46,725
edits
Talk:Grab Block: Difference between revisions
→Comments
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
:::::::::::::If our goal is to provide the best information possible, then it is prudent of us to evaluate the information we receive instead of taking everything at face value. These things like names are not as 100% internally consistent as we might like them to be sometimes, and are not always the gold standard of differentness. I would've looked myself if I could read Japanese, but going by what LinkTheLefty said above, the sources we're working with can't get their names straight for ''other'' objects either, which are currently considered the same on this wiki, such as [[Fighter_Fly|Fighter Fly]]. If flies can be on a single article, then having two names in one book (particularly this book) is not "confirmation" it's different. That or I'm waiting on Fighter Fly being split into 2-5 separate articles for every Japanese name it's ever had.<br>And besides, we are not computers programmed by the guidelines to execute them on every page with cold machine precision. We're doing this to provide the best possible information so readers can learn more about the games they play, and the conventions exist to guide us towards doing that. Whoever came up with them cannot see the future to ensure that following them to the letter is best in every single situation ever. They are the broad strokes, and sometimes we need to get into details. I'd argue that splitting in a case like this does more harm than good. A single article would allow readers to better understand the relationship between the games, and be far less redundant in terms of information. The split just lets us pat ourselves on the back for following conventions a bit closer. I think the better organization of information is more important than clinging to guidelines in grey areas where they apply in strange and unhelpful ways. It also would not damage navigation or be confusing, because users are not so feeble minded that they cannot handle seeing an article say something changed appearance, that happens all the time on the wiki. [[User:WilliamFrog|WilliamFrog]] ([[User talk:WilliamFrog|talk]]) 13:33, July 22, 2023 (EDT) | :::::::::::::If our goal is to provide the best information possible, then it is prudent of us to evaluate the information we receive instead of taking everything at face value. These things like names are not as 100% internally consistent as we might like them to be sometimes, and are not always the gold standard of differentness. I would've looked myself if I could read Japanese, but going by what LinkTheLefty said above, the sources we're working with can't get their names straight for ''other'' objects either, which are currently considered the same on this wiki, such as [[Fighter_Fly|Fighter Fly]]. If flies can be on a single article, then having two names in one book (particularly this book) is not "confirmation" it's different. That or I'm waiting on Fighter Fly being split into 2-5 separate articles for every Japanese name it's ever had.<br>And besides, we are not computers programmed by the guidelines to execute them on every page with cold machine precision. We're doing this to provide the best possible information so readers can learn more about the games they play, and the conventions exist to guide us towards doing that. Whoever came up with them cannot see the future to ensure that following them to the letter is best in every single situation ever. They are the broad strokes, and sometimes we need to get into details. I'd argue that splitting in a case like this does more harm than good. A single article would allow readers to better understand the relationship between the games, and be far less redundant in terms of information. The split just lets us pat ourselves on the back for following conventions a bit closer. I think the better organization of information is more important than clinging to guidelines in grey areas where they apply in strange and unhelpful ways. It also would not damage navigation or be confusing, because users are not so feeble minded that they cannot handle seeing an article say something changed appearance, that happens all the time on the wiki. [[User:WilliamFrog|WilliamFrog]] ([[User talk:WilliamFrog|talk]]) 13:33, July 22, 2023 (EDT) | ||
::::::::::::::And once again, if there's no hard confirmation either way and we aren't sure whether they're the same or not, we should default to splitting them because it's less speculative and assumptive. If "evaluating information" means applying our own speculation in spite of what we know, then no, I think that's the opposite of prudent. I know that we don't always exactly need to follow the guidelines to the letter, but they also were written for a reason - if I thought they were flawed, I wouldn't have been championing them throughout this debate. I keep saying that we shouldn't default to merging just because we think they're similar, and it's not because the guidelines say so (in fact, there is to my knowledge no specific guideline saying anything to that effect beyond the general "no speculation"), it's because I genuinely think it makes for a significantly better presentation of information and has been set as a precedent on the wiki for good reason. How I see it, merging these items that we don't know are the same in order to enforce our headcanon that they are makes for a much less helpful experience to the readers. I don't understand why you claim this to be a "grey area" or "strange and unhelpful", see the links in my previous comments. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:18, July 22, 2023 (EDT) | ::::::::::::::And once again, if there's no hard confirmation either way and we aren't sure whether they're the same or not, we should default to splitting them because it's less speculative and assumptive. If "evaluating information" means applying our own speculation in spite of what we know, then no, I think that's the opposite of prudent. I know that we don't always exactly need to follow the guidelines to the letter, but they also were written for a reason - if I thought they were flawed, I wouldn't have been championing them throughout this debate. I keep saying that we shouldn't default to merging just because we think they're similar, and it's not because the guidelines say so (in fact, there is to my knowledge no specific guideline saying anything to that effect beyond the general "no speculation"), it's because I genuinely think it makes for a significantly better presentation of information and has been set as a precedent on the wiki for good reason. How I see it, merging these items that we don't know are the same in order to enforce our headcanon that they are makes for a much less helpful experience to the readers. I don't understand why you claim this to be a "grey area" or "strange and unhelpful", see the links in my previous comments. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:18, July 22, 2023 (EDT) | ||
:::::::::::::::From what I can tell, SMA4's World-e treats them as the same object (there's the burden of proof there), all of the "distinguishing" color-based names are generic descriptions within walls of text, SMB3's art is inconsistent with itself on their identity, coin blocks have had the same differences as them, and nothing ever really treats them as different objects. That's not really speculation there, that's a logical conclusion. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:43, July 22, 2023 (EDT) | |||
I am abstaining here, but I feel [[Blue Coin]] should be brought up, as it originally used an off-white cyan color before becoming a deeper blue down the line - exactly like the grabbable blocks (especially when one considers the unused blue coin in SMW, meaning both objects share a palette across both games). Main issue I have, though, is it doesn't factor in the ice blocks in NSMBW in any way despite the SMB3 blocks sometimes being described as ice blocks themselves. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:44, July 13, 2023 (EDT) | I am abstaining here, but I feel [[Blue Coin]] should be brought up, as it originally used an off-white cyan color before becoming a deeper blue down the line - exactly like the grabbable blocks (especially when one considers the unused blue coin in SMW, meaning both objects share a palette across both games). Main issue I have, though, is it doesn't factor in the ice blocks in NSMBW in any way despite the SMB3 blocks sometimes being described as ice blocks themselves. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:44, July 13, 2023 (EDT) | ||
:I think the NSMBW ice blocks would at least deserve a mention on the merged article, as they currently do on both the white block and grab block articles. [[User:WilliamFrog|WilliamFrog]] ([[User talk:WilliamFrog|talk]]) 20:12, July 13, 2023 (EDT) | :I think the NSMBW ice blocks would at least deserve a mention on the merged article, as they currently do on both the white block and grab block articles. [[User:WilliamFrog|WilliamFrog]] ([[User talk:WilliamFrog|talk]]) 20:12, July 13, 2023 (EDT) | ||