Talk:Rowed to Victory

Naming section

@Mario4Ever, I'm not sure if explicitly adding "English" fixes this issue. I think it's better to keep it like it is now. Your solution is admittedly better than the previous one, I'll give you that, so I'm not reverting it. As for the rest of you, my problem is not necessarily with explicitly stating the minigame's name an extra time anymore. It's the fact that last week on both here and the Discord you guys were all like "This should definitely get implemented. We don't see the issue in implementing this." and then you guys just proceed to not implement it on any other articles. I thought you guys were the ones who wanted this to be implemented so badly, so why don't you do it? Why don't you implement it on other articles? Cause the way it is now is INCONSISTENT. And as you guys know, I'm all for consistency. And this is simply just not it. So I'm reverting these changes again and this is the reason why I'm doing it. You want this change to be implemented, then fine. I respect your decision. Just implement it on all articles then. Yoshi18 (talk | contribs) 09:30, September 13, 2026 (UTC)

...I feel like this is a case in which either way is fine? I feel like this isn't something to be so worked up about.
Looking back on the Discord, all I can find right now regarding this is that LadySophie doesn't see the issue either, which is consistent with her revert here.
If it is true that there's people agreeing with you on the matter elsewhere, then I would not be surprised Goomba fallacy may be at play here (that's to say, two or more people having different opinions on one thing, which another person conflating this as one person having contradicting opinions). What I mean is... Are you absolutely certain that the people agreeing with you are the same people that reverted your edits? rend (talk) (edits) 11:18, September 13, 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand your train of thought here: people are not going to apply the changes to all affected articles overnight. There was a consensus on how to approach the descriptions. Why are you reverting them just because the progress is incomplete? Also, can you please not get worked up over this, it doesn't warrant this attitude. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 16:17, September 13, 2026 (UTC)

My problem here is that this discussion happened one and a half weeks ago. I understand that these changes aren't immediately gonna happen in 1 day, but this was 11 days ago. There should've already been a start and there wasn't. You guys didn't start enforcing it until after I spoke up and reminded everyone here today (and it likely would've never happened if I didn't do this). If you really want this to be enforced, then go enforce it. I'd be glad to accomdate you. But I shouldn't the one reminding you of it. I was against this. So how am I the first person to notice "Wait a second... you guys haven't kept your end of the deal"? My biggest question in all of this is just: if it took you guys until I spoke up and reminded you to enforce it (meaning you guys probably wouldn't have done it on your own), then why did you guys disagree with me so badly, meanwhile I am the one that needs to remind you guys of making the change? Yoshi18 (talk | contribs) 16:25, September 13, 2026 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why this seems like such a pressing matter to you. All of the italics and bold words in your messages come off as needlessly aggressive. If this is affecting you emotionally this much, you should consider taking a step back and calming down.

Here are a few examples of minigames that already mention the articles name in the Naming section: Logger Heads, Twist Ending, Pizza Me, Mario, Coney Island (minigame), Squared Away, Hop or Pop. Additionally, here are a number of other articles to demonstrate that the structure of "Mentioning the article's name in the section about the article's name" is a widespread practice on the wiki: Goomba, Professor E. Gadd, Crowber, Fawful, Subcon, New Donk City, Plack Beach. I don't have time to make fully comprehensive lists of either, but hopefully this is enough to prove my point.

If it troubles you that this practice is not used in every relevant article, then feel free to adjust the articles that don't match this structure. Wiki editing is a collaborative effort, and not everyone has the time to tackle the issues other people bring up, besides giving their opinion and advice on how to proceed. The best way to see change is to be the change. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 16:30, September 13, 2026 (UTC)

Wiki editors are not paid by the hour. Things will get done when people have time and motivation. That is simple as that. There's no need to be so obstructionate on a volunteer-based effort. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 16:39, September 13, 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that part. I don't mean to come off as aggressive. I just felt like, if this change wouldn't be implemented. That whole conversation was just for nothing. That's what I'm so pressed about: that whole conversation was for nothing because then nothing would change even though we agreed on something (well I disagreed but I respect that this is the way that we're doing). I'd even be glad in helping with the change, but I just felt like I shouldn't have been the one reminding of it. It's been 11 days, I understand. Other things happened in life. But then there's just still two problems: that whole conversation was for nothing (as everything would've then (maybe/likely be kept the way it is if I didn't say anything) and the articles would've inconsistent. That would (personally) be the worst possible outcome of this situation. But once again; I understand. I understand that everyone may have forgotten about it and that this may came off as a bit aggressive, but all I just wanted to do was make a point (and then I mostly emphasize stuff; it's a force of a habit) of how if nothing changes that whole conversation. But I'm glad the change is being made now. I'd even be glad to help. Yoshi18 (talk | contribs) 16:50, September 13, 2026 (UTC)

"You guys didn't start enforcing it", "you guys haven't kept your end of the deal", "why did you guys disagree with me so badly, meanwhile I am the one that needs to remind you guys of making the change"... Again, @Yoshi18, I think Goomba fallacy is at play. You are basically conflating a few people's agreement with you as if everyone agreed with you and are on board with making the change immediately, then get upset that other people are reverting it and basically call everyone hypocrites... yet, this is the first time I've ever heard of this agreement, and I'm completely indifferent on how we should word those sections (again, I think either way is fine and that we don't need a strict policy on this).
You should realize that not everyone is there at the same time on the Discord and assume the unanimous agreement in that instance is shared with everyone on the wiki. Sometimes, something that seems like a unanimous agreement is only an agreement between a handful of people, and a later discussion on the same subject can look a lot different when multiple people discover this and join in. rend (talk) (edits) 18:12, September 13, 2026 (UTC)

Well, I understand that but still, whenever I would revert the edits (because they were inconsistent), they would be re-reverted. So then I just understood that it was because it would then be enforced to all other articles. So then I started monitoring the wiki for the past one and a half weeks. Nothing happened after half a week but I was like "Ok, maybe they just need a bit more time to start enforcing it". But then another week passed and earlier today I was like "So...is it still happening or are we just gonna forget about all that?" When I edited every single Mario Kart course article to add console links to the internal names, I made sure to enforce that on every single race course and battle course article. I didn't do it because I had plenty of time (because trust me: I don't). I didn't do it because I knew I would get paid (more) by doing it. I did it because I wanted to enforce it and knew that if I started enforcing it on one article, I would need to enforce it. And then I did that in the following 3 days. I did all that by myself and in 3 days I was done. And no, I'm not saying it like it's some outstanding achievement. I'm saying it as something that I feel like I (and others) should do. Look, I understand that you guys all have your own things and don't always have time, but so do I. If it were me and I finally convinced you guys of the change you guys convinced me of, I would do everything I can to enforce it as fast as possible. I wouldn't take your permission for granted. Yoshi18 (talk | contribs) 09:30, September 14, 2026 (UTC)