Talk:Bone Twister
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
New name[edit]
The English Mario Portal has a new name for this enemy: Bone Twister. Now, I don't want to jump the gun on this one since the current name is English and has been around since 2007 (basically its only appearance barring 3D All-Stars). However, the article does use an identifier, so the newer name would be more convenient, and perhaps more technically accurate if it's not considered a Tweester. I do want to point out that web content, especially non-guide material, has the same naming priority as the trading card that this came from. I'm curious if others think this should be moved or kept. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:01, August 13, 2022 (EDT)
- Do these two sources have the same naming priority? Looking at MarioWiki:Naming, I understood "officially Nintendo-licensed" to mean "third-party." That would apply to the trading cards, but surely not to content published on Nintendo's own website, right?
- Anyway, I think it's fine to move this article to Bone Twister. PopeLuigi (talk) 22:13, August 13, 2022 (EDT)
- Isn't it? That's how I read "non-video game media source" including "web content" - otherwise, it's simply not mentioned, which would need fixing. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:37, August 13, 2022 (EDT)
- You're probably right! In that case, I feel that Nintendo-published web content should move up on the list. I'm thinking it would make sense to put it on the same tier as a Nintendo Player's Guide. Thoughts? PopeLuigi (talk) 23:09, August 13, 2022 (EDT)
- That's probably a greater discussion, and there have been ideas about that, but I am personally cautious about putting Mario Portal too high up because of the site disclaimer: "This content is an English translation of information intended for the Japanese market. The release date, price, specifications, etc. may differ from those of products released in your region." I think that's probably why it has a few rough points (mainly Super Mario Land 2) and that it should mostly be for filling in Dark Horse's void. LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:19, August 13, 2022 (EDT)
- That's fair; they definitely referenced us for certain terminology. The main concern here is names like "Plirp" and "Cyclo" which are more than likely sourced from an internal glossary of some sort. PopeLuigi (talk) 00:10, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- There'd be no way of knowing unless, say, they also showed up in the Toadstool Tour leaderboards. LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:14, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- Ehn, aside from obvious mistakes ("Moneybag," "Big Pirahna Plan," etc), simple macron removals, and contradicting names that are actively being used in games (eg "Bomber Bill"), these are mostly fair game for moves/splits/merges when matching the JP names relative to each other, especially for convenience updates. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:41, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- I think I agree with that, though. The part I'm wary about is retitling things that have existing English names, like Huge Red Electrokoopa (which I feel should've at least had a discussion, although I understand the original names weren't very popular). LinkTheLefty (talk) 01:02, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- Problem is cases like this or Pokeynut being "Pokey," since the original is shared with a related entity, though admittedly Sleepy Boo runs into the opposite issue. And of course poor Mogu got the short end of the stick in that regard on two different occasions now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:14, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- But then there's things like the Galoombas, where referring to them as such would run contrary to our "generally use the names from the time" approach. Nintendo looks like they're keen on retroactively applying the name for older appearances after decades, but that's not the wiki's style (same with how they seem to want to segregate release order per region when we go for the overall worldwide approach). This Tweester isn't too different in that regard. Though, I don't feel too strongly about it since we have things like source exception precedents for various case-by-case reasons. LinkTheLefty (talk) 01:41, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- Seems a similar case to Hootie the Blue Fish in my opinion and can be dealt with in a similar manner. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:47, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- I'd be fine with that. LinkTheLefty (talk) 01:52, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- Seems a similar case to Hootie the Blue Fish in my opinion and can be dealt with in a similar manner. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:47, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- But then there's things like the Galoombas, where referring to them as such would run contrary to our "generally use the names from the time" approach. Nintendo looks like they're keen on retroactively applying the name for older appearances after decades, but that's not the wiki's style (same with how they seem to want to segregate release order per region when we go for the overall worldwide approach). This Tweester isn't too different in that regard. Though, I don't feel too strongly about it since we have things like source exception precedents for various case-by-case reasons. LinkTheLefty (talk) 01:41, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- Problem is cases like this or Pokeynut being "Pokey," since the original is shared with a related entity, though admittedly Sleepy Boo runs into the opposite issue. And of course poor Mogu got the short end of the stick in that regard on two different occasions now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:14, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- I think I agree with that, though. The part I'm wary about is retitling things that have existing English names, like Huge Red Electrokoopa (which I feel should've at least had a discussion, although I understand the original names weren't very popular). LinkTheLefty (talk) 01:02, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- That's fair; they definitely referenced us for certain terminology. The main concern here is names like "Plirp" and "Cyclo" which are more than likely sourced from an internal glossary of some sort. PopeLuigi (talk) 00:10, August 14, 2022 (EDT)
- That's probably a greater discussion, and there have been ideas about that, but I am personally cautious about putting Mario Portal too high up because of the site disclaimer: "This content is an English translation of information intended for the Japanese market. The release date, price, specifications, etc. may differ from those of products released in your region." I think that's probably why it has a few rough points (mainly Super Mario Land 2) and that it should mostly be for filling in Dark Horse's void. LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:19, August 13, 2022 (EDT)
- You're probably right! In that case, I feel that Nintendo-published web content should move up on the list. I'm thinking it would make sense to put it on the same tier as a Nintendo Player's Guide. Thoughts? PopeLuigi (talk) 23:09, August 13, 2022 (EDT)
- Isn't it? That's how I read "non-video game media source" including "web content" - otherwise, it's simply not mentioned, which would need fixing. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:37, August 13, 2022 (EDT)
