MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 21

Response to Feedback

There is no guarantee the results from MarioWiki:Feedback will have us take action. However, if there's an agreeable consensus (and the worry of a quorum is not needed – at least 30 have answered already, even 40+ on one), we will act. It'll be a couple of weeks at the minimumas we continue to take in more data before we come to any conclusions. Wa _T^C_@^Y 20:13, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Right call on this? (and trying to get this straight about reminders/warnings)

Okay, I just had to hand out a reminder to this person because he was repeatedly replacing images in character infoboxes (for main character article pages) with their artworks for Mario Super Sluggers. What this the right call/explanation? I'm very confident about this, but still had to ask to be sure on this.

Also, in the case of reminders/warnings -- I am lead to the conclusion -- if warnings are issued -- they are to be treated as permanent records on the talk page itself (meaning that those warnings are set in stone and cannot be removed)? As for issuing them, I would imagine having to hand our reminders and warnings when necessary (if the need arises) -- does the same procedure apply for "last warnings" as well? I do understand having to contact Sysops if any users are problematic, though.

All right; thanks! --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! 12:36, 9 September 2008 (EDT) User Page | Talk Page

1:: Errr... What?

2: err, if I understand you correctly, Yes, warnings are permanent. Reminders are kind of in a grey zone, however. --Blitzwing 15:27, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

On 1), important artwork such as infoboxes shouldn't have any extra items that relate the character to a particular game. That's why Mario Party works so well – it's just the character, most often. But in MSS, the bats are often in the artwork, so, favorably, that is not the optimal choice for the top infobox image. MP8 is fine for now Wa _T^C_@^Y 15:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

That's what I also thought -- in terms of just "general" character artwork itself on infoboxes; not artwork of characters with extra stuff. I also explained this to the guy that I placed the reminder on via his talk page. Thanks for clearing that part up. Also, I understand that the warnings are permanent -- that applies for "last warnings", right? (Only that afterwards is when the sysops have to be called in if the violator(s) still ignore that one; this part I know). --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! 15:57, 9 September 2008 (EDT) User Page | Talk Page

Hold up: am I right in understanding that you warned a guy because he was putting valid artwork in an infobox? There's actually no policy regarding this issue right now, so he didn't do anything wrong... unless I'm not understanding all of this. Stumpers! 00:43, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

No, not a warning - a reminder -- because he accessed every article of the main characters and replaced the pictures in their infoboxes with the artworks of them for Mario Super Sluggers. I noticed the red flag immediately and changed them back to more suitable artworks (as Wayoshi said earlier). Besides, using artworks done for sports installments to "feature" in character infoboxes for main articles just doesn't make sense to begin with, anyway. "General" pictures are better. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page

I don't think it's much of a problem of giving out reminders for issues like that: I mean, it's just reminders. I don't think there's a difference between giving a reminder on the one hand and simply telling the user that (s)he did something wrong on the other. Time Questions 05:33, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Exactly: why not just take the time to explain the issue fully rather than just put a reminder on someone's page? The reminder is so generic that I've always had to explain why I was issuing it. I think the removal of a reminder should be dealt with individually: something like this is fine because it's just for the user's benefit. But, something like swearing or advertising would be the kind of reminder that should be kept, IMO, that way, if the user does it again a warning can be issued. Regardless, we DO need a policy for the main image - personal opinions on the matter may be valid but it doesn't mean anything unless it's backed by policy. Stumpers! 10:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry to cause a bit of an issue. If the template can't explain the problem clearly, it should be elaborated on, yes. And, what would we call such a policy? Wa _T^C_@^Y 15:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

I think the current "reminder" template is fine, actually. Just as long as the situation warrants it. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! 16:09, 11 September 2008 (EDT) User Page | Talk Page

Actually, a policy might be a good idea to avoid confusion. It'd be much easier than handing out reminders and explaining to users how things work. We could call the policy the "General Image Policy" or something like that. It would explain which kind of artwork would be the main image in character articles, the appropriate locations for screenshots, etcetera. — Stooben Rooben 17:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I think a policy could work. There already is a policy named Image Use, so we could call it Template:Fakelink or something, which we might even cover about the "3 images per game in the gallery" rule, "Two Images in one article" rule, and other non-written laws. On a different note, I don't think a reminder for Koopalmier was very appropriate, 1) Because there was no official rule against it when he changed it; he did it unknowingly, and 2) He even left a note on the talk page(s), so he wasn't being bossy or anything. But yeah, that's my opinion. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

I agree with Garlic Man, except that maybe we could just keep Image Use Policy and add more information and rules to it. — Stooben Rooben 18:27, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... well, they seem to cover different areas(one's about image file format), but since they're(or will be) both policies, I suppose that could work. Either way(seperate or combined) would probably work effectively. I'm not picking on Merit C, but we would like to make sure to make rules clear for users who did something, not knowing that it was generally unrespected. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

I agree. — Stooben Rooben 18:47, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Poll problem again

Once again, the vote button on the poll box is not there.
To all the people who made the polls, this is why there was a guideline seven-option limit. Pikax (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

It could be your browser; I can access the vote button just fine. — Stooben Rooben 11:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

How about: What is your display resolution? This is why I added the (full) link after the question. --Steve (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

I think a vertical scroll bar should be in order. ...Unless it ruins how the main page looks. :< However, I can indirectly scroll down to the view results button without voting lawl. RAP... 7 vote limit. Right, unless it can be leaked somehow!

another poll option

shouldn't a "other" option be added to the polls ™ The 'Shroom

I agree with Tucayo. Stumpers! 12:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

This was the last poll chosen by me. In the future any such changes to a poll should be suggested during the selection process. --Steve (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Sweet. Will do. Stumpers! 21:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

MarioWiki:Canonicity Update

A while back GhostJam started a discussion among the sysops as to our canonicity policy at MarioWiki:Canonicity. The discussion concluded and updates to the page were made. Few, if any, changes will be required as a result of the new canonicity policy - it's mostly just a vocalization of the policy that we have been endorsing for the last half of a year (example: We have been removing uses of the terms "canon and "alternate canon" from articles. Now, MW:Canonicity no longer mentions alternate canon and prohibits the use of the term "canon.") Stumpers! 11:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Yay. Template:Conjecture should be updated to read "unofficial". - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of said template, should we change it add more emphasis on the fact that the subjects we use it on are unnamed? Stumpers! 19:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

That would be a good idea. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Is Mariowiki also dying?

Well, Ive been experiencing data errors alot, I cant connect to chat anymore, and some other stuff. Is our server really that bad, slow, or what? Im starting to get annoyed that the fact that pages are taking longer to load, errors popping up every 10 seconds, and Mwiki being down sometimes. It eventually goes back up though. So, have you been experiencing this problem, or have something to say? Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

I've been experiencing errors to. This is really starting to get annoying. I almost lost a huge rewrite because of this what is starting to be an 'unstable' server. I'm not saying its one but the way the server is going is very odd indeed.Storm Yoshi I don't want this server to go as well since Scribblewiki is already down :(

We used to have this problem on Porple's other forum. I personally haven't seen the errors for a while there (Have they moved over here?) But I would hate to see this site die >: Neurario 01:53, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Nah, It's just a sign we need to change host once again. I remember that past errors used to be far, far worse (The "Mario is not amused" crash, anyone?"). --Blitzwing 06:45, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Per Blitz. I remember several server crashes and malfunctions that were worse than this; give it around a week and the site will probably be back to normal. — Stooben Rooben 11:58, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh ok. Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Yeah don't worry S-Y. Mariowiki goes through these kinda phases once in a while. MCHammerBro.

(oh and by the way, the first time I wrote this, the site gave me an error so I couldn't save it XD)

Let's not overreact yet. That server move 14.5 months ago put us offline for a fortnight, and really killed the activity at a critical time - the start of summer. Things seem to be back to normal at this moment, anyways. Wa _T^C_@^Y 20:35, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I remember those two weeks; I was like "Wut?" when I saw the Brawl artwork for Mario, and the text at the bottom, which I don't remeber what it said. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

I remember a friend of mine telling me that he made an edit to a page and it came up as "Mario is not impressed". Could that have been some sort of hack? R.O.B. 128

I was probably the first to encounter these problems. Around the time I created my first account, I kept encountering errors. I just thought that it was my Windows Vista, though.-KP Blue 14:56, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Per Blitzwing and Stooben Rooben, I keep having the 'Mario is not amused' malfunction everytime I tried to get on to my user page on my old account! --Mametchi-Lover^Talk 23:03, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This acount BeeBop? (When you click on Talk a picture pops up and said Mario is no amused. That creepy) -> Mametchi 100% (talk). I think that happen because your old user account has % causing it to glitch. Ambidextria

GIFs

Is it against the rules to implement GIFs into articles that demonstrate a certain enemy's or character's performance? Ex: If one were to make a GIF demonstrating the Chuckolator's attacks, would this be alright to implement into an article? Of course, you would use official game sprites. — Stooben Rooben 21:17, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it would be alright, but they can't be made up. ☆R.O.B 128♂ 21:24, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Yup. No policy exists against it and it has already been done on the Bubbles page. Stumpers! 22:23, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Anybody got a GIF for ROB? ☆R.O.B 128♂ 22:34, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Check out his old NES games and see if he ever appeared in-game. If not, you'll know that no official sprite GIFs will exist. Stumpers! 22:39, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I know that there aren't any so far, but what about Warioware? I'll look for that. ☆R.O.B 128♂ 22:45, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Alright, thanks guys. :) — Stooben Rooben 22:49, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Search Box Extension

Maybe this is a bit fancy for this site, but I noticed Wikipedia has a (relatively) new extension where it searches the database for a page as you type it in. I was wondering if such an extension could be implemented here. It would be helpful for users who don't know if a page exists (or may not know how to spell it) Phoenix Rider 18:52, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I was actually thinking the same thing recently, after seeing Google, Wikipedia, Youtube, and several other sites started using it. I think it would definitely help new users if it was implemented. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Good idea, PR. I've contacted Wikipedia to see how exactly they enabled that new function. — Stooben Rooben 20:29, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I got a response already. o_o; Anyway here is what's needed to install that function to the wiki. — Stooben Rooben 20:35, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

ScribbleWiki Destruction

It seems that ScribbleWiki is permanently shutting down in the wake of some type of major server crash such that they cannot even recover the wiki data. Userpedia will effectively have to start from scratch on Wikia.

Userpedians now about to spend more time back here on MarioWiki: remember NOT to overload us with all your user comics. We WILL take appropriate action if you step too far.

That is all. Wa _T^C_@^Y 22:32, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

For those of you who want to contribute to the new Userpedia, this is the link. We at Userpedia greatly appreciate any contributions you make. — Stooben Rooben 22:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

No Wayo. Just no. It WILL recover. And when it does, part 2 of your little MKWii thingy is gonna go up :) Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

While you may or may not be right, Wayo has a point. A sudden influx of activity mixed with a crap-ton of user images could cause all manner of hell server side. It's just something we need to keep an eye on. -- Chris 18:18, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Wayoshi, I really doubt you need to worry so much about Userpedians. I'm sure Stooben and the other sysops have the situation under control. Stumpers! 02:08, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

He isn't "worrying", he's just trolling Userpedia users. --Blitzwing 06:51, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Wayo: Do you REALLY think that we're gonna upload our comics here? We're not because we don't need to. We've also recovered over 1000 pages so it doesn't really seem like we will need to worry...'cept me since mines unrecovaroble. And others...Storm Yoshi

I just had an error It says "Wikia is sadly having problems. Our backend servers are not responding. We are working to fix it as soon as possible. " WOW -___- Dark Lakitu 789

Never mind it's back up. Dark Lakitu 789

No, the error came back. Hopefully, Wikia won't have the server problems that Scribblewiki had. --Palkia47 10:28, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Like I said before: WOW -___- Dark Lakitu 789

Wikia acting up right now is not the perfect time <_< --Palkia47 10:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

We have had sysop discussions about this before and we just want to make sure our focuses won't be distracted by this shake-up. That's why I brought it up. Wa _T^C_@^Y 15:46, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I personally think its gonna be back up... I DONT RLY LIKE WIKIA THAT MUCH and the pages are to short ParaBob-omb UT

Yeah; and due to it being moved to Wikia and a few other reasons; I've retired from Userpedia. --Palkia47 17:01, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Im probably gonna retire 2... ParaBob-omb UT

Didn't the "old" userpedia start out at Wikia in the first place? Is it still there? Marcelagus (T • C • E)

I thought it was on editthis.com. — Stooben Rooben 18:13, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

No, I think all of the Userpedias were on Scribblewiki. --Palkia47 13:05, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

The oldest one is in editthis.info link Dark Lakitu 789

Hey I have an idea! (It kinda of sound dumb. >_>) Can a SysOp from that site change the mono book to look similar to the Userpedia that died? Users keep saying that the Userpedia Wikia is suckish and other stuff. Ambidextria

Nevermind they made a new one. It better than the Wikia Ambidextria

Mario & Luigi 3

I'll let someone with more.....well, I'm far too lazy to do anything about it, so.....a new Mario & Luigi game was announced at the Nintendo Conference, a few frames of which can be found here (scroll down to Nintendo Conference and click on DS).

As it is a new game, we may want to think about creating a tentative game article and start gathering information as it is released. Thanks. -- Chris 02:26, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

OMG! It looks like Bowser is playable! But let's not jump into conclusions just yet. ;o And there is a another WarioWare game for the DS. :P *breaks the trivia entry that each console has at least one WarioWare game lawl* Watch the DS upcoming games by clicking here! :> RAP... BTW, I'll be completely gone at Saturday due to a field trip, 'nuff said rawr.

The new WarioWare/Made in Wario title is called Made in Ore (メイド イン 俺) in Japanese, literally "Made in Me". Makes sense, since it is clearly seen in the video that one can create own microgames. And they use icons from Mario Paint. XD --Grandy02 04:40, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Do we have an article for that yet? Stumpers! 10:07, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

What's "each console has at least one WarioWare game" meaning? The GBA already had Mega Microgame$! and Twisted!. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 11:47, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

And I don't think the Nintendo 64 had any WarioWare games. Pikax (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I believe the only systems a WarioWare game were on were the GBA, GCN, DS, and Wii. — Stooben Rooben 12:05, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I think RAP referred to consoles active in 2003 and later (but as Cobold told, he was wrong nonetheless), the N64 was already dead in 2003. But the Japan-only precursor of the series was indeed for the N64, for the 64DD to be exact. Mario Artist: Polygon Studio had a few microgames and a game mode in the same manner as WarioWare. As to the new game, there is an article. --Grandy02 12:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Awesome, a quality game. For now, these can be stubs and moved when official NA titles are announced (hopefully soon!). Wa _T^C_@^Y 15:58, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

EPIC Wa _T^C_@^Y 16:08, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

There seems to be a confusion with RAP's comment; when he says "at least one per console", two is "at least one". Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Actually, one is "at least one", because at the least, there has been one. However, he's still wrong about the "per console" part. — Stooben Rooben 18:31, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but if a system has 2, a system has at least one. Aw, forget it. Stupid arguement :P. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

LOL! XDDD Despite the fact that I made a mistake in this, you guys seriously blew into the "stupid argument", oh man!! XP No seriously, the guys who are smart enough to correct that mistake, thanks for stopping by. So... W00T to the two new upcoming games and two new updated consoles, the DSi and the Wii HD! RAP... This has been fun, but sadly I'm completely gone at Saturday due to a field trip, nuff' said, again! :P

SSB Special Moves

I'm currently starting a mini-project in order to apply the changes required by my recent proposal. I would appreciate help in this matter. I'm creating a "planning page" at User:Stumpers/Test currently. If you'd like to merge a particular character's special moves, please put your username in parenthesis by the character's name, and I'll leave the job to you. Just make sure you do the following in accordance to the proposal: (1) Copy all text and pictures over - even if it makes the character page look messy. (2) Change the move's page to a redirect to its section in the character article. (3) Only then can you start editing the images and text that used to be in the special move page... sorry, it was a stupid thing to guarantee the two opposers in hindsight... :(

Thanks so much! Stumpers! 19:43, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Traffic

I thought you guys might find this interesting. According to here, we are the 41,759th most visited site on the internet. That may sound like a low number, but that's fairly high considering all the other websites in existence. :) — Stooben Rooben 00:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

That is awesome! Yay! We're one of the more major fansites! Stumpers! 02:29, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, as of wikis, Wikipedia stands at 8. Google 2nd, and Yahoo 1st. I looked up Zelda Wiki(just as a comparison I guess), and they're 114,938, so we're well ahead of them :). (Some other sites: smashbros. com - 6980, nintendo.com - 2,699, amazon.com - 33, ebay.com - 18) Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Not to rain on the parade, but I never trusted Alexa. Their info always seems out of date. If it is true though, go us. Phoenix Rider 16:59, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I didn't know they were usually outdated. But, I can easily fathom the top ten sites being correct, so hopefully we are as high as they say. (Hopefully higher!) — Stooben Rooben 17:06, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Is there a possibilty that we're becoming less popular...? Our ranking is now 42,154. Hopefully it's temporary. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Heh, I already looked over this way eariler before you guys. Yes, we are a very popular Mario site indeed. :3 Here's the limitation; it is possible that there are more people visiting this website than you think; well, majority of the fact that most users don't have the Alexa Toolbar that records which websites we visit and slot in a hit in the counter. So techinally, that may be bad per limitations of what we gathered for people visiting this website. PR, Alexa can't track everything you know. As I said, the Alexa Toolbar can send info of how much you visited a website. ;) RAP... I thought you guys know about most of the tools in the intenet, I guess I was wrong... Hm, I might share some more; if I can find it. :P

Delete

Is there any way in which we can delete MW:TC or MW:Upload? Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

These aren't pages. They're links to pages on the MediaWiki homepage. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh. Then why do they appear in here and here? =\ Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Errors

I'm getting frequent database errors when trying to load any page, including the log-in. Does anybody have the same problem? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 17:22, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm having them multiple times whenever I access a new page and/or edit. — Stooben Rooben 17:34, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Must we bring this up on the Main Talk every time the wiki hits a pothole on the road? But anyway, yes, everybody is experiencing errors, at least I am. Garlic Man (talk)

You users aren't the only one. Ony day I tried to acess the Recent changes and Proposals page and I couldn't edit 'cause I could sign in. (Is Media Wiki dieding or have problems?) The only page I could acess was the Random page and the Main page. Grapes

Like any other website on the planet, we have hiccups from time to time. I've only had a few errors myself. -- Chris 20:09, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Article Organization

Hey, all! Recently the sysops rewrote MarioWiki:Canonicity and MarioWiki:Chronology to remove the speculation from it. Based on the lack of feedback, I'd say everyone is pretty happy with it or doesn't mind either way. There's a bit of a problem, however: with the new canonicity system, we're aiming to treat everything official equally while removing as much speculation as possible. The majority of our character articles are organized in the following sections: biography, spin-offs, appearances in alternate media, personality etc., trivia, and official profiles/statistics. Our biography sections are really a list of video game appearances in the order described in MarioWiki:Chronology. However, MW:Chronology specifically states that it makes many assumptions. In other words, to a certain extent it is speculation. However, with our current article organization, this speculation is necessary. "Biography" means that we need to have a singular, specific order in which the events happened. But, what if we could reorganize the articles so that speculation was not necessary? We'd be removing an enormous amount of speculation!

This is where our new idea comes into play. I'd like to know how you would feel about reorganizing articles by series and media. In other words, we would have a section for "Video Game Appearances" which (for, say, Peach) would include sections for Super Mario series appearances, Super Mario RPG appearances, Mario Kart appearances, Mario Tennis appearances, etc. Each section would be organized by release date except when a title specifically places itself in an earlier or later timeframe than other titles. For example, Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island will still be listed before Super Mario Bros. for Mario. There are several advantages to this idea. (1) As stated before, it would remove the speculation implied by our previous organization (that the games happened in a particular order, that all spin-offs and alternate media events weren't part of a character's life) (2) Would provide a more orderly design for readers wishing to know about a character's roll throughout a series (More connections in story are made between series than they are between all video games) (3) Would prevent confusion by new users. The belief that there is a canon is very strong as it is, and our organization only makes the problem worse. I myself am one of those who originally believed that many sources separated from the biography were "non canon," assuming that the previous editors knew better.

I'm more than willing to make a mock-up for anyone who would like it. For now, I'd like to get input from you users on this. If there as much support from regular users as there was from the sysops, I'll send this concept straight to the proposals page for voting. Stumpers! 22:28, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely, this is the way it should have been all along. Readers will be able to get specific information much faster when organized as such. Let's face it as well, SoS was great...but his ideas ended up being outlandish. Good to see us fixing what was wrong in that era - Wa _T^C_@^Y 16:05, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

I believe I've already shown you my support, but anyway, this sounds like a great way to set things in stone. — Stooben Rooben 16:21, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it's also worth noting that by passing this, we'd make a centralized organization. Right now each article has its own, it feels. SoS did a lot of good things, and I think he was right about needing a central way to organize articles. However, it was a speculative way that he eventually chose, so hopefully we can fix that - I actually think this new organization follows his desires to remove speculation, actually. Thanks for the support, both of you! Stumpers! 16:31, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

MW Shortcuts

I suggest that we stop making shortcuts to MarioWiki namespace pages that contain "MW" in it. They commonly become double and broken redirects, that glitch the system. As you can see, MW:UPLOAD is a double redirect, but we can't fix it because it takes us to a MediaWiki.org page. MW:TC, which was supposed to redirect to the Trouble Center, is a broken redirect that links you to a MediaWiki.org page. Even if you search for MW:BLAH, it still links to a MediaWiki.org page, albeit nonexistent. — Stooben Rooben 18:27, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

I've noticed this too. I never really followed through with the idea, but I once thought that instead of short cuts, it would be much more beneficial to just have a page called MarioWiki:Policies that liked to all of our policies for easy reference. -- Chris 05:32, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

This is Steve's fault for including mw on the InterWiki table. A small removal should fix all Wa _T^C_@^Y 12:10, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Collapsible Galleries

On a lot of pages, galleries take a long time to load – especially when they're filled with a lot of images. (ex: Mario, Toad, etc.) Adding a show-hide feature to the galleries could help the loading period greatly for articles. As you can see here, I've made a model for the concept. What do you guys think? Should this be implemented into articles? — Stooben Rooben 18:47, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

That a very good idea! (You can hide that gallery :D) Grapes

Hey thats pretty neat. Sounds good to me. Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Thanks, guys. :) — Stooben Rooben 19:38, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Your welcome. :D Grapes

Eh, aren't hidden objects still loaded? I had that kind of collapsible gallery of images I've uploaded on my user page and it took ages to load still. That could of course also be because of the script to list the images. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 17:04, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, it could just be my browser – the images didn't load until I hit 'show' on the template. — Stooben Rooben 17:08, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I believe hidden items still load. It won't really speed up your comp. But this is still a great idea for other reasons. A showhide feature can make navigating through a gallery filled page much easier, like the case we had with templates. Knife (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

It must just be my computer then. :\ So, should this be made into a proposal, or should we just implement the new feature now? — Stooben Rooben 20:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I say go for it. There really are no cons to this idea, so there'd be no point to the proposal. Knife (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Alright then, I'll get started on it ASAP. — Stooben Rooben 23:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Inactive Users

I wonder why there's so many inactive users here? Is this a joke? Cause I don't find this funny. And what's driving away users from here?F g

I see what you mean but remember, not everyone is obsessed on a video game series staring a redcapped plumber and his friends like we are... Also we seem to get a spark of users during vacation times where people get all the free time. MCHammerBro. I wish I had a life like those people

Maybe because they're losing intrest of this wiki. Princess Grapes Butterfly

Remember, people are busy, and eventually don't have time for the wiki any more. Sometimes, they just lose interest in it. It's not a joke, it's real life. It happens everyday to every person, and it'll happen here too. — Stooben Rooben 16:59, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah no lie. And also because of school. Princess Grapes Butterfly

There is no user that will be here every day of his whole life. That's why old users become inactive and new users are born. It's a cycle. Knife (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Plus some New Users pop up and then never show up again. Grapes

Good point, guys. Besides, take KPH2293 for example: He was a Sysop here for a while, but he's now a Patroller on Wikipedia, so spends his time there instead. I use to browse GameFAQs a lot, but since I found this place and Userpedia, I rarely go to GameFAQs. People lose interest in things. — Stooben Rooben 16:05, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Other good point. He's right. Some user switch wikis after they lose interest. (*Cough* I did too *cough*) Grapes

What I'm trying to figure out is this: Who on this planet would leave this wiki?! The admins are awesome, the users are friendly, and this place is fun! The best part is.... WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT VANDAL IPS like regular Wikia sites do!!! That's, like, 50 points right there. R.O.B. 128 I know I'm not leaving.

I could name one or two. Grapes

Sometimes life just gets in the way. That's why I had to go on hiatus for 2 months. — Stooben Rooben 16:19, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah mostly. (I was on hiatus for 3 months) Princess Grapes Butterfly

WTF

WTF does "Do a barrel roll" have to do with Mario? YOSHIKAR TSome other wiki My talk. Mi YouTubeKirby Wiki.Mi Kirby Talk

Um, nothing. =| — Stooben Rooben 21:48, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Story Sections in Game Articles

Should we be writing these in chronological order or in the matter the game tells us the story? For example, in Luigi's Mansion, would I want to talk about How King Boo freed the portrait ghosts or Luigi winning the mansion first? I would go for the latter: like a television episode, we're talking about the plot, right? I just want to know before I go redoing the Luigi's Mansion article. Thanks! Stumpers! 17:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I have to agree with the latter. It makes more sense to write an article in the way the game tells it. — Stooben Rooben 17:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Another Mario Wiki?!?!?!?

I was typing random Mario things into Google. (To see if we show up.) Then I found this.

What does this mean?!? Are we going to end up being frogotten by the internet, and end up having everybody go to that other Mario Wiki!?!?!

What does this mean for the fate of our Wiki?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! --Nerdy Guy (Game Over, man!!!!)

Nothing bad happens to our site. We let the other site be. Our site is more professional than theirs, and has more users, images and articles. We could ask that Mario Wikia if they want to merge with us though. :P Paper Jorge (Talk·Contribs)

That wiki's been there for quite some time. It's never had the same amount of traffic as us, and I doubt that it ever will. — Stooben Rooben 18:48, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I don't think so? Because compare to that Wiki, this Wiki has much more info on the Mario series. (I think this wiki has 8,000 page about the Mario series while the other only has 400 something articles.) Ambidextria

We'll have 9,000 articles shortly. By the end of this month probably. Paper Jorge (Talk·Contribs)

Wow!!! Grapes

Yea...NG, don't be concerned with them, we are possibly the best Mario Wiki out there. Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Not to mention that a lot of their content is taken from us. That's always the sign of the weaker of two Wikis. I've seen huge chunks of my writing on that site... it's rather insulting, but that's the way the GNU Free Documentation License works... I just really would rather see our work used by someone like IGN or even Nintendo rather than a rival Wiki. Last time I checked, they didn't cover the entire series, just the video games, so that's another strong point we have working for us. Stumpers! 19:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

What they used your writing Stumpers!!! Is that conside stealing and Vandalism (On that Mario Wikia). Ambidextria

Who cares they suck, they'll never match up to our epicness. Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Looks like some people from the wikia Mario wiki joined hereThere is anther guy but i forgot his name >.< Dark Lakitu 789

It a shame that they copied some stuff from this wiki and paste it to theirs (Isn't that stealing a Vandalisming to the other Mario Wikia). Ambidextria

They have no rights.D:< They stole this article[1] Dark Lakitu 789

Looks like this guy is the one who copied most of the info from here to there... or something like that Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Thanks for the support, Grapes! (or is it Ambidextria now?) Technically under the GNU Free Documentation License I mentioned above, there's nothing we can do. People are free to edit and redistribute any writing of yours that you submit to any Wiki operating under the license (we're one of them). So, as much as I agree that the Mario Wikia shouldn't be copying our stuff and vice versa, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it! Thanks for the support, though, I felt exactly the same way when I saw my hard work somewhere else without being credited. Stumpers! 00:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The Mario Wikia... I know that one of their sysop (MArio2345, or something like that) joined here to tell us [about DUmmmmmmy spamming their places].

FYI, there's also three other Mario Wikis on the Internet. There's one called "Mariopedia", which barely have anything, and another one with a fugly Mario Head as a logo (Don't remember the name) and has no articles except spambots-created crap. Finally, there's a wiki that specialize in SMW and the "Lunar Magic" editor. --Blitzwing 06:13, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Yup there is three of them but this wiki will be in the lead. (BTW Stumpers I'm still Grapes but I to lazy to use my sig. Oh a you're and welcome. =D) Grapes

I guess you guys are right. I guess I just overacted to seeing the site, cause I thought it was new and allready had 400 articles --Nerdy Guy (I guess there's nothing to worry about)

I happen to be the sysop of The Wikia Mario Wiki and im very offended about what you guys are talking about. We aren't as popular, we know this, we are also new. As for the copying, only the lazy loser members do that and we are trying to fix it.. One of your editors actually had to come over to our site to apologize for your disrespect of us. I happen to edit here too. - User:Count Caterpie, sysop of Mario Wiki. Admin of Mario Party WIki.

For the record, only one user said anything negative, and that was Super-Yoshi. The rest of us were (A) Worried about competition or (B) Offended that their work was being used notification. When Wikis use content from Wikipedia, they place a notification template at the top - perhaps you could do the same for us? I'd be much appreciated! Stumpers! 18:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

...I didn't say anything negative, I just wanted to point something out. Sorry if this offended you =/ Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

The user who apologized on behalf of this wiki was me, I didn't want there to be any animosity between us. Phoenix Rider

As well there shouldn't be. For example, Wikia has (at least) two Sonic-related Wikis, one that is like us focusing on the entire series, and one that just focuses on a single aspect (like the Mario Wikia, which focuses on video games, the one I'm referring to focuses on the comics) Because of the second Wiki's focus, it is much more complete in terms of comics than the overall Wiki is. The two Wikis link to each other and enjoy a symbiotic relationship. Now, since we've been around a lot longer and focus on the video games most heavily as it is, I'm not sure if such a situation would be applicable, but it just goes to show you that we don't have to be rivals, and that is part of the reason I'd like us to link to one another when we use each others' content.. Stumpers! 00:04, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Smoke was spamming there and got block.Make sure he doesn't come back here. Dark Lakitu 789

Yeah he just got block. Ugh and I undid all his edits. I felt bad since the wikia was under attack so I helped.) I'm sorry. That site was under attack and no SysOps were around untill after an hour. Ambidextria

There's More

Great, there's another one, but it doesn't seem perfessional. I mean look how there Main Page is set up. Is it possible to ask wiki hosting sites not to let anybody make any more Mario Wikis, because there is just to many. Look at this list:

1. Us
2. Mario Wikia
3. Mario Party Wiki
4. Mariopedia
5. SMWiki (The One for Lunar Magic)
6. An ugly one someone already mentioned
7. That Mariopedia on the Mushroom Kingdom
8. this one I mentioned above

--Nerdy Guy (And possibly more)

[Click Here] That site <- (See the link over there) I think they copied the Freeze Glitch I posted on the List of Glitches page. they sound similar..>_> Ambidextria

Nah, I don't think so, because they had that there before the Wiki was made. The Mushroom Kingdom has been up since 1996, plus look at this quote from the site

"The bugs/glitches are credited whenever possible. Where I've said "Found by Deezer" means that I found the particular bug/glitch myself, and I had not seen it posted anywhere else. Uncredited bugs/glitches can mean one or more things: 1) Found in a Nintendo publication; 2) Found by me, but believed to be too common to give credit to just one person; 3) Older glitch whose source cannot be recalled."

I read the glitch section, that glitch didn't have a credited finder, so, according to the quote, it must be to common to give credit. --Nerdy Guy (That sites the reson I found the wiki)

Wow that old! I never notice this site untill you place the link. (And I didn't use their glitch from that site. I just tested it since I heard many rumors about it.) Ambidextria

Sighting to References

On the main page where it said Welcome to Mario Wiki can a SysOp change to word sighting to References since the proposal passed. Please and thank you berry much. Grapes

Thanks, done! Time Questions 07:48, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Your welcome. =D Grapes

"See Wikipedia" template

I was wondering if you folks feel we could use a template that asks users to see Wikipedia if they want a complete look at a subject rather than just from our perspective. I'm thinking primarily in terms of non-Mario characters, such as Banjo. I mean, I assume they know that the bolded, linked title links to Wikipedia for that reason, but I still think it'd be a nice feature for the new users/readers. I could see it being a template at the top of the article, like the links to disambiguation pages or as a little box to the side. Thoughts? Stumpers! 12:28, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Wikipedia already has its own boxes for that. If you open a page on the Wiktionary, you usually will find a box on the right that links to the corresponding Wikipedia article, for example here. We could simply copy that template. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:33, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Sounds perfect! It's posted on Template:Wikipedia. Hope it works! Stumpers! 19:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

There are two problems I was hoping someone could help me with: first, the template puts the word "Wikipedia" at the top of the page and I'm not sure why. Secondly, the link to the appropriate Wikipedia page actually links to a different template, that looks like {{{1}}}. When I copied over that template, it tried to link to "W:[subject]" rather than our "Wikipedia:[subject]". Can someone think of an easy way to remedy that? And third (sorry, yeah), what are the appropriate categories for such a template? Stumpers! 20:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

I'll take a look at it. It may need a secondary template to work; and you would use this category. :) — Stooben Rooben 20:05, 11 November 2008 (EST)

I'll also try and help out right over here. Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Thanks for all your help guys... I can't believe how much discussion this sparked. Stumpers! 20:28, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry, I still believe we're bowing down to Wikipedia. We should stay unique, independent, and neutral involving other wikis. You all are going to say we're simply equaling Wikipedia by respecting it, but... Wa _T^C_@^Y 20:44, 11 November 2008 (EST)

As you've seen on the template's page, we make it VERY clear that on subjects like Mario or Super Smash Bros. Brawl that we are not to use the template. We are not "bowing" to Wikipedia as much as we are admitting that their article covers aspects of a subject that we do not. When our article is more complete (ie SSBB) or can be more complete by our standards (ie The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!), we don't link to Wikipedia - in that way we are snubbing them and saying, "Wikipedia, YOU should be linking to US!" ...and in some cases I'm proud to say they should! The only other options are to (1) Admit that the information is elsewhere, but not give readers an easy way to get it. (2) Pretend the other information doesn't exist... obviously not a good idea. Stumpers! 21:43, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Featured Lists

The proposal passed a while ago, so, what should we do? Make it into an occasional substitute for FA's, or a new MarioWiki page? Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

The former would be my opinion - that was originally proposed by Walkazo, yes? Stumpers! 00:17, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Yup. Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Calendar > Proposals

I think this is too small to be a proposal. Shouldn't the "Mario Calendar" box be on top of the "Latest Proposal" box? The latest proposal is only for regular users and just a part of the site- the calendar is part of Nintendo. It's not a big deal, but I think that would work better. Girrrtacos

I'd support that. When nobody opposes I'd actually change it right away. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:59, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Sounds good to me. — Stooben Rooben 09:14, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Removing own messages from others talk pages, and a somewhat "minor" issue...

Okay, two questions - first up, in regards to messages on talk pages, are we able to remove our own messages from talk pages if the matter arises to do so. Reason is that yesterday, I put a talk page subject on a person's talk page in regards to a certain edit that was done yesterday, and I want to be sure that I'm not commiting any breaches in regards to taking that said subject I created off that person's talk page.

Second, I won't mention the article that I edited yesterday, but after I did an edit in terms of "deleting necessary info" (even though it was still valid from the source itself), I noticed that one of the sysops brought that info back on the page. I assume that the sysop was telling me that the said edit I did was "overruled" and that it should stay?

Please let me know soon; I don't want to be in a middle of an edit war against a sysop on an article that's on my watchlist (since I know I would be called out on that front). :( Thanks. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 17:54, 14 November 2008 (EST)

As for the first part, you don't have the right to edit your statement to make it sound more gramatically correct or fix spelling. If you happen to post a comment on the wrong user's talk page, you can remove that message. If you do happen to say something offensive, you can always follow up to that previous comment with a simple sorry and take it back. As for your case, you were talking about an edit, correct? If you don't need to talk about it anymore or change your mind, saying "never mind" is preferred over removing the comment. There is no set rule about this as far as I know.Knife (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Understood, but I'm still trying to figure this out on a general article itself - I removed a certain something from an article (which I though it wasn't necessary, even though the info itself was still true), and yet a sysop brings it back -- I assume that my edit was overruled and that it should stay on that article...? --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 22:26, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Categories

Heh, you said they are not a big deal? That is false my friends. Listen guys, there are many problems in this wiki compared to Wikipedia, and categories is one of the issues right now. Here are some problems I recently found out while I was browsing around the wiki;

One problem I found is those category entries in articles at the very bottom of the article, [[Category:X]] and [[Category: X]]. One without and one with the space. Basically I'm saying that which type is better. But does it make any difference? Does it effect how the articles are displayed whenever you browse into the categories? Is it just for clear just a single byte or what? For what I seen, there are articles with mixed preferences over this, even as if this is a minor problem. Opinions? :3

Another problem, the lack of the contents box, there are some categories that have a lot of articles. It's another small problem, but I really think we need it? Yeah or nuh?

The last issue I looked over is probably a major problem, the improper flow of categories. When you look at one of the most recognizable articles like Mario, Bowser, or SSBB; or the least articles like the mini-game articles I wrote like Treadmill Grill, or Box Mountain Mayhem, there are categories at the bottom of the page. But the problem is that in my opinion, there are articles that violated this standard. Read this section for more info. Compare Category:Mini-games and Category:Mario Party DS Mini-games. The first category composes just about all the mini-games, the Mario Party mini-games and the lesser known mini-games from SM64DS like Pair-a-Gone; while the second category composes specifically only what the title implies, focusing on MPDS mini-games. The MPDS mini-game articles are also categorized under Category:Mini-games, but that doesn't seem to be necessary per the link I just posted; and probably along other articles... What do you think about this?

Any comments, suggestions, corrections and etc. are welcome. RAP... BTW, I wrote this whole section on paper; most of them anyway. XD Gives me a lot of thinking before writing all of this down. :3

Concerning the first problem, there seem to be a number of bugs caused by putting a space between Category: and the name. We should remove all spaces there.

The second problem, are you referring to the description page of the category itself?

The third problem is really major. We have categories such as Category:Paper Mario Series Characters, Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Characters and Category:Characters on the same page. I'd say remove the more general ones for e.g. Doopliss. Of course, characters who also appear outside the Paper Mario series can keep the regular Characters category.

-Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:50, 16 November 2008 (EST)

The second problem is about the lack of the more larger categories that have a Template:compactTOC3, as opposed to other categories that have less than around over 20 or 50 articles. And the third one, I agree. Imagine all the little bytes that will be deleted... :3 RAP... Let's make some categories... extinct. >:3 You mind helping me or nuh?

So, let me make sure I'm understanding this before I help. We're getting rid of the categories that are large and redundant (such as Category:Characters), and keeping the more specific and useful ones (such as Category:Paper Mario Series Characters and Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Characters)? — Stooben Rooben 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)

The Characters Category could still be used to categorize characters in general, but not characters which are exclusive to a certain series. It also serves for categorizing categories (yeah). - Cobold (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Alright then, thanks. :) — Stooben Rooben 17:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Series Definitions

Looking across the Wiki, one can see that different writers use "series" in a different way and sometimes even use different names. We need to set standards for referring to the following:

1. The overall combination of games we cover
2. The series of games including Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Kart... should this also include the arcade game Donkey Kong?
   1. The sub-series of the above from which other series spun-off... ie, Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros.: Lost Levels, etc. Sometimes called the Super Mario Bros. series
   2. The 3D series of Mario games... perhaps we should just lump these and the Super Mario Bros. series together along with the Super Mario World series.

Other than that, our use of Mario Kart series, Yoshi series, and Donkey Kong series is pretty solid. However, I'd like to emphasize that we should be using Yoshi and Donkey Kong to refer to the overall series... Yoshi's Island is a sub-series of Yoshi and Donkey Kong Country is a sub-series of Donkey Kong... is that something that people agree on?

Regardless, the big issue at hand is what to call the four I mentioned above, where to divide/merge them, etc. This is important because we need to work out our series pages, for the first part. Stumpers! 13:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

The way I look at is that we have five main series:

• Mario (series)
• Yoshi (series)
• Donkey Kong (series)
• Wario (series)
• Super Smash Bros. (series)

Then, each have several sub-series:

• Mario (series)
  • Mario Kart (series)
  • Mario Party (series)
  • Mario Strikers (series)
  • Mario Golf (series)
  • Mario Tennis (series)
  • Mario & Luigi (series)
  • Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series) – yet to be created.
  • Paper Mario (series)
  • Super Mario Bros. (series) – yet to be created, but I plan to today.
• Yoshi (series)
  • Yoshi's Island (series) – yet to be created.
• Donkey Kong (series)
  • Donkey Kong Country (series) – yet to be created.
• Wario (series)
  • Wario Land (series)
  • WarioWare (series) – yet to be created.
• Super Smash Bros. (series)

There's probably some that I missed, but those are pretty much the main sub-series. My suggestion is to move all of the sub-series to that exact title. For example, we would move Mario Kart (series) to Template:Fakelink, but we would keep the main five series with their current titles. Having articles on the sub-series is no doubt important, but I think we do need to define the line between a series and their respective sub-series. — Stooben Rooben 13:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

According to the MarioWiki:Importance Policy, the Smash Bros. series is filed under "Crossovers" together with Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and things like Itadaki Street DS. Should it even be one of the main series? Or should the Importance Policy be fixed?

Man, there's a lot of stuff to fix on the wiki these days. Article organization, canonicity, chronology, categories, galleries, series... - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Despite the fact that SSB series revolves around Nintendo, and not just the Mario series (or any linked series), it seems like the series is popular and involved enough to merit being of "secondary importance". But, this is just my opinion. — Stooben Rooben 15:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

That used to be the case. But SSB was downgraded to tertiary importance (previously non-existant) as other crossover titles like Mario & Sonic popped up and they had to be treated equally. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Perhaps we could make a proposal to rewrite the policy? — Stooben Rooben 16:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

We still haven't answered the question about what to call all five main series when referring to them as one. Stooben: thanks for the list, that makes everything a lot easier. Another issue that just popped into my head: how should we present the DiC Cartoon trilogy? Since they were never officially called a series, I don't think we even need to make a page for them, but just be sure to spell out that they were definitely connected to the other two TV shows. Stumpers! 18:21, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If we were to represent all 5 main series in one title, I'd suggest "Marioverse"; but that's a fanon term, so I'm kinda at a loss. Also, the DiC Cartoons...I don't really think they need a series page, but that's just my opinion. — Stooben Rooben 20:44, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I feel the exact same way on all counts. The three TV shows were never called the "DiC Mario cartoon trilogy" or anything as people have been saying lately. In act, I don't think they were ever referred to as being part of a series, although the continuity between them is definitely strong, except that they leave gaps where Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World occur. Anyway, I think that means we should just mention the other shows in each show's article and call it a day. Stumpers!

That sounds just fine. — Stooben Rooben 21:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Could the five main series be collectively referred to as "Mario (super-series)"? I know it sounds corny/childish, but like "sub"-series, it's Latin-based: "sub-" is below, "super-" is above. It's not been used to describe any series as far as I know, but it's used in both science (i.e. superfamilies in taxonomy) and the military (i.e. supermarine fighter jets), if that justifies it in any way, or makes it more viable than the purely conjectural terms, such as the aforementioned "Marioverse"... Also, pertaining to the Donkey Kong sub-series, should DK Land titles be part of the DK Country sub-series, considering how they're either sequels or glorified ports of the Country titles? I think it'd be easier to read and understand the two sub-series if they were side-by-side (parallelism), as opposed to being separated. - Walkazo 23:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)