MarioWiki talk:Generic subjects

Shouldn't this be protected? It used to be protected, but the protection stayed on the redirect when it was moved.--TheFlameChomp (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

Thanks, it's been protected now. Mario JC 23:47, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

Change the parameters of this rule to not include living, moving creatures

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.

leave as is 1-6
Oh, this rule. The rule that's caused the loss of so much information. Why don't the birds in front of Peach's Castle get an article or even a mention under a greater article but a tree with a name originating from a tie-in toy does? The former can be interacted with, as in they fly away in a panic when they're approached, but nope! They have no "gameplay purpose," which somehow matters more than definitively existing, and they have no official name. But I digress. My main problem with this rule is that it tends to be arbitrarily executed and is completely open to interpretation, something we really should avoid on a wiki. Cow, Bird, Frog, Butterfly....yes, they're all generic subjects, but so are coins when you get right down to it, as they've had different purposes and appearances throughout the different franchises, as have Bananas and Mushrooms, and they haven't really been scrutinized like this. Hence "arbitrary." This rule is simply obstructive and annoying.

EDIT: I'm changing this from "delete entirely" to "lessen the effect this has on living, moving species," because I'll admit articles for chairs, hills, and every stinkin' thing with eyes in Double Dash!! is a tad excessive. This was, things like the bluebirds in 64 and the butterflies and frogs in Yoshi's Island would still get a mention.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: "October 14, 2017, 23:59 GMT"

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Per above. I can not express how much this rule annoys me. Other than say where part of it deserves to go.

Oppose

1. TheFlameChomp (talk) I feel that covering every bird, beehive, and butterfly in the series would be excessive, as some games would have no more than "Butterflies appear in Paper Mario: Color Splash, where they fly around flowers." I feel it is better to have restrictions than nothing.
2. Time Turner (talk) Per all. We do not need to cover every tree branch that appears in the background.
3. Niiue (talk) Per all.
4. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.
5. Chester Alan Arthur (talk) Per all.
6. SuperYoshiBros (talk) This would just end up creating articles for things that it's so obvious what they are they don't need articles. Per all.

Comments

@Time Turner that's not what I'm saying. And you know it. I mean things that are creatures and actually move around and stuff. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2017 (EDT)

The generic subjects policy covers inanimate objects. You want to delete the generic subjects policy. Ergo, you're leaving the wiki open to covering every tree branch. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:50, 30 September 2017 (EDT)

Not every single one. Maybe tree branches in general. I'm still in wonder over why Rock doesn't have a page, especially given that the ones in Super Mario Galaxy can be interacted with. How about this: If a thing exists in a gameplay-affecting form in at least one game, other appearances shall also be noted? I still think the birds in 64 and the various small animals in Yoshi's Island should be noted somewhere. And this rule (which happens to be the unholy mixture of Stonk, Attacky Sack, and Stinky Kong) is preventing that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2017 (EDT)

OK....can I make changes to the proposal at this current juncture? I'll modify it so stays, but doesn't affect living, moving creatures. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2017 (EDT)

"Not every single one. Maybe tree branches in general."

Bruh.

Shokora (talk · edits) 07:54, 1 October 2017 (EDT)

I meant like grabbable ones. What I'm saying now is if it has a gameplay-affecting appearance once, it should get coverage for all. And I've specified it to be for creatures now, like Bees and Cows and Sheep and such. I no longer care about tree branches and all of that, because I've decided that's silly. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2017 (EDT)

"X appears in Z as a Y" is awkward sentence structure, and I do not understand why we are integrating it

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

There has been a trend on the wiki for articles about subjects with real-world analogs to have their opening sentence structure changed from "X is a Y in Z" to "X appears in Z as a Y", and I don't know how other folks feel about this, but I dislike it and I do not understand why it is being used. It reads very awkwardly to me and needlessly delays telling the reader what the subject really is. And for what benefit? Because the subject is "generic"? Why should that even remotely matter?

I remain unconvinced that any human being would come to the Super Mario Wiki, see an article titled "Trapeze" and assume the article is covering its real-world analog. No, it is about what a trapeze is in the Super Mario franchise. I think it is absurd to believe anyone would come here and think it was about anything else. So the only true effect a structure like this accomplishes is presenting an awkward sentence structure that has been coldly and clinically applied throughout Super Mario Wiki, even if the previous sentence structure was superior, and at the disregard of how other users choose to write.

Further, even if we agreed it is of vital importance to convey to our reader "No! Nintendo did not invent the trapeze!", how does having an awkward choice of words at the beginning make that at all more apparent? It does not to me. It just reads oddly. I think a more organic and seamless thing to do would be to just apply the Wikipedia template at the end of the article, right after where the NIWA affiliate links would go, or something to that effect.

Finally, what we consider "generic" seems to be subjective call in the first place. Why is a Grate, an object discretely called the "Flip-Flop Wire Netting" in Japan and thus truly named for the fictional location it occurs in, generic, whereas the pipe – an object that looks identical to its real-world analog and shares the same name as it in Japanese and English, not? I could not imagine anyone arguing pipes are generic subjects in good faith because of the entire mechanical context of how they work, but the same is true of the Grate from Super Mario Galaxy 2 and the slew of other objects that have had their opening sentences needlessly changed.

I hope I do not come across as aggressive or heated. This is something that has been bothering me for a while now, and I do not like how widely it has been integrated, especially when the prior sentence structure it replaces was better. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:35, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I am still in favor of the new style of opening sentences. Numerous generic subjects have unique roles in the Super Mario franchise, especially interactable, and it's treating the reader like they have no life outside of Super Mario if the default opener for all of the sentences are "Crates are objects in the Super Mario franchise" or "Dinosaurs are a species in the Super Mario franchise" or "Horses are animals in the Super Mario franchise" or "Apples are red fruits in the Super Mario franchise," to give a few examples. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:49, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I agree that I would not open articles for any subject, generic or otherwise, that vaguely, but it is because it does not really tell the reader anything of note. I would, for example, say something along the lines of "Horses are rideable animals in Mario Sports Superstars." It is immediately more informative and is structured intuitively. The idea that someone would come to this wiki, see an article about a culturally ubiquitous livestock animal, and either think "this article is about real-world horses" or that "dang. Nintendo invented such a cool animal"... I'm sorry. I don't think readers like those really exist. Why break sentences as if they did? - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:04, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I didn't suggest that such readers exist. "Horses are rideable animals in Mario Sports Superstars" treats them as fictional on an equal or similar tier to like "Yoshis are rideable creatures in platforming games of the Super Mario series". The same point about horses be made by saying, for example, that horses appear [from real life] in Mario Sports Superstars as rideable animals, not "the starting point is that they were conceived as rideable animals in Mario Sports Superstars" Super Mario RPG (talk) 22:13, July 7, 2024 (EDT)