Talk:The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens

Is there any way to reduce the title size? Even on a 1680 X 1050 display, it goes to the next line. Maybe a redirect is in order, just for convenience. Or, at least, redirects to this page are needed. Wa _T^C_@^Y 15:43, 9 February 2009 (EST)

We could call her TOPLwtEEWRFaKEBiH for short. Just kidding, I think "The Old Psychic Lady" would be a good abbreviation. I'm pretty sure that the characters in the episode also call her by some abbreviations considernig it's such a long name. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 17:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The only proper name she seemingly went by was the full one. -- Booster (talk)

But still, in the episode Mario and/or Luigi must have just used "Old Psychic Lady" or something similar. Wa _T^C_@^Y 17:55, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I just would like to note that when I load the page, the title text literally overlaps the entire first paragraph of the article. On this talk page, I had to click 'edit' to see everyone's comments because of the exact same reason. If there's any way to move the article to "The Old Psychic Lady" or something, I would definitely support that. — Stooben Rooben 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

All right, I guess I should just shorten it then. -- Booster (talk)

Sweet, thanks. — Stooben Rooben 22:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Move The Old Pyschic Lady to its full name

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

keep current name 1-8

I will try to be brief: many years ago, the name of this page was shortened because it was an "eyesore." Look, I fully understand the effort, but seriously, changing an official name to an un-official one is just unprofessional. Yes, the full name does take up two lines, but it's not worth breaking fundamental MarioWiki rules just to make it look better. Yes, no one wants to type such a long article name, but that's what redirects are for.

Proposer: Andymii (talk)
Deadline: July 27, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

1. Andymii (talk) Per my proposal. The correct way of fixing an issue is not by making it worse.

Oppose

1. Walkazo (talk) - It's a stupidly long gag name: insisting the rules must apply to this with no exception allowed for common sense is too rigid and will lead to cluttered templates, lists and more, not to mention the two-lined title here. Plus, unless there's subtitles capitalizing the name (since the credits don't have anything), who's to say it wasn't just a statement: the lady says the "title" once but could have just been stating what she is not who she is, and is referred to by the bros once each as "crazy lady", "old lady with the evil eye" and "psycho lady" (episode's here). In all fairness, it's basically a "no-name given" situation, and taking the first little bit of the long title seems like a fine way to deal with it: not pure conjecture, and nice and illustrative without going overboard.
2. LudwigVon (talk) Per Walkazo. It would be like rename the article of Yoshi to he's suppose real name "T. Yoshisaur Munchakoopas". I think it would be totally disgusting. Also per Time Turner's comment below.
3. Bazooka Mario (talk) Per all. Concision beats the rules this time. I'd like to argue that shortening the long name is not unprofessional, but reasonable, and keeping it to the name so long that circumvents this world simply because it adheres to Da Rulez is the unprofessional measure there.
4. Lumastar (talk) Per all. Should we also rename Bowser "King Bowser Koopa" or Ganondorf be called "Ganondorf Dragmire?" You don't have to always use a character's full title as the name of their article, and as Walkazo said her name is not very clear. Also, it would be a ridiculously long title for an article as others have pointed out.
5. Bwburke94 (talk) Per all. The article is at its shortened title due to technical restrictions.
6. Magikrazy (talk) Per Walkazo. I fail to see how this name makes anything worse like you say.
7. Lemon Meringue (talk) Per everyone.
8. Yoshi876 (talk) Per all.

Comments

It's not as if we constantly call Bowser "King Bowser Koopa". While that may be his full name, he is more commonly referred to as Bowser, so the wiki goes with that. Same deal here: her full name might be "The Old Psychic Lady with the yaddayaddayada", but she's referred to more often than not as simply "The Old Psychic Lady". I don't see why the wiki should deviate from the standard. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Nintendo currently calls Bowser, well, Bowser, as seen on boxarts, manuals, websites, in-game, etc. Here, we use the most recent name, so Bowser is still Bowser. If Nintendo began calling Bowser "King Bowser Koopa" within its media again, I'm sure the Bowser page would be renamed in no time. --Andymii (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2015 (EDT)

I'd like to point to this article on Wikipedia. A man with an incredibly long name, and whose name was shortened for asthetics. Are you saying we should rename this article to Adolph Blaine Charles David Earl Frederick Gerald Hubert Irvin John Kenneth Lloyd Martin Nero Oliver Paul Quincy Randolph Sherman Thomas Uncas Victor William Xerxes Yancy Zeus Wolfe­schlegel­stein­hausen­berger­dorff­welche­vor­altern­waren­gewissen­haft­schafers­wessen­schafe­waren­wohl­gepflege­und­sorg­faltig­keit­be­schutzen­vor­an­greifen­durch­ihr­raub­gierig­feinde­welche­vor­altern­zwolf­hundert­tausend­jah­res­voran­die­er­scheinen­von­der­erste­erde­mensch­der­raum­schiff­genacht­mit­tung­stein­und­sieben­iridium­elek­trisch­motors­ge­brauch­licht­als­sein­ur­sprung­von­kraft­ge­start­sein­lange­fahrt­hin­zwischen­stern­artig­raum­auf­der­suchen­nach­bar­schaft­der­stern­welche­ge­habt­be­wohn­bar­planeten­kreise­drehen­sich­und­wo­hin­der­neue­rasse­von­ver­stand­ig­mensch­lich­keit­konnte­fort­pflanzen­und­sicher­freuen­an­lebens­lang­lich­freude­und­ru­he­mit­nicht­ein­furcht­vor­an­greifen­vor­anderer­intelligent­ge­schopfs­von­hin­zwischen­stern­art­ig­raum, Senior just so there can be set in stone consistency? Magikrazy (talk)

Bwburke94: There are no technical restrictions. We can have names like Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:33, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

Hmm. I've seen everyone's arguments, most of which make sense. However, I'd like to say, names can't randomly be shortened. TOPLWTEEWRFAKEBIH (The Old Psychic Lady) could just as easily be shortened to "The Old Psychic Lady Who Reads Fortunes" or "The Old Psychic." Why is it that it is what it currently is? --Andymii (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

Because, how I see the actual name, it make it clear and reasonable, because It refers all the aspects of the character, if we name it "The Old Psychic Lady Who Reads Fortunes" make it long and I think that "Psychic" make think of the fact that she's a weird character with some strange powers and if we name it "The Old Psychic" it can refer to both a male character or a female character. So, the actual name is more clear and make the most cense in my opinion.--^(TALK) 18:47, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

"The Old Psychic Lady" is the most descriptive and concise name, I'm assuming. As Walkazo stated in the vote, she's referred as other names such as "crazy lady". It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:30, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

Move to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before it Happens (take two)

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

move 10-5

I believe the proposal from 2015 was declined for bad reasons, and so I would like to try to propose the same thing.

Why exactly is this article name shortened? Yes, the name "The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens" is long and silly, but why is this a problem that needs solving? This is a silly character who has a long name. I firmly do not believe that the official name of a subject being "a gag" is a valid reason to use a different, less official name.

More importantly, the stated reason that using this name "saves space" seems blatantly false. It might save visual space in the heading of the article itself, but a cursory glance through the "What links here" for this article shows that virtually every time this article is linked to it is in the form "[[The Old Psychic Lady|The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens]]", which takes up more space than "[[The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens]]" would. I propose that since the full name for the character is used everywhere else anyway, there is no reason to keep this article at the abbreviated title.

Proposer: JanMisali (talk)
Deadline: July 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Move to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens

1. JanMisali (talk) As proposer.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Pretty much the only circumstance that the current name helps in is the search function, but like, the auto-complete will realize what you're doing by the time you've written just "The Old Ps"--and if it's really that much of a concern, we have redirects for a reason. We should be putting facts first given we're a wiki--if she has the long name, who are we to forgo it just because it's an "eyesore"? Per proposal.
3. Pseudo (talk) This always felt like a sort of odd unique case on the wiki with not that much justification besides people being embarrassed about acknowledging a gag name.
4. Hewer (talk) I'm slightly leaning towards support here since the full title is at least a more official name than the arbitrary shortening of "The Old Psychic Lady", and we're already using the full name across the wiki. Still, it'd be good to have some kind of official source that it's actually a name and not just a description (maybe some subtitles somewhere capitalising it?), since this is otherwise pushing the naming policy's suggestion that "if the object is described as a "large block with spikes" or "the block with spikes on them", that should not be the name of the article." Given that we don't currently have such a source, we should probably un-capitalise the title. However, I strongly disagree with arguments along the lines of the name being "too long" for the wiki, because that just isn't the case, nothing stops a page from having a long title and I don't see how there's anything particularly undesirable about it either.
5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
6. DrBaskerville (talk) Per all.
7. UnderFlorence (talk) Since it seems the character is never actually referred to as just "The Old Psychic Lady," I think the long title is more legitimate.
8. Exiled.Serenity (talk) I just watched the episode, and the character is named exactly two times in it. The first is the setup for a joke, in which Mario stammers out what appears to be an ad-hoc name with several redundant descriptors. The second is the punchline of the same joke, in which she suddenly appears and refers to herself by roughly Mario's exact description. The joke is clearly that this is what she's actually called. That being said, I agree with Hewer that how much of this is necessarily her proper title is up for debate, and I would support decapitalizing it. In any case, this is also the best name we have, and the only reason it was even shortened initially was because it was 2009 and a name of this length would've caused genuine formatting issues. This isn't an issue anymore, so we should restore it.
9. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all. I'll also vouch for decapitalizing her name, at least until an official capitalization is discovered.
10. AgentMuffin (talk) Support whether in title or sentence case. Project:Naming addresses "general and lengthy descriptions of a subject that are clearly not intended as the subject's name". That quality of clarity does not apply here. The line between title and proper name is blurred, like with the Creepy Steeple Boo or the Spirit Who Loves Surprises. (It is so blurred that we can only ascribe authorial intent over the capitalization to a likely third-party closed captioner, hoping it was captioned in mixed case at all.) If we do treat this as a name, then obviously it is from a primary source and we cannot justify trimming it down. Otherwise, it is still the best option here. The shortened title is a more general description. It replaces something that could be "intended as the subject's name" with something that is "clearly not". If the whole title is already not ideal, then an arbitrary, unofficial shortening of the same thing inherits those problems while adding new ones. And yes, the full title is relatively lengthy, but the concern that it is "too" long for a wiki has not been properly reasoned.

#FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per Hewer and AgentMuffin.

Do not move to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - As stated by the original opposition (namely Walkazo), there's nothing indicating that that's not simply a lengthy description rather than a title.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
3. Tails777 (talk) Per Doc. While I've never watched this Mario show before, if this old psychic lady was called three different things like once in the episode, it's hard to fully tell which is actually a name and which is actually a title. As far as I know, this character doesn't really have an actual name, just a bunch of humorous descriptive names.
4. Mario (talk) It's a gag name, and insisting on using the full long name (which is ambiguously the "real" name) isn't great for wiki maintenance (templates; unless you want to use redirects).
5. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per all. That name is way too long for an article title.

#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.

Comments

Is the "it" capitalised or not? The article capitalises It. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:36, June 22, 2024 (EDT)

Yes, it is. Whoops! jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:37, June 22, 2024 (EDT)

Is there an official source that capitalises the name like this? I'd support if so, but if not it unfortunately probably wouldn't pass the naming policy's requirement that "general and lengthy descriptions of a subject that are clearly not intended as the subject's name are not suitable sources for the article's title". In that case though, we'd have to change the name to lowercase for consistency and probably stop treating the full thing as the actual name in links and such, so I guess something has to change here either way. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:47, June 22, 2024 (EDT)

I would dispute the idea that this is a "general and lengthy description [...] that [is] clearly not intended as the subject's name", since it's the specific name consistently used to refer to this character (even if lengthy). Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 23:43, June 22, 2024 (EDT)

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to decapitalizing the article title, unless a source can be provided for the capitalization. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 23:45, June 22, 2024 (EDT)

Is it "consistently used", though? The full title is only said once in the episode, Mario calls her "the psycho lady", "the old lady with the evil eye that she could tell fortunes and she could tell things before they happen", and "crazy lady" once each. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:44, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

OK, fair enough, but it is still the specific name that the character herself introduces herself with, even if it’s only specifically said once. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 13:12, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

But is it really treated as a title, or is she just describing her job? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:49, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

It's still what she calls herself and is known as in full. The other names are clearly shortened versions of her longer gag name. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 15:49, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

I've noticed that several opposers in the previous proposal pointed out that a full name is not always necessary, bringing up T. Yoshisaur Munchakoopas, King Bowser Koopa and Ganondorf Dragmire as examples. The problem with that argument is that in the case of the examples they bring up, their shorter versions are official names. "The Old Psychic Lady" is not an official shortening as far as I can tell. Not only that, but the full names of Yoshi, Bowser and Ganondorf are also a lot shorter than "The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens", which is so long that it could fit all three full names mentioned and still be 2/3rd on the way through. The way I see it, "The Old Psychic Lady" is being used instead just because the official full name is way too long, and I actually can understand that. rend (talk) (edits) 06:00, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

BTW if the proposal fails, would using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} be a good compromise? rend (talk) (edits) 06:03, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

At that point there'd be no reason at all to not use the long name as the title, since we wouldn't be "saving space" anymore, whatever that even means. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:44, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

Characterizing this as "saving space" isn't quite what the opposition was saying. Having this page's title be this long isn't about wholly about saving space, it's making sure the templates and other maintenance-related tasks are efficient and readable. Considering the ambiguity of the name itself, as this person has several nicknames, it doesn't seem much of a worthwhile payoff to have an unwieldy article title like this. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:59, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

I was referencing the disclaimer at the top of the article, which cryptically asserts that "the title has been shortened to save space". Anyway, I don't really understand what "maintenance" problems are caused by a long name. If by templates you mean navboxes, the two that include this character actually already use the full name (which is also used in articles across the wiki), and it doesn't really cause any problems. While I can kinda get the argument that the title might not be intended as the actual name, I don't really get the idea that it's too long and would need to be shortened for wiki reasons. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:16, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

That wasn't really part of the proposal. It was added from an apparent edit war and the article shouldn't have this at all (the bolded part should already cover this). As for maintenance problems, while it won't cause any direct issues, I don't see the benefit of keeping a lengthy name as is on the templates (navigation templates, lists, categories, and so on) which does clutter those pages (which piping isn't optimal, and it serves to clutter the edit field even more). It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:49, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

As was already mentioned in the proposal, this passing would mean we wouldn't need to pipe link it, and it would thus take up less space in the editing field. The benefit of it is using the most official name as we strive to do, rather than an arbitrary shortening we came up with. And I don't really see how the full name causes clutter or confusion in any way, it's just as clear as any name in these contexts. Have any problems arisen with the Super Show navbox in the fifteen years of it using the full name since 2009? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:10, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

@Tails777: To be fair, though the long name is only used once, it's the one the character introduces herself with. The other names are said by Mario, who is established to be an unreliable source as there's a gag in the episode about him mixing up the words "psycho" and "psychic" when he refers to her. And besides, that's not much of a reason to use specifically "The Old Psychic Lady" as the article title like we do now. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:16, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

That's fully fair. I am also fully looking at this situation as someone who's never watched the show, so I am largely going off of the evidence from others. But to me, I just feel the opposition has some stronger points here. I more agree with there being less of a distinction between if this is an actual name or just a really long title this lady is giving herself. Tails777 Talk to me!

Actually, out of morbid curiosity, is there a limit to how long a Wiki article's name can be before it starts causing issues short of just, it becoming so long that it becomes difficult to actually load it? Knowing what we know about file databases, we feel like if it can exceed 256, you'd probably run into the "the title is so long that it lags the PC" before you lag into any actual issues with storing it. Maybe someone could ask Porple on it... ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:31, June 24, 2024 (EDT)

Well, the full title is already a redirect and used to be the article title, not sure what issues it would actually cause. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:34, June 24, 2024 (EDT)

On the one hand, that definitely explains all we "need" to know for the purposes of the proposal--that's good to know that the name itself will not be an issue if this passes! On the other hand... we're still a little morbidly curious how far one can push Mediawiki's article names. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:55, June 24, 2024 (EDT)

255 characters, apparently. Dive Rocket Launcher 13:48, June 25, 2024 (EDT)

Several arguments in this and the previous proposal take it as given that the full name is "too long". But by what standard should it be considered so in the first place? As far as wikis go, Wikipedia includes articles such as "List of campaign organisations supporting Remain in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum", "Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon", and "Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles". The proposed title is significantly shorter than the tamest (first) example, whose length seems uncontroversial. So why consider this overly long? It seems to be a matter of personal opinion, which may have reflected a clear consensus nine years ago but evidently no longer does. AgentMuffin (talk) 06:42, June 27, 2024 (EDT)