Talk:Prince Froggy

Name in French
Are you really sure that his name is Couac La Goinfre??? La goinfre would indicate that he is in fact a she.


 * It's possible, there is debate about Birdo's gender.

Prince ≠ Princess.

Anyway, I'm fairly certain that "La" is a mistake.

07:37, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

Is it a mistake on the wiki's part or the game's part? 17:42, 19 May 2013 (EDT)

Japanese and English version
So as i understand, the original Japanese localizations consider him as just a normal Frog Pirate hence the Japanese name, while Western localizations consider him as a Loyal Prince. --83.156.220.80 10:21, 12 June 2018 (EDT)

The Prince and the Froggy
Take note of [[media:Super Mario Yossy Island Shogakukan P8.jpg|these]] [[media:Super Mario Yossy Island Shogakukan P9.jpg|pages]] from the original Shogakukan guide - all of the boss characters are in their own section except for Prince Froggy / Frog Pirate, which is only listed among the game's enemies (it's on the top-left of the former page). In the Super Mario Advance [[media:Advance 3 Shogakukan P16.png|version]], an additional sentence was added stating that it also appears as the boss of World 3-4. During the encounter, Yoshi changes size, not Prince Froggy, so it is technically the same as any Frog Pirate. Also, in Tetris Attack, it is simply referred to as "Froggy", which seems like a clear attempt to merge the enemy and boss since all of these are just referred to Gerogēro in Japanese. Could both articles work under the title "Froggy"? LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:48, August 21, 2020 (EDT)
 * Agreed. 00:53, August 21, 2020 (EDT)


 * You mean "both articles" as in Frog Pirate and Prince Froggy, sharing the same Froggy title? Even if they have the same Japanese name, I haven't seen an English source which overrides Frog Pirate. That said, I'm a bit confused about the Tetris Attack appearance- to your knowledge are we sure that is the prince, or the generic enemy?


 * 01:16, August 21, 2020 (EDT)
 * The answer to your question is 'yes,' owing to them being the same thing. Since "Frog Pirate" isn't an in-game name, it comes off to me as an awkward attempt to split what is clearly the same subject. I've been considering bringing up a merge discussion here myself. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:20, August 21, 2020 (EDT)


 * Hmm, but what about the in-game name we do have- Prince Froggy?


 * 01:22, August 21, 2020 (EDT)
 * I doubt that every chairlift-riding seemingly non-sentient snowman actually has a doctorate nor every generic balloon with a face on it is Germanic nobility, so they could easily all be "Prince Froggies" by the game localizer's intent. Note the localization of the game and the writing of the guide seem separate, given "Kamek" was translated as "Magikoopa" prior, was simply transliterated by the game, with the guide trying to reconcile this inconsistency with "Kamek the Evil Magikoopa." Also, let's not forget how difficult to pluralize "Hootie the Blue Fish" is. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:33, August 21, 2020 (EDT)


 * Okay, but we shouldn't disregard the Prince title in the primary source. I think if there's ambiguity about the Tetris Attack appearance (as it's partnered with another generic enemy), the info should be moved to Frog Pirate and Froggy becomes that page's new title, and the Yoshi's Island/Mario Kun appearance remains as "Prince Froggy" because it's clearly referring to the same character. This may need a TPP to resolve.


 * 01:36, August 21, 2020 (EDT)
 * Agree that this needs a TPP. I, for one, strongly disagree with an outright merge for the reasons Shokora mentioned. 01:41, August 21, 2020 (EDT)
 * I'd liken this situation more to Grinder / Seedy Sally / Short Fuse / Ukiki, or maybe Nep-Enut / Submarine Nep-Enut and Boo Balloon / Blue Boo, but to be clear, my idea isn't so much to merge Frog Pirate with Prince Froggy as it is to merge both articles into a new one titled "Froggy". With Frog Pirate referring to the enemies and Prince Froggy referring to the indistinguishable one that swallows tiny Yoshi, I feel like Froggy from Tetris Attack is the "unifier" (note that the game has regular enemies in the roster in addition to bosses like Raphael The Raven). I realize that reissues are usually factored as a more recent source and thus the name would normally be Prince Froggy on a technicality, but given the unusual localization, I think we can make an exception here. Besides, it can easily be argued that Super Mario Advance 3 only left Prince Froggy as-is due to an oversight - despite much of the minor text being touched up, take a glance at the game's levels. All The Ones From The SNES-Version Retain Capitalization Of Every Word, whereas new secret levels from the GBA version have more standard titles. It seems like an obvious thing to clean up in hindsight, so you can say Froggy was the intentional rename. If not, then what's keeping Froggy from becoming its own article? LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:51, August 21, 2020 (EDT)
 * I'm fine with renaming Frog Pirate to Froggy, but not something like this; after all, Prince Froggy could be considered an individual much like the other bosses in the game. Not to mention, it just seems counterintuitive to make this an exception to the treatment we usually give to separate enemies from bosses specifically if they're distinct for certain reasons. It may sound convincing on paper, but wouldn't that lead to an organizational mess? Remember, it's not always about developer intent, but rather if they work as separate articles from an organizational standpoint. All in all, this will need a TPP for that reason. 15:47, August 21, 2020 (EDT)
 * As I've shown however, official documentation we have on hand doesn't consider Prince Froggy to be any different from Frog Pirate, hence the above comparisons to the game's other odd name choices, not to mention it is unique at the only boss that doesn't transform from its default state as a regular enemy. If observations about the imported level titles and other details aren't sufficient to consider Prince Froggy's reuse an error/oversight then using Froggy as the title would require a proposal, which would be fine by me. I guess the question is, should the proposal have multiple options or do we have the idea of moving the current Frog Pirate article to Froggy should it fail? And Doc, do you still want Prince Froggy as the merged title? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:13, August 21, 2020 (EDT)
 * It doesn't particularly matter to me, Froggy or Prince Froggy can work, merged or otherwise. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:19, August 21, 2020 (EDT)

Coincidence?
https://www.mariowiki.com/Prince_Froggy and https://www.mariowiki.com/Froggy are the same or are they? Super DJ, NokoNokoFreak777

Size
So, Prince Froggy appears to have gained a size increase in Tetris Attack. His background in the stage mode shows him as big as Claw-Daddy who's already as big as Yoshi and in his Round Clear background, he has a regular Frog Pirate resting on him. Should this be mentioned? PrincessPeachFan (talk) 11:22, January 6, 2022 (EST)

The Prince and the Froggy (proposal)
See above. In essence, Frog Pirate and Prince Froggy are considered one and the same in Japanese sources, which is supported by the game itself, as Kamek transforms Yoshi and Baby Mario instead of the boss for the fort fight. "Frog Pirate" seems analogous to the situation with things like Nep-Enut / Submarine Nep-Enut or Boo Balloon / Blue Boo as the English guide invents extra names for what's for all intents and purposes the same subject. Two options are presented in this proposal. The first will simply merge Frog Pirate with Prince Froggy, which would be closer to policy due to being the most recent in-game name as of Super Mario Advance 3. The second will still merge, but make Froggy the current name, which is the subject's unified name in Tetris Attack.

Proposer: Deadline: April 14, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Merge Frog Pirate with Prince Froggy

 * 1) Alternative choice.

Merge and use Froggy as the article title

 * 1) As per discussion thoughts.
 * 2) I do not see why not, it's literally just a Pirate Froggy. It's not "treated as a separate thing" any more than Mega Sledge Bro was separate from regular Sledge Bro. Nobody opposed that proposal. Why oppose this one?
 * 3) - cough (also reminder we merged the SMW Big Boos just fine)
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) The main reason I'm surporting this is because at the very least, we won't have to smack our heads into walls trying to figure out the distinctions between "character" and "species". This entire situation reminds me a lot of Metal Mario, Boom Boom, and Birdo.
 * 6) Per all. Even disregarding the guides and even more so the languages in which they were written, the version of the game released in its country of origin, itself, uses a name that isn't particularly regal-sounding to refer to Prince Froggy, as seen in the title of Prince Froggy's Fort. It's generic enough that one can see why most available guides simply ran with it and called every other Frog Pirate the same thing. I strongly believe this website should commit to its purpose of bringing at the forefront the notions that are closest to authorship and treat any adjacent interpretations as secondary; otherwise I believe the situation hinges more on a general question of "is a generic, ultimately nameless NPC notable enough to have an article if the player interacts with it in a significantly different way from others?" To address the argument regarding search engine discoverability: it's entirely irrelevant and I've never agreed with it; an encyclopedia, library, archive, what have you shouldn't alter or re-interpret its source material to cater to what the audience thinks may be the case.

Keep Frog Pirate and Prince Froggy separate

 * 1) The game still treats Prince Froggy completely differently from other Frog Pirates, so hard oppose from me.
 * 2) Per Swallow
 * 3) Here's the thing: any other boss in the game only has a distinct Japanese name because Kamek has made them bigger: literally all of them have the "Big" prefix followed by the enemy's original name. Since Kamek made Yoshi smaller for Froggy's fight, Froggy obviously doesn't get a name change in Japanese; despite this, he's still treated differently, as Swallow said, so I think it's only fair to treat him as a separate boss character, not unlike the other bosses that used to be regular enemies.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) The Japanese source is too cryptic and not supported by much other evidence for me to comfortably merge. I also don't think the wiki benefits from a search-engine perspective either.
 * 6) Irrespective of what the Lore(tm) says, the Prince Froggy boss battle is distinct from the regular-ass frog pirates from a out-of-universe POV. It would be profoundly weird to check the Yoshi's Island bosses pages in sequence and find one of the game's most distinctive setpiece is tucked away on some random enemy's page.
 * 7) If we can give Goombob a page based on him having a separate English name from his species (which, to be fair, wasn't given a distinct English name from Goombas until Super Mario 3D World), we can do the same for Prince Froggy. Per Glowsquid.
 * 8) Per Glowsquid.
 * 9) Per all, especially Glowsquid, Arend, Mario, and Waluigi Time. In terms of gameplay perspective, these are two entirely different entities and I think it's more logical to keep them as distinct appearances, regardless of what some obscure Japanese guidebook says (esp since we are an English wiki and thus we should also give greater weight to English names as we do right now).
 * 10) Per.

Comments
@Swallow: I don't see how it does. The joke is that just about all the bosses start out as regular enemies walking into the room and getting transformed by Kamek, and the frog breaks that expectation. For that matter, I really don't think the bosses are supposed to be unique before they're transformed - for example, the pre-transformed Bigger Boo is obviously no bigger than a regular Big Boo, and nothing is particularly naval about the pre-transformed Naval Piranha at first (or, to take examples from the sequel, look at Big Burt Bros. and Big Bungee Piranha before they're transformed). All of the levels are named pragmatically to tell the player what to expect up ahead from a gameplay perspective, and aren't necessarily the literal location names. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:34, March 31, 2023 (EDT)
 * Obviously I mean by having Prince Froggy as a boss and treated as a notable individual. I'm afraid this is yet another merge proposal where way too much stock is put into Japanese names while completely ignoring other factors that deem it split worthy (the Scutlets in Bowser's Inside Story I would agree with keeping split for that reason, even if their Japanese names weren't different). I've honestly had enough with debating about these. 19:31, March 31, 2023 (EDT)
 * It's one thing if Japanese names were just the same (which isn't really how I'm framing this, because we happen to have a workable third name that's arguably more appropriate since it would appear to be neither a pirate nor a prince), but as noted earlier, [[media:Super Mario Yossy Island Shogakukan P8.jpg|the guides are]] [[media:Super Mario Yossy Island Shogakukan P9.jpg|literally describing them]] [[media:Advance 3 Shogakukan P16.png|as the same]]. Another reason I prefer the Tetris Attack name is because it solves the confusion by being ambiguous enough to be merger material. There is more speculation right now in the wiki staking its guess on the Tetris Attack appearance than there is if it was just covered in one article. LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:10, March 31, 2023 (EDT)

@Arend They seem to be treated no more "uniquely" than Mega Sledge Bro was treated "uniquely" from Sledge Bro. What are your thoughts on those? 20:13, March 31, 2023 (EDT)
 * I honestly don't think that's a very good comparison. Mega Sledge Bro was named Sledge Bro outside of America and it appears to be the only Sledge Bro in that game. Prince Froggy and Frog Pirates are in the same game, the latter as regular enemies and former as a boss. 20:13, March 31, 2023 (EDT)
 * And how exactly is one being a boss in the same game where others like them appear as common enemies somehow "unique", exactly? Remember, Prince Froggy was not given any unique features, size, dialogue, or whatever else, they were just a Frog Pirate in a castle. If they put a random Woozy Guy in there and called it "Lord Woozy Guy's Castle", would that one random woozy guy deserve a separate page? Plus, Being a unique boss is not always a reason for a split. 20:18, March 31, 2023 (EDT)

If this proposal passes, then I think it's only fair that Koopa the Quick is to be merged with Koopa Troopa, considering that Japan doesn't see Koopa the Quick as a separate character, either. 05:50, April 1, 2023 (EDT)
 * I view that as a little different because Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. gives them separate character and enemy profiles (and older Shogakukan stuff doesn't seem to consider them the same thing either), plus there is visible size disparity, but that can be a separate discussion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:08, April 1, 2023 (EDT)

@ShootingStar7X: Goombob is, frankly, a remnant of when Mario Party Advance had a bunch of individual "character" pages, and is most probably an early rename for Galoombas as a whole that didn't catch on (it is quite possible that we would be calling them Goombobs right now if the wiki picked up on this before Super Mario 3D World). LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:45, April 4, 2023 (EDT)
 * I know all that, and I'm saying that by the same loophole that let us keep his page, we shouldn't merge Prince Froggy's. In a hypothetical world where the Big Boo boss had a different English name from the Big Boo enemies in Super Mario World, I'd probably advocate keeping those pages split, too. ShootingStar7X (talk) 09:23, April 5, 2023 (EDT)
 * That still ignores Tetris Attack, though. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:48, April 5, 2023 (EDT)
 * Ah, should've paid more mind to that. Guess I'll switch to an abstain. ShootingStar7X (talk) 15:14, April 5, 2023 (EDT)

I do have some reseverations with the Big Boo boss merge (see Talk:Big_Boo_(boss)); it was a really shaky one and I could see that one work as a separate article too. I didn't vote to keep because I didn't feel strongly either way. 19:12, April 5, 2023 (EDT)

@Mario how is the Japanese source "too cryptic"? It simply does not make a separate entry for "prince Froggy" in the original, and in the remake it still does not do this, instead adding a line saying "it(Frog Pirate) also appears as a boss in World 3-4." What's cryptic about that? It's not like the English sources were accurate about what enemies were back in the SNES era. Plus, "I also don't think the wiki benefits from a search-engine perspective either"...I mean this in the kindest possible way but that is a ridiculous take. Redirects and disambigs do not hurt search results in any way, especially for something as obscure as a frog from the Yoshi series. here is the search result for the unofficial abbreviation "PM64", for example, which we have a redirect for. The wiki page is still the top result for "PM64" even if that phrase is not used in any other actual article outside of the redirect. 19:49, April 5, 2023 (EDT)
 * I'll also add that, if anything, this will help whenever the Froggy (Sonic the Hedgehog) article is created, though I did briefly touch on the search traffic argument here. LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:31, April 5, 2023 (EDT)
 * I'm not an SEO expert but I keep thinking about Steve's comment made a while back: "I encourage everyone to be mindful of how discrete articles help search engine discoverability before voting to merge any article, not just chuckster." It's been argued years back that we generally prefer split over merge and this is the case where I think split wins out. The examples you point out do seem to be examples of errors ("Mace Penguin" was agreed to be an error due to physical appearance, behavior, etc; it's not necessarily applicable to this situation). I don't see how this one automatically must be one just because of an inconsistent Japanese name. I don't understand the constant assumption that some localization errors mean we treat plenty of otherwise fine localization changes as suspect. Again I'll repeat again, Japanese names cannot be solely relied on; they must almost always be supported by other evidence. Otherwise the sourcing IS cryptic and can sometimes lead into confusing article organization (again with the whole thing regarding the mines from Mario Party 6's Sink or Swim being referred to generic mines and having several minigame names explicitly refer to them as such, which article is going to get completely split, and the reasoning completely hinging on one Japanese name that isn't as important as it seems). Prime example being the current absolute indecipherable mess of Cheep Chomp page where trying to find information on one particular creature is like sorting needles on a haystack. Japanese names can sometimes be a good example for clarity, but I'm seeing this and the Sink or Swim as serving to needlessly complicate rather than clarify. 01:18, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * "i'm not really persuaded especially by the trend of reliance on Japanese names" Except that is how it seems most of the opposition is purposefully framing the entirety of our argument. This outright ignores how these guides also completely organize the boss and the enemy as the same entity, it is the only boss to not undergo Kamek's transformation magic (which is precisely why Yoshi's Island bosses ever got unique names from their regular counterparts to begin with), and the Tetris Attack appearance is inconclusive (one can even say "cryptic") enough to be either in English (we have a policy in case anyone suggests placing it in both). Just so we're clear, that organization aspect is -partially- why I would personally not support merging Koopa the Quick with Koopa Troopa, which was brought up before as an attempt at internal consistency I suppose, because we already do have at least one Japanese source that lists them as a wholly separate character and enemy despite them having identical Japanese names. No matter how you look at it, it should be apparent that the frog simply did not receive that treatment. If it were "solely relying on the Japanese name" and there was nothing else to it, this would probably only have been limited to the discussion. And for that matter, language-of-origin names have usually been looked at as evidence, not proof by themselves. To me at least, it's much more revealing that these guides fully merge the enemy and boss descriptions than they do have the same name, which again could've easily been in separate profiles in spite of the name if it was really desired. All in all, I fail to see why a regular enemy can't also be a boss fight (if it's even a true fight from a strict gameplay perspective, considering it only "fights" you in the swallow cutscene to set up the stomach area and then its Shy Guys "fight" you more than it does). I'm not sure why the Mario Party 6 mines are brought into this, given that the split rationale is additionally based on appearance and behavior (and I had that proposal amended to include the options you appeared to want FYI). LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:16, April 6, 2023 (EDT)

One thing I'm confused about from the opposition; prior to seeing that guide entry, I (and, presumably, most players) just saw the so-called "Frog Pirates" as multiple Prince Froggies (which, surprise surprise, they are). Calling them different therefore seems more "cryptic," and is instead hiding the "iconic setpiece"'s alternate role on a random separate page. Also, again on Tetris Attack, I want to point out that, of the "friend" characters in it, all others but Rafael are standard enemies or allies, not bosses, so I find it likely that if it is (somehow) meant to be either/or, it would be the "enemy" role. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:32, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * As for the first argument, I don't believe you'll be making this same argument if the Japanese name was different. The argument you're making all hinges on a Japanese name. All I can say is that the frog character in Tetris Attack should be put in the Frog Pirate article akin to that generically named Paratroopa from Mario Party Advance getting merged while Prince Froggy should pertain exclusively to the boss fight. I don't see any more evidence that the Tetris Attack character is supposed to be the boss you fought in the prior game. 01:18, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * Well, yes, if the language of origin (and thus, the entity's creator) said they were different, then they'd be different. As instead, they repeatedly, consistently, explicitly state them to be the same, then that is, quite bluntly, what they are intended to be, regardless of what whichever fluff writer made the blurb in the second-language Player's Guide. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:12, April 6, 2023 (EDT)

"if the language of origin (and thus, the entity's creator)"

This statement really made me think about why I'm increasingly dubious about these past year's obsessions with merging and splitting things based on obscure Japanese stategy guide statements, readability and intuitiveness be damned and it's because well... that's a huge leap of logic isn't it? The implication here is that third-party strategy guide writers are innately more authoritative and knowledgeable about the Mario lore, because they speak Japanese, and nothing else. It seems an uncontroversial statement on the surface, but I'll explain why it doesn't seem right to me.

Yeah Mario is a Japanese franchise developed by Japanese people and I strongly believe the source material's original script should be prioritized when thorny questions arise, but here's the rub: the Shokagukan (or whatever publisher is cited here, the proposal doesn't make it clear) strategy guide is not the source material. Shogakukan's Yoshi's Island strategy guide is not Yoshi's Island the game, nor are the writers of Shogakukan's Yoshi's Island guide the developers of Yoshi's Island. Nintendo doesn't own Shogakukan, JK Voices, Enterbrain etc. nor do I believe that those game-specific books (as opposed to specifically-branded "Mario general guides" like the Memorial Book and SMBE Encyclopedia) have any more hands-on assistance or greater oversight from the owners than their western counterpart. Unless evidence is provided otherwise, I have no reason to believe that the relationship between Shogakukan or NCL is any different from the one between NOA and Prima Games: namely that the publisher approaches the owners of the material they want to cover to pay for the licensing to have their book get the coveted "Officialy licensed" endorsement, get some early build and maybe promotional material to help get the guide ready for launch date and that's it.

These aren't statements straight from the developers, liner notes or any 1st-hand "word of god" statements. I'm not saying that because they're third-party they're not valid sources, but I do increasingly see the idea of "Well the Japanese guide is more valid than the English guide, because it's Japanese" as increasingly tenuous. And more broadly, I strongly feel the forest is missed from the tree. I think "Does this thing serve a specific, distinct gameplay purpose? Is it conceivable readers would want to look up this specific occurence and be confused or annoyed that they cannot find it because it's tucked away on some other related subject's page?", etc etc really, really should trump "what does the strategy guide says?" --Glowsquid (talk) 11:56, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * "These aren't statements straight from the developers, liner notes or any 1st-hand "word of god" statements." I'll admit that this is a fair point (though I would say that of course translating into other languages with strict deadlines and localization restrictions, generally speaking, tends to cause more kerfuffles than same-language sources regardless, not to mention this Player's Guide is known to have a few problems on that front)...which is why I guess it's beneficial that the giga- "source assets" are accessible and serve as the closest we can get to developer's notes for the time being. The short version is that the relevant filenames would not seem to suggest any significant misinterpretation on Shogakukan's part. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:40, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * We're talking about three Japanese guides at different points in time giving them a single bio vs. one English guide giving a different bio for each. No matter how you slice it, the Players' Guide is the odd one out. And like I said, most readers would more likely assume identical frog A and identical frog B are the same. I remember when I was little and I was baffled they were split based on... an obscure strategy guide source. And what of gameplay purpose? RPGs have NPC/enemies, kart and other spinoffs have item/enemies, and I don't see much advocacy to split those since they're clearly the same thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:39, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * And anyone who's played the game not even aware of these guides will see these as different entities. 12:42, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * No, as I said, "most readers would more likely assume identical frog A and identical frog B are the same." I sure did. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:44, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * In fairness, the Player's Guide isn't necessarily the odd one out - it has the English translation of the game itself backing it up. The level name "Prince Froggy's Fort" outright states (or if you're being picky, heavily implies at the very least) that this is a unique individual. It's not at all unreasonable to have a unique boss encounter, combined with the English material that says it's a special one (and none that says it's not), and assume they're separate things. -- 13:46, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * If we're at the point where we're willing to ignore out-of-game sources, who's to say that "Prince Froggy" wasn't supposed to be the English name of the enemy as well? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:40, April 6, 2023 (EDT)


 * Most off-wiki people I've approached the subject with have so far said they see them all as "Prince Froggy." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:43, April 6, 2023 (EDT)


 * Okay I'm just going to be blunt at this point if the whole "but what about the search results?" card is going to be used to counter any and all future Japan-supported merge attempts; if search result frequency was such a big issue, then we should have heard people complaining by now. "Oh, but they have-" no, no they haven't. Every example I've seen presented in discussions was from editors back in the period from 2012-2015 when much of the wiki looked nothing like it does today. That was a different time, with different standards, different circumstances, and different information. Are editors from nearly a decade ago that have long since became inactive (or better yet, editors in general) representative of all our readers? Not really. Most of our readers are people who either are IP editors or non-editors, and if search results & merging pages was such a big deal, we should have heard more discussion from them outside of this wiki on social media, forum threads, face-to-face conversation, etc. Now, here's what I'm going to ask; has search-results and merging of pages been such a big deal for present-day readers to the point where it actively hurts us? If, for example, we were to have a poll on social media asking people "hey do you think the MarioWiki organizes things a bit weirdly?", would a majority of people answer "Yes"? And even then, how do we know if it is actually hurting search-engine traffic? According to Google Trends, the time when we had the biggest search engine interest was November of 2011, when the wiki pages were along the lines of this. Even then, that's only the search engine interest for the Wiki's name itself; how do you possibly quantify interest in individual articles? Plus, if we're going to stress so much about search-engine stuff, then why should we be trimming Smash coverage down to guest-appearance level? Surely if we wanted the most search clicks and the most readers reading, we would instead go the other way and expand our Smash coverage to be more of a full Crossover, right? But that's getting off topic.


 * I also do not understand why people (specifically the admins) are suddenly putting so much value into if our readers are "confused or annoyed that they cannot find it because it's tucked away on some other related subject's page" as if that's a concern in the first place. We're a wiki. Our job is not to cater to what our audience wants to hear, it's to document info as accurately as possible to what official media has said. We have places and times for interacting with our readers (The Shroom, The Forum Board, User Talks, etc.), but our mainspace articles should not be one of those places and times. Yes, guidebooks from any language are "third party" but it's still an official piece of media officially licensed by Nintendo; any guidebooks that aren't officially licensed by Nintendo, we don't cover. Why do we tend to favor Shogakukan over Prima and Power? because when official media clashes with other media, the material that comes from Japan (AKA Nintendo's home country) has proven to be more accurate over time when new information about a specific thing comes up. Need I bring up the large amount of mistakes English material has made about enemies from SMW2 again? "It's still third party though-" then what party is "readers would want to look up this specific occurrence" supposed to be? First party? Second party? It's Null party. Official statements from official sources (regardless of what "party" level they are from) should always triumph what we assume a vast majority of our readers would be looking for.


 * Oh, and this whole debate about "Third Party material isn't Nintendo's words!" is sidestepping what happened in Tetris Attack. To that, I ask this; is the "Froggy" from Tetris Attack Prince Froggy, or a Frog Pirate? If it really is Prince Froggy, then this page should be moved to "Froggy" as that's the enemy's most recent name. And if we do move it there, then how strong exactly is the English distinction from Frog Pirate? Really, I feel like the only reason people are considering them to be two different things is that Froggy was given the title "Prince" in SMW2. But what if Froggy is actually a Frog Pirate? In that case, Frog Pirate would have to be moved to "Froggy", since that's the most recent name. But how can we be sure that Froggy is a Frog Pirate, and then how can we be sure the English distinction is that strong? Really, I can't help but feel like there's a lot of inertia going on here, and that arguing over the schematics of how prioritized we should prioritize different official sources is glossing over the fact that what our readers think is right, or what we believe our readers think is right, is not an official source whatsoever. 18:20, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * I honestly had a feeling that search engine optimization might become a talking point again as soon as I saw the recent push to shrink Smash coverage. LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:32, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * You're missing the point - the argument isn't "readers expect Prince Froggy to have a separate page, so give him one". The argument is "readers expect Prince Froggy to have a separate page and there's official material to support that, so give him one". You're right, our job isn't to cater to what readers want to hear, but it is our job to present information in a straightforward and organized way. Merging a boss with a generic enemy type that's been differentiated in English material and making it harder to find by clumping it in with something else solely because Japanese guidebooks didn't bother to make the distinction is, in my opinion, not straightforward and organized. The caveat, of course, is that we perceive what "straightforward and organized" is differently, which is why we have discussions and proposals.
 * As for the Japanese vs. English issue... Well, even if Japanese material is generally more accurate on the whole (which I'm skeptical of, I have to admit - especially since a commonly held belief by many users here is that "language of origin is almost always right", is that necessarily the case, or is it just an issue of defaulting?) that doesn't make it infallible by any means. The Japanese guidebooks didn't bother to distinguish Prince Froggy, and... that somehow makes the English translators deciding to make that distinction themselves a mistake? I don't even see why these have to be in opposition to each other, really. They didn't distinguish Prince Froggy from the other Frog Pirates, because, well... he is one! For the purposes of the in-game world, he's just a run-of-the-mill Frog Pirate, Kamek doesn't transform him or anything. The English translation just decided it would be a good idea to give this particularly significant Frog Pirate his own identity. That doesn't seem like a "mistake" to me. I've said this before and I'll keep saying it - the Japanese developers and licensed partners aren't as infallible as they're often made out to be, and sometimes translators make the right call. There has to be some give and take. -- 19:06, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * In terms of accuracy to the information shown in-game, I don't know how the minds behind the game can possibly be called "fallible" when they're the ones who created the game. The concept of "the world 3 fort boss is actually just a regular enemy with a twist" came from them, and the English localisers (who didn't create the game) just added some more "lore" on top of that. 19:29, April 6, 2023 (EDT) Edit: Though, I can't help but wonder how far we should default to the lang-of-origin argument. As a hypothetical, Nintendo of Japan says that Baby Mario is just a young Mario, while Nintendo of America for some reason decides to consistently promote Baby Mario across English media as a wholly distinct character; say, Mario's son. Given that this is an American website and it is written in English, which narrative would the wiki choose as a matter of course? Perhaps not directly relevant to the current discussion, but thinking in logical extremes can help one detect problems with a given idea or rhetoric past a certain point.  19:40, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * When I say "developers aren't infallible" that's referring moreso to multi-game subjects i.e. giving a returning thing the wrong name, so not as relevant in this specific conversation. -- 19:52, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * Regarding "creator intent" or the assumption that they actually know what the hell they're doing regarding naming and organizing enemies: they don't. People are working off an incorrect assumed premise. In reality: developers in general know/appreciate/care way less about "lore" consistency than a lot of wiki editors think. They work on a job for money not to passionately invest in a dream project like us fans are doing when editing a wiki on our whims. Most developers don't care about Mario the way wiki editors do. They go to their jobs, name their frog enemy whatever, name their boss frog the same thing because it looks like the enemy. They shrug and then punch out and then leave their job, deposit a check, and completely forget about this character and don't care how much sense it makes according to other naming schemes after the weekend is over. The localizers come along and go "hey maybe we can give this character a name" and then they also do this, shrug, punch out, deposit a check and leave their job and then forget about this character and don't care how much sense it makes according to other naming schemes after the weekend is over.
 * So? When it's our call to organize information it is fine to exercise a level of discretion. Naming is still important, but if a naming scheme is confusing due to a contradicting obscure Japan guidebook that relies on an early developer build and is not meticulously reviewed by Nintendo the same way MarioWiki editors pore through everything, and leads to a result that seems baffling, it's not a good idea to rely on it.
 * Developers are not involved. They most certainly have way less of an idea than you do regarding the identities of these pixelated globs. Chances are very good that this lengthy debate would stun them. 20:11, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * ...did you seriously just imply, nay, outright state that media makers have no perception or decision on what they create? Even ignoring that (decidedly offensive) viewpoint, I want to again say that this is not "an obscure Japanese guidebook based on pre-release information" or whatever, but three second-party guides that are not just for the original, but the GBA reissue many years later. Once again, Player's Guide is the obscure tucked-away one in that respect. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:58, April 6, 2023 (EDT)


 * Nobody here is arguing that the developers should be held accountable for not establishing a deep enough lore for Mario fanatics, and it feels patronising that you went off on a tangent about how they actually go through the creative process--as if we can't infer that by ourselves--in an attempt to own that strawman. The wiki policy is hard-set on covering material of official quality, correct? And the Naming policy page lays out several tiers of "officiality" with the sources deemed acceptable for use on the wiki, correct? Then the wiki has an inherent perception that some entity may have more ownership or authority over a work than others, and the most consistent thing it could do in that regard is make a clear divide between what is considered author intent (personified as the game's devs) and the outside actors who contribute to that foundation (i.e. localisers, guide writers). Point being, it's not how neatly the creators wrapped their creation that matters, but the simple fact that they are the creators and, theoretically, as a prerogative, they should have the last word on said creation. 21:10, April 6, 2023 (EDT)


 * "Chances are very good that this lengthy debate would stun them." Perhaps chances are even better that a wiki would stun them. LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:21, April 7, 2023 (EDT)

I was asked to provide some clarity on SEO, and that is here:

"The TL;DR of SEO is that the wiki performs better when article titles match what people are searching for. So if someone is searching for something specific, that specific thing having its own article will perform better than if that content is within a larger, more general article. The wiki will also perform better if the article uses the most common name for its title."

My meta-commentary on arguing for SEO is here:

"I appreciate those making the case for SEO. I tried to do the same for the Mario Kart courses and Chuckster stuff, but by the end of it I was being accused of having 'ulterior motives' for wanting the wiki to do well in search. That wasn't a good feeling, so after that I was just like 'ok whatever, I'm not doing this again, if people want the wiki to perform worse in search so be it.' So basically, I feel like the SEO argument isn't compelling to our editors, and the admins shouldn't feel obligated to argue for it unless they really want to fight that battle."

Here's a general comment about languages:

"I feel like there are two different philosophies at odds here: 1) We're an English-language wiki, so if a subject has a distinct name only in English, it's valid for us to recognize that, and 2) Treat Japanese as the primary/most valid language and mold our English coverage to comply with it."

I'm in camp #1 and I don't think it's a sin for our English-language wiki to use the English names that have been given to us. The Prince Froggy article currently uses the English name and notes the Japanese difference as a trivia point, which I think is a perfectly reasonable way for our English-language wiki to handle that.

That being said, I understand the perspective of #2 and I don't think it's invalid. In fact, I think the most recent appearance stuff is a more compelling case for "Froggy" than the language stuff in this case anyway. I don't have a position to argue; this is just a comment. Thank you for reading. -- 20:24, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * I will own up and say that labeling those concerns as "ulterior motives" was a bit of a ridiculous way to put it, but I'm still not buying the idea that one or two pages being inconsequential to what the readers would expect somehow does heavy damage to the wiki's reputation and search visibility. At absolute worst, someone will google "chuckster mario sunshine", find out that the wiki gives them a different name, and proclaim "huh, what weird little fellas these super mario wikis is, anyway let's see what they have to say". And I'd say the perception that this website is a reliable source of information is still as sound as ever and sometimes even overstated in spite of the minute lows the wiki has gone through; I've seen debates on the Mario franchise where participants bring up how "ackshually, Mario Wiki says that" as an actual point of discourse. Which brings me back to Froggy: why wouldn't the wiki persuade its readers and bring home that, as per multiple official sources, the "boss" is actually just another enemy fought under different conditions applied solely to the player? I'd say if the site's reputation is as high as I claimed, then it's in everyone's best interests to make a candid and informed use of it, a few insignificant downward spikes in google searches notwithstanding. 21:43, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * To me, it's easier to think, "ok this enemy is the boss of the level, level is named after him, he's in a different context than the other guys you kill in the level and you kill him differently than the other enemies so he's a distinct entity like Hookbill is even though Hookbill literally is just a giant Koopa. Like, Hookbill's differences that make him warrant a separate article also applies to Froggy, except the circumstances is you shrinking instead of the generic Koopa growing bigger. I honestly prefer the consistency with other Yoshi's Island bosses than argue a specific case just because you're the one that shrinks than the boss that grows big. 21:48, April 6, 2023 (EDT)
 * I appreciate the comment. To explain why I don't align myself with camp #1: it's because I don't really see this as just any English-language wiki, but the biggest resource of the franchise on the face of the internet. Surely, it must be attracting readers from all over the world whose primary language isn't English. We use American English spelling and terminology, but according to policy, that's because a lot if not most readers come from North America (as does the wiki), and it wasn't even always enforced. On top of that, the wiki is big enough that on several occasions we've caught official sources peeking at it. That alone demands responsibility. I guess I align myself more closely to camp #2, but it's not even really how I would describe my philosophy; I suppose the reason the phrase "language-of-origin" was coined was because of the reality that the franchise is an increasingly-worldwide brand. Yes, it still is primarily Japanese and probably will be for the foreseeable future, but non-Japanese developers/creators obviously exist. For example, if Rare never said that K. Lumsy is K. Rool's brother, then I think most would agree that the original English depiction deserves more credence than the subsequent Japanese localization. This isn't because "it's an English wiki," but because it's simply a detail that did not exist before translation. Of course, it gets tricky when development teams are international, at which point I'd try to find out who was the lead director/designer/writer and go from there. Navigating through different languages naturally creates an extra layer of miscommunication to happen by their very nature. I think what I'm trying to say is that I feel camp #1 is behind the times for a while now with how interconnected the internet has made everything and how especially older localization was less involved with the creatives. It's made the regional segregation of information, which is what at least a rigid adherence to camp #1 would result in, counterproductive in the long run. Would a Japanese-language wiki, or a Chinese-language wiki, or what have you, make the same choices if they were the one burdened with being the biggest wiki and had a global reach? I believe the best presentation is one that aims to replicate the creators', regardless if they're Japanese, or English, or Spanish, etc. Something like a shared name can be incidental, so I view that as a guideline rather than a rule and usually prefer other evidence to support it, which I thought in this case is adequate. I hope that makes sense. I hardly expected this little proposal to morph into a message about the direction of the wiki. LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:32, April 6, 2023 (EDT)