Category talk:Hostages

Note: The following discussion was copied from a cancelled proposal.

According to my dictionary, "damsel" just means a youg, unmarried woman. "Damsel in distress" means a woman in need of rescue. And plus some of the characters are male, which is against the definition. So the name should be changed, I'll vote. CrystalYoshi 08:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

But... the category isn't called "Damsels" anymore. Or am I wrong here? Time Questions 08:50, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Somebody already renamed it. :P MarioGalaxy2433g5 {Talk/Contribs} 09:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, both the template and the category. So as Time Q said, by default this proposal is about changing the name "Hostages" to "Characters in Need of Rescue" (hopefully for both template and category, for consistancy's sake). - Walkazo

What's wrong with "hostages"? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 10:53, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Hostages doesn't really sound right. Hostages is more like by professional kidnappers or something. But it's fine. It's "damsels" that I voted against. CrystalYoshi

15:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree, "hostages" doesn't sound right to me either (though perhaps only a native speaker of English can judge that). The term "hostage" implies that there are conditions to fulfill so that the captive will be released. Which isn't the case with every single "hostage" on that list, I think. Time Questions 14:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, per Time Q. That's what I meant. CrystalYoshi

15:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I am not going to vote on this proposal, but rather I will sugget something else entirely. "Damsels" could be confusing to some people so no category should be named that, but "Characters in need of rescue" is far too long to be the name of a category. There are already so many categoryies already, so I propose that we just get rid of the category altogether. I know the category doesn't exist as of now, but why create it at all?? Glitchman (talk · contribs)

Category:Hostages does exist. What about calling it, uh, "Kidnapped Characters"? How does that sound to native speakers? Time Questions 14:50, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Evidently a lot happened since I was gone. Okay, so let me try to get this sorted out. I didn't expect the Damsel Category to get changed while I was gone, (which is evidently why I made the proposal). The original "new" title I came up with is WAY too long, but it was all I could think of in the time I had to write it; that's why I changed that particular part of the proposal. So, Time Q: The category should not be retitled Category:Characters in Need of Rescue, because it is too long. Since Booster changed it to Hostages, that's an improvement. Although I have to say that that's still not quite right. Possibly, the category's name could be changed to Category:Captives; that term is more fitting. Definition: One that is held against his/her own will. I've spent all morning looking up synonyms and definitions for "Hostage", and "Captive" is the best one I can find. (Thanks to PGB for the idea.) And, as was discussed earlier, "Hostage": Definition: Victim of a kidnapper who will be returned via the payment of ransom. So, grammatically speaking, the best category name we probably have is Category:Captives. — Stooben Rooben Glitchman, thou art still my friend. ;)

The only problem with Kidnapped Characters, is that it conflicts with hostage. Kidnappers usually want a ransom, and (although I've never played all Mario games), I don't remember any of the captives being held for ransom. Bowser usually steals Princess Peach, because that's what he does, not because he wants one million coins in return. — Stooben Rooben

Captives or kidnapped characters. Just not hostages. They're both good, kidnapped doesn't usually mean held for randsom. Nintendo even uses that word in game booklets and stuff. So either one's good. CrystalYoshi

16:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Once it pulls through, we should probably let a 'Crat decide which title would be more fitting. — Stooben Rooben

Well, technically, Category:Characters in Need of Rescue isn't as long as some categories. Category:Characters who break the Fourth Wall, Category:Characters from other Nintendo games, Category:Characters who have kissed Mario, and many others are quite long. So maybe that would be the best term, since it is accurate. — Stooben Rooben

The problem I see with "Captives" is that it would also include people put in prison. Don't know if there are any in Marioverse, but that's definitely something else than a character "taken away" by another character. "Kidnapped Characters" would limit the category to characters, so Subcon (species), which is currently listed as a "hostage", would not fit in anymore. If we went for this name, we should simply call it "Kidnapped". "Characters in Need of Rescue", well, aside from the "character" point I mentioned above, is long, but I don't think it's too long (see the examples Stooben pointed out). A shorter name, however, would be better imho. Time Questions 07:18, 1 April 2008 (EDT) Have we ever thought such a long time about a category name? ;)

Mmm...good point. So, in that case, it should just be retitled Category:In Need Of Rescue, if I'm not mistaken. — Stooben Rooben I don't think we have thought this hard on a category name! It's wild! XD

For me, "in need of rescue" sounds like that they are still held captive, while "characters who have kissed Mario" uses past tense. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

How about "ones who have needed rescuing", or something similar to that? — Stooben Rooben

Oh, well then you're thinking of just plain, "Rescued Characters" Stumpers! 19:08, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Basically. — Stooben Rooben It's no wonder you're a Sysop; you always find a way to help! :)

Well, I guess just "kidnapped" is good. But "captives" is better, I don't think being in jail means being held captive. CrystalYoshi

Actually, I like Stumpers' idea better. It's like Cobold said; if it's not in past tense, it means they still are. — Stooben Rooben

I've got it. "Characters who have been held captive". Is that good? CrystalYoshi

Once again, it's a bit too wordy, and it basically means the same thing as Stmpers' idea anyway (unless there's a Mario game/TV episode/etc. that ends with someone in captivity who never appears again). - Walkazo

Yeah. So far, any character held captive has been returned. I'm good with Rescued Characters. Or Rescued Captives, because you don't have to be held captive to be rescued. Just my opinion. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Just the thing is "rescued characters" or whatever sounds like some captives were rescued and some weren't. Long category titles are fine. I think "Ones who have been held captive" is good. Like we've said, there are some other categories with slightly lengthly names. CrystalYoshi

Okay, after long pondering, I've got it figured out. We can't do "rescued characters" because things (like the Super Happy Tree) have needed rescuing, and they're not characters. And then, there are certain characters (like Koopley, who is not in the category), who haven't been held captive, but have needed rescuing; so "captives" doesn't work either; not all who have been rescued are captives. However, "rescued characters" can't mean that some were rescued and some weren't because there is no "characters that still need rescuing"! So, in turn, the best, or rather, most neutral way to name the category is "ones that have been rescued". "Ones" can be characters, and plants; "that have been rescued" is in past tense (also "that" instead of who fits the situation better). So, the name, no doubt about it, after pulling out all minute details, should be called Ones That Have Been Rescued! — Stooben Rooben Who knew it would be so hard to rename a category?

To be honest, that sounds very artificial. Why not simply "hostages"? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 10:02, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

We already ruled that one out because people like Peach weren't kidnapped to trade for something, etc. A better word would be Imprisoned, which not only means someone/thing detaned in custody, but also one restrained or confined in any way. Koopley and the Super Happy Tree would fit into this category, it doesn't sound like a totally fabricated name, and it can mean both past or present captivity, so in the event someone is captured and not released, this category will still be valid. - Walkazo

But "Ones that have been rescued" doesn't work for the same reason we can't do "rescued characters". It sounds like at the beginning, everyone was being held captive, and some were rescued and some weren't. Can't we just do ones that have needed rescuing? I don't see a problem with it. CrystalYoshi 18:33, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

CrystalYoshi... fixed your sig. Rooben, thanks for the compliments! Okay, in light of the Super Happy Tree, how about Rescued Subjects? Hmm... I guess that's okay... but seriously, I'm not a fan of the word "subjects" (and this is my own suggestion). I think any way you slice it there's going to be some sort of problem. Stumpers! 19:45, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Too true, if it's not issues with tense, it's issues with the words themselves. Simplest is best, and I agree that "subjects" is awkward, so how about Category:Rescued? - Walkazo

It doesn't seem we're going to agree on a name for the category soon. Not much time is left until the deadline of this proposal. We're voting for or against renaming the category, but not for or against a specific name. I don't believe we need a proposal for that, as the overall consensus is to rename the category, but we still wouldn't know to which name. I propose to continue the discussion on the talk pages of the category or the template and to cancel the proposal. What do you think about this, Stooben? Time Questions 07:15, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Nintendo called Mario a "damsel" in Luigi's Mansion. While normally, damsel means female only, there are some cases where it can mean both genders. ^Plumber 11:42, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

*shakes head* I NEVER expected this proposal to get so out of hand! It's come to the point where I'm about to withdraw my vote completely because it's gotten so confusing. It was supposed to be a simple name change, but because everyone has different opinions and definitions on words' meanings, that it hasn't even been confirmed as to what the category should be renamed to. I think I've got to side with Time Q with this one due to the circumstances. The proposal, no doubt, should be removed. All comments and ideas on the renaming of this category should be moved here. Everyone should come up with there own ideas on what name is the most fitting rename and see how many votes it gets in two weeks or so. Even then, I'm still sticking with my last suggestion since it isn't biased, sexist, racist, and refers to the past tense in the correct manner. I still can't believe some simple rename turned into such a fiasco. — Stooben Rooben Mama-mia...

Renaming Ideas

"Rescued"

Support

1. — Stooben Rooben Simplest is best.

Oppose

1. CrystalYoshi Sorry Stooben Rooben, but I already said, that's kind of unclear, and it makes it sound like some have been rescued and some still need to be rescued. "Have needed rescue". It's a bit long, but it's not a big deal, there are categories with long names.
2. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) What CrystalYoshi said.
3. Edofenrir (talk) - Well, not to reawaken a discussion that slept for a year, but you are aware that "rescued" does not necessarily mean "rescued from a kidnapper", aren't you? It applies to all variants of being rescued, so you can add every single character to that category, because Mario saved the whole world multiple times.

Final Decision

It's been who knows when since this discussion was looked upon again, but we need to come to a conclusion. So, what should it be? I'd say captives would be better than hostages. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Or I say that I agree with Stooben Rooben and Crystal Yoshi up there. Another possibility is Characters who were held captive. It won't be the final decision yet. The best way to solve this is to make a proposal.... KS3 (talk · contribute)

If you want to make a proposal, just do it. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Both captives and hostages seem fine to me. I like the word hostages more, but I have no particular preference. --™ The 'Shroom 18:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Kidnapped

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.

don't rename 3-10
IMO the term hostage is too dark.I haven't seen the term hostage officially used whereas kidnapped has been.

Proposer: Yoshi876 (talk)
Deadline: July 14, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Rename to Kidnapped

1. Tails777 (talk) Kidnapped doesn't sound that bad. Plus the Mario series itself does use the term Kidnapped more than captive and hostage.
2. Yoshi876 (talk) Per Tails777, the New Super Mario Bros. Wii hand-booklet refers to it as a kidnapping and as it's supplied by Nintendo it is sort of official. Our wiki even uses the term kidnapped in most articles on games. Mario/Luigi goes to investigate, but while he is there, Bowser Jr. sneaks behind a bush, kidnaps Peach and flees. from New Super Mario Bros. and Meanwhile, Bowser and his Koopalings trap Yoshi's friends in eggs and kidnap Princess Toadstool. from Super Mario World.
3. A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros. (talk) Per Tails777 and Yoshi876.

Keep current name

1. SuperYoshiBros (talk) I don't see the point in a rename. And there are dark things in the Mario series, take World of Nothing and Shadow Queen for example, so your point is invalid.
2. Sinanco (talk) It should remain the same, since "Captive" does not really sound like a Mario Series term and "Kidnapped" does not give the same feeling as what it is now!
3. Mario4Ever (talk) I don't see a problem with the current name. In fact, one definition of hostage is someone taken with the intent of making someone act (or prevent them from acting) a certain way, and it could be argued that Bowser/whoever does that to Mario. Whether or not that's the case, there isn't much semantically different between the current name and your proposed replacements.
4. Vommack (talk) Too dark? Darker things have been tackled in Mario, and as Mario4Ever said, it's a pointless rename.
5. Baby Luigi (talk) "Hostage" isn't even that dark in the first place
6. LeftyGreenMario (talk) It doesn't really matter if it gets renamed or not, honestly, but I don't see why we have to go through the trouble of renaming something just because the term sounds "dark" (it doesn't to me). Dark or not, it's not worth bothering the rename.
7. Tucayo (talk) - Per all.
8. Superfiremario (talk) Per SuperYoshiBros.
9. KP (talk) Per all.
10. Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per SYB.

Comments

@SUperYoshiBros I get point with the dark things, but when I see 'Hostage' I think terrorism and I don't think that's what I should see when I'm on the Mario wiki. Yoshi876 (talk)

And saying someone is a captive instead of a hostage is less "dark"...how? Vommack (talk)

Because they could captivated in love, but I am changing where I put my vote as kidnapped is used a lot. Yoshi876 (talk)

First off, sign your name when you comment. Secondly, "Captivated in love"? That's REALLY going to be your argument? That makes absolutely no sense. Thirdly, you basically invalidated your own argument below. You want the name changed only because of "feel"; to quote you, "and so what[...]doesn't have the same feel". Vommack (talk)

First off we all make mistakes, I was commenting and changing my vote it simply slipped my mind. Secondly, there is nowhere where I stated about feel apart from below and you simply asked how Captive is less dark than Hostage and I provided an example, I am not basing my entire argument off love. Yoshi876 (talk)

You didn't explicitly say feel, but that's what this whole thing is. Your argument is that hostage is "too dark". How is that not related to how it "feels"? Your love example was completely irrelevant; the use of a word as an idiom doesn't support an objective argument. Vommack (talk)

When asked how the word is less dark than 'Hostage' it kind of does and I'm not trying to base any argument off love. Yoshi876 (talk)

No. It doesn't. We're using the ACTUAL DEFINITION. It kind of doesn't support your argument , at all. And when that's the only point you're arguing, yes you are basing your argument off of love.Vommack (talk)

Yes, because I mention the word love in my support of my proposal hundreds of times. Yoshi876 (talk)

The only thing you're holding onto here is how an idiom supports your argument, which I already disproved. Get an actual argument together. You say you want I moved because it's related to terrorism? I don't suppose you want us to stop using the words bomb and religion because they're related too? As a matter of fact, why don't we just ban every word that's possibly related to terrorism? Vommack (talk)

I feel it's too dark and isn't even used in the Mario series, to my knowledge, kidnapped on the other hand has been, so has bomb. Yoshi876 (talk)

Once again, you invalidated the whole "it feels too dark" thing yourself. There's nothing wrong with the current name.Vommack (talk)

I can see your point here and that is why I have slightly altered my proposal. Yoshi876 (talk)

@Sinaco Just because it doesn't sound like a Mario term doesn't mean it has less value, and so what Kidnapped doesn't have the same feel we're not voting on which name sounds cooler. Yoshi876 (talk)

Well, on your way of thinking, "Hostage" meaning Terrorism and Darkness to you is just personal and changing it really wont solve anything. "Captive" or "Kidnapped" does not change it anyway. Instead of using adjectives like kidnapped or captive, it is better to leave it as s well noun that describes their situation, "Hostages", is fine! Sinanco (talk)

So, you're just going to adjust your proposal to make sure you win? I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure there's something against that... Vommack (talk)

No, Rule 14 states a proposer may change their proposal at any time, I removing the dark thing because as pointed out it is void, however I still have an argument for renaming it. Yoshi876 (talk)

No Rule 14 says a proposer may change their proposal in the first 3 days not at any time. Marshal Dan Troop (talk)

I believe it was still in the first 3 days. Yoshi876 (talk)

Delete this category

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.

delete 9-0
Beyond the fact that characters get kidnapped more often than they get to go out for dinner, the fact that a character gets kidnapped is not important to the character themselves. Unlike a category that relates to their abilities or their occupation, being kidnapped is something that happens by outside circumstances and has next to nothing to do with the character. Unless we're talking about Princess Peach, none of these characters are known for being kidnapped. There's also nothing tying all of these characters together beyond a (usually) one-off event. All of these characters have been taken hostage for wildly different reasons, and they all have wildly different appearances, skills, and roles, but a singular event is apparently enough to string all of these characters together. MarioWiki:Categories even covers this: "offbeat connections might be interesting [...], but they are often tenuous or of little functional use to wiki navigation." I contend that this category is one of those offbeat connections.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: August 13, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Delete

1. Time Turner (talk) Per.
2. Alex95 (talk) Per proposal, policy, and I never understood this category anyway.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
4. Magikrazy (talk) Per proposal, I didn't even know we had this category. You learn something new every day.
5. Niiue (talk) This is basically Category: Characters who have kissed Mario all over again.
6. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) This could also be construed in so many ways....would the "Cap"tured enemies from Odyssey have counted?
7. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
8. Baby Luigi (talk) Per proposal.
9. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all.