Talk:Rope

This begs the question of the name being official. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

It's official, what other name can it be given?--FREAK ~Game Freak~ OUT!

Something gimmicky. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

It's official for Super Mario World. Time Questions 11:04, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Question

I have an odd request. I know that the tightropes in Super Mario Sunshine let you jump higher and higher on them each time to a point. Could someone who has a copy of Sunshine lying around or even the ISO and an emulator turn on the game and tell me how many jumps it takes to reach the maximum height? And also how much higher (ballpark me a percentage) it is than the first jump? And how much higher the subsequent jumps are?--Reversalmushroom (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (EST)

Split into Tightrope

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: Saturday, May 25, 2024, 22:01 GMT

There is a number of issues with tightrope being included here. It is included in a really awkward and extremely clunky way in this article for seemingly no reason at all other than that it's a rope. This is evidenced by how the paragraph for the tightrope section opens like it already is its own article, even going to the lengths of boldfacing the first mention of a tightrope. This further makes it so that the article at its current state reads like two articles that are haphazardly glued together in a really awful manner. Upon a closer inspection of how the two subjects work mechanically within the frameworks of the games they're featured in, they don't even act similarly. The only resemblance to similarity is how the rope mentioned from Super Mario World wiggles from side to side but that is a really big stretch. Why this is allowed to be is beyond me, and this needs a change.

Proposer: RandomYoshi (talk)
Deadline: December 29, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: January 5, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. RandomYoshi (talk) – Per proposal.
2. Tucayo (talk) - Per RY.
3. Time Turner (talk) I'm not a fan of catch-all articles, especially when there are noticeable differences between what's being caught. Per all.
4. Roy Koopa (talk) "It's a kind of rope so it should be here!" is not a good reason to put something here, which seems like the reason it's here in the first place. Tightropes and normal ropes have noticeable differences.
5. Andymii (talk) A rope you swing on and a rope you walk on are quite different. The only similarity is that they're technically made out of the same material. That's obviously not an excuse to consider them the same thing.
6. NSY (talk) both function in different ways. Better off with different articles, article in first place already is a mess.

Oppose

1. Chocolate Mario (talk) Per Bazooka Mario in the comments.
2. LudwigVon (talk) Per Bazooka Mario's comments. Rewrite the page is the best we can do.
3. Walkazo (talk) - Per Bazooka Mario in the comments.
4. Bazooka Mario (talk) Per all. This article was intended to be a catch-all page when its content has several kinds of ropes: the ropes in Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country are different from each other, but you also have ropes treated as jumpropes and props (Get a Rope). The article can benefit from an expansion (such as ropes in Pitifall, Picking Panic, Treacherous Tightrope, Jumpin' Rope, Grin and Bar It, Rope Ravine, Rope Climb, Rope a Slope, Seer Terror, Border Jump, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii) to the point where it doesn't seem like tightrope looks so disjoint from the rest of the article. Jumprope isn't listed frequently either (and jumpropes are frequently present in my examples), and it may balance the weird amount of coverage on tightropes. All in all, this is an expansion problem, not a haphazard attempt to link two articles together.
5. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per Bazooka Mario.
6. Ghost Jam (talk) Per Bazooka Mario.
7. Baby Luigi (talk) Per my twin.
8. The Golden Yoshi (talk) Both ropes have similar mechanics, and as the articles states, they are rare. Since they are usually over an abyss, that means their purpose is relatively similar. That being getting from one place to the other. Making a separate article would be unnecessary.

Comments

This page should also be rewritten. It seems that the information is throw on the page and they have no consistency. Does Mario can hold the rope with his hands without walking on it, at the monkey way? --^(TALK) 14:06, 15 December 2015 (EST)

I believe so, but the article makes no mention of it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:22, 15 December 2015 (EST)

So, we're splitting one kind of rope from the others (<-emphasis; this isn't an article on just two types of ropes). One rope is the one you cling on while something moves it along the rail. Another rope is you hanging on it and climbing across it. There are jumpropes mentioned here as well. Ropes can also be pulled for a result. Are you sure that splitting a part of this page is the best way to go, considering that you're splitting off only one type of rope compared to the rest (with the result's being a page with a conjectural title)? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:22, 15 December 2015 (EST)

It would be more acceptable to just rewrite the page so that it doesn't sound like two articles have been merged into one. Conjectural titles are not ideal. Chocolate Mario (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Yeah, that's my thoughts. The organization's poor, but my major issue with this proposal is that it acts like there's just two types of ropes; I don't fault it for that because the article's written as if there are two types, but on closer inspection, this article is supposed to be a catch-all page (with a few dumb mentions) to ropes and maybe it's because tightopes appear in several games it seems to have gotten its own section. We can just cut off the lv. 2 header and improve the coherency, and it might be serviceable (otherwise, jumprope should get its own page). It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:37, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Agreed, there's many types of ropes when you look closely, and they are nowhere near notable enough to all get their own page (even the main Rope article may be slightly unnecessary, but other generic subjects have pages...) Chocolate Mario (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Roy Koopa: What's a "normal rope"? Are jumpropes normal ropes? And what about overhead ropes? And the ropes you cling on to in Super Mario World? Why should all remain in the rope page while tightrope gets split off? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:40, 17 December 2015 (EST)

Andymii, if we give a page to tightrope, so we should give a page to all different ropes that appear in the Mario series. (eg: Jumprope, like Bazooka Mario mentioned).--^(TALK) 17:56, 20 December 2015 (EST)

I wouldn't mind doing that, but within reason. There will be no slippery slopes here. "Rope" is a broad term that can encompass a whole variety of cords that have different appearances, different functions, and usually different names. If you can find a game in which a skipping rope was notable used, create an article for it, by all means. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Yes, this isn't a distinction between "a rope you swing on" and "a rope you walk on". The proposal is trying to make a distinction between "a rope you walk on" and leaving "a rope you climb on" and "a rope you jump over" and "a rope you cling to" in this article. As I said so many times, the article's badly organized nature makes it seem like that. Andymii, you've held that "I've held it a principle that we should consider fixing before deleting"; what about fixing before moving info?

Time Turner: yes, so if Rope is such a broad term, why can't jumprope and tightrope be here? They won't pad the article out. I've pointed out above that skipping rope is used frequently and notably but isn't covered here and I've said for the second time: the article needs a rewrite and expand rather than removing one aspect of ropes and leaving the rest intact. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:05, 20 December 2015 (EST)

I agree, a page should first be well written and have good structure before moving anything and after we can consider a split (if there is no more possibility, look what we made with the Wish page). Yes, there are pages that deserves more having split, but here it will make the wiki being flooded with half-articles and conjectural. (If Tightrope needed a page, so all others ropes should have them, like the jumprope one). There is not really a difference between a rope being walked on and a rope and you can hold hands with it. A rope is a rope, and you can use the same one for different function.--^(TALK) 18:16, 20 December 2015 (EST)

@Bazooka Mario: For the same reason we don't cover every Goomba species on the main article, or for the same reason Dragon was trimmed of everything but the most generic of dragons, or for the same reason we split all of the Badges, Smash moves, and more: they are all distinct. We can list all of those different subjects in one collage, but the end result will be unfocused as the article constantly re-explains each new concept and the differences between it and every other concept. On the other hand, giving subjects individual articles lets the article focus on that subject exclusively and thus allows for greater detail. Instead of articles having to link to a generic "rope" in every case, they can link to "tightrope" or "jump rope" or whatever rope they're specifically covering. I don't really see the benefits of having every rope on a single articles besides maybe that it allows for easy access to all information surrounding ropes, but all it would take is a list of links and you'd get pretty much the same result. Meanwhile, I can definitely see the benefits of distinguishing them through individual articles. Also, one of the Good Writing page's guidelines is that an article should be centered around a single subject with a consistent purpose, and not every minuscule and generic appearance that tangentially relates to that subject. For example, Boomerang is not covering every time a boomerang appears in the series, but rather the specific item that appears in Super Mario Advance 4. This is the same principle that I'm bringing to this article. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Those are bananas-roses comparisons though. Same thing for Boomerang, which is a Mario object since it has a consistent blue appearance with a white stripe on top. I'm likening rope to key (yes, we do have different articles on different keys, but those mostly have proper names), hammer, Electric Fence, candle, cart, banana (and if you're splitting tightrope from rope, you have to split banana peel from banana) where we compile information on generic subjects on a catch-all article. The entire basis of splitting tightrope from rope is their function; their name is an after-thought, and there's nothing in the way of simply redirecting to a catch-all page. I admit that rope is a fairly strange case as it has different rope-like objects with slightly different names, but they're all ropes in the end, and I don't see the issue of keeping all generic rope-like stuff to rope. This article is centered on a subject: ropes. And ropes are very versatile objects (unlike what this article is apparently conveying) so I still think we should compile about generic ropes into one article rather than make several articles on different kinds of ropes based on function. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:50, 20 December 2015 (EST)

The articles you listed either don't apply to what's been argued here or should abide by the same guideline that Good Writing put forth: keys only ever have the one function of unlocking doors and chests, so the article's fine as it is because it's not a catch-all for every key but rather an article that decides a key's general purpose; Hammer lumps the powerful hammer that generally acts as a short-term power-up from Mario Bros. and the Smash series with the standard hammer that's just another tool in Mario's arsenal from the Paper Mario series and the Mario & Luigi series, and they're so different in terms of use and general appearance that I would strongly vouch for splitting them; Electric Fence describes objects that all share the same function (zapping anyone who gets too close and stunning them) and all have similar appearances, so there's no issue there; Candle lumps actual enemies with inanimate objects and background entities, which is just silly and should be rectified; Cart, like Electric Fence, describes objects that all do the same thing (bring people from point A to point B while on a rail) with greatly similar appearances, and any cart that's distinct already has its own article, such as Skull Cart; and Banana is being used as both an article for describing a specific item (namely, the coin equivalent from the DK series), describing another item with a similar appearance but wildly different function (namely, the Banana Peels from the MK series), and a catch-all for every generic banana, which should not be happening. All of that aside, what are the benefits of keeping the ropes together? This can't be backed up solely with consistency, since I've already listed a series of articles that do quite the opposite and precedence isn't enough to convince me that it's a good idea. Saying that they're all ropes in the end is far from enough as well, since I could easily make that same argument for any number of other articles like Goomba (again), Beetle, Barrel, Cannon, and so on; it's unfair to force one article to go by these standards and not apply that standard to other articles (also, citation needed for the "their name is an after-thought" bit). That also goes against Good Writing, as I've mentioned above and will likely continue to mention. There's nothing wrong with making this article about ropes, as I mentioned above with Key, but that doesn't mean that tightropes and skipping ropes should be lumped in. For me, the bottom line is that there are a bunch of different objects here, and they all deserve different articles because they're different. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Your only points for the articles I listed is "they should be split anyway". As for Electric Fence, not quite. They all have pretty different appearances; Super Mario Galaxy's can even move around and get stunned by Player 2's Co-Star thing (if I recall correctly). The one in Mario Strikers games are consistent in its series and you get stunned from them only if someone rams you into them, and they also stop the ball from rolling outfield. Carts don't do one thing: they're also a notable obstacle in Mario Kart, and due to the article's incomplete nature, there may be more for them. I only brought up a sample. Keys may not be the best example due to their specific use (while ropes are versatile). But the others are convenient pages for generic objects and obstacles. Beetle is an entity (usually an enemy) with wildly differing appearances that don't even resemble a normal beetle as well as an individual named "Beetle", Goomba is a nongeneric enemy with a proper name. Barrel is actually an article about a generic subject including several different uses of barrels (which is what Rope can potentially be like). Same thing for Cannon, which again, is a catch-all to all cannons. My point on "their name is an after-thought" is referring to how poorly this article is structured right now and it's a support reason for the split, but it's not the driving reason. Because if it were just "rope", you can still technically argue for a split. But you also have jumprope and other ropes lumped into this, and this proposal overly simplifies it making it seem that "tightrope" was haphazardly merged into there. Regarding generic subjects, exactly why catch-alls are a bad thing? Because it's messy? How would splitting it into several tiny articles be any better? How exactly does this go against GoodWriting, specifically "everything but the kitchen sink"? Ropes are used frequently in the Mario series, and you can argue that they're a versatile gameplay mechanic that's detailed in the pages. I want Rope to be structured like barrel, cannon, and other catch-all generic pages so it's consistent in terms of quality and appearance. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:30, 22 December 2015 (EST)