Talk:Rope

This begs the question of the name being official. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

It's official, what other name can it be given?--FREAK ~Game Freak~ OUT!

Something gimmicky. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

It's official for Super Mario World. Time Questions 11:04, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Question

I have an odd request. I know that the tightropes in Super Mario Sunshine let you jump higher and higher on them each time to a point. Could someone who has a copy of Sunshine lying around or even the ISO and an emulator turn on the game and tell me how many jumps it takes to reach the maximum height? And also how much higher (ballpark me a percentage) it is than the first jump? And how much higher the subsequent jumps are?--Reversalmushroom (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (EST)

Split into Tightrope

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

failed to reach consensus 9-9

There is a number of issues with tightrope being included here. It is included in a really awkward and extremely clunky way in this article for seemingly no reason at all other than that it's a rope. This is evidenced by how the paragraph for the tightrope section opens like it already is its own article, even going to the lengths of boldfacing the first mention of a tightrope. This further makes it so that the article at its current state reads like two articles that are haphazardly glued together in a really awful manner. Upon a closer inspection of how the two subjects work mechanically within the frameworks of the games they're featured in, they don't even act similarly. The only resemblance to similarity is how the rope mentioned from Super Mario World wiggles from side to side but that is a really big stretch. Why this is allowed to be is beyond me, and this needs a change.

Proposer: RandomYoshi (talk)
Deadline: December 29, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: January 5, 2016, 23:59 GMT, January 12, 2016, 23:59 GMT, January 19, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. RandomYoshi (talk) – Per proposal.
2. Tucayo (talk) - Per RY.
3. Time Turner (talk) I'm not a fan of catch-all articles, especially when there are noticeable differences between what's being caught. Per all.
4. Roy Koopa (talk) "It's a kind of rope so it should be here!" is not a good reason to put something here, which seems like the reason it's here in the first place. Tightropes and normal ropes have noticeable differences.
5. Andymii (talk) A rope you swing on and a rope you walk on are quite different. The only similarity is that they're technically made out of the same material. That's obviously not an excuse to consider them the same thing.
6. NSY (talk) both function in different ways. Better off with different articles, article in first place already is a mess.
7. Sonic98 (talk) Per all
8. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Tightrope behaves differently than regular ordinary rope.
9. Niiue (talk) Never liked hub pages for mostly unrelated subjects. Per all.

Oppose

1. Chocolate Mario (talk) Per Bazooka Mario in the comments.
2. LudwigVon (talk) Per Bazooka Mario's comments. Rewrite the page is the best we can do.
3. Walkazo (talk) - Per Bazooka Mario in the comments.
4. Bazooka Mario (talk) Per all. This article was intended to be a catch-all page when its content has several kinds of ropes: the ropes in Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country are different from each other, but you also have ropes treated as jumpropes and props (Get a Rope). The article can benefit from an expansion (such as ropes in Pitifall, Picking Panic, Treacherous Tightrope, Jumpin' Rope, Grin and Bar It, Rope Ravine, Rope Climb, Rope a Slope, Seer Terror, Border Jump, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii) to the point where it doesn't seem like tightrope looks so disjoint from the rest of the article. Jumprope isn't listed frequently either (and jumpropes are frequently present in my examples), and it may balance the weird amount of coverage on tightropes. All in all, this is an expansion problem, not a haphazard attempt to link two articles together.
5. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per Bazooka Mario.
6. Ghost Jam (talk) Per Bazooka Mario.
7. Baby Luigi (talk) Per my twin.
8. The Golden Yoshi (talk) Both ropes have similar mechanics, and as the articles states, they are rare. Since they are usually over an abyss, that means their purpose is relatively similar. That being getting from one place to the other. Making a separate article would be unnecessary.
9. The Pyro Guy (talk) Per all.

Comments

This page should also be rewritten. It seems that the information is throw on the page and they have no consistency. Does Mario can hold the rope with his hands without walking on it, at the monkey way? --^(TALK) 14:06, 15 December 2015 (EST)

I believe so, but the article makes no mention of it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:22, 15 December 2015 (EST)

So, we're splitting one kind of rope from the others (<-emphasis; this isn't an article on just two types of ropes). One rope is the one you cling on while something moves it along the rail. Another rope is you hanging on it and climbing across it. There are jumpropes mentioned here as well. Ropes can also be pulled for a result. Are you sure that splitting a part of this page is the best way to go, considering that you're splitting off only one type of rope compared to the rest (with the result's being a page with a conjectural title)? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:22, 15 December 2015 (EST)

It would be more acceptable to just rewrite the page so that it doesn't sound like two articles have been merged into one. Conjectural titles are not ideal. Chocolate Mario (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Yeah, that's my thoughts. The organization's poor, but my major issue with this proposal is that it acts like there's just two types of ropes; I don't fault it for that because the article's written as if there are two types, but on closer inspection, this article is supposed to be a catch-all page (with a few dumb mentions) to ropes and maybe it's because tightopes appear in several games it seems to have gotten its own section. We can just cut off the lv. 2 header and improve the coherency, and it might be serviceable (otherwise, jumprope should get its own page). It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:37, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Agreed, there's many types of ropes when you look closely, and they are nowhere near notable enough to all get their own page (even the main Rope article may be slightly unnecessary, but other generic subjects have pages...) Chocolate Mario (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Roy Koopa: What's a "normal rope"? Are jumpropes normal ropes? And what about overhead ropes? And the ropes you cling on to in Super Mario World? Why should all remain in the rope page while tightrope gets split off? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:40, 17 December 2015 (EST)

Andymii, if we give a page to tightrope, so we should give a page to all different ropes that appear in the Mario series. (eg: Jumprope, like Bazooka Mario mentioned).--^(TALK) 17:56, 20 December 2015 (EST)

I wouldn't mind doing that, but within reason. There will be no slippery slopes here. "Rope" is a broad term that can encompass a whole variety of cords that have different appearances, different functions, and usually different names. If you can find a game in which a skipping rope was notable used, create an article for it, by all means. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Yes, this isn't a distinction between "a rope you swing on" and "a rope you walk on". The proposal is trying to make a distinction between "a rope you walk on" and leaving "a rope you climb on" and "a rope you jump over" and "a rope you cling to" in this article. As I said so many times, the article's badly organized nature makes it seem like that. Andymii, you've held that "I've held it a principle that we should consider fixing before deleting"; what about fixing before moving info?

Time Turner: yes, so if Rope is such a broad term, why can't jumprope and tightrope be here? They won't pad the article out. I've pointed out above that skipping rope is used frequently and notably but isn't covered here and I've said for the second time: the article needs a rewrite and expand rather than removing one aspect of ropes and leaving the rest intact. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:05, 20 December 2015 (EST)

I agree, a page should first be well written and have good structure before moving anything and after we can consider a split (if there is no more possibility, look what we made with the Wish page). Yes, there are pages that deserves more having split, but here it will make the wiki being flooded with half-articles and conjectural. (If Tightrope needed a page, so all others ropes should have them, like the jumprope one). There is not really a difference between a rope being walked on and a rope and you can hold hands with it. A rope is a rope, and you can use the same one for different function.--^(TALK) 18:16, 20 December 2015 (EST)

@Bazooka Mario: For the same reason we don't cover every Goomba species on the main article, or for the same reason Dragon was trimmed of everything but the most generic of dragons, or for the same reason we split all of the Badges, Smash moves, and more: they are all distinct. We can list all of those different subjects in one collage, but the end result will be unfocused as the article constantly re-explains each new concept and the differences between it and every other concept. On the other hand, giving subjects individual articles lets the article focus on that subject exclusively and thus allows for greater detail. Instead of articles having to link to a generic "rope" in every case, they can link to "tightrope" or "jump rope" or whatever rope they're specifically covering. I don't really see the benefits of having every rope on a single articles besides maybe that it allows for easy access to all information surrounding ropes, but all it would take is a list of links and you'd get pretty much the same result. Meanwhile, I can definitely see the benefits of distinguishing them through individual articles. Also, one of the Good Writing page's guidelines is that an article should be centered around a single subject with a consistent purpose, and not every minuscule and generic appearance that tangentially relates to that subject. For example, Boomerang is not covering every time a boomerang appears in the series, but rather the specific item that appears in Super Mario Advance 4. This is the same principle that I'm bringing to this article. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Those are bananas-roses comparisons though. Same thing for Boomerang, which is a Mario object since it has a consistent blue appearance with a white stripe on top. I'm likening rope to key (yes, we do have different articles on different keys, but those mostly have proper names), hammer, Electric Fence, candle, Mine Cart, banana (and if you're splitting tightrope from rope, you have to split banana peel from banana) where we compile information on generic subjects on a catch-all article. The entire basis of splitting tightrope from rope is their function; their name is an after-thought, and there's nothing in the way of simply redirecting to a catch-all page. I admit that rope is a fairly strange case as it has different rope-like objects with slightly different names, but they're all ropes in the end, and I don't see the issue of keeping all generic rope-like stuff to rope. This article is centered on a subject: ropes. And ropes are very versatile objects (unlike what this article is apparently conveying) so I still think we should compile about generic ropes into one article rather than make several articles on different kinds of ropes based on function. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:50, 20 December 2015 (EST)

The articles you listed either don't apply to what's been argued here or should abide by the same guideline that Good Writing put forth: keys only ever have the one function of unlocking doors and chests, so the article's fine as it is because it's not a catch-all for every key but rather an article that decides a key's general purpose; Hammer lumps the powerful hammer that generally acts as a short-term power-up from Mario Bros. and the Smash series with the standard hammer that's just another tool in Mario's arsenal from the Paper Mario series and the Mario & Luigi series, and they're so different in terms of use and general appearance that I would strongly vouch for splitting them; Electric Fence describes objects that all share the same function (zapping anyone who gets too close and stunning them) and all have similar appearances, so there's no issue there; Candle lumps actual enemies with inanimate objects and background entities, which is just silly and should be rectified; Cart, like Electric Fence, describes objects that all do the same thing (bring people from point A to point B while on a rail) with greatly similar appearances, and any cart that's distinct already has its own article, such as Skull Cart; and Banana is being used as both an article for describing a specific item (namely, the coin equivalent from the DK series), describing another item with a similar appearance but wildly different function (namely, the Banana Peels from the MK series), and a catch-all for every generic banana, which should not be happening. All of that aside, what are the benefits of keeping the ropes together? This can't be backed up solely with consistency, since I've already listed a series of articles that do quite the opposite and precedence isn't enough to convince me that it's a good idea. Saying that they're all ropes in the end is far from enough as well, since I could easily make that same argument for any number of other articles like Goomba (again), Beetle, Barrel, Cannon, and so on; it's unfair to force one article to go by these standards and not apply that standard to other articles (also, citation needed for the "their name is an after-thought" bit). That also goes against Good Writing, as I've mentioned above and will likely continue to mention. There's nothing wrong with making this article about ropes, as I mentioned above with Key, but that doesn't mean that tightropes and skipping ropes should be lumped in. For me, the bottom line is that there are a bunch of different objects here, and they all deserve different articles because they're different. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Your only points for the articles I listed is "they should be split anyway". As for Electric Fence, not quite. They all have pretty different appearances; Super Mario Galaxy's can even move around and get stunned by Player 2's Co-Star thing (if I recall correctly). The one in Mario Strikers games are consistent in its series and you get stunned from them only if someone rams you into them, and they also stop the ball from rolling outfield. Carts don't do one thing: they're also a notable obstacle in Mario Kart, and due to the article's incomplete nature, there may be more for them. I only brought up a sample. Keys may not be the best example due to their specific use (while ropes are versatile). But the others are convenient pages for generic objects and obstacles. Beetle is an entity (usually an enemy) with wildly differing appearances that don't even resemble a normal beetle as well as an individual named "Beetle", Goomba is a nongeneric enemy with a proper name. Barrel is actually an article about a generic subject including several different uses of barrels (which is what Rope can potentially be like). Same thing for Cannon, which again, is a catch-all to all cannons. My point on "their name is an after-thought" is referring to how poorly this article is structured right now and it's a support reason for the split, but it's not the driving reason. Because if it were just "rope", you can still technically argue for a split. But you also have jumprope and other ropes lumped into this, and this proposal overly simplifies it making it seem that "tightrope" was haphazardly merged into there. Regarding generic subjects, exactly why catch-alls are a bad thing? Because it's messy? How would splitting it into several tiny articles be any better? How exactly does this go against GoodWriting, specifically "everything but the kitchen sink"? Ropes are used frequently in the Mario series, and you can argue that they're a versatile gameplay mechanic that's detailed in the pages. I want Rope to be structured like barrel, cannon, and other catch-all generic pages so it's consistent in terms of quality and appearance. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:30, 22 December 2015 (EST)

Split Tightrope from this article?

It's been awhile since the last time this was proposed, so I'd say opinions have changed, especially since even the New Super Mario Bros. 2 Prima eGuide considers tightropes separate from regular ropes. So, shall we split? ^(T|C) 12:33, 4 December 2018 (EST)

Merge the "tightrope" portion and other similar horizontal ropes to Wire, rename that to "Rope (Horizontal)," and rename this to "Rope (Vertical)"

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

merge all here 3-1-7-0

This one's a bit complicated. I consider "tightrope" and "wire" to be the same thing primarily because of Super Mario Sunshine, where they can be both walked along and hung/spun from. I'd see that as a sort of "turning point" between how they worked, and the looser physics structure of Sunshine compared to later 3D games is also considerable.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: February 26, 2020, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 4, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Per proposal
2. Toadette the Achiever (talk) This is something I can get around. Per proposal.
3. FanOfYoshi (talk) Second option.

Split tightrope but do not merge to wire

1. FanOfYoshi (talk) Sounds the best to me.

Merge all here

1. 7feetunder (talk) Per my comments below. There are plenty of different kinds of ropes - swinging ropes, "elevator ropes" (as seen in Slipslide Ride and Skyscraper Caper), jumpropes, etc. that grouping them based purely on whether they're horizontal or vertical is painfully awkward and arbitrary, and there is absolutely no precedent for such a thing. I'm not going to say I'm completely against any form of splitting, but the proposed method is absolutely the wrong way to do it.
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per 7feetunder below, plus there are diagonal and swinging ropes that don't cleanly fit into the horizontal or vertical distinction either.
3. Mario jc (talk) Per 7feetunder.
4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) I haven't a problem with this option, as long as something is done.
5. Niiue (talk) Per all.
6. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
7. Alex95 (talk) - I always thought they were all the same thing anyway.

Comments

Honestly, I'm skeptical that Rope and Wire need to be separate articles in the first place. They share the same basic function of being climbed on most of the time, and even if we were to merge the tightrope section with Wire, this article would still include information on the horizontal ropes that don't function as tightropes such as those from DKC2 and 3, which would make the proposed renames inaccurate. 22:15, February 11, 2020 (EST)

I added a "merge all" option. Though again, the rename in question is "Rope (horizontal)," which would by no means be inaccurate. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:20, February 11, 2020 (EST)

It's inaccurate because the Wire article does not cover all horizontal ropes. It's the same reason why (character) was a bad identifier for the NSMB Yellow Toad. "Rope (vertical)" for this article would even more inaccurate since, as I said, this article also covers non-vertical ropes regardless of the proposed tightrope merge. 22:30, February 11, 2020 (EST)

If tightrope goes, the other horizontal ropes do as well...? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:32, February 11, 2020 (EST)

That's not what the proposal says. It is only suggesting that we merge the tightrope section. I've already mentioned that not all horizontal ropes qualify as "tightropes" or "Wires"; in some cases a horizontal rope is just that, nothing special about it. Splitting horizontal and vertical ropes seems pointless to me; it's not like we have separate articles for horizontal and vertical Warp Pipes. 00:04, February 12, 2020 (EST)

Well with pipes you go through them regardless. With ropes, it's a question over whether they're climbed or ambulated across. Anyways, changed the proposal title to compensate. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:17, February 12, 2020 (EST)

I don't see how horizontal and vertical ropes are any more distinct than horizontal and vertical fences in Sunshine. The main difference is the direction they're climbed on (and in the case of DKC2 and 3, the only difference). Any other differences such as horizontal ropes' occasional tightrope functionality are very game-dependent. 23:39, February 13, 2020 (EST)

What about vertical swingy vine-like ropes, like in DK and NSMB games and SMG? I'm not actually debating at this point, just curious on your thoughts. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:42, February 13, 2020 (EST)

I'd just leave them here. It's just an attribute some ropes have. 00:20, February 14, 2020 (EST)

@7feetunder: While I agree that the characteristics of normal ropes change depending on the game often enough that splitting on directional basis is insufficient, it does seem that, according to Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros., the New Super Mario Bros. games make another attempt at differentiating between several types: 「ロープ」 (rōpu, rope, "rope bridge" on page 119 and "tightrope" on page 201 of the English version) on pages 119, 201 for the horizontal, walkable one, 「うんていロープ」 (untei rōpu, hand-over-hand rope, "rope line" on page 119 of the English version) on pages 118, 149, 199 for the horizontal, hangable one, 「ぶらさがりロープ」 (burasagari rōpu, hanging rope, "rope" on page 119 of the English version) on pages 119, 201 for the vertical, swingable one, and 「縄ばしご」 (nawa bashigo, rope ladder) on pages 150, 216 for the vertical, ladder-like one that sways in the sandstorm. That last one is probably different enough to split anyway, though similar shapes of ropes did appear in Donkey Kong Country 2. Other sources seem to plainly refer to all of them as ropes, with the exception of the "wire" name for the horizontal one in Mario vs. Donkey Kong. The takeaway I suppose is that there perhaps too much overlap to untangle, but I wonder if at least one of the New Super Mario Bros. types should be split since there's more to their interaction than simply depending on their direction. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:13, February 20, 2020 (EST)

New split suggestions

This talk page or section has a conflict or a question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

Since there are two clearly defined variants of ropes: the "hand-over-hand" variants and tightropes/wires, maybe we could consider splits based on those characterizations? ^(T|C) 17:51, October 21, 2020 (EDT)

I think that would be good. DarkNight 18:52, October 21, 2020 (EDT)