MarioWiki talk:New articles

Completely separate articles or not, I'm starting to see Memoryman3's points in his various talk page contributions. Yeah, I don't agree with his actions (he was handed a last warning yesterday for edit warring and putting through unsettled proposals), but it is looking like it's completely arbitrary the similar articles we have being merged or split. While the Daisy Blossom talk is very heavily fan worship, our new articles policy doesn't make a mention for every specific article. Everything with a different name should have its own page, though if it does the exact same thing as something else, it's merged. This makes sense for names like Star Thwomp and Super Thwomp, or Unagi and Maw-Ray, or all of the Special Shots in Mario Tennis Aces because they literally are the same subject. But by the standards we have given ourselves, Daisy Blossom, Azure Roller, etc. qualify both for separate pages as well as merged ones. By that point, Goombo should be merged with Goomba because they both wonder into Mario, take one stomp to defeat, and is a Goomba. We also have separate articles for very minor NPCs, which makes it seem like we give everything with a name it's own page, yet we recently cut back on our Smash Bros. content, merging every non-Mario special move with its character. There is also the once and only once policy, which means duplicated information should just be in one place.

Putting aside Memoryman3's repetition, what do you think about this? Should every little thing, whether it be merged or separated, be handled with (better put-together) proposals? If I made a proposal to split Daisy Blossom with this information, would I be denied the same as Memoryman3? 10:36, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

The problem was never about Memoryman or his reputation, we never voted against his proposal solely because it was him who proposed it. It was because we felt his reasons were invalid. I still would not vote for it because it is almost identical save for special effects. I would vote on a subsection in that article, but I would not vote to create a separate page. --MikhailMCraft (talk • contribs) 10:41, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

Same. I opposed his proposals because A. he was trying to pass through a personal opinion, B. they both seemed very reactive, and C. his reasons didn't make much sense otherwise - why else would I have deconstructed his first proposal Omega Tyrant style? TheDarkStar 10:46, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

I think applying the same standard to everything, regardless of what type of subject (enemy, item, move, whatever) it is, is a really bad idea. The current case-by-case basis works fine, imo. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 10:48, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

...That word was supposed to be "repetition" My mind went one way, my hands went another :P I do agree with your points, I opposed his proposal myself because it went all over the place. A section for the move is possible. 10:52, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

Understandable, though it is apt for the discussion at hand. Anyhow, preparing my reasoning shortly. -- Lord G. matters. 10:55, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

The thing is, his repetition was also a deciding factor in our decision to oppose. He seemed so desperate to, as he puts it, "win", that I feel he wasn't focused on the proposal itself, and it kind of became tit-for-tat arguments on each other (prominent on the Discord) and it became about pushing his proposal through no matter what based on his liking of Daisy rather than to improve the wiki itself. --MikhailMCraft (talk • contribs) 10:59, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

I think all these should be seperate because technically, they are not exactly the same. Special effects is still a difference. To be honest seeing a link to Daisy Blossom having a picture of Peach’s version makes no sense to me and is awkward. Same for the Azure Rollers, or Goombos or any other variant. I believe it will improve the wiki’s accessibility if merging is more like a last resort. -- memoryman3 (talk) 11:13, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

So would you be fine with splitting the Goomba page for each variant between different games? Would you be fine with splitting all 45 subsections of Yamamura's Dojo into their own separate articles? Your logic doesn't make sense. --MikhailMCraft (talk • contribs) 11:34, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

Goombo's Japanese name additionally refers to it as a chibi version of it, and I will never support splitting of red/green Troopa/Shy-type situations. That is one of the many pitfalls that has recently gutted Zeldawiki to an almost hilarious degree. It doesn't work. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:33, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

Just going to say that what Zeldawiki covers is irrelevant to this wiki. Each wiki covers information as it pleases, so not sure why you brought that up. At most Daisy Blossom and her other smash moves should redirect to Peach's with the description of move mentioning that it changes name to Daisy's when used by her and have a sub-section of images Peach and Daisy using the move. Otherwise the page should stay the same as it is because there is really no difference. --CastleResearch (talk) 14:13, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

Uh? I'm using it as an example of a wiki that has done this to show that it does vastly more harm than good. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:01, October 21, 2019 (EDT)

Regarding the above discussion on splitting and merging articles, and the events that preceded and generated this disccusion

I have read through all of the comments present so far, and would like to begin my thoughts by first providing some context:

During the proceedings on both proposal pages, some of us noted that the argument was based on a form of generalization fallacy via application of "broad strokes". This ignored the fact that the other articles being mentioned covering completely different subjects, and it was further noted there was a lack of sufficient proof being put forth that the mechanics of the moves in that case were substantially different enough to warrant a split. The additional citation of statistic on other search engines was similarly noted to be unfounded in particular because it seems to be based off the fact that, as was noted by another admin, Porple used it to justify some unilateral changes - changes to sets of multiple pages and high-traffic pages (e.g. game names). This goes back into the "broad strokes" argument because the basis behind these unilateral changes and their scale is being misunderstood and thus misapplied based on that logic, conflating the "Smash Bros. moves" set of pages with the "Mario Kart equipment" set of pages - both of which are wholly distinct subjects - among several others. This includes the various policies and guidelines regarding such widely different subjects (which I will touch upon later in this wall of text).

The fan worship on display in those previous cases did indeed contribute to many of our opposing votes - but not only do the other arguments we made in opposition remain valid independent of that, said fan worship did in fact contribute to a majority of the basis for the split (to speak nothing of the disruption of proceedings thereof). There were additional citations of fandom convenience as a benefit of the split, along with an allegation of influencers in the Smash community trying to drive down the popularity of certain characters - the basis for the split was thus demonstrably based in matters of fandom, so much so that it not only provably compromised the integrity of the argument in light of all the above, but also proceeded to dominate discussion thereof. As I noted in specific regards to that, we are not obligated to act in the interests of popularity or public opinion in either direction, nor are we obligated to act solely in service of convenience to a vaguely defined subset of people within our overall audience, especially over any other such subset. Righting "great fandom wrongs" is established as well outside our scope of encyclopedic coverage.

Additionally, among the facts that the above-cited fan worship has heavily obfuscated is the fact that this does involve something of a rather "edge" case - the reason we merged a lot of the non-Mario Smash Bros. articles goes back to a 2018 proposal on the matter, so this potentially ties indirectly ties into a larger question of scope. Of the Smash Bros. characters determined to be sufficiently within our current scope, Daisy is currently the only Echo Fighter to have moves that are covered on an article outside her own main article - and yet, because they seem to be so heavily similar to the base moves, they do not seem to warrant articles of their own as of yet. It's an interesting dilemma to be sure, certain though I still am in my position on that matter. Would a split do any tangible harm to the wiki? Not in itself, no. Is there sufficient reasoning beyond "nothing bad could come of it"? In my opinion, no. Is the all-or-nothing method that suggests covering everything exactly the same way - which was used as the basis for a split of that page or a merging of some others - itself harmful? I certainly believe so, and whatever we decide on, I will remain steadfast in suggesting that any such slant to the extreme point of either "side" be avoided.

(As an additional note: While ZeldaWiki's situation sounds like the type I wish to avoid with regards to hyper-specific coverage in a general sense, I do agree that we should try to keep away from anything sounding like "we should/shouldn't do it because this third party does/doesn't it". It can potentially serve as a valid example, of where applying "broad strokes" standards can lead, but for the sake of the argument I'm not too compelled to lean as hard on it. Just because a style of coverage doesn't work for one wiki doesn't mean it won't work for us - though between the flaws inherent to that style and the standard which MarioWiki holds itself to, I'm not inclined to believe it necessarily will.)

Now, regarding the articles on the move(s) in question specifically, I would not oppose the expansion of the information into a subsection, and I am sure others would feel the same - if I recall correctly, some of these moves already have requests for galleries (which they actually do need), so expanding a few lines into a subsection would be a logical next step if there is relevant information to add. However, unless that information also includes sufficient enough mechanical differences between the moves to justify it, I would argue that there is not enough grounds for a split. However, if a proposal was put together and made a case that is more compelling than those and other given arguments from those proposals, in addition to actually being compelling overall, then I would certainly think about it a bit more, especially if that proposal included said proof. That is far more important than who made the proposal in question, be it Alex or Memoryman or me - being a different person should not matter if the core argument is otherwise entirely the same.

In regards to 'arguments', my basis for how splits and merges might be approached is one of "identity". Unagi/Maw-Ray is a clear case of the same entity being given a different English name - but they retain the same Japanese name, thus confirming it is the same creature, and the information remains merged. Things like those are fairly cut and dry. The case of Goomba and Goombo mentioned by Doc is a bit less so, and brings to mind the one regarding Goombas and Galoombas prior to SM3DW: same English name at the time, but the latter had a different Japanese name and worked much differently from the former; so it was treated differently, and it eventually became clear that they were separate enemies anyway. There's also the more relevant case of Pirahna Plant and Super Mario Land's Pakkun Flowers - those were determined to be the same thing due to both the Japanese name and the localized name being the same. The proper localization of the Pakkun Flower as a Piranha Plany confirmed this - but it came many, many years after the game's initial release, and they were merged with sufficient evidence long before then.

Not so with the Goomba and Goombo - while in gameplay terms, they do serve the same role, in terms of identity they're distinct creatures, albeit not very distinct ones. But they are given different names, even prior to localization (Kuribo v. Chibibo as Doc correctly noted). As discussed above, naming differences has been used as evidence of a separate identity, and the inverse has also been applied, merging enemies that share the same names. This appears to be the basis for distinguishing and splitting many an article on a given enemy within this wiki. I feel this holds even in spite of the lack of other differences beyond appearance, as regional variants of enemies are things we have covered separately in previous instances - they look somewhat different and are not only named differently, but given different identities, and thus I feel their remaining split is logical.

Matters of identity, however, do not quite apply as cleanly to abstracts such as moves and techniques, and thus that standard should not be a factor when determining how to split or merge such articles. The same, I believe, should apply to items from RPGs and racing games - which are actual physical objects, but not something that can be said to have an identity of their own in the specific sense that a character like Daisy or an enemy like the Goomba and Piranha Plant can.

For that I point to the discussions regarding splitting beans and peppers and the arguments presented thereof - the latter was subjected to a successful split based on the reasoning that they are individual power-ups game categorizes them as different items with different effects. By that basis, I feel kart components like the Roller and Azure Roller - mentioned specifically because they became involved when the initial discussion bled over to the talk of the latter page - should also be treated at least somewhat similarly, as they have been to this point.

To that end, I also point to the case of S'Crow Bell vs. S'crow Funk and the arguments I have made there. From all the information present, they appear to be the exact same spell used by different monsters. But to me, that begs the question - there is likely far more information to be covered with regards to Super Mario RPG's list of spells and enemy attacks. As was noted on that talk page, RPG articles in general tend to suffer from an attempt to "storify" everything, and the mechanical aspects - in this case, ones such as spell frequency, power, and failure rates - end up falling to the way side.

I believe that the pages should safely remain split in the absence of anything from the game itself that suggests either is directly derived from the other, and especially if such mechanical differences between S'Crow Bell and S'crow Funk are found and determined to be sufficient. This is consistent with the argument I have made for Daisy's Smash Bros. moves above and many other instances: the Doctor Finale and Mario Finale, the Heart Ball and Flower Ball, and the Mario Tennis Aces special shots. The former two are sufficiently differentiated in gameplay in my opinion, whereas the latter group are not as differentiated - attempting to hit the shots back have a couple of different effects, but not very many, and the difference between those effects can potentially be summed up safely in a few lines.

With this, I hope to provide a relevant and solid foundation from which we can hopefully refine our framework regarding our coverage. -- Lord G. matters. 07:53, October 22, 2019 (EDT)

Exemplary essay! This is definitely one I can see myself using as a basis for splitting certain subjects that are similar in some ways but where the differences out-prioritize the similarities. I'd also like to throw in some splits that I myself made without formal discussions:

• Coin Bag (Mario Party: Star Rush) from Coin Bag: Only obvious-as-obvious case; Coin Bags in other Mario Party games were shoddy versions of 5 Coins, whereas these Coin Bags are unique items obtained only in Item Boxes in Coinathlon, and litter the entire playing field with coins for the player to collect.
• Pump from F.L.U.D.D.: Despite being unable to deny the technical similarities between the two, F.L.U.D.D. is a single AI character that sprays water, whereas Pumps are Mario Kart Arcade GP items that spray goop, and don't even have any of F.L.U.D.D.'s physical characteristics beyond the nozzle.
• Rabbit Ear from Carrot: Similar to the case with Pump, except that similarities are even less abundant; literally the only similarities are that they're based on real-world beta-carotene carrots, and that they cause players to sprout ears similar to winter coats of real-world leporids. Practically everything else about them is different.
• VS Space from Minigame Space: For a time they were covered on the same article, but I split them because they weren't at all similar in terms of function; the VS Spaces from Super Mario Party function more like non-minigame duels from Mario Party: Star Rush, and are even single-use only, transforming into Blue Spaces once triggered.

I don't think I'll stop evaluating these particular cases at all. ^(T|C) 13:44, October 22, 2019 (EDT)

As for the Heart Ball and the Flower Ball, those actually are different in Mario Super Sluggers if the page is correct, unlike the Blossoms which are the exact same in the only game where they appear together. So the balls should stay split. This is further proof of how this thing really can't be turned into a consistent policy, as there is too many factor that can affect our decision, which are sometimes different when combined with other factors. Doomhiker (talk) 15:47, October 22, 2019 (EDT)

...hence the statement: "The former two are sufficiently differentiated in gameplay in my opinion", in support of that. May have misread me there. :B I also played the original Superstar Baseball quite thoroughly. -- Lord G. matters. 18:42, October 22, 2019 (EDT)

That's all well and good, however, we have yet to see an example of moves and techniques with two different names and appearances (within a game) being merged into one article. We also have zero proof that the Bell and Funk S'crow moves are different at all, the main charactersitics of the two moves being exactly the same. -- memoryman3 (talk) 12:58, November 4, 2019 (EST)

You might want to read before replying.

"I believe that the pages should safely remain split in the absence of anything from the game itself that suggests either is directly derived from the other, and especially if such mechanical differences between S'Crow Bell and S'crow Funk are found and determined to be sufficient." As in, we haven't really looked into the matter yet, in addition to the previously discussed difference between RPG techniques and fighting game moves. We'll cross that bridge when we get there, I figure. -- Lord G. matters. 13:15, November 4, 2019 (EST)

Sorry for bringing this up again, but I have made a sandbox style page of where Peach Blossom and Daisy Blossom would be split., Peach Blossom's page would look cleaner if we diverted all the Daisy changes to it's own page don't you think. Also I noticed that Mole Mario and Luigi Dunk have their own pages despite being nearly identical moves, on the basis they have different names. -- memoryman3 (talk) 15:57, December 19, 2019 (EST)

The page looks perfectly clean as it is, your split version was identical except for the gallery. About Mole Mario and Luigi Dunk, I’d honestly be for merging them, due to their lack of mechanical differences. TheDarkStar 17:07, December 19, 2019 (EST)

Yeah, I'd be for the Mario Bros. moves there getting merged as well, but that's a different matter. There really isn't anything different you can say about Daisy Blossom other than the aesthetic "It's orange." Same problem as last time, there isn't enough differences to warrant a separate page. 17:42, December 19, 2019 (EST)

There's several pages of moves, techniques and non-entity items being almost identical. If we dig through and merge all of them? I say we adopt the shared name policy introuduced by Nintendo in Mario Kart Tour - where even if two entites are extremely similar, if they do not share the exact same name and appearance, and co-exist, then they are not considered the same and deserve seperate articles. This would cover everything from Daisy's named moves, the different karts and gliders, to moves such as S'crow Bell and S'crow Funk, and the Mario Mole/Luigi Dunk moves. Something like Star and Super Thwomp would be treated as the same thing, since they are literally one enitity. Power Star and Grand Star for Rosalina Final Smashes would be considered one aswell. This I feel prevents bias (There's more differences between the Blossoms than just colors, but there's an acknowledgement that they are very similar too and people can make their own judgement), and is friendlier for organisation overall. -- memoryman3 (talk) 17:53, December 19, 2019 (EST)

As far as the Mario & Luigi move goes, it's a bit more complicated than just those two. Across the series there's Luigi Dunk (SS), Baby Drill (PiT), Drill Bros. (BIS), Mole Mario (DT), and Trio Drill (PJ). For some reason, Baby Drill is merged with Drill Bros. despite different names, while all the others are split. So, either we should split Baby Drill for consistency, or just merge them all into one page. For everything else you said, I still see no reason whatsoever to split Daisy's moves, and a "one size fits all" policy in this case is a bad idea. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 18:06, December 19, 2019 (EST)

I would personally split Baby Drill and Drill Bros. for consistency, as that and Daisy's moves are the only moves in the entire wiki that don't adhere to the policy I proposed above. We have seperate pages for pretty much every seperate entity that is of a different name already. The wiki can handle more. -- memoryman3 (talk) 08:34, December 21, 2019 (EST)

Deciding to re-revisit discussion.

The 2018 Smash proposal mentioned is actually part of a web of Smash Proposals. The latest Smash proposal was this, which referenced this one. The same year, this proposal happened, which was a proposal to change this proposal because "...I done brain farted...". Said proposal referenced this proposal, this proposal (which in turn referenced the previous one, and the 1st one(which was also referenced in the 2nd one)), and the latter proposal (this one), which in turn referenced this one, which in turn referenced this proposal. A similar proposal was this one, which referenced this one. There's also this one (which references "the 1st one"), this one, etc. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 16:32, December 12, 2023 (CST)