Talk:Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 e-Cards

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Level names[edit]

It's important that we include the names that were in the version leaked on to the Internet, because these are the names most often used when people talk about these levels. Therefore, it will help minimise confusion. If anyone has any objections, please explain why here. Thanks. Avengah 07:20, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

Actually, that's not a bad idea! I have a ROM with all of the Japanese levels with those unofficial English names. Maybe I could help out. :D aaaaaaaa Mariomario64! 08:22, 4 June 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, I've put the names up from my copy of the game. Are they the same as in yours? If so, then these names should definitely stay on here. Also, have you got the level Mad Dash? That's the only one I'm missing. Not holding out much hope, though; apparently it's rare as rocking horse ****. Avengah 20:38, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

We need a vote or something[edit]

Goomba's Shoe seems to be opposed to us putting those level names in the article, because "it's not official". I think he's being too strict with the rules, and I think it would be beneficial to other users (who are less familiar with SMA4 and the e-levels) to include those names, with a disclaimer stating that they are unofficial. I don't think it would do any harm, and clearly neither does Mariomario64. However, Goomba's Shoe seems to be very much against it.

I think the only way we can resolve this is by having a vote, so let's do that shall we? Also, I'll link to the other discussion here: Talk:World-e Avengah 03:54, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

Mention unofficial level names in articles to help minimise confusion[edit]

Settledproposal.svg 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.

DO NOT MENTION UNOFFICIAL NAMES 1-7

While I accept that these names are unofficial, they are used in many places on the Web and off. A lot of people know the levels by these names, and they might come here looking for more information. To help minimise confusion, I think it would be sensible to include these names in the relevant articles, with a note stating that the names are unofficial but widely used. While I know that unofficial information is not usually allowed on this wiki, this is a special case because of the sheer amount of places that use these names.

I will paste my comments from the relevant talk pages here:

From this talk page, above:

It's important that we include the names that were in the version leaked on to the Internet, because these are the names most often used when people talk about these levels. Therefore, it will help minimise confusion. If anyone has any objections, please explain why here. Thanks. Avengah 07:20, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

Actually, that's not a bad idea! I have a ROM with all of the Japanese levels with those unofficial English names. Maybe I could help out. :D aaaaaaaa Mariomario64! 08:22, 4 June 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, I've put the names up from my copy of the game. Are they the same as in yours? If so, then these names should definitely stay on here. Also, have you got the level Mad Dash? That's the only one I'm missing. Not holding out much hope, though; apparently it's rare as rocking horse ****. Avengah 20:38, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

From Talk:World-e:

An issue has come up, regarding the names of these levels. While I agree that the unofficial names should not be used as the article names as the levels were never officially released in the West, I do, however, think that these names should be referred to in the levels' articles. Another user, User:Mariomario64, agrees with me. I am, of course, referring to the names such as "Castle a Go-Go", "The Gauntlet", "Clear Skies", "Frappe Snowland" etc.


I simply think that including these names, possibly with a note stating that although they are unofficial, they are very widely used, would really do a lot to minimise confusion. As an example, here are three reputable websites that use these very names to describe the levels in question: [1] [2] [3]

The reason why I am bringing this to the talk page is that after we made this decision, that it would be in the interests of minimising confusion to mention these names, another user disagreed with us and started removing them again from the articles. I have checked MarioWiki policy, and although there are rules regarding unofficial information, this is a special case due to the sheer amount of publicity these names have ended up getting; how widespread they are.

If people read about the "Castle a Go-Go" level, as an example, then come to MarioWiki for more information about the level, they should be able to find the information they are looking for. This is what I mean about minimising confusion; they might not know the name is unofficial, and won't know where to actually look. A simple way would be to put Castle a Go-Go in the text of the article like this:

Japanese name / With Boots On, GO! GO! (also widely unofficially known as Castle a Go-Go)

Or something like that. I believe it certainly wouldn't do any harm, and I would like others' opinions on the matter, and maybe an admin's decision on whether we should incorporate these names into the articles to minimise confusion? Thanks for your help! Avengah 15:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

You can't use unofficial information especially since Nintendo themselves despises emulations and has tried unsuccessfully to stop them. these levels were never released in America so these names are unofficial Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
I don't live in America. I live in England. That's irrelevant anyway. However, I was after an admin's input, and I want some other opinions. I already know what you think. Also, if an admin came here and said "Yeah, it is a good idea, we should do it", would you kick up a massive fuss?
All I'm trying to do is help minimise confusion. YES I KNOW IT'S NOT OFFICIAL, and frankly I don't care, as I said before. Do you want to help people, or just be a total stickler for the rules? Rules are made to be bent or broken if it HELPS THE COMMUNITY. I think this matter needs to be resolved by consensus, which means input from SEVERAL USERS, not just you. Avengah 03:48, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
Well, an admin's opinion does not outweigh a regular user's opinion, so that point is irrelevant. I am just a regular user when I answer questions and vote on proposals. Anyway, I disagree with referring the levels by their fan name. It breaks a pattern of consistency on the wiki. I also don't see the benefits of this. Why can't readers just go to this article and to find out about those levels? I realize there is no detailed level data on the article, but that is a fault with the content, not the name.--Knife (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
I agree with Knife. Fan-names are technically fanon or canon, which is not ehat we use here. Like Knife said, just mention it on the respective articles. Supremo78 (talk)
Just a reminder - I am not talking about naming them by those names. I simply think that those names should be mentioned. Avengah 19:24, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

Proposer: Avengah (talk)
Deadline: 22 July 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support[edit]

  1. Avengah (talk) I support my proposal for the reasons listed above.

Oppose[edit]

  1. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) we do not use unofficial information, Nintendo never released the E-Reader cards in America, Australia, or Europe so those cards have no official English names and we should not use names from a rom which is a pirated version of the game. Nintendo themselves hates emulation and has tried to stop it. But more to the point unofficial info is unofficial info and should not be in articles no matter how well known
  2. Yoshiwaker (talk) - We don't cover unofficial stuff so we shouldn't cover this. Per GS15.
  3. Supremo78 (talk) It's really simple. We don't talk about fan-names (which is technically fanon or canon) here. We use real stuff. Not fan-made stuff. It breaks consistency on this wiki by naming it from it's fan names, oh and @Avengah, GS15 is not following the rules strictly. We simply just don't talk about fan-stuff here.
  4. Mariomario64 (talk) – Sorry, Avengah; I know I once agreed with you, but I haven't thought about it being fanon and unofficial. Per all.
  5. Reddragon19k (talk) I'm sorry Avengah, but that is a per all!
  6. Mario Bros.! (talk)Per all.
  7. Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.

Comments[edit]

  • The opposition has raised an important point, which I feel I must address; namely, that of illegal emulation. While it is true that many people will only play these levels using an illegal ROM and emulator due to practicality purposes, amongst other reasons, it is not essential. Using a real Game Boy Advance and a real copy of the game, an individual might load these levels on to his game using either a battery save procured from the Web, or a real e-Reader (it is possible to print out cards that the e-Reader can then read). The most important point is that an illegal ROM has nothing at all to do with this - although it is the most practical way to experience these levels, it is not the only way, and the levels are not stored on the ROM itself. Someone with his own copy of the game only needs to either use an e-Reader, or obtain a battery save, to play these levels without ever using an illegal ROM. Avengah 07:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
@Avengah – What does that have to do with the proposal? aaaaaaaa Mariomario64! 10:41, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
I posted that as a reply to this comment by GS15: we should not use names from a rom which is a pirated version of the game. Nintendo themselves hates emulation and has tried to stop it. Avengah 20:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

@Avengah heres the real question did nintendo ever release these e-cards in America or any other English speaking country and the answer is no so these names are unofficial and should not be on the articles at all Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Maybe so, but what about Pushy Wall and Flimp? They are unofficial, conjectural names. The articles have been renamed to the Japanese names, but they still say "also known as" followed by the unofficial English name. What's so special about those two articles that their unofficial name is allowed to be in the article, if these names aren't? Avengah 20:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
Actually, I see that Pushy Wall has now been renamed to Sliding Stone. However, in the past, it had the Japanese name followed by "also called Pushy Walls" or something to that effect. The Flimp article still does say that. Avengah 20:50, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
I have no idea why they call it that in the article but either way your argument that this article has unoffical info is weak and you know it your only mentioning it cause you have no other argument that says we should use this info which comes from an unofficial source cause you know it's not official and has no place in articles Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Oh and i removed the Flimp thing from the article cause it's not a real name Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Also you should look at the Mario wiki naming policy [4] Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Singular/Plural[edit]

The name of the page was Super Mario Advance 4 3 e-Cards, and I moved it to Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 e-Cards. But now I wonder: should we move the page to Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 e-Card? The Goomba article's title is singular, but the Characters article's title is plural.
Banon (talk · edits) 10:24, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

I believe "Characters" is plural because the article itself is a list of characters. This article is a list of E-Cards, so I think "E-cards" is more fitting than "E-card".
Mario Green.pngKaBoom! 01:31, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

Dead Links[edit]

So uh, the links on each card's page linking to an image of the card on some Japanese website all appear to be dead. Anybody have any idea how long this has been like this? More importantly, did anybody think to save those images in case something like this happened? Vent (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2015 (EDT)

Mad Dash level[edit]

Where is "Mad Dash"?--Nate-Dawg921 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2018 (EST)