Editing Talk:Lantern
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:This is not conventional to how we have traditionally been covering objects and items in the ''Super Mario'' franchise, but I am of the view we have been lumping them in ways we do not for characters, species, and enemies, and I do not always think this is an accurate presentation of the game's contents. I think my personal preference for this article is that it should remain focused on the torches from the 3D mainline platformers, that can be lit and are involved with puzzles, etc. | :This is not conventional to how we have traditionally been covering objects and items in the ''Super Mario'' franchise, but I am of the view we have been lumping them in ways we do not for characters, species, and enemies, and I do not always think this is an accurate presentation of the game's contents. I think my personal preference for this article is that it should remain focused on the torches from the 3D mainline platformers, that can be lit and are involved with puzzles, etc. | ||
:This is tangential, but in my line of work, there is a concept in taxonomy called a {{wp|wastebasket taxon}}, where unrelated species are assumed related to another for superficial reasons when they are not, or are grouped together for arbitrary reasons. I think some of our articles have comparable issues, especially when they share the name with a real-world subject. I don't think a subject having a generic name necessarily means it ''is'' generic, if that makes sense. Some subjects with discrete, recurring, or radically different designs/mechanics share an article when they probably shouldn't (imo) because they share the same English name and origin with a real-world subject, and I don't think it's very accurate to these games and dilutes the article's focus a bit. There is a valid argument to be made that searching up the name for a subject should produce an article for all subjects that go by that name, regardless of how different they are from each other. But personally, I think it would be more accurate to have more articles like [[penguin]], and less like [[frog]] or [[vine]]. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:32, October 27, 2024 (EDT) | :This is tangential, but in my line of work, there is a concept in taxonomy called a {{wp|wastebasket taxon}}, where unrelated species are assumed related to another for superficial reasons when they are not, or are grouped together for arbitrary reasons. I think some of our articles have comparable issues, especially when they share the name with a real-world subject. I don't think a subject having a generic name necessarily means it ''is'' generic, if that makes sense. Some subjects with discrete, recurring, or radically different designs/mechanics share an article when they probably shouldn't (imo) because they share the same English name and origin with a real-world subject, and I don't think it's very accurate to these games and dilutes the article's focus a bit. There is a valid argument to be made that searching up the name for a subject should produce an article for all subjects that go by that name, regardless of how different they are from each other. But personally, I think it would be more accurate to have more articles like [[penguin]], and less like [[frog]] or [[vine]]. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:32, October 27, 2024 (EDT) | ||
