Speeding Penguin]] relate to this), but regardless. On the topic of examples, what are you talking about when you mention someone who "has an important role and decent screen time"? An important role and decent screen time in relation to what, and in what context? Also, [[Yoshi|we clearly still have a page on the individual Yoshi]], as we do with [[Toad]], [[Birdo]], and others, so regardless of how things are being set up today, that point is meaningless. ''Also'', arbitrary in what sense? Are you saying that it's not arbitrary to only give articles to pages with obviously unique names? That completely ignores the possibility of giving articles to subjects who aren't named at all, despite the notable role they play. How is that not arbitrary? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 14:08, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::OK, I've had time to think about it all day, and can see both sides of this. Hulu is sorta a different case, due to being the sole female Shy in official material, as well as her unusual color scheme, but then again, Thwomp and Whomp are also valid due to enemy versions appearing in some minigames. I'll stop pursuing this now. For now, anyways. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:29, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| We should just alter this page to make it for all dorries collectively [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 01:42, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :I say we leave it for the Dorrie character. We can easily say "members of his species" if the yellow and purple ones aren't explicitly called Dorrie, and if they are, just convert the whole page to a species page. Not to mention, three games have had multiple [[Petey Piranha]]s, but we don't change the whole page to turn him into a species. 03:30, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::From what I can tell only one did, and [[Paper Petey Piranha|it got split]]. Puzzles & Dragons....I'm not sure how to qualify it, as I don't quite understand the gameplay, and ''Super Mario Sunshine'', the episode title outright states it's the same specimen. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 04:00, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::I was actually referring to Puzzles, Mario Hoops 3-on-3, and Mario Sports Mix. In these 3 games, identical-looking Petey characters appear on the screen at the same time. (For Puzzles, I understand it as random-enemy battles, but if you could have enemies as your party members; see how Petey could end up in your party and as an enemy.) [[User:MarioComix|MarioComix]] ([[User talk:MarioComix|talk]]) 05:13, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Somebody make this a talk page proposal, it'll make this easier (also the dorries in mario oddessy are refered to as "Dorrie". [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 14:13, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :I've reached Lake Lamode, and the game certainly makes it out to be that Dorries are a species, even when there's only one in Lake Lamode. [[User:MarioComix|MarioComix]] ([[User talk:MarioComix|talk]]) 05:02, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| There's two in Lake Lamode, and whatever happened to this page is... weird, did we ever come to an agreement? [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| I'm not sure what happened, but we can't leave this page like this it's... stilted, yeah that's the one. [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 00:07, 6 November 2017 (EST)
| |
| | |
| Bumping this. As for what we should do, I'd perhaps try what was done with the [[Draggadon]] page, as there's a character and a species, but there's so much overlapping information it's all on the same page. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:24, 8 November 2017 (EST)
| |
| :Just like in the case of Draggadons, text in the game (the brochure of Lake Lamode) explicitly mentioned ''Dorries'' and thus confirmed that they are a species - but after all the two Dorries of Bubblaine clearly showed that. To be fair, it's pretty impossible to tell if the Dorrie of Lake Lamode is the same Dorrie met in ''Super Mario 64'', as [[Seaside Kingdom#Power Moons|the two Dorries of Bubblaine are named ''Dorrie'' as well]]. Considering how all the Dorries wear swimming goggles and how the two Dorries of ''New Super Mario Bros.'' come in two different sizes, casting a doubt on whether they are the same character now that we have the final confirmation that Dorries are a species, I think we can just keep the species infobox and if you want add a character infobox for the ''Super Mario 64'' one.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 07:24, 9 November 2017 (EST)
| |
| | |
| So it that's the case, should we just make this a page mentioning all Dorries, rather than mainly focusing on Blur Dorrie(s)? [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 22:17, 20 November 2017 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == dorrie's gender in russian ==
| |
| | |
| in the russian version of super mario odyssey, dorrie is referred to with female pronouns, i feel like that should be noted<br />
| |
| from the brochure for lake kingdom, emphasis mine: "''2. Дорри. Поплавайте рядом с '''ней''' - ощущения незабываемые!''" --[[User:Mashabely|Mashabely]] ([[User talk:Mashabely|talk]]) 13:05, 20 November 2018 (EST)
| |
| :I tried looking at the gender in the various languages, but it's inconsistent. Don't forget that Japanese by itself can avoid specifying in most cases, since personal and possessive pronouns can be omitted. Like with [[Plessie]], as far as I know we don't have a direct confirmation of the gender from Japanese sources, so it's probably better to just use the ''it'' pronoun like the English version does. If you still want to report Dorrie's gender in the various languages, I recommend looking at the brochure of the Seaside Kingdom.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 20:59, 20 November 2018 (EST)
| |
| ::yeah, i mean just mention it and not edit the rest of the article--[[User:Mashabely|Mashabely]] ([[User talk:Mashabely|talk]]) 08:11, 21 November 2018 (EST)
| |
| | |
| == Just a minor edit ==
| |
| | |
| My first revision described Dorrie as a "she", so I decided to change "she" to "he" because Dorrie is male. {{unsigned|Mariofan28047}}
| |
