Talk:Tracks (enemy)

Conjectural name?
Same as Astro Goomba: Why is the title conjectural when there are official names in both Japanese and German (according to the article)? Is there really no official English name? --Grandy02 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Prima Names
I'm logging this here for future reference: this enemy really avoids being named, being called "the creature", "that blue creature", and "an invisible creature" in the SMG1 Prima guide and isn't mentioned at all in the SMG2 Prima guide. Unless this article's gonna be named "Invisible Creature" or something, we're not getting a name anytime soon.

Naming Heirarchy
Shouldn't this be Petapeta? I've gone into great detail over why using internal filenames is fundamentally flawed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * It shouldn't have been "Starbag" for the longest time since it's only a wiki translation of "Sternentasche" in German, and though "Petapeta" would have higher priority than that since the earlier foreign name is preferred, the "Petari" label conveniently means that the article doesn't need an another language tag. Development names take precedence over foreign names per policy. Sure, you can say that it's still derived from Japanese instead of English, but that's no different from, say, Sushi or Unagi. In addition to the distinctly Japanese design of the enemy making more sense, this name is also written in English letters rather than Japanese characters, and official romanized sources do not require an another language tag when used as article titles (see Punch Ball Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. Special, and Wrecking Crew '98 content). LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Internal names are definitely an official part of the naming hierarchy. Per LTL. 10:51, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * They should be nowhere near the highest though, since they represent an early vision of the completed version, and plus may contain some sort of development jokes. Remember, there's always the potential some new Blooper variant will have one Japanese name in a guide, but an internal name that translates to "Squid poop" because of some esoteric joke. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * You're speculating about hypotheticals, and that still doesn't change policy. If you want to subvert it, make a proposal or convince an admin. 15:53, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Awright, what about how the Boo from the Boo in the Box Mission has the internal name of "Atomic Boo," despite not being particularly large? Or how one unused enemy/boss from the same game was apparently at one point intended to be connected to King Kaliente and the other Octos, despite clearly being a Piranha Plant? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * It already isn't anywhere "near the highest" part of the naming hierarchy, though; at current placement, internal names are basically a last resort for article titles if no other English source works, which is literally the case here. As far as these other examples, the unique Boo is labeled as "TeresaChief" in Super Mario Galaxy and is actually the same object as "TeresaAtomic" in Super Mario Galaxy 2 (just shrunken in the former and renamed in the latter, again an indication that the developers do in fact pay attention to what gets permanently written in the game data), and the unused Piranha Plant model is just that: unused. Either way, these are irrelevant. If you believe internal filenames are truly "fundamentally flawed" as a reputable source, take it up with Naming. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I think last resort is good, because it's better than conjecture, but I think the definition of "English" is a bit blurry here. Remember "Teresauraus" becomes "Telesauls"....I might take it up with them. Still, unused or not, it shows that some things in development went through some mind-boggling changes....or they decided to name something nonsensically. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * "Please note that regardless of the source, the official North American name takes priority, followed by the first international English name if no North American name is available, and finally the first international non-English name if no English name is known."
 * Unless the internal file name is actually written in Japanese characters and we're not showing it for some reason, this is an English version of the name, and it's the only English version of the name we have. 17:48, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * My point, is that their original name was intended to be ペタリ durign the developement (i'm learning Japanese letters), and it was then changed to ペタペタ for the manual and encyclopedia. But since there is no source, and we can't cite the encyclopedia, we can use Petari, at least, for now. -- 11:23, 10 January 2019 (EST)
 * You mean the guide, not the manual. Perhaps the nuances of internal naming could stand to be more explicit in policy, but either way, Petari is the best usable name in the strict sense. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2019 (EST)
 * I think Doc von Schmeltwick's point is similar to the Cheep Cheep (bird) thing and the Whimp. After Googling "Petari" i found out that it means the same thing as "Petapeta". And unlike Sushi and Unagi, it was not given by an official American/British material. -- 02:17, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * It's not an "English" version, it's a Romanized version. (Also, note that English isn't technically a Romantic language; it is a Germanic language.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * Yup! Was the Whimp example i given a similar case? I kinda feel you have a point on it. -- 02:31, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * Japanese romanizations simply use the Roman/Latin script and don't necessarily refer to the Romance/Neo-Latin languages; in fact, one of the main modern systems, Hepburn, was specifically designed for English speakers. And as I've said here, "Whimp" is undoubtedly a "Soarin' Stu" situation, so let's discourage it. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * Hmmm... You're right in the sense the nuances of internal naming should be more explicit in policy. -- 04:04, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * But imo, it would have way too much options. -- 13:25, 4 February 2019 (EST)