Talk:Universe: Difference between revisions
(Standardizing Universe article names) |
(→Standardizing Universe article names: universe -> franchise?) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Looking at what I've got above, it seems much safer and more consistent to call all of the main universe articles by what's in the Franchise Name Approach column, and have the links on the right column redirect to the articles on the left column. In addition, many of the World's Name Approach alternative names in the second column aren't even accurate because, for instance, Zelda games have taken place in areas that are ''not'' [[Hyrule]] (Termina, for one), while there have been Mario games not set in the Mushroom Kingdom (e.g. ''Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga'' are set in the Beanbean Kingdom). I really think all universe articles should be named after what's in the left column to be both accurate and consistent, so I'll start moving and creating the pages shortly if there aren't objections. [[User:Erik the Appreciator|Erik the Appreciator]] 18:04, February 19, 2007 (GMT) | Looking at what I've got above, it seems much safer and more consistent to call all of the main universe articles by what's in the Franchise Name Approach column, and have the links on the right column redirect to the articles on the left column. In addition, many of the World's Name Approach alternative names in the second column aren't even accurate because, for instance, Zelda games have taken place in areas that are ''not'' [[Hyrule]] (Termina, for one), while there have been Mario games not set in the Mushroom Kingdom (e.g. ''Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga'' are set in the Beanbean Kingdom). I really think all universe articles should be named after what's in the left column to be both accurate and consistent, so I'll start moving and creating the pages shortly if there aren't objections. [[User:Erik the Appreciator|Erik the Appreciator]] 18:04, February 19, 2007 (GMT) | ||
: That sounds fine to me. My only remaining concern is whether we should just scrap the "universe" moniker and start calling them franchises, because that sounds to me like a more logical term to use (and I think it won't require any extra explanation that "universe" might). --[[User:Kirby King|<font color="red"><b><i>Kirby King</i></b></font>]] 22:07, February 20, 2007 (GMT) | |||
Revision as of 18:07, February 20, 2007
Well! Now this is quite the article. Good job! I "appreciate" it ^^ – MaskedMarth (t c) 19:50, January 30, 2007 (GMT)
Standardizing Universe article names
I think we should decide on standardizing the names of the various universe pages. The site is currently torn between naming its universe pages as the franchises are commonly referred to by the press + (universe) and as the name of each franchise's general world + (universe). It seems we have to choose one naming convention over another, and here's the two alternatives that I got (and for consistency we should choose all of what's in one column over all of what's in the other):
Franchise Name Approach vs. World's Name Approach
- Mario (universe) vs. Mushroom Kingdom (universe)
- Donkey Kong (universe) vs. DK Island (universe)
- Yoshi (universe) vs. Yoshi's Island (universe)
- The Legend of Zelda (universe) vs. Hyrule (universe)
- Metroid (universe) vs. Planet Zebes (universe) (This World Name Approach alternative is iffy because Brawl could feature a stage based on a Metroid Prime planet like Tallon IV or Aether, and there doesn't seem to be a name for the galaxy in which all the Metroid universe planets including Zebes appear in.)
- Kirby (universe) vs. Dream Land (universe)
- Star Fox (universe) vs. Lylat System (universe) (or should it be Sector Z (universe)?)
- Pokémon (universe) vs. ??? (I don't think there's a World's Name Approach alternative here because it's an unnamed Pokémon world separated into giant regions with names.)
- F-Zero (universe) vs. F-Zero Grand Prix (universe) (Is there a name for the F-Zero galaxy?)
- Earthbound (universe) vs. Eagleland (universe)
- Ice Climber (universe) vs. Infinite Glacier (universe)
- Fire Emblem (universe) vs. ??? (a World's Name Approach alternative isn't available because there're many indepent FE worlds with continents-treated-like-worlds like Akaneia and Elibe and Magvel and what not.)
- Game & Watch (universe) vs. Superflat World (universe)
- Kid Icarus (universe) vs. Angel Land (universe)
- Metal Gear (universe) vs. ??? (This series takes place on our own Earth, so the World's Name Approach doesn't look like it would work because we shouldn't have a page called Earth (universe) and expect people to look that up for Metal Gear content)
Looking at what I've got above, it seems much safer and more consistent to call all of the main universe articles by what's in the Franchise Name Approach column, and have the links on the right column redirect to the articles on the left column. In addition, many of the World's Name Approach alternative names in the second column aren't even accurate because, for instance, Zelda games have taken place in areas that are not Hyrule (Termina, for one), while there have been Mario games not set in the Mushroom Kingdom (e.g. Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga are set in the Beanbean Kingdom). I really think all universe articles should be named after what's in the left column to be both accurate and consistent, so I'll start moving and creating the pages shortly if there aren't objections. Erik the Appreciator 18:04, February 19, 2007 (GMT)
- That sounds fine to me. My only remaining concern is whether we should just scrap the "universe" moniker and start calling them franchises, because that sounds to me like a more logical term to use (and I think it won't require any extra explanation that "universe" might). --Kirby King 22:07, February 20, 2007 (GMT)
