456
edits
MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
→Support
| (41 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all. | #{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all. | ||
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all. | #{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all. | ||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal--these icons are already on the tour articles where they're relevant, so having all of these variations on the courses' galleries is a bit overkill. It'd be one thing if they were in a gallery subpage, but just on the articles itself...? ADDITION FROM THE FUTURE: Per Glowsquid and especially Ray Trace; these images are already on other articles where they are far more relevant, and we shouldn't be prohibiting people stuck with 6GB of RAM or Chromebooks from accessing the wiki in favor of "the same image but instead of Captain Toad in the bottom right with a white outline, there's Yellow Yoshi (Kangaroo) in the bottom right with a white outline" repeated ad-infinitum. Just because ''you'' can load it just fine doesn't mean that it's fine for others, and a wiki shouldn't have a recommended system requirements that's larger than a web browser's. | |||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
| Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
::I feel as though people are considering this a video game history archive, which is not this site's purpose. If people are concerned about preserving these course icons now that the game is shut down, it doesn't need to be here on this site. ({{@|Arend}}) [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:21, May 12, 2024 (EDT) | ::I feel as though people are considering this a video game history archive, which is not this site's purpose. If people are concerned about preserving these course icons now that the game is shut down, it doesn't need to be here on this site. ({{@|Arend}}) [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:21, May 12, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:::The wiki does, in fact, double as an archive and this proposal is contrary to that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | :::The wiki does, in fact, double as an archive and this proposal is contrary to that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
::::This proposal is about either removing these from the galleries of the course articles or simply splitting the galleries off so they don't bloat the track articles--not deleting the images outright (since those will still be on the articles for the corresponding tours as-is). The only thing that'd be "deleted" (by some definition of the word) are the various gallery entries in the most extreme scenario. Call this "pedantic" if you so desire. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 02:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | ::::This proposal is about either removing these from the galleries of the course articles or simply splitting the galleries off so they don't bloat the track articles--not deleting the images outright (since those will still be on the articles for the corresponding tours as-is). The only thing that'd be "deleted" (by some definition of the word) are the various gallery entries in the most extreme scenario. Call this "pedantic" if you so desire. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 02:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:::::I have no reason to call you pedantic. Don't know why people got so offended by my use of that word. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 02:45, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | :::::I have no reason to call you pedantic. Don't know why people got so offended by my use of that word. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 02:45, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
::::Please inform me where my proposal says we will be deleting images off of the wiki entirely. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 00:58, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::::It doesn't, but it does hinder the wiki's presentation of them (and also some supporters seem to want a total deletion to happen). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::{{@|Glowsquid}} A pedantic response with a dishonest premise. If this was a real honest-to-god curated encyclopedia sold in stores, there wouldn't be a page on the history of Mario detailing every single one of his roles throughout his franchise; there wouldn't be entire gameplay sections on game articles detailing every single one of their mechanics and quirks; and there certainly wouldn't be entire repositories of images [[Gallery:Mario artwork (media)|pertaining to only one character]]. Tell me how ''any'' of that looks curated to you or how keeping a bunch of similar course icons on an article is somehow contrary to the spirit I had just described. Until now I have barely, if ever, seen an instance where this site omitted valid information (or material), no matter how inessential, for the purposes of condensing itself. Relocating said info/material, yes; removing off-putting fancruft, that's reasonable; but never in my entire experience has someone gone "you know what, Mario has too many appearances in games, we should delete the Mario Tennis sections because encyclopedias are meant to be condensed or something"--although the way things are going I can see this happen at some point. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | ::{{@|Glowsquid}} A pedantic response with a dishonest premise. If this was a real honest-to-god curated encyclopedia sold in stores, there wouldn't be a page on the history of Mario detailing every single one of his roles throughout his franchise; there wouldn't be entire gameplay sections on game articles detailing every single one of their mechanics and quirks; and there certainly wouldn't be entire repositories of images [[Gallery:Mario artwork (media)|pertaining to only one character]]. Tell me how ''any'' of that looks curated to you or how keeping a bunch of similar course icons on an article is somehow contrary to the spirit I had just described. Until now I have barely, if ever, seen an instance where this site omitted valid information (or material), no matter how inessential, for the purposes of condensing itself. Relocating said info/material, yes; removing off-putting fancruft, that's reasonable; but never in my entire experience has someone gone "you know what, Mario has too many appearances in games, we should delete the Mario Tennis sections because encyclopedias are meant to be condensed or something"--although the way things are going I can see this happen at some point. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:: I am being "pedantic and dishonest" because that's the framing you choose to use. The wiki is not subject to the exact same limitation as print encyclopedia but it still curates and condenses for reasons of legally, because server space isn't cheap or unlimited, and because on some level, people do want curation on some level even if they disagree on the specifics. Otherwise nobody would be using the stuffy and highly curated Wikipedia in favour of Everything Wiki and its lack of notability requirement for page creation. | :: I am being "pedantic and dishonest" because that's the framing you choose to use. The wiki is not subject to the exact same limitation as print encyclopedia but it still curates and condenses for reasons of legally, because server space isn't cheap or unlimited, and because on some level, people do want curation on some level even if they disagree on the specifics. Otherwise nobody would be using the stuffy and highly curated Wikipedia in favour of Everything Wiki and its lack of notability requirement for page creation. | ||
| Line 228: | Line 229: | ||
::::::::{{@|Hewer}} please do not put words in my mouth or project intent. I was highlighting that there seems to be competing editorial philosophies at play on galleries, and gently suggesting that if the icons were ultimately to stay where they are, it would be beneficial for them to be subdivided further into more digestible gallery headings. At present they are difficult to navigate. This is also what I was trying to get at, {{@|Koopa con Carne}}. I know the icons were objectively organized in some manor because another human being put them there with intent. However, their near-identical appearances and volume make them "feel" disorganized, just like a category. I would be surprised if I was in the minority. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:14, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ::::::::{{@|Hewer}} please do not put words in my mouth or project intent. I was highlighting that there seems to be competing editorial philosophies at play on galleries, and gently suggesting that if the icons were ultimately to stay where they are, it would be beneficial for them to be subdivided further into more digestible gallery headings. At present they are difficult to navigate. This is also what I was trying to get at, {{@|Koopa con Carne}}. I know the icons were objectively organized in some manor because another human being put them there with intent. However, their near-identical appearances and volume make them "feel" disorganized, just like a category. I would be surprised if I was in the minority. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:14, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:::::::::I'm not sure what part of my comment you thought was putting words in your mouth, I certainly had no intention to do so. I've already addressed your arguments about them being "disorganized", but to do so again: they're not. Not just in a technical sense like you seem to be implying I mean - as KCC explained, and as I pointed out before that, we already do organise them neatly into subsections. If you think it still "feels" disorganized, then that's no longer the wiki's problem, as they're about as organised as they possibly can be. I have no idea what you actually would want done to improve the organisation further than at present - if anything, adding too many more superfluous subsections than we already have could harm the organisation. The similarity of the images is not our fault or our responsibility to "fix" on Nintendo's behalf, nor does it really make them "disorganized" in any way. If an organised gallery having many similar images makes it disorganized, I'm really not sure how you're defining the word "disorganized" here. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:27, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | :::::::::I'm not sure what part of my comment you thought was putting words in your mouth, I certainly had no intention to do so. I've already addressed your arguments about them being "disorganized", but to do so again: they're not. Not just in a technical sense like you seem to be implying I mean - as KCC explained, and as I pointed out before that, we already do organise them neatly into subsections. If you think it still "feels" disorganized, then that's no longer the wiki's problem, as they're about as organised as they possibly can be. I have no idea what you actually would want done to improve the organisation further than at present - if anything, adding too many more superfluous subsections than we already have could harm the organisation. The similarity of the images is not our fault or our responsibility to "fix" on Nintendo's behalf, nor does it really make them "disorganized" in any way. If an organised gallery having many similar images makes it disorganized, I'm really not sure how you're defining the word "disorganized" here. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:27, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ||
::::::::::Something like [[Tour New York Minute#Gallery|New York Minute]] looks organized well to me. I think the [[Gallery:Mario_Kart_Tour_course_icons#In-game_icons|in-game icons section of the ''Mario Kart Tour'' course icon gallery]] is significantly more difficult to navigate, burdens my computer, and all without substantive cause. Nintendo did not put this together. They did not create these icons with the intent of them being lumped together in a gallery anywhere. ''We'' did that. We are the only reason this exists at all. We should not be using them as an excuse to not disseminate information in an intuitive and healthy manner. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::::::::::I usually don't have problems with loading things on this site and yeah, even I struggled on that gallery, so I suppose you're right there. However, it's a moot point either way since that's not the gallery being affected by this proposal. The galleries on the course pages, such as that of New York Minute, are what this proposal is about, and are what I've been describing. And my point with the "Nintendo's fault" thing was more that we generally strive to include as much coverage on the franchise as we can, and icons are a very usual thing for us to include a complete set of in galleries (even just regarding sprites in Mario Kart, I'm pretty sure we have every single course icon from all the other Mario Kart games, not to mention [[emblem]]s, [[Lists of sponsors|sponsors]], etc.). I don't think the repetitiveness of Mario Kart Tour's icons (which is Nintendo's fault) is a good reason for us to not do the same as we usually do with this game. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
Had an idea. What are y'all — on both sides here — y'all's thoughts on making an article {{fake link|List of course icons in ''Mario Kart Tour''}}, or maybe {{fake link|Gallery:''Mario Kart Tour''/Course icons}} or something, which could have subheaders for all the courses, maybe even the different variants of the courses. Then, we can easily stick a "see also" template into those gallery sections, linked to the section on that course in that article, and can trim down the images to put less of a strain on bandwidth. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 15:17, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | Had an idea. What are y'all — on both sides here — y'all's thoughts on making an article {{fake link|List of course icons in ''Mario Kart Tour''}}, or maybe {{fake link|Gallery:''Mario Kart Tour''/Course icons}} or something, which could have subheaders for all the courses, maybe even the different variants of the courses. Then, we can easily stick a "see also" template into those gallery sections, linked to the section on that course in that article, and can trim down the images to put less of a strain on bandwidth. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 15:17, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
| Line 237: | Line 240: | ||
:::::I'm not actually for removal of the icons altogether. As I said in my support, they're fine in the articles they are used in, kept in tables where there is appropriate context to illustrate the cup's tracks. I just don't think they belong in an all-in-one gallery to illustrate a course. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 09:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | :::::I'm not actually for removal of the icons altogether. As I said in my support, they're fine in the articles they are used in, kept in tables where there is appropriate context to illustrate the cup's tracks. I just don't think they belong in an all-in-one gallery to illustrate a course. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 09:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ||
::::::Yeah, same here. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 09:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ::::::Yeah, same here. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 09:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:Turns out [[Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons]] is already a thing. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
Ok, Support, do you want the images themselves deleted, or not? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 11:42, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:Nothing in the proposal said anything about deleting the images. In fact, if a delete tag is put ''anywhere'' if this proposal passes, it's a sign someone has implemented it wrong. These images are still going to exist on the tour articles and the cup articles. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:46, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
@Camwoodstock: When a gallery is too large for a page to load quickly, the solution has always been to simply split it into its own page, per [[MarioWiki:Article size]]. So what exactly makes this case different to every other gallery split on the entire wiki, besides subjective arguments along the lines of "because no one cares about these images"? I'd argue that removing a ton of perfectly fine content (which afaik has never and certainly should never be the solution to long loading times) is more harmful for readers than some extra loading time that can easily be resolved anyway by just splitting the galleries is. There's been plenty of times in the past when we've had tons of repetitive, loading-time-worsening Mario Kart Tour content, and the solution has always been to split it so that whoever's interested can still see the information (how else would we have ended up with such pages as [[List of favored and favorite Piranha Plant Cove courses in Mario Kart Tour]]). So what makes this case different? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:47, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:Even if we split the garlleries up, the majority of these would ''still'' just be identical images with only the character in the corner being different. Sure, you help the performance aspect a little, but these are still fundamentally just the same 3-to-4 images with way too many characters slapped into the bottom right with a white outline. Once you've seen each angle once, you've seen them all; there is no reason to keep going beyond that point, because it doesn't illustrate the point any more--it just kinda bludgeons you over the head with it. The bottom line is, '''it's excessive''', and we shouldn't be treating our readers like utter fools who need to see 20 images of the same Mario Kart track icon with different characters over them, when they presumably only really "need" 4 of them at most. And if they really wanted to see the unique combinations, they could just head over to the corresponding cup/tour articles or the category we have for icons such as these. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:17, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::Who are we to make judgement calls and decide that it's "too many" to be useful? And how is presenting the most complete repository of images possible "treating our readers like utter fools"? Who are we to decide what they "need to see"? I get why it could be seen as excessive, but I don't think it's so completely unreasonable that someone could want to see these, and I don't see how you (or even most people) not finding it interesting is reason to cut it altogether. And why should we force them to go hunting through articles or a category instead of galleries, the usual and best way to present a bunch of images? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::To group them together in a gallery in the first place is just as much of a judgement call as trimming them from one. Unless there is a policy I'm unfamiliar with, aggregation is not the default on Super Mario Wiki. It's a choice, and one that should not be imposed on other users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:35, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::Who's making the judgement calls that it's "useful" to have [[SNES Rainbow Road#Course icons|the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Rosalina in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with a Shy Guy in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Metal Mario in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Ice Mario in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Lemmy in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Rosalina ''in a Tanuki costume'' in front of it, only to repeat this cycle again for the R, T, and R/T variants of the track]]? Be honest with yourself--what information do you actually gain from this that a simpler version of this couldn't already tell you? That Rosalina, Shy Guy, Metal Mario, Ice Mario, Lemmy, and Tanuki Rosalina are all in ''Tour''? On the article made for SNES Rainbow Road, where if you wanted to know the roster, you'd probably be searching for that instead? If we had a lower-end computer, we'd want to see images for SNES Rainbow Road first and foremost--not images of the cast of Mario Kart Tour that just kinda happen to feature the exact same images of SNES Rainbow Road as only half of the image. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:39, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::It's not about usefulness, it's about completeness. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:47, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::@Nintendo101: By that logic, to include information in the wiki at all and present it in a logical form is a subjective judgement call. Including information ''is'' the default on Super Mario Wiki, as is presenting it well, and when it comes to images, [[MarioWiki:Galleries|galleries]] are a long-established way to do so.<br>@Camwoodstock: What the icons for a course look like (i.e. the very images used in the game to represent them) are absolutely relevant to that course. There's nothing they're more relevant to. The information it tells you is what characters they chose to use to represent the course. You finding that information boring doesn't reduce its validity as information. And I've already repeatedly argued the "lower-end computer" point, but ok I'll say it again: [[MarioWiki:Article size|just split the gallery like we always do]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:50, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::::We're not saying "remove the icons entirely", we're saying that we shouldn't be excessive about them. All your average reader is going to want or need is exactly one variant--one for the base version, one for the R version, one for the T version, and one for the R/T version. We don't need 6 icons of the base version, 6 icons of the R version, 4 icons of the T version, and then 7 icons of the R/T version, where the only thing different between those copies is how much King Boo (Gold) they happen to include along the way. You could trim down the SNES Rainbow Road gallery to just the 3 versions with base Rosalina and the 1 version with Baby Rosalina, and you would properly showcase all four icons just as well as you do by including all 23 of them. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:01, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::::The proposal is ultimately too vague in what it intends to do to support it IMO. Especially after that Smash redirect thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:08, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::::::...I don't quite understand. What "Smash redirect thing"? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 13:51, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::::::I think [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Trim_or_remove_various_Smash_franchise-specific_subcategories|this?]] [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 13:55, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::::::[[User talk:Super Mario RPG#Deletion templates for Smash redirects|Yeah]], [[User talk:Camwoodstock#Enacting proposal|this]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:10, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::::::::...We don't exactly appreciate the implication that it's ''on us'' that somebody else didn't ask us what the proposal was about before they started slapping delete templates everywhere. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::::::::I don't think that's what me & {{@|Hewer}} are meaning. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 14:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::::::::Yeah that's not what I meant in the slightest. I was just trying to provide context for what the thing was that Doc was referring to. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:28, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::::::::::Please stay on course, peeps. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::::::::::It's not OUR fault! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 14:35, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::::I know the proposal won't delete the icons (though some supporters clearly do want that, while others don't seem to), but what it will do is have the wiki go out of its way to hinder its presentation of these icons for no good reason. I see no reason to define "your average reader" and pander to this non-existent person's supposed needs - that just feels like a more complex way of saying what you personally want to happen. "Your average reader" probably isn't interested in many, many, many things on this wiki, but that doesn't make their inclusion invalid, because another reader might go seeking those things. If the reader doesn't find something interesting, they're free to ignore it, that's not our problem. Our goal as a wiki isn't to only include the stuff we subjectively deem interesting, but to provide complete coverage on the whole franchise so any reader can find the information they seek about the franchise, whatever it may be. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
I put together a proof of concept on one way to handle this proposal in [[User:SolemnStormcloud/Sandbox#Wii Mushroom Gorge|my sandbox]]. It uses {{tem|main-gallery}} to link to the appropriate section of [[Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons]] as smoothly as possible. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 13:38, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:Seems like a good workaround if icons get trimmed down from course pages. I like that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:16, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::I like it. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 14:19, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
Ok,this is getting to be very crazy! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 13:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:100kb JPEGs are no laughing matter! {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:31, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
==Changes== | ==Changes== | ||
| Line 470: | Line 504: | ||
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} This was something I thought of a while back as well. Just not sure how "related" would work. | #{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} This was something I thought of a while back as well. Just not sure how "related" would work. | ||
#{{User|Arend}} Per all. | #{{User|Arend}} Per all. | ||
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all. better to have it now than to need it later down the line | |||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
| Line 603: | Line 638: | ||
:I don't remember anyone saying anything at all about other games or spin-offs, or even remotely implying that "every Mario game should be in the same category", so I have no idea where you're getting that from. And whether something is "canon" is never a factor in anything on this website, regarding both this and the Paper Mario proposal I again strongly suggest you read [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:07, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | :I don't remember anyone saying anything at all about other games or spin-offs, or even remotely implying that "every Mario game should be in the same category", so I have no idea where you're getting that from. And whether something is "canon" is never a factor in anything on this website, regarding both this and the Paper Mario proposal I again strongly suggest you read [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:07, May 13, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:@Big Super Mario Fan: What has certain games not being canon have to do with ports and remakes of mainline titles? No one has said anything about which games are being canon or not in this discussion until you brought. Hell, no one in this discussion has even ''uttered'' the word "canon" before you did (and as you can see, you bringing up canon has brought on a whole different discussion that completely undermines the original topic of the proposal).<br>Truthfully, bringing up canonicity in this discussion about regarding rereleases as equal to the originals (i.e. putting them in the exact same lists and categories as if they're standalone games), would imply that you view ''all'' ports, remakes, remasters, etc. as canon... which muddies the water even more on what could be regarded as canon or not, since certain remakes and rereleases actually provide different or additional content that isn't found in the original version, bringing into the discussion which version is canon and which version is not. See ''[[Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker]]'', for instance: the original Wii U version clearly precedes ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'', but the [[Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo Switch / Nintendo 3DS)|Switch/3DS rerelease]] precedes ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' instead. Which version of Treasure Tracker is canon, then? That's not even saying about the DLC for the Switch version, which precedes ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]'', a rerelease of ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' that should be even older than 3D World ''and'' Odyssey. What is the timeline here?<br>This is why [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]] states that there's no officially recognized canon. Everyone has their own interpretation of what is canon and what is not canon, and changes into rereleases of mainline titles make that matter even more complicated. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
@Hewer: | @Hewer: | ||
| Line 708: | Line 744: | ||
[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 02:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 02:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:While it's fair to say that we don't always have to do what other wikis are doing, it's also important to note that we don't always have to do the ''opposite'' of what other wikis are doing, either.<br>I brought up the Zelda Wiki as an example on why your idea doesn't work, because ''The Legend of Zelda'' series is the most obvious example in there being multiple versions of the same characters, that most of the time look ''way'' different in nearly every installment, and yet the Zelda Wiki does not resort to splitting them (it would only be unhandy and complicated, after all.<br>''Super Mario'' isn't like that. At all. Throughout nearly all the "universes" you've determined, Mario looks the same, and his demeanor doesn't really change throughout most of them either. In essence, ''Mario + Rabbids''!Mario is ''identical'' in appearance and behavior to mainline!Mario, so there's no need for a separate article for Mario in ''Mario + Rabbids''. Same goes for ''Mario & Luigi''!Mario, no need to split that off, either. Most other differences throughout these incarnations are really just splitting hairs and superficial, so when even the Zelda franchise doesn't seem worth to split all it's ''actually different'' incarnations into separate articles, then why should ''we'' be splitting hairs here?<br><s>Also I do have to agree with Hewer that we've gone quite off-topic; I'm just throwing my two cents on this multiverse thing you brought up for no reason</s> {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
Y'all, we've gotten ''way'' off track. This proposal isn't even ''about'' universes. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:32, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | Y'all, we've gotten ''way'' off track. This proposal isn't even ''about'' universes. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:32, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ||
Ok, {{@|Hewer}} On the SMA4, also a bad example b/c the Wii U version. {{@|Big Super Mario Fan}} First, none of what you say is fully confirmed. Second, even IF there's a multiverse, there would be more universes than what you specified. Third, this doesn't have to do with universes. Fourth, this needs to stop. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 08:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | Ok, {{@|Hewer}} On the SMA4, also a bad example b/c the Wii U version. {{@|Big Super Mario Fan}} First, none of what you say is fully confirmed. Second, even IF there's a multiverse, there would be more universes than what you specified. Third, this doesn't have to do with universes. Fourth, this needs to stop. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 08:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:Wii U version then, this just feels pedantic at this point. I think I've already made my point there clear enough, though my main point is that this was a meaningless argument not relevant to the proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:04, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::Ok, good point at that, but it did say "ports, remakes, remasters, & collections". {{@|Big Super Mario Fan}} I'm still waiting for a reply here. Unless you've stopped because you've seen the wrongness of your arguments. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 13:44, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
===Create seperate pages for Level themes=== | ===Create seperate pages for Level themes=== | ||
| Line 726: | Line 765: | ||
#{{User|Sparks}} Categories are enough. If there were to be articles of different level themes across all ''Mario'' games, it would get much too repetitive. Adding category identifications to the bottom of level articles sorts them all without the need for many extra pages. | #{{User|Sparks}} Categories are enough. If there were to be articles of different level themes across all ''Mario'' games, it would get much too repetitive. Adding category identifications to the bottom of level articles sorts them all without the need for many extra pages. | ||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Sparks. These would get very repetitive, very quickly. | #{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Sparks. These would get very repetitive, very quickly. | ||
<s>{{User|BMfan08}} We already have a [[Level]] page to discuss nuances of the types of levels. Making separate pages for these would be repetitive, as Sparks and Camwoodstock said, and I fear that the listing of the levels would be longer than the description of the themes.</s> | |||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
| Line 746: | Line 785: | ||
I'm stuck here. On the one hand, the opposition has a point. On the other hand, both Doc & BSMF have good points too. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 08:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | I'm stuck here. On the one hand, the opposition has a point. On the other hand, both Doc & BSMF have good points too. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 08:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:This is why I'm abstaining for now. As Doc points out, we have several articles on specific level themes already, so making articles on other recurring level themes such as Ground/Grassland/Overworld and Underground would be obvious. On the other hand, it could be seen as becoming quickly repetitive, and something like [[Level]] already covers all themes without the repetition. It would also bring into question whether courses such as[[World 1-3 (Super Mario Bros.)]] should be counted as ground levels or sky levels. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::True, true. As for the 1-3 thing, I personally view it as both. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 13:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::Yeah, after giving things some thought from everyone here, I'm removing my vote for the time being. I'll abstain though, only cause I'm not entirely sure what the proposer has in mind for such articles. I'm not interested if the end goal is repetition for the sake of it. [[User:BMfan08|BMfan08]] ([[User talk:BMfan08|talk]]) 14:05, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::I don't really know WHAT the proposer has in mind, which is why I'm abstaining. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 14:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT) | |||
==Miscellaneous== | ==Miscellaneous== | ||
''None at the moment.'' | ''None at the moment.'' | ||