Talk:Stubborn rocks: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Stubborn rocks (edit)

Revision as of 11:06, July 12, 2024

4,166 bytes added , 4 months ago

no edit summary

Deeb1324354657

996

edits

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ::Unused internal names generally take priority over purely fan-made ones. For instance, [[Unused content in Pikmin_3#|<code>kakureimo</code>]] is referred to as such because it's technically the most official, even if "yellow slug" might be more convenient. Likewise, the names of songs in Pikmin 2 are also based on their internal names (unless they're arbitrary like the ones that say "new"), even if the fan-made ones are more convenient. &mdash; [[File:Griffco Crystalline Crushblat.png]] [[User:CrazyCow|CrazyCow]] 20:32, July 11, 2024 (EDT)
 :::the unused enemy is, well, unused. The difference here is that the stubborn rocks are an obstacle which is easily seen in normal gameplay. It's unfair to expect a reader to know this common obstacle's unused name, as its impossible to see legitimately.  Which is why we prefer unofficial, simple descriptive names in these cases. [[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:38, July 11, 2024 (EDT)
+::::An example of using an unofficial name instead of an unused name is ''Pikmin 4''{{'s}} [[hazard generator]]s. These have unused names, but using those names would make things difficult on the wiki; for example, "gaseous spring" doesn't describe the poison pipes in ''Pikmin 2'', "electrode" is the same as a ''Pikmin 3'' object that functions very differently, and the terms "geyser" and "air geyser" are used to describe the hazardous water geyser and the helpful geyser that propels the leader upwards respectively, which would be difficult to document considering the helpful geysers in previous games use water. Since we don't have to use these names, it's easier to use unofficial names. &mdash; [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 21:41, July 11, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::If I may add, "stubborn" isn't necessarily vague or complicated. Sure, it's something of a personification, but the rocks ''could'' be described that way. I agree with Twins1105 in the sense that giving it the "wall" name at all wouldn't adequately describe it because it has very little to do with the official users of that title. As I'm sure you all know they're destroyed or subverted by the direct actions of Pikmin while these require them to push a ball that doesn't always even collide with them (in the Formidable Oak it breaks a Crystal Wall instead), so I think referring to them as "wall" might not be appropriate. But then there's the fact that the internal name could make it harder for casual players to find the article. Maybe the page could say that it is colloquially known as something that it may be more commonly described as? (Note: I wrote this before seeing Soprano's addition to the page.) [[User:Deeb1324354657|Deeb1324354657]] ([[User talk:Deeb1324354657|talk]]) 21:43, July 11, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::You do bring up a great point Soprano, I find both sides of this equally compelling. [[User:Deeb1324354657|Deeb1324354657]] ([[User talk:Deeb1324354657|talk]]) 21:44, July 11, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::Personally, putting aside that I my other reason for supporting the usage of the "Stubborn Rocks" name (that being that it's an official name), I will say that when I first saw that name in the TCRF page, I somewhat quickly realized what it referred to. "Stubborn rocks, must be rocks blocking some way, but where? Oh right, those rocks in the Distant Tundra." Meanwhile, when I saw the name "Brick Wall", I started trying to think of a wall/gate type obstacle that was made of bricks, and couldn't think of any. So the idea that "Brick Wall" is a more helpful name is very subjective. [[User:2 B|2 B]] ([[User talk:2 B|talk]]) 05:53, July 12, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::I'd say I find your statement the most agreeable; that's what I meant by saying the rocks could be described that way. Also, Soprano, just because we use unofficial names for some elements of the games that are more vague shouldn't mean that we should use them for ''every'' vague one, no? Wouldn't it be best to stick to the official names for as long as it's reasonable, which, I think it can be argued that this is? Just look at the main page - we're a comprehensive encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't use a colloquial name because the public might not understand the real one. I also think that, if the name were to be provided in-game, the casual audience would probably still accept it and not think twice about it for the most part; like, the name of bamboo gates isn't provided, at least in 3DX (to my knowledge), but it's still fairly agreeable that they should be called bamboo gates (or maybe I sound like an idiot and they're called something else, but that's just my mistake and has little to do with the actual argument), so I think these should remain recognised as stubborn rocks. I suppose we can bolster the publication of this name (if it gets accepted) by making sure to put them in See Also sections of a lot of pages; making knowledge of their name more widespread would definitely help them be more accepted and understood by their official name. [[User:Deeb1324354657|Deeb1324354657]] ([[User talk:Deeb1324354657|talk]]) 12:06, July 12, 2024 (EDT)