Template talk:Conjectural

The following is an archive of Template talk:Unknown Name.

USR
It should be chanfged to unknown sapient race, not unknown sentient race.
 * I don't believe so, we intend sentient. I don't know if we can say that they are wise (sapient), but we can say they are sensing and perceiving (sentient). Also, please remember to sign your talk page and forum comments with four tildes . -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 00:16, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

So your saying we can't say that Humanoid creatures are "wise", and we can't say that normal creatures feel?

No, here. We Homo sapiens are wise. Yes, wise. We are also Sentinent. Cats are wise, in their own way. But all living beings are sentinent. We are aware of our surroundings. Look ar a sunflower. (all plants would work, but a Sunflower is especially noticable.) Its head turns toward the strongest light it can find. Basically, it knows where the sun is, and during the niight, it turns toward your patio light. It's not wise, but it's sentinent. 24.94.89.214 07:22, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Confusion
It's getting really hard to find things on this template, especcially with so many new ones added. I suggest that we alter the template so that each creature/plant/planet/person is assigned a fan name while the article itself is headed with the same number as before. For example, UCB 1 could be nicknamed "SR277" on the template, while the article retains the same title as before. This is just for ease of finding, it's takes me hours to find some specific creature on the template and altering this system just a *wee* bit could allow it to become more user-friendly.Tuckerscreator 18:19, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

RBX
You can't just pull them off the template. If you don't realign them, then it looks very sloppy, as it does now. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 18:49, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * This template is going to be a huge mess when all the other M creatures have names confirmed. Articles about them shouldn't have been made before the games release, imo. Here is my rant about the ulf policy, seeing as it seems to be ignored on Forum:Unknown Name System:


 * I am largely opposed to the whole system. It's created a huge number of articles that are worthless stubs, makes it difficult to find the right article due to the naming system, is confusing (to the public as well, demonstrated by ONM) and also creates holes in the numerical part of the article's name when an official name is discovered. Fan names are a much better idea. I propose a "best guess" system, like the one used in the scan sections on the room articles, where the title of the scan is taken from the scan itself. Obviously, this would only work in the prime game's articles, and when the topic can be scanned. Tardis wikia has a similar system, and it's much better than the ULF one imo:


 * Unfortunatley, I was unable to register my opinion during the voting period, as I was on holiday and did not have an internet connection at the time. Another reason I really dislike the ULF pages is because it encourages pages about topics that will be given a name in the future anyway! This creates speculation on these articles, is really unnecessary. Plus when they are given names then the template redirects to them, and creates "numerical holes" in the numbering of the pages (as mentioned above). I would really like to see the whole project scrapped. Hell Kaiser ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 19:09, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of OT, but it doesn't need to be a mess just because several are receiving names. There isn't any reason that we shouldn't start covering an in-universe subject just because it is awaiting a title. Like I've said before, I didn't get the impression that ONM was confused. That seemed way more like a nod towards us to me. Fan names (especially the ones that have no basis in official media) are infinitely more confusing than a number system with templates that explain it. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 19:43, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think the real problem with covering enemies from an unreleased game is that we don't know for sure if some of these are even new enemies. The magdollite-lookalike could easily just be a magdollite, and bingo, we wasted another slot. Maybe that's not actually a ki-hunter, but a close relative. Art styles change often and enemy designs with them. Until they're actually confirmed (Ghalmilion [sp?], Dracotex, etc), I don't think we should cover them. One of the Zelda wikis just has a page for "unknown enemies from [upcoming game name]" or something like that. I like that system, personally.

As far as unnamed subjects in the actual released games go... the unidentified system seems okay to me. Dazuro 20:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Single pages for future game subjects were something I'd considered and think would work. We can definitely do that next go-round. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 20:27, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I like Dazuro's idea. Dedicate an entire page for the upcoming and unnamed creatures from Other M, but keep the unidentified system for the already released games. But at this time, the game is coming out in like... 20 days or something? Worth it? (Latinlingo 22:25, August 5, 2010 (UTC))

Add Unknown Strategic Objects
Yes. Add USO's. This has been stated before. See a bridge too far's talk. THAT has to be in there too! It's an astrology name from a stupid little paragraph. It's not really the best to have like this... Plus the Secret Message? That's got to be there too. Also, other common sequence breaks should be in there that have names that are not making sense, names that are stupid, or names that have little to no connection with the glitch or SB. 24.94.89.214 07:32, September 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * A bridge too far IS a name. Secret message is a MAYBE, since it was deliberate. Unintentional sequence breaks, gameplay exploits (technically Rapid Fire Missiles isn't a glitch, but is an exploit of how switching between missiles and beams work), and glitches are a no. Sequence breaks and glitches should be considered above the unknown name policy (there really needs to be an RfA created about this because this was beyond the intention). They are usually unintentional and the creators would most likely never name them, especially considering how they are trying to kill sequence breaks. Usually. And glitches are NEVER intentional (otherwise they wouldn't be glitches), so they obviously wouldn't ever receive an official name. And do you know HOW MANY things could fall under this category? A ton.


 * These kinds of things have more significance to the fanbase than the actual universe. Common courtesy of the sequence breaking community is to go with the name the creator gave it if any or the widely used term and to keep from using inconsistent terminology. Heck, the first known usage of the term "Sequence breaking", which is now used in regards to many video games, was in one of the sequence breaking threads of Metroid Prime at GameFAQs. Besides most of those names have a connection to the glitch or break. Even mockball. The third definition for mock at dictionary.com is "to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit." The mockball is where the morph ball "mocks" the effect of the run button. The only one you could qualify as stupid is the ghetto jump. It is called a ghetto jump because it feels rather... ghetto. But it has become the general term that it is refered to.


 * Basically, when it comes to glitches, sequence breaks, and exploits, you really should use the name that is used at Metroid2002, Speed Demos Archive, and the like.


 * Speaking of which, we don't have an actual official policy page for the UN system. We really should make one. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 18:16, September 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, "Usually"? Zero Mission's fine! I don't care that I can sequence break easily on it, I won't go so far as to go into Ridley before Kraid. I have gotten the Hijump early however. 24.94.89.214 10:24, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant that sequence breaks are usually unintended by the developers. However, it was intentional in ZM. I can't think of any examples of any other games in the series where sequence breaks were clearly intentional (You can argue SM with the wall jump and the shinespark but who knows). The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 19:14, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if they're trying to cut down on Sequence Breaking, why did they not use the mechanics they used in Fusion in ZM? Not that I'm complaining, Bomb Jumping's gotten me out of tight spots. But I, before this month, have never Sequence Broken because I never intended to. I'm happy for the fact they allowed Sequence Breaking in there, but why would they? 24.94.89.214 03:46, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really know why. I mean obviously to add depth to the game, but still. It is a mystery... Maybe to compromise for the fact that the original was almost a wide open sandbox but to still provide some sense of natural progression? I only sequence break in ZM to get good endings. Early screw attack for the win. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 19:51, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I never actually thought of them as intentional. But the deliberate nature of the ZM sequence breaks- adding whole rooms, breakable blocks that have absolutely no other reason to be there, and the like- makes me suspect that the devs were either trying to add in replay value for experianced players, or providing a way to get low completion at very very fast times.  "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and I approve this message."  23:18, September 26, 2011 (UTC)