Talk:Plurp

Correct?

This article says these creatures are the same as the ones in Super Mario Galaxy, but we have an article called Bomb Chicken about the ones in SMG? What is correct? -- Son of Suns (talk)

There's no way they're the same thing. BLOC PARTIER.

They look and act different, so if the source of the name "Bomb Chicken" is reliable, it's probably safe to say the SMG birds are different. - Walkazo 22:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

"Bomb Chicken" is a conjectural title. -- Son of Suns (talk)

New localized names from Nintendo's website

(Apologies if this is not the correct place for this.)

As you may know, Nintendo's Japanese website has a Mario Portal. At some point very recently, they started offering this site fully translated to English.
The "Game Archives" section features lists of enemies for the mainline games that are available on Switch. As far as I can tell, these lists are identical to the ones in the Japanese Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. The English site, however, has some names that don't match any existing sources.
Take a look at the page for Sunshine:

• Coo Coo → Plirp
• Wind Spirit → Cyclo
• Jumping Blooper → Bloopad
• Swoopin' Stu → Gooble
• Huge Red Electrokoopa → Electro-Koopa King
• Lava Cheep Cheep → Fire Cheep Cheep

I know that "Gooble" and "Bloopad" are names that can be seen on the scorecard in Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour.
Thus, I posit that these were always the intended English names, but for whatever reason have never been published before.

It should be noted that the site contains a few errors and oddities (e.g. Banzai Bill is consistently referred to as "Bomber Bill" for some reason).
But perhaps more importantly, it does not seem to relentlessly plagiarize this wiki like a certain other product.

With all of that in mind, I believe that the Mario Portal should take priority over any third-party strategy guides as a source for English terminology. Of course, that means a bunch of articles will have to be renamed. Are there any objections? PopeLuigi (talk) 18:26, August 12, 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads-up! I agree that this could work as a primary source for plenty of the wiki's subjects, and I doubt many will object to using those as such. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:53, August 12, 2022 (EDT)

I think there could be discussion to iron out the kinks before formalizing it. Currently, with the way naming policy works, websites are a relatively low priority source, and my initial thought was that this was satisfactory. Upon reflection, given that Nintendo seems to be behind their own websites and social media, maybe the naming policy ought to adapt to the phasing-out of physical media? Not the highest tier given the occasional weirdness, but perhaps put Nintendo-run sites higher than they would be right now. The main issue with Mario Portal is that it (mostly) applies the newest names retroactively, whereas generally the wiki honors name changes and uses older names where applicable. This does create a few oddities like the Super Mario Bros. 3 section using "Mini Goomba" and "Pile-driver Micro-Goomba" together, and Super Mario World using Galoomba way before its time. This may it clear up the air on a few things, but it obfuscates the wiki's respect of legacy names. We sort that out and sure, bumping web content up a notch or two was probably overdue anyway. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:57, August 21, 2022 (EDT)

I think that we shouldn't treat a source from over 5 years after release, let alone 30+, be used as the game enemy listing's lavel. Page name sure, but the "at the time" approach should be exactly that when applicable - at the time. (On another note, Sleepy Boo → Big Boo and Winged Strollin' Stu → Swipin' Stu.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:04, August 22, 2022 (EDT)

My attitude too. It'd be ridiculous if, for example, we suddenly replaced perfectly fine references with one that came into existence decades later just because of priority, and for one thing that would confuse readers for no good reason. What I mean is mainly the possibility of having policy rewritten to elevate Nintendo-centric web content above 4 or possibly 3 rather than keeping it in that nebulous miscellaneous area, but at least below 2 in an effort to mostly rectify this issue. (As for Super Mario Sunshine, we already basically treat the Prima guide as the primary one over the Nintendo Power one anyway, as source exceptions have indicated in the past.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:50, August 22, 2022 (EDT)

Basically, here's the question that needs to be addressed given historical presence of physical media: "If web content were moved higher as a source tier, will that necessarily result in more exceptions with regards to legacy names?" Unless a cut-off point or some other clear-cut rule were defined, I don't see how it can't. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:15, August 24, 2022 (EDT)