Jump to content

Talk:List of Mario franchise characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Boo (Nintendo))

Podoboo[edit]

I really feel Podoboo should be called Lava Bubble instead considering that name is used way more commonly than Podoboo by both Nintendo and to a degree the general public PipesTheVlob (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused and mildly annoyed about this one, Lava Bubble is the name used in most Mario games released since around the Wii or Gamecube eraPipesTheVlob (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two official or semi-official sources state that the name is Podoboo. The article also says "also referred to as a Lava Bubble," for which a citation is needed. If you can provide a reliable source that confirms the common name is truly Lava Bubble and not Podoboo, go ahead and change it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't advanced any sort of argument or provided any specific evidence. Give people a reason to be convinced of what you're claiming. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice people actually responded to this, but there are many notable sources that quite clearly show "Lava Bubble" is the more commonly used name in modern times, such as both Super Mario Maker games (2015 and 2019), the Capture List in Super Mario Odyssey (2017), with the last game I could find using it being Yoshi's Island DS (2006), with most games after Super Mario World calling them Lava Bubbles, with most other games using it afterwards being outliers. Overall the "Podoboo" name was last used 16 (almost 17) years ago. While there were technically more years the name was in use (21), it was very infrequent after Super Mario World (1990) and the Lava Bubble name has been used for a long enough time that i think it should have the name it is called on this title page — Preceding unsigned comment added by PipesTheVlob (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fawful section length[edit]

Not a huge contributer but as a Mario fan, Fawful’s section seems very overly long for a character who only has two major appearances in the series. His section is longer than most other sections on the page and I don’t think Fawful is a prominent enough character to have such a long section. 71.0.69.212 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Condense it down then. Every good edit starts with someone willing to try and clean something up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why is because Fawful once had its own article but it was merged at some point. This article isn't in the best state right now, so the real problem is getting everyone else up to Fawful's level. Panini! • 🥪 15:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 July 2024[edit]

List of Mario franchise characters → List of Mario characters – More concise title, WP:CONSISTENT with other video game franchise characters lists:

spintheer (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since I think it would be pretty obvious for anyone searching "List of Mario Characters" that it's characters from the Mario franchise. I think WP: CONCISE could apply here. Urchincrawler (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (already supported above). Re the opposes citing consistentency, I'm not sold those other articles are useful comparisons. A casual reading of "List of Alien characters" would be characters that are space aliens in general, "List of Predator characters" animal-people who are also predators, "List of Madagascar characters" characters of origin in Madagascar, etc. This kind of misreading is vastly less likely with "Mario" where the wrong reading of "Mario" is clearly silly. "The Loud House" and "Family Guy" are a bit different, but if I had to guess, they're in their current form because a two or three word "adjective" form can be a bit awkward, i.e. "List of [The Loud House] characters"? They are more relevant, but I wouldn't put much emphasis on those two articles. The general point is that "Mario characters" is concise and natural, and will be read correctly by 99% of readers, especially since context (either a Google search with an image of the Mario crew, or a link in a video-game related article) will make the subject obvious. SnowFire (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very confused by this comment. ""List of Madagascar characters" characters of origin in Madagascar, etc." isn't a list of all characters of origin in Madagascar, but a list of characters from a specific franchise – i.e. the Madagascar CGI animal film and TV franchise. That's why such articles benefit from having "franchise" specified in the article, to avoid the mistake you seem to have made here. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's precisely SnowFire's point. See my comment below spintheer (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As spintheer said, that was exactly what I was saying, so not a "mistake." I'm saying that it makes sense to title the Alien article "List of Alien (franchise) characters" because that is clear and unambiguous, but "List of Alien characters" could be misread. But that the form "List of (Term) characters" is still fine and a good, concise default when there isn't such a misreading. I doubt readers would see "List of Mario characters" and think "this is about characters named Mario," so therefore the Alien precedent isn't relevant. SnowFire (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the source of the confusion now. I disagree with the idea "I doubt readers would see "List of Mario characters" and think "this is about characters named Mario," and therefore don't follow along with the conclusion that the Alien (or other) precedents wouldn't be relevant. The comments in this thread assume everyone is more familiar with Mario as a video game character from some 1980s Atari game and a couple CGI movies as compared to a rather common name in some parts of the world. That doesn't completely defeat the argument as being made – after all, Sofia is an article about the city (as compared to Sofia (given name)), but you'll have to make a more robust argument that bear in mind that while you hear "Mario" and think bing bing wahoo, that's not necessarily what first comes to mind for everyone else. Looking at the way the conversation is progressing, I think the Shrek comparison is the strongest example that's been provided so far – if there was any article along these same lines that could make an argument to drop the 'franchise' I think it'd be Shrek, and the fact it's even there tells me WP:CONSISTENT says it should be there. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'll just point out that - as the nominator already provided in the nomination - there are scads, scads of articles in the simple "List of XYZ characters" form that don't include a (franchise) disclaimer, even when it is franchise. Not just the Donkey Kong / LoZ / Star Fox ones, but List of Dune characters, List of Halo characters, and 100 more. So even if Shrek is a counterexample (maybe, but there is a difference per below comments on Shrek 1 vs. Shrek-in-general), and even if our sole goal is consistency (which it shouldn't be), that would potentially imply moving the Shrek article instead. SnowFire (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. You argue that, in the examples that I gave above, "franchise" was not added to the character list article title primarily in order to match the original franchise article title, like I claimed. Instead, you raise the possibility that the primary reason for adding "franchise" to those character list articles was to serve as a natural disambiguation (e.g. to disambiguate "List of alien articles") or to address awkward phrasing concerns (e.g. "List of The Loud House characters").
    To address this argument, I raise the following examples in which (1) The character list article title has "franchise", matching the main franchise article title, while (2) "franchise" isn't used or needed for natural disambiguation or to fix awkward phrasing. In other words, the character list article title would've sounded natural and non-awkward without using "franchise", yet it's still used:
    - Shrek (franchise) and List of Shrek (franchise) characters
    - Fantasia (franchise) and List of Fantasia (franchise) characters
    - Terminator (franchise) and List of Terminator (franchise) characters
    I might argue that "List of Family Guy characters" would have also been passably natural and not awkward sounding (and yet it still has "franchise" in the title to match the main franchise article title). But to avoid having to split hairs about this point, I give the above examples instead, which I think show the idea more clearly. spintheer (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that those are certainly closer to counterexamples (or at least Shrek & Fantasia, you could squint and maybe argue Terminator could be read as line terminator characters). That said, one of the reasons for "franchise" is due to possible-if-unlikely confusion with the first entry in a series. i.e. someone might think that "List of Shrek characters" is just about the film "Shrek" (aka "Shrek 1"), "Terminator" ("The Terminator" 1984), "Fantasia" (1940), etc. But the first Mario games aren't literally called "Mario", so this confusion is much less likely that someone will expect only Mario Bros. characters or the like.
      • More generally I think that there are many more examples of the other form (see Category:Lists of fictional characters, too many "List of XYZ characters" to count including the subcategories - we're talking 100+) and if I was being a real stickler about consistency would argue that those could move to "List of Shrek characters" and "List of Fantasia characters". (But would actually leave it up to the main maintainer's preference in practice, if they were really concerned about either my suggestion above with confusion with the first entry, or something else.) SnowFire (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The way I understand it, WP:CONSISTENT (and more specifically WP:TITLECON) calls for uniformly applying the same decision rules when determining the titles of similar articles, and not for uniformly reaching the same decision outcome. Even if many of character list articles don't have "franchise", a significant number of others still do, as I've shown. Therefore, the current convention requires us to seriously deliberate the relevant considerations for whether or not to include "franchise" in the character list articles, and not just ignore them and blindly go by an article head-count.
        The article titling convention that I was going by is WP:CONSUB: If the title of the main topic (Mario (franchise)) includes the (franchise) disambiguation, then the article titles of subtopics (List of Mario franchise characters) should do the same. I gave examples in order to show this convention in action in other franchise articles. My belief is that if we want to argue that Mario (franchise) shouldn't have "(franchise)" in the first place, that's ok, but I think that we should address that first before changing the titles of subtopic articles. spintheer (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Proposed title is consistent with closely related articles and is clear and concise. Landfish7 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Mario_franchise_characters&oldid=1235225265"