Editing Talk:Podley
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 49: | Line 49: | ||
==Consider Podley / Podler Beanish== | ==Consider Podley / Podler Beanish== | ||
{{ | {{TPP}} | ||
<center> <gallery> | <center> <gallery> | ||
| Line 75: | Line 74: | ||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} While the Chuckola Cola connection isn't valid by itself for reasons mentioned above, them being anthropomorphic beans associated with beverages ''is'' a similarity to consider. | #{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} While the Chuckola Cola connection isn't valid by itself for reasons mentioned above, them being anthropomorphic beans associated with beverages ''is'' a similarity to consider. | ||
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per all. And I think it's worth noting that both Podley and Podler's names are bean puns, just like a lot of existing Beanish (Lady Lima, Prince Peasley, Fava, etc.). | #{{User|Scrooge200}} Per all. And I think it's worth noting that both Podley and Podler's names are bean puns, just like a lot of existing Beanish (Lady Lima, Prince Peasley, Fava, etc.). | ||
====Option #2: leave ambiguous but move Beanish reference to Trivia==== | ====Option #2: leave ambiguous but move Beanish reference to Trivia==== | ||
| Line 81: | Line 79: | ||
====Option #3: Do nothing (leave ambiguous and leave Beanish reference in lede==== | ====Option #3: Do nothing (leave ambiguous and leave Beanish reference in lede==== | ||
#{{User|Hewer}} He could also just be meant to look like a Beanish without being one, or maybe have no connection to them at all. If it's unconfirmed, that's enough reason for me to oppose. This is speculation by definition, and we're better off leaving the reader to make or not make such inferences (just as the game itself does) rather than insisting our unconfirmed fan theory is the correct one. I'm also not really sure why you split the oppose option into two based on a minor matter of organisation, but adding trivia when we don't need to is [[MarioWiki: | #{{User|Hewer}} He could also just be meant to look like a Beanish without being one, or maybe have no connection to them at all. If it's unconfirmed, that's enough reason for me to oppose. This is speculation by definition, and we're better off leaving the reader to make or not make such inferences (just as the game itself does) rather than insisting our unconfirmed fan theory is the correct one. I'm also not really sure why you split the oppose option into two based on a minor matter of organisation, but adding trivia when we don't need to is [[MarioWiki:Trivia|discouraged]]. | ||
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think the odds of these characters being canonically [[Beanish]] is a little less likely than the the idea that [[Intelligent Systems]] and [[AlphaDream]] developed bean-like characters independently from one another. There are a few original NPCs in ''The Thousand Year-Door'' that are essentially "Toad-adjacent, but with with a weird object or animal for a head", and these two would fit into that. I would have expected stronger, more explicit ties in a game like this to ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga'' if these character were suppose to be unambiguously Beanish, like allusions to them being from the Beanbean Kingdom or something. In lieu of explicit confirmation, I'd rather remain on the side of caution in this case. Primary-literature from Nintendo, or a developer interview or something of that ilk from Intelligent Systems confirming these two as Beanish would change my vote. | #{{User|Nintendo101}} I think the odds of these characters being canonically [[Beanish]] is a little less likely than the the idea that [[Intelligent Systems]] and [[AlphaDream]] developed bean-like characters independently from one another. There are a few original NPCs in ''The Thousand Year-Door'' that are essentially "Toad-adjacent, but with with a weird object or animal for a head", and these two would fit into that. I would have expected stronger, more explicit ties in a game like this to ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga'' if these character were suppose to be unambiguously Beanish, like allusions to them being from the Beanbean Kingdom or something. In lieu of explicit confirmation, I'd rather remain on the side of caution in this case. Primary-literature from Nintendo, or a developer interview or something of that ilk from Intelligent Systems confirming these two as Beanish would change my vote. | ||
#{{user|Mario jc}} Per all (and also disagree on moving it to trivia, it fits just fine as it is now). | #{{user|Mario jc}} Per all (and also disagree on moving it to trivia, it fits just fine as it is now). | ||
| Line 87: | Line 85: | ||
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all, still standing by my reasons for keeping them removed, if it's not even hinted in some manner then it shouldn't be considered. | #{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all, still standing by my reasons for keeping them removed, if it's not even hinted in some manner then it shouldn't be considered. | ||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all. It is too speculative to say for sure. | #{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all. It is too speculative to say for sure. | ||
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all. I will add that while there are various Beanish characters named after beans (Lady Lima, Prince Peasley, Fava), their Japanese names (''Mamebā'', ''Mamekku'', ''Mamedi'') are generally based on the Japanese word「マメ」(''mame'', bean), while Podley and Podler's Japanese names are instead based on the English words "beans" and "peas": | #{{User|Blinker}} Per all. I will add that while there are various Beanish characters named after beans (Lady Lima, Prince Peasley, Fava), their Japanese names (''Mamebā'', ''Mamekku'', ''Mamedi'') are generally based on the Japanese word「マメ」(''mame'', bean), while Podley and Podler's Japanese names are instead based on the English words "beans" and "peas": [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 16:36, June 14, 2024 (EDT) | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
| Line 103: | Line 99: | ||
::Thank you for pointing that out. I have that edited. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 14:52, June 13, 2024 (EDT) | ::Thank you for pointing that out. I have that edited. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 14:52, June 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
Abstaining for now because I don't have an opinion on this, but why would you move the Beanish references to a trivia section? I think it's perfectly suited for the lede, and adding to trivia is [[MarioWiki: | Abstaining for now because I don't have an opinion on this, but why would you move the Beanish references to a trivia section? I think it's perfectly suited for the lede, and adding to trivia is [[MarioWiki:Trivia|discouraged]]. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 15:05, June 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:To me, it feels unresolved to have a reference to Beanish in the lede but not classify him as a Beanish when there's nothing that ''definitively'' says he is or is not Beanish. It adds to confusion over his species; whereas adding it to trivia would make note that he might or might not be Beanish as a ''trivial'' fact. I just personally find it confusing to dangle the possibility of him being Beanish in the lede, but maybe I'm the only one. While I agree not every page needs a trivia section, I think there is room for one here. For that matter, the reference to the [[Club 64 bartender]] should likely be added to trivia as well since it doesn't really have anything to do with Podley himself. The lede should focus predominately on the subject, not everything he remotely looks like. For example, the reference to [[The Three Sisters]] is in the [[Three Shadows]]' trivia; a reference to the Three Shadows is missing on The Three Sisters' page, but, if it was added to that, I think it should go in a trivia section since they don't really have anything directly to do with one another, just as the Club 64 bartender don't have anything directly to do with Podley. I know that's expanding your question to include the 64 bartender when you were just explicitly asking about Beanish, but combining those two references into something like "Podley bears a resemblance to Beanish and the Club 64 bartender." would keep the information on the page but not in the lede, which I personally think is the better approach so that the lede is more concise. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 15:23, June 13, 2024 (EDT) | :To me, it feels unresolved to have a reference to Beanish in the lede but not classify him as a Beanish when there's nothing that ''definitively'' says he is or is not Beanish. It adds to confusion over his species; whereas adding it to trivia would make note that he might or might not be Beanish as a ''trivial'' fact. I just personally find it confusing to dangle the possibility of him being Beanish in the lede, but maybe I'm the only one. While I agree not every page needs a trivia section, I think there is room for one here. For that matter, the reference to the [[Club 64 bartender]] should likely be added to trivia as well since it doesn't really have anything to do with Podley himself. The lede should focus predominately on the subject, not everything he remotely looks like. For example, the reference to [[The Three Sisters]] is in the [[Three Shadows]]' trivia; a reference to the Three Shadows is missing on The Three Sisters' page, but, if it was added to that, I think it should go in a trivia section since they don't really have anything directly to do with one another, just as the Club 64 bartender don't have anything directly to do with Podley. I know that's expanding your question to include the 64 bartender when you were just explicitly asking about Beanish, but combining those two references into something like "Podley bears a resemblance to Beanish and the Club 64 bartender." would keep the information on the page but not in the lede, which I personally think is the better approach so that the lede is more concise. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 15:23, June 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
::By all means, it ''should'' feel unresolved, because it is. We don't know whether he's Beanish, I don't see the problem with saying that. And while I could maybe agree with your argument about not putting it in the lead if it was a bigger article (though even then trivia should be the last resort), the "lead" in this case is basically the whole article save for the tattle and names in other languages, so it's where all the other information is. Splitting some of that into a trivia section in order to artificially give it less weight isn't helpful, it's clunky and awkward. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:49, June 13, 2024 (EDT) | ::By all means, it ''should'' feel unresolved, because it is. We don't know whether he's Beanish, I don't see the problem with saying that. And while I could maybe agree with your argument about not putting it in the lead if it was a bigger article (though even then trivia should be the last resort), the "lead" in this case is basically the whole article save for the tattle and names in other languages, so it's where all the other information is. Splitting some of that into a trivia section in order to artificially give it less weight isn't helpful, it's clunky and awkward. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:49, June 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
