Talk:Purple Switch

Merge to ! Switch
For some reason, between this and Cap Switch (both of which are simply "switch" in JP), Cap Switch gets to be considered the "main" ! Switch while this is split off. This doesn't make much sense to me; while the Cap Switches are clearly based off the SMW object, these seem to be based off the SMW2 version, but slightly tweaked. The square design is also no issue, as shown by P Switch in Odyssey. Also, it's straight-up red in DS, so the name's not so accurate. Anyways, I think both this and the Cap Switch can share a place on the article, as they are both ! Switches at the core, with different specifics about them. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:00, April 11, 2020 (EDT)
 * I'm not opposed to that at all. 00:10, April 12, 2020 (EDT)
 * Also of note is that, in Super Mario 64 DS, HATENA_SWITCH is the internal object name for ? Switch (formerly "Cap" Switch), while HANSWITCH is the internal object name for "Purple" Switch, which seems clearly diminutive of it (possibly a remnant of how they were paired in Super Mario 64 source since the latter didn't have its "!" symbol changed to a "?" symbol). However, other things worth mentioning: in Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros., the Super Mario 64 switches are listed separately (Cap Switch has the same name given to ! Switch in other sections, and Purple Switch is a generic "switch"), and in in-game Super Mario 64 text, the term 「アイテムスイッチ」 (Aitemu Suicchi, Item Switch) is used in place of "Cap Switches" in Japanese (and the corresponding block is called 「アイテムブロック」 in place of "colored blocks" and one instance of "Cap Blocks"). LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:48, April 12, 2020 (EDT)

Merge to ! Switch (proposal edition)
See above. This is just SM64's take on the SMW2 ! Switch. Also, while its color is debatable in the original, it's not even purple in the remake.

Proposer: Deadline: September 20, 2021, 23:59 GMT September 27, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per
 * 2) Paper Mario and Super Paper Mario have non-standard ! Switches in Dry Dry Ruins and Yold Ruins respectively, in the same games as traditionally designed ! Switches, and those aren't split. The effects of those traditionally designed ! Switches also vary dramatically from switch to switch, so the "different effects" argument doesn't convince me either. As for them having a unique English name... well, so do the Cap Switches, and those aren't split. What makes the Purple Switches so special, especially when their name (which, as already pointed out, is misleading) comes from a lower-tier source than Cap Switch?
 * 3) The base concept is the exact same as the ! Switch, and the Japanese name further suggests this. Per all.
 * 4) What they said. I'd like to add that the unusual square shape might be an attempt to have it use less polygons.
 * 5) - Per all

Oppose

 * 1) I'm skeptical of this one since Super Mario 64 already has switches with the traditional design. It seems more logical to assume that 64 just has two different types of switches.
 * 2) It has both a unique name and operates on a different function then the other ! Switch in Super Mario 64.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) I'm not quite sure I understand the logic here, it seems pretty obvious to me that this a variation of the regular switch and it being the only one to return in SM64DS doesn't really amount to anything. Per all.
 * 6) Per all. They are different. It's like the P-Switch and ! Switch, except here they have both an "!" on them: they're different in purpose and in their way of functioning, so they shouldn't be merged.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
@Waluigi Time Same deal as the P-Switch in Odyssey. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:30, September 8, 2021 (EDT)
 * I see this more as a P-Switch Gray P-Switch situation similar things but with different functions.
 * Its language-of-origin name is just "switch," though. Which is shared with most iterations of ! Switch...with the cap ones sometimes being given the more specific name of "Item Switch." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:35, September 8, 2021 (EDT)
 * Sorry but like you want to merge two different things with two different designs that have separate functions that exist in the same game. Like sorry I don't care that it has the generic name switch. Not only that but according to this very wiki the traditional Item switches in Super Mario 64's Japanese name means Item Switch so even there in Japanese and English it has separate names.
 * It's the only one in DS, actually. And what I said before is "Switch" is ! Switch's usual Japanese name, with Item Switch solely referring to the cap one. Also, objects can have multiple functions and slight design differences while still being the same type of object, ie cannon. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:58, September 8, 2021 (EDT)
 * The P-Switch in Odyssey has a different design than normal but it's also the only P-Switch in the game. I don't see what you're trying to get at here. -- 12:48, September 8, 2021 (EDT)
 * And this is the one with the shared basic name in the Lang-of-origin and the only one to return in DS. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:13, September 8, 2021 (EDT)

The Japanese name "switch" is attributed to each of these by a different source: Purple Switch's is the Shogakukan SM64 guide, while the ! Switch's is the game's Japanese instruction manual. There isn't a unified source to give the same name to both types of switches, so them ending up with identical names may be more a result of happenstance than a decision to connect the two. And regardless of that, "switch" is extremely generic; the Wario Land 4 frog switch is also just called a "switch" in Japanese, but that wouldn't make a strong enough case for a merge with any of the proposal's affected articles. 18:55, September 8, 2021 (EDT)
 * The SMW2 object is consistently called just "switch" in all its appearances, though, and this resembles it in both design and function. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:36, September 8, 2021 (EDT)

@Opposition Is anyone going to acknowledge 7feetunder's points? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:44, September 24, 2021 (EDT)
 * I don't think something being merged when it should probably be split is a good reason to merge something else. 07:15, September 25, 2021 (EDT)
 * And why pray tell should those "probably be split?" That's dodging the question. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:36, September 25, 2021 (EDT)