@Majora101 "don't like it don't buy it" and "there are actual problems in the world" handwaves all the criticisms presented and adds nothing to the argument, being a totally lazy argument.
And you don't get to talk about reading comprehension when you admitted to not reading anything I posted nor do you get to call for civility when you're the one telling me "I'm the problem" and you're the one making blanket pejoratives (calling your opponents "antifa" and insinuating they aren't educated).
And your latest post didn't convince me you even read Glowsquid's comment, second paragraph as you're doing exactly as he's describing, by fixating on the mere nomenclature rather than the other criticisms we offer.
LinktheLefty in the link did a run-down of the inaccuracies the book ran with (again, the book is dated and relied on information that went bad from fact-checking and wasn't updated... which is a special kind of incompetence because the official fact-checkers would've smelled a rat with their sources).
"I received a copy earlier, and the first thing I did was flip to the SML section to check the new name of the Roto-Disc-looking obstacle that the Japanese version calls Kaitensuru Honō ("Spinning Flame") only to find, to my great dismay, that it's labeled as ROTO-DISC. In addition to the Kuromame mix-up, there are a lot of other oddities that stood out to me like the off "Game Boy Player's Guide" names reused in the SML section, Para-Bob-omb and Red Spike Top in the SMW section, directly adding that Bubba is the alternative name of Boss Bass in the SM64 section, Sentry Beam getting its Japanese name Laser Pod and Jump Beamer getting the name of Sentry Beam, Spoing suddenly known as "Bouncing Scuttlebug" in SMG yet named properly in SMG2 (Sprangler is intact in both sections), Hefty and Big Goombas in the NSMBU section respectively and erroneously referred to as Big and Mega Goombas in the NSMBW section (as we did), and the general use of certain terms that I'm aware originated from this very wiki from mostly over a year ago such as Pipe Fist, Fire Jumping Piranha, Killer Chair, Fish Bone and Tweester in SMG, Starbag, Rainbow Note, Ghost Vase, Whimp, Mega Grrrol, conjectural Sunshine NPCs, Switchback Platform, and the transliterations in the SML2 section (as I now realize they must be from us outside of the Three Little Pigheads' individual names because the original Japanese version of the Encyclopedia plainly gave the name of "Bomubomu" as "Bomubomu 1・2・3" and also gave the name of "Be" as the alternate "B Fly"). I could keep going, but this is such a surreal doozy. On the other hand, Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia happens to be the only modern source I've found that gives Cape Mario its correct name of Caped Mario. Go figure.
I'll admit, this is more unusable than I thought and it's no wonder that no one wants to go for the full citation option, but I do see some instances of passable localization buried in it (seemingly courtesy of the other translator if we're being honest, though regardless it needed tighter quality control as it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Nintendo for allowing a product's release in this rough state, especially after such a long delay). If the partial citation option passes, I believe we can work with the following: Falling Ceiling, Scenic Course (unique translation!) and other SML2 locations including the Casino, Giant Gringill, Chibi Chomp, Ground Urchin, Remote-Controlled Clown Car, [Torpedo Ted] Launch Pad, Targeting Ted Launch Pad, Piranha Pod, and possibly other names for things we do not yet have any name for (e.g. Lemmy and Wendy's "Decoy Doll" from SMW or the "Innertube Goomba" and "Skating Goomba" from SM3DW)."
@Smigit "Had they picked any other name for this licensed book would you have accepted those and updated the wiki accordingly or would additional scrutiny, processes or sources be required?"
It really depends on the name being used, but we would certainly change the name unless there are other contradictory sources in the future that have similar reputation (so I mean not stuff from Prima guides).
The problem is that a lot of enemy names have not been given a proper English name and our wiki is a hodgepodge of this. Look at Lumacomete's case: it's a name from a French source and there has been discussions on moving it back to the Japanese name. We thought it would be a good idea to just wait until a reliable authority, which we all thought the encyclopedia would be, and we did wait but it just ended up regurgitating the French name.
And it's not even a matter of "well they just used the Japanese name". The black ball in Super Mario 64 was called "Kuromame" in a revision of our wiki until it was agreed to be changed to "Keronpa Ball" through proposal, but it remained Kuromame in another wiki I guess, but Kuromame is not the correct name for it. The book went ahead and used the Kuromame name.
There is also the case of the bouncing spider enemy from Super Mario Galaxy, was initially "Scuttlebug" but someone in the talk page realized it was called "Spoing" in official guides, and so it was moved appropriately to Spoing. Dark Horse, not paying attention, decided on the bad name from the Wiki and, that's not the only example where they relied on dated information. The book is old, got delayed for several years, so, I guess that's what happens when you don't fact-check properly.
@Majora101 That's a mess of your favorite irrelevant incoherent political buzzwords that you demonstrate no idea what the heck you're talking about. And yes, nothing is more fun than having a headache of a debate involving 30+ users voting with how we corroborate the source.
@KryptoniteKrunch That analogy you're making is tortured, and I will explain why it's bad: one side has no resources and takes the pains to accredit Nintendo. One side has no impact in nomenclature and corroborating the sources for the nomenclature. One side has virtually zero budget. One side does not have the pressure to provide accurate information and legally cannot even profit off other people's work. The other side has fact-checkers, has industry greenlight and collaboration (which means actual responsibility to provide accurate names and not clip them off fan wikis that have to be far more careful with the sources), has an actual budget, has their unsourced information much better circulated through the fanbase, profits off the work, AND their versions vary wildly in quality. I'm sure others can see the immediate problem with your analogy that formed your flawed conclusions of "hypocrisy" but it's better if I explain to others that don't see the obvious logical problems.
@Smigit But that's the thing, we have an argument against "why not canonize the fanon": the books in other languages have actually done a far better job: the French and German translators have done exactly this, by localizing Japanese names. Why isn't the English version treated the same?
Furthermore, some of the transliterations aren't even accurate. See: the black ball thing from Super Mario 64.
@Abes3 The rumors about Nintendo "downloading" ROMs for resale are false. Yes, Nintendo and other big companies like snipping stuff from our work (see:Youtube), which is a very dickish move on their part, but the ROM thing isn't one of them.
People bringing this up despite it being debunked highlights my point about how misinformation spreads and clings.
@Smigit The whole deal with this is that how exactly are we going to corroborate the sources? We are a wiki. We realize that people rely on us for information and we make pret-ty clear about names that are established and names that are not-so much. We can't really cite ourselves because it would conflict with our idea of a wiki being well-sourced. We made it explicitly clear in the Wiki about the sources of our names. If it's made up, there's an inline tag "citation needed". There's a big template that says there is no English source for the names. Another thing, now this book is in circulation with the Mario fanbase, we will get questions and confusion by those who don't know any better. We have a policy where official material is accepted and even some sort of a totem pole of what names we accept before others. I do suppose the Dark Horse stuff can now go in the same tier as the Prima stuff, but most people I'm guessing won't realize it now, as the thing has been advertised as a definite source.
For those who say "this isn't a big deal", I do suppose in the very grand scheme of things, names of underwater cows in some Game Boy Mario game aren't that important but that doesn't excuse this lazy hatchet job and this also makes our work for everyone involved, from readers to editors at our wiki, unnecessarily more difficult, and that's what annoys me the most. Furthermore, we are a bunch of volunteers. I believe Dark Horse has the resources and all to actually get names from Nintendo, given they are manufacturing a rather expensive book.
I don't think most of us are being very mad. It's mostly disappointment and general confusion and some hand-wringing about proper sources (which isn't a bad attitude to have), at least at the Wiki.
Comments 7
Re: It Looks Like The Official Super Mario Encyclopedia Plagiarised A Fan-Made Wiki
@SegataSanshiro That's swell. Thanks for the kind comment!
Re: It Looks Like The Official Super Mario Encyclopedia Plagiarised A Fan-Made Wiki
@Majora101 "don't like it don't buy it" and "there are actual problems in the world" handwaves all the criticisms presented and adds nothing to the argument, being a totally lazy argument.
And you don't get to talk about reading comprehension when you admitted to not reading anything I posted nor do you get to call for civility when you're the one telling me "I'm the problem" and you're the one making blanket pejoratives (calling your opponents "antifa" and insinuating they aren't educated).
And your latest post didn't convince me you even read Glowsquid's comment, second paragraph as you're doing exactly as he's describing, by fixating on the mere nomenclature rather than the other criticisms we offer.
Re: It Looks Like The Official Super Mario Encyclopedia Plagiarised A Fan-Made Wiki
https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=2533112
LinktheLefty in the link did a run-down of the inaccuracies the book ran with (again, the book is dated and relied on information that went bad from fact-checking and wasn't updated... which is a special kind of incompetence because the official fact-checkers would've smelled a rat with their sources).
"I received a copy earlier, and the first thing I did was flip to the SML section to check the new name of the Roto-Disc-looking obstacle that the Japanese version calls Kaitensuru Honō ("Spinning Flame") only to find, to my great dismay, that it's labeled as ROTO-DISC. In addition to the Kuromame mix-up, there are a lot of other oddities that stood out to me like the off "Game Boy Player's Guide" names reused in the SML section, Para-Bob-omb and Red Spike Top in the SMW section, directly adding that Bubba is the alternative name of Boss Bass in the SM64 section, Sentry Beam getting its Japanese name Laser Pod and Jump Beamer getting the name of Sentry Beam, Spoing suddenly known as "Bouncing Scuttlebug" in SMG yet named properly in SMG2 (Sprangler is intact in both sections), Hefty and Big Goombas in the NSMBU section respectively and erroneously referred to as Big and Mega Goombas in the NSMBW section (as we did), and the general use of certain terms that I'm aware originated from this very wiki from mostly over a year ago such as Pipe Fist, Fire Jumping Piranha, Killer Chair, Fish Bone and Tweester in SMG, Starbag, Rainbow Note, Ghost Vase, Whimp, Mega Grrrol, conjectural Sunshine NPCs, Switchback Platform, and the transliterations in the SML2 section (as I now realize they must be from us outside of the Three Little Pigheads' individual names because the original Japanese version of the Encyclopedia plainly gave the name of "Bomubomu" as "Bomubomu 1・2・3" and also gave the name of "Be" as the alternate "B Fly"). I could keep going, but this is such a surreal doozy. On the other hand, Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia happens to be the only modern source I've found that gives Cape Mario its correct name of Caped Mario. Go figure.
I'll admit, this is more unusable than I thought and it's no wonder that no one wants to go for the full citation option, but I do see some instances of passable localization buried in it (seemingly courtesy of the other translator if we're being honest, though regardless it needed tighter quality control as it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Nintendo for allowing a product's release in this rough state, especially after such a long delay). If the partial citation option passes, I believe we can work with the following: Falling Ceiling, Scenic Course (unique translation!) and other SML2 locations including the Casino, Giant Gringill, Chibi Chomp, Ground Urchin, Remote-Controlled Clown Car, [Torpedo Ted] Launch Pad, Targeting Ted Launch Pad, Piranha Pod, and possibly other names for things we do not yet have any name for (e.g. Lemmy and Wendy's "Decoy Doll" from SMW or the "Innertube Goomba" and "Skating Goomba" from SM3DW)."
Re: It Looks Like The Official Super Mario Encyclopedia Plagiarised A Fan-Made Wiki
@Smigit "Had they picked any other name for this licensed book would you have accepted those and updated the wiki accordingly or would additional scrutiny, processes or sources be required?"
It really depends on the name being used, but we would certainly change the name unless there are other contradictory sources in the future that have similar reputation (so I mean not stuff from Prima guides).
The problem is that a lot of enemy names have not been given a proper English name and our wiki is a hodgepodge of this. Look at Lumacomete's case: it's a name from a French source and there has been discussions on moving it back to the Japanese name. We thought it would be a good idea to just wait until a reliable authority, which we all thought the encyclopedia would be, and we did wait but it just ended up regurgitating the French name.
And it's not even a matter of "well they just used the Japanese name". The black ball in Super Mario 64 was called "Kuromame" in a revision of our wiki until it was agreed to be changed to "Keronpa Ball" through proposal, but it remained Kuromame in another wiki I guess, but Kuromame is not the correct name for it. The book went ahead and used the Kuromame name.
There is also the case of the bouncing spider enemy from Super Mario Galaxy, was initially "Scuttlebug" but someone in the talk page realized it was called "Spoing" in official guides, and so it was moved appropriately to Spoing. Dark Horse, not paying attention, decided on the bad name from the Wiki and, that's not the only example where they relied on dated information. The book is old, got delayed for several years, so, I guess that's what happens when you don't fact-check properly.
More information:
https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Scuttlebug
@Majora101 That's a mess of your favorite irrelevant incoherent political buzzwords that you demonstrate no idea what the heck you're talking about. And yes, nothing is more fun than having a headache of a debate involving 30+ users voting with how we corroborate the source.
https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals#Citing_the_Super_Mario_Encyclopedia
@KryptoniteKrunch That analogy you're making is tortured, and I will explain why it's bad: one side has no resources and takes the pains to accredit Nintendo. One side has no impact in nomenclature and corroborating the sources for the nomenclature. One side has virtually zero budget. One side does not have the pressure to provide accurate information and legally cannot even profit off other people's work. The other side has fact-checkers, has industry greenlight and collaboration (which means actual responsibility to provide accurate names and not clip them off fan wikis that have to be far more careful with the sources), has an actual budget, has their unsourced information much better circulated through the fanbase, profits off the work, AND their versions vary wildly in quality. I'm sure others can see the immediate problem with your analogy that formed your flawed conclusions of "hypocrisy" but it's better if I explain to others that don't see the obvious logical problems.
Re: It Looks Like The Official Super Mario Encyclopedia Plagiarised A Fan-Made Wiki
@Smigit But that's the thing, we have an argument against "why not canonize the fanon": the books in other languages have actually done a far better job: the French and German translators have done exactly this, by localizing Japanese names. Why isn't the English version treated the same?
Furthermore, some of the transliterations aren't even accurate. See: the black ball thing from Super Mario 64.
https://twitter.com/SMWikiOfficial/status/1054827213219160064
Re: It Looks Like The Official Super Mario Encyclopedia Plagiarised A Fan-Made Wiki
@Abes3 The rumors about Nintendo "downloading" ROMs for resale are false. Yes, Nintendo and other big companies like snipping stuff from our work (see:Youtube), which is a very dickish move on their part, but the ROM thing isn't one of them.
People bringing this up despite it being debunked highlights my point about how misinformation spreads and clings.
Re: It Looks Like The Official Super Mario Encyclopedia Plagiarised A Fan-Made Wiki
@Smigit The whole deal with this is that how exactly are we going to corroborate the sources? We are a wiki. We realize that people rely on us for information and we make pret-ty clear about names that are established and names that are not-so much. We can't really cite ourselves because it would conflict with our idea of a wiki being well-sourced. We made it explicitly clear in the Wiki about the sources of our names. If it's made up, there's an inline tag "citation needed". There's a big template that says there is no English source for the names. Another thing, now this book is in circulation with the Mario fanbase, we will get questions and confusion by those who don't know any better. We have a policy where official material is accepted and even some sort of a totem pole of what names we accept before others. I do suppose the Dark Horse stuff can now go in the same tier as the Prima stuff, but most people I'm guessing won't realize it now, as the thing has been advertised as a definite source.
For those who say "this isn't a big deal", I do suppose in the very grand scheme of things, names of underwater cows in some Game Boy Mario game aren't that important but that doesn't excuse this lazy hatchet job and this also makes our work for everyone involved, from readers to editors at our wiki, unnecessarily more difficult, and that's what annoys me the most. Furthermore, we are a bunch of volunteers. I believe Dark Horse has the resources and all to actually get names from Nintendo, given they are manufacturing a rather expensive book.
I don't think most of us are being very mad. It's mostly disappointment and general confusion and some hand-wringing about proper sources (which isn't a bad attitude to have), at least at the Wiki.