Template talk:Part conjecture

Not named?
What confirms that (the part of) every subject for which this template is used is not officially named in any language? I wanted to ask the same for the Conjecture template when it stated "the subject has not been officially named" a few days ago, but it has been rewritten since. As recently shown with the Japanese names of dozens of Wario Land enemies without official English names, this is not necessarily true. --Grandy02 14:19, 7 January 2010 (EST)
 * I edited it. Is it better that way? - 14:37, 7 January 2010 (EST)
 * Better than before, thanks! --Grandy02 14:42, 7 January 2010 (EST)

Separate category
For some reason, articles tagged with this template are lumped into Category:Articles with conjectural titles along with the articles tagged with the conjecture tag. I think this template deserves its own category, it would make it possible to find the articles with part-conjectural titles. 18:43, 30 December 2015 (EST)
 * Conjecture is conjecture: just because a title's not conjectural sometimes doesn't make that huge a difference, so why complicate things with two categories when one works fine? - 18:53, 30 December 2015 (EST)
 * I wanted to see a list of all articles tagged with this template, because I thought it could perhaps often be misused/misunderstood. See Pump Mario which is tagged with a part-conjecture tag, although a) an official name was found, and b) the title was (purely) conjectural. 18:58, 30 December 2015 (EST)
 * Pump Mario's a unique case, in that it's backwards from the usual situations (i.e. one name getting extrapolated to extra appearances, rather than one name being unsuitable for half the one appearance, like it is there), but it does fit the "This article's name is conjectural for a part of its content." description, and is still in need of an official name for the non-Baby stuff, so the template does work. Anyway, just use Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:part conjecture for finding all the other pages using the template: no category needed. -  19:18, 30 December 2015 (EST)
 * Right, but I thought that other articles might have made the same mistake. I'll check out that link, it pretty much does what I wanted. Thanks! 19:22, 30 December 2015 (EST)
 * But it's not really a mistake, just a weird (and hopefully unique) situation that's still best dealt with using the template: it's not what it was meant for, but it still works. - 19:31, 30 December 2015 (EST)
 * Well, I agree the template should be used in the article. But the page's title is inadequate and I had the feeling that the template was there to justify the unofficial title. Anyway, I've started a discussion on Talk:Pump Mario about this entirely separate issue. 19:41, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Purpose
I don't see why this template exists. So an enemy wasn't named in one game, why does their name there need to be established as "conjecture" when there's already a well-established official name for them? It makes no sense to randomly establish a long-standing official name as conjectural for a section if it wasn't named in that one game. That just sounds ridiculously picky and asinine. Imagine this: Nintendo names an enemy the same for ten games straight. Then, because they expect us to pick up on the name at this point, they don't name it in the eleventh game. We label it as conjecture for that game's section. People stop regarding us as a good Mario wiki, simply because we couldn't stand to use common sense. It goes on, until Nintendo labels it with a name again. My point is that insanely picky templates like this actively make the wiki worse. 02:59, July 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * Do people regard us as a good Mario wiki? There's an entire Twitter account dedicated to cherrypicking our bad writing. 03:12, July 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * ...wow. Either way, this template really should be deleted, as it seems to only exist to serve as an excuse to not use common sense when an enemy appears and is not named in that appearance alone. 05:05, July 30, 2019 (EDT)


 * One, they do that for several other wikis, my personal favorite being the thanksbulbapedia tumblr. (Clarifying Edit: Not only is it not necessarily indicative of opinions on our overall quality, I'm almost tempted to argue the fact that we were considered close enough to a primary source to steal work from wholesale proves how thorough our presentation and research is usually considered, albeit in a completely roundabout way.) Two, it's a bit late for us to complain about other people pointing out the bad writing that appears on this wiki. And three, I doubt the wiki will be dethroned over what amounts to a debate of semantics, so I find the inflation into this narrative of a single template somehow ruining the reputation of a well-established collection of information for a franchise to be more than a little disingenuous, because: Four, that seems to rely entirely on what sounds like holding MarioWiki to an entirely personal (and in this context, unreasonably high) standard.

The fact that we can take matters like this to talk page discussions and the like without necessarily having admin fiat unduly applied down our windpipes shows where we are as a community, in my opinion. I'd hardly expect every single user to agree on every single matter, much less specific things like this - and that's fine! I'm not protesting about your decision to question the need for this template (which, by all appearances, seems to be handling the matter of properly categorizing Suspiciously Similar Substitutes, though I'm likely to be wrong on that). What I'm questioning is the conclusions being drawn and the reasons being employed to that end. -- 05:20, July 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. Striked-out that bit, since it was stating a completely unrealistic situation. 05:41, July 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * I think doing the thing where you type   is good enough.  15:14, October 14, 2020 (EDT)
 * Saying that we're not using "common sense" because of a single template on a wiki with thousands of pages is extreme hyperbole. Anyways, scrooge is completely misinterpreting what Super Mario Facts is for. It doesn't cherry pick bad writing, or even criticize the wiki, it take sentences out of context in a humorous manner. Example: this post is funny because it's out of context, not that it's poorly written. Super Mario Facts isn't meant to be an insult or a malicious jab at the wiki, it's just meant to be light hearted fun to bring a smile. And people find things which are humorously taken out of context as funny. That's fine, and not a representation of what people actually feel about the wiki. To summarize, calling Super Mario Facts as an "entire Twitter account dedicated to cherrypicking our bad writing" is unnecessarily villainizing an account with no malicious intent. Anyways, while you can feel one way or the other on the subject on this template, please don't guilt others to agree with you by saying that agree with this template is throwing out common sense or the reason people don't like this wiki (which isn't even true, hell, the Mario Wiki has even been used unironically in a Scott the Woz episode, and I'm pretty sure Chuggaconroy thanked the wiki in an episode) in the future. As for the template itself, I feel like the template is used not for when a recurring thing obviously reappear and is just unnamed, but rather when two things which may or may not be the same or merged to one page due to whether or not they're the same thing being ambiguous. 15:46, October 14, 2020 (EDT)
 * I mean this wiki is community built. It's going to have jank in it, and the Twitter account Super Mario Fact does in fact, document bad writing at points. There are still old, outdated writing shit that hasn't even been edited still for years that's still very ripe for such material (just look at Count Bleck's dreadful personality section). Also, Pump Mario is a good argument for this template's existence. 15:57, October 14, 2020 (EDT)
 * Well obviously an account which makes humorous posts is going to post some poorly written stuff, but my point is that that's not the intention, nor always the case. And regardless, bad writing does exist here, it inevitably will, given it being a fan wiki which is 15 years old, so it's not like pointing out bad writing is inherently a bad thing. 16:01, October 14, 2020 (EDT)