Talk:Scorchit

Official name? Niiue - Who has lost his tail?

If the article doesn't have the template which states that it isn't the official name, then that is the official name Yoshi876 (talk)

Not necessarily. They could have made an error. Niiue - Who has lost his tail?

You can say that for Incoming Chomp, Yoshi876. I'm not sure how "Incoming Chomp" got its name. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Rename to "Fire Snifit"

I can't find any source of the name "Zeus Guy", and it's confusing, too. This isn't a Proposal, this is a chance for feedback before I make a real Proposal. Niiue - Who has lost his tail?

Decide on this enemy's name

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Monday, November 25, 2024, 04:40 GMT

Going by our Naming policy, articles' names are based first upon whether they appear in-game, then the Player's Guide, then the Prima guide, and it goes down from there. In this case, since Yoshi's Island DS' Player's guide calls this enemy "Zeus Guy", the article should be accordingly moved even though the Prima guide lists the enemy as "Scorchit". While I'm normally all for policy, in this case I'd like to challenge that. For starters, there's already an enemy called Zeus Guy, a Bandit whose powers include shooting energy beams and general strength. The name's not perfect for either of them, as neither of them are actually a Shy Guy, but I would argue that the name's much more indicative of the Bandit than the Snifit. On that note, the Prima guide's name is so much better, since it immediately indicates that the enemy is a Snifit with fire powers. Using two distinct names instead of the same name twice saves us the trouble of using identifiers for the links and disambiguation, as well as avoids any potential confusion in discussions. I simply don't see why we need to go through the trouble when we have a perfectly sufficient name that's already in use.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: January 28, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Keep name as "Scorchit"

1. Time Turner (talk) Per my proposal.
2. Niiue (talk) Per proposal and Klamber precedent.
3. Bazooka Mario (talk) Breaking policy is fine if policy leads to a vastly inferior and confusing name. I'd say for this specific case, ignore it. The Prima Guide made a good call naming it "Scorchit" and our wiki should follow that.
4. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) I think Scorchit might have been the developer's intentional name for this enemy. Get a first party source to verify the name, such as an instruction manual.
5. BabyLuigi64 (talk) Per all; Scorchit it a better name to use in this case.
6. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.

Comments

This really doesn't need a proposal since it's totally okay to defy policy in favor of better logic. After all, policy is mostly guidelines for quality articles, not strict rules, and if it prevents you from improving the wiki, ignore it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:52, 14 January 2016 (EST)

It was at Walkazo's suggestion, and I didn't think there was actual precedence for defying policy (until Klamber was brought up, but even in the original proposal to split, there was a push to name the article "Scuttle Bug (SMS)"; seems mostly like people forgot about it). Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Klamber's a different situation since the issue was about whether or not Klambers (and Spoings and Spanglers) were the same thing as Scuttlebugs based on the appearances and different English and Japanese names, with the focus being on whether to split/merge the pages. However, there's no question that there's two enemies here, and it's just a matter of naming - an issue which was misused in the first TPP to justify a merge, and then ignored by the second, pro-split TPP, except in the ignored comment section, so it's actually a rather messy situation that shouldn't be used as a precedent for this one at all. Anyway, when in doubt, make a TPP: better safe than sorry. Plus, if someone noticed the break from convention down the road and questions it, at least now they'll have a TPP explaining it and showing that there was community support, and will then need to work harder to reverse the decision, rather than just moving it as they see fit (in theory). - Walkazo 14:29, 14 January 2016 (EST)