Talk:Fire (enemy)

Move to Fire (Donkey Kong)

I don't think the name "Fire (100m) specifies what game he's from, should this be moved to Fire (Donkey Kong)? - Starluxe

I agree, considering some conversions have them overtake Fireballs in other levels. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:15, August 4, 2024 (EDT)

Agreed, the identifier is very strange. Are there any other article titles that uses a level as an identifier?--Platform (talk) 10:19, August 4, 2024 (EDT)

Not that I could find, it's even stranger how "Fire (Donkey Kong)" redirects here too. This should defiently be moved for consistency. - Starluxe

I disagree, because that could easily make people think it was Fireball (Donkey Kong) which it often shares a designation with. Having the identifier specify the level makes it so it's clear which it is without having to visit the page itself. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:16, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

Still, the page should be moved to something else due to ports including this enemy on stages that aren't 100m. Someone might also get confused what "100m" is, they might it means the 100m Dash from M&S games. Fire (enemy) could also work as a new name. - Starluxe

Move

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.

2-5-6 Move to Fire (enemy)
Okay, due to a previous discussion, I feel like it's best to make a proposal out of this on what the name of this page should be.

• Fire (100m) is the current name, which is pretty weird due to it's different identifier, also, ports of this game include this enemy on the levels that aren't 100m.
• Fire (Donkey Kong) is a better name, however it might get confusing with Fireball (Donkey Kong), but, notices exist.
• Fire (enemy) is another better name, however it would be kind of inconsistent on what has the name of the game or "enemy" as the identifier.

Proposer: Starluxe (talk)
Deadline: August 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Keep as is

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This makes the most sense as a way to differentiate from the Fire that is used in every other level in most (including the original) versions of the game.
2. Mario jc (talk) The Nintendo source you referenced in your most recent edit on Fireball (Donkey Kong) reinforces why I think moving to the others isn't a good idea. While it wasn't specific on which fire-based enemy, whether it's referring to the more frequently recurring enemy like you said or it's referring to both fire enemies in general, either way they're still referring to Fireball. I agree "Fire (Donkey Kong)" or "Fire (enemy)" aren't ideal since these can be confused with the other subject that's also an enemy from Donkey Kong. I think the current "(100m)" identifier is acceptable since that's the most notable (and frequent) level it appears in.

Move to Fire (Donkey Kong)

1. PrincessPeachFan (talk): Way more obvious.
2. Platform (talk) Per all
3. Ahemtoday (talk) For clarity and consistency.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) How the heck did "Fire (100m)" escape scrutiny for so long, anyways? Per all.
5. Mario jc (talk) My middle preference of the three, since there's another enemy that's also called "fire" so "(enemy)" wouldn't be a good identifier.

Move to Fire (enemy)

1. Hewer (talk) I believe this is the option supported by MarioWiki:Naming, as "type of thing" identifiers ("enemy" in this case) are top priority, and I don't think any other enemy is primarily called "Fire". As for the other Donkey Kong enemy, it's called "Fireball", not "Fire", so Template:Distinguish can handle that.
2. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per Hewer.
3. Starluxe (talk) What Hewer brought up has changed my mind, I think this makes more sense.
4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per Hewer.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option, per Hewer. Admittedly, we just want the article renamed to literally anything else. ;P
6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Hewer.

Comments

@Hewer: Only thing I could find is an alternate name for Flimflams. Is that enough to knock us down the identifier priority list, do you think? Ahemtoday (talk) 01:23, August 16, 2024 (EDT)

I'd say probably not seeing as it's just an alternate name (and the game it's from is more obscure), but it warrants a Template:About. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:23, August 16, 2024 (EDT)

"also, ports of this game include this enemy on the levels that aren't 100m."
Here's a question: which ports and levels? The wiki doesn't exactly state that, only that this specific fire enemy ONLY appears in 100m and nowhere else (including the Game Boy game!). That makes the current identifier the most clear once since the other fireball enemy does NOT appear on 100m, but DOES appear in every other level of the arcade game (and is a recurring enemy in the rest of the Game Boy one).
...you didn't confuse 100m with 50m, right? That level doesn't appear in all ports of the game. rend (talk) (edits) 07:39, August 17, 2024 (EDT)

The Colecovison port replaces Fireballs with Fire in 75m, as seen here. They also appear in Family BASIC, too, which is outside of 100m. Starluxe (talk) 13:20, August 17, 2024 (GMT)

Okay, thanks. From what I can gather, essentially, this Fire enemy seemingly replaces the Fireball enemy from the original game, with not only it appearing on 75m, but 100m also replacing 50m and 25m having no other obstacles than the barrels DK throws; on top of this version's manual calling it "Fireball" as well. I'm kinda surprised the wiki doesn't state this whole "Fire replacing fireball" quirk from the ColecoVision version here. rend (talk) (edits) 11:42, August 17, 2024 (EDT)

Pretty sure Glowsquid had an old suggestion I can't find at the moment about splitting the arcade games' various early non-Nintendo-console conversions from their main articles. Makes sense to detail that if we follow it. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:59, August 20, 2024 (EDT)

Is it worth cancelling this proposal because this should be moved to Fire (enemy) per MarioWiki:Naming? Starluxe (talk) 8:28, August 17, 2024 (GMT)

Probably not fair to those who voted for other options. Also, it hinges on considering this an obstacle. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:59, August 20, 2024 (EDT)

This proposal has been improperly concluded!

Rule 9 states: "Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options."

There are three options, one of which has a plurality but not a majority of votes. Only 6 of 13 votes are in option 3. It must be extended another week!--Platform (talk) 07:45, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

As rule 9 states, "more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option". "Voters", not "votes". There are admittedly 13 votes, but there are actually only 11 voters, including two people who voted for two options (Camwoodstock and Mario jc). Six out of 11 voters voted for the option "Move to Fire (enemy)", which is more than half of the total number of voters. Therefore, this proposal has actually passed. Jdtendo^(T|C) 08:49, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

Enough people have been confused by this rule that I think it should be revised for clarity. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:57, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

I think the entire "Rules" section should be overhauled. It's one long list of different kinds of rules (proposal creation, voting, deadline extension…) all jumbled up together, with no examples provided that would help comprehension. Jdtendo^(T|C) 11:21, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

Is this moving to "Fire (enemy)" then? Starluxe (talk) 17:00, August 27 (GMT)

Yes, the option "Move to Fire (enemy)" won. Jdtendo^(T|C) 12:16, August 27, 2024 (EDT)