33,067
edits
Talk:Grab Block: Difference between revisions
m
→Merge White Block with Grab Block
m (→Oppose) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
==Merge White Block with Grab Block== | ==Merge White Block with Grab Block== | ||
{{ | {{SettledTPP}} | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|4-13|DO NOT MERGE}} | |||
As WilliamFrog points out above, while there is technically no proof that the [[White Block]] and Grab Block are the same, they behave almost identically and differences in appearance can be chalked up to the standard blocks that they share graphics with in both games being different, would be unintuitive to the average wiki reader, and results in articles that largely contain the same information. The two blocks also appeared in back-to-back games in the main Mario series that were developed by many of the same individuals, so it is certainly no coincidence. Merging the two pages would almost certainly result in a more streamlined wiki experience for editors and readers alike, and will not result in the loss of any ease of understanding or important information. | As WilliamFrog points out above, while there is technically no proof that the [[White Block]] and Grab Block are the same, they behave almost identically and differences in appearance can be chalked up to the standard blocks that they share graphics with in both games being different, would be unintuitive to the average wiki reader, and results in articles that largely contain the same information. The two blocks also appeared in back-to-back games in the main Mario series that were developed by many of the same individuals, so it is certainly no coincidence. Merging the two pages would almost certainly result in a more streamlined wiki experience for editors and readers alike, and will not result in the loss of any ease of understanding or important information. | ||
| Line 112: | Line 113: | ||
::::::::::"The same thing" is not an arbitrary distinction, it's what splits and merges are based on. Things that are the same should share a page, things that are different should be on different pages, things where we're not sure should default to being on different pages to avoid speculation. You keep bringing up naming inconsistencies to suggest we should default to merging them, but that's absolutely the wrong approach in my opinion - it's far more speculative and assumptive than splitting them is. "I'd argue in this case it's based on whether the developers consider them to be distinct objects" - and so would I, that's what I mean when I say "different" and "the same". In this sense, those different Hard Blocks are the same thing, as Mario Maker tells us (and also in the context of Mario it's not too outlandish for blocks of different materials between games to be the same blocks, suspension of disbelief and all that), while there's nothing telling us that the White Block and Grab Block are the same thing beyond speculation. That is the reason they should be split, and it is what sets this situation apart from Hard Blocks and the other examples. The problem with how you keep saying "there's other merged things that are more different" is that you keep ignoring how there is often still official proof of those things being the same, which doesn't exist here. The reason I'm so opposed to this isn't really because I think these blocks are wildly dissimilar to each other - if there was a more direct official confirmation that they're the same (a Mario Maker game, a guidebook, anything), I'd probably support this, but there's not, and the wiki's established precedent is to merge only if we know they're the same, not because they're similar (see the links in my earlier comments). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:35, July 17, 2023 (EDT) | ::::::::::"The same thing" is not an arbitrary distinction, it's what splits and merges are based on. Things that are the same should share a page, things that are different should be on different pages, things where we're not sure should default to being on different pages to avoid speculation. You keep bringing up naming inconsistencies to suggest we should default to merging them, but that's absolutely the wrong approach in my opinion - it's far more speculative and assumptive than splitting them is. "I'd argue in this case it's based on whether the developers consider them to be distinct objects" - and so would I, that's what I mean when I say "different" and "the same". In this sense, those different Hard Blocks are the same thing, as Mario Maker tells us (and also in the context of Mario it's not too outlandish for blocks of different materials between games to be the same blocks, suspension of disbelief and all that), while there's nothing telling us that the White Block and Grab Block are the same thing beyond speculation. That is the reason they should be split, and it is what sets this situation apart from Hard Blocks and the other examples. The problem with how you keep saying "there's other merged things that are more different" is that you keep ignoring how there is often still official proof of those things being the same, which doesn't exist here. The reason I'm so opposed to this isn't really because I think these blocks are wildly dissimilar to each other - if there was a more direct official confirmation that they're the same (a Mario Maker game, a guidebook, anything), I'd probably support this, but there's not, and the wiki's established precedent is to merge only if we know they're the same, not because they're similar (see the links in my earlier comments). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:35, July 17, 2023 (EDT) | ||
:::::::::::If you agree that it's based on whether the developers consider them the same object, then all the evidence points to them doing so (graphic sources, shared development histories, keeping the flashing between games, big boo, etc). The issue is that the evidence also points to the writers of the materials (who I don't believe are the same people) not being properly informed on the nature of an under-the-radar object like this. Poor communication with the developers is the sort of thing that would lead to the block in SMB3 being confused with itself in a single image for example, not to mention the inconsistent naming, and the description of dubious icy properties and inaccurate colors not exhibited in game. It is not hard to see how mistaking the appearance between games could come from the very same cause as the other strange phenomena regarding supporting material portrayals. The supporting material for this seems to come from a mere impression by the writers and not the devs themselves, in which case we're playing the telephone game by entirely relying on it for our information. We can paint a clearer picture by taking an in-depth look at the games and their development ourselves, as this is what the developers undoubtedly had the biggest hand in, and having done so this strongly points towards them being the same object. [[User:WilliamFrog|WilliamFrog]] ([[User talk:WilliamFrog|talk]]) 06:32, July 21, 2023 (EDT) | :::::::::::If you agree that it's based on whether the developers consider them the same object, then all the evidence points to them doing so (graphic sources, shared development histories, keeping the flashing between games, big boo, etc). The issue is that the evidence also points to the writers of the materials (who I don't believe are the same people) not being properly informed on the nature of an under-the-radar object like this. Poor communication with the developers is the sort of thing that would lead to the block in SMB3 being confused with itself in a single image for example, not to mention the inconsistent naming, and the description of dubious icy properties and inaccurate colors not exhibited in game. It is not hard to see how mistaking the appearance between games could come from the very same cause as the other strange phenomena regarding supporting material portrayals. The supporting material for this seems to come from a mere impression by the writers and not the devs themselves, in which case we're playing the telephone game by entirely relying on it for our information. We can paint a clearer picture by taking an in-depth look at the games and their development ourselves, as this is what the developers undoubtedly had the biggest hand in, and having done so this strongly points towards them being the same object. [[User:WilliamFrog|WilliamFrog]] ([[User talk:WilliamFrog|talk]]) 06:32, July 21, 2023 (EDT) | ||
::::::::::::Ok, a correction - when I said "developers", I was more referring to overall official sources, since that's what this wiki is generally based on. There's no rule saying what we assume the developers had in mind takes priority over outward official confirmation to the contrary, and your narrative about poor communication is once again speculation. I think it's telling how flimsy your evidence is for the developers' thoughts - I already addressed these in previous comments where I said the Grab Block being based on the White Block or considered its counterpart doesn't make it the same item, and ultimately we just don't know what the developers' thought process was (I could tell you that they actually intentionally designed Grab Block as a similar but distinct item to White Block and thus named it differently, and it would be no more or less valid than your own conjectural story). And even if it "strongly points towards them being the same object", I don't care, we should default to splitting when there's no confirmation. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:16, 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) | |||
:::::::::::::::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 and blue coins 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) | ||