MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 20

Featured articles

Featured articles have a major problem - many of them seem to have been identified as such only because of mass voting, but not because they were actually good enough. For example, the Luigi's Mansion isn't even done, and the incomplete Plot section is nine paragraphs about the first ten minutes of the game. That would mean that the plot, if the whole thing follows suit, would be more than 100 paragraphs long. On top of this, featuring articles on Wikipedia often leads to the articles decaying because of lack of interest (as a result of the editors deciding that once they've reached the highest rank the article can receive, there's not much left for the article). Imagine what happens to FAs here - they're nominated quickly, promoted quickly, and abandoned quickly.

Another problem is the images. A Wiki should be usable by anyone - including 56k users. Any images at all would be a problem for some, but at this point, me being a broadband user notices the insane load times for many of the articles because of images.

And the lack of sourcing creates a poor situation for an article. From what can be seen, lack of references only leads to articles being featured, it doesn't lead to them being of featured quality, and in fact allows people to sneak false content in, knowing that sources are not necessary. - A Link to the Past 02:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

First of all let me say welcome back! I can actually answer several of those questions for you. I hope Luigi's Mansion is causing you the biggest trouble, because there's a story behind that. I noticed it was featured but felt it wasn't ready, so I began working on the story section, which was currently a one paragraph overview. It's on my massive to-do list (see my user page) to cut down on the heavy detail and finish the rest of the story. Unfortunately, the article went on to being featured with that not-even-half-done story section because no one opposed it. The rest of the articles are of much higher calibur, although there are still many problems with several, yes, but LM is the biggest problem. As to interest in the articles waning, Princess Daisy and others are still must active pages on the Wiki. You don't so much see the quick nomination and acceptance problem here. Like I said, LM was a weird case that wasn't debated at all -- while others such as Mario work better. That article has been nominated twice in recent memory and each time it has been fought over and ultimately scraped. None of this is to say that there isn't a problem, because there definately is. As you know, the smaller a Wiki is the lesser the quality of its featured articles are on average. The same thing is happening here, although it is improving.

Images are a big problem, yes. According to a proposal a while back, images should all be categorized by game, character, etc. to remove the need for extensive bandwidth-killing galleries. However, they are still included on the pages because we encountered a problem where the images showed up as unused when they were only in categories. This could be solved by separate image pages, but if I remember right a proposal turned that down.

You may have noticed that sourcing is present to a certain extent on the Wiki. It was mainly used for "controversial facts" and new information such as a game's release date or Princess Peach being Daisy's cousin (it appeared in an official guide). The decision to limit the requirement of sources was made so that users would be more accepting of source citations, but I really couldn't agree more that we need references. False content usually isn't that big of a problem with the more major articles or the featured ones -- it usually gets weeded out quickly (I remember a dispute over whether Mario was Italian - the point was removed until someone quoted Chales Martinet saying that Nintendo's representative asked him to voice an "Italian plumber from Brooklyn") I think right now what should be done is that we should make citing sources encouraged and make a rule that citations should not be removed even when information becomes commonplace (such as an announcement of a new game, eventually it gets released and then someone removes the citation). Anywho, good luck and see you soon! Stumpers! 02:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I think we do have a problem with featured articles. They are seen as an award or something. You can see the problem at the nomination of Alien (Club Nintendo), which is a very minor subject, yet the creator fights for it to be featured. I guess it is his opinion that the article is worth less when it can't get featured like the big ones. But going to the Main Page isn't a right given out to every tiny article. They should represent what the Wiki has to offer, a bit like advertising to those who view the page for the first time. Luigi's Mansion also didn't really work. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

If our community ever matures enough and enough of the userbase becomes not obsessed with Userpedia and actually works on the articles, I'd shoot myself. That's how certain I am that this is infixable. Wa _T^C_@^Y 18:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

• ignores Wayo's comment* I agree with what ALTTP said. The FA system is mostly a joke. --Blitzwing 18:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't remember how many times I've said this since FA's were first suggested, but they are a stupid idea. For an encyclopedia the size of Wikipedia, sure, they work out great. Here on a smaller wiki were we really only have a handful of active competent users, it process breaks down rather quickly.

While I can't say much about images (someone please link me to one of these problem articles), some of the pressure will be taken off the server once Wayoshi teaches us how t use the Mass Delete function.

And on the point of sources, I seem to remember that we were using them. Did that break down too? -- Chris 20:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

New on the Mario Wiki scene, but with one question

Hi all, the name's M. C., and I'm on a mission to help the Mario Wiki the best that I can (created my account yesterday)! However, there's one small prob -- I was hoping to see about editing the Mario Super Sluggers article page to add in materials, but I found that the page is semi-protected. Any reason as to why this is so? All right; take care, everyone -- and thanks. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 12:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

As with all of the popular Upcoming/Recently released games article, that page got frequently vandalized, I think. --Blitzwing 12:45, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Huh? This Wiki too? You've gotta be kidding me! I only know about the "main" Wikipedia being vandalized with false info, and it was constant too. Sheesh... --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 13:50, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, just noticed I've got editing privelges for the Mario Super Sluggers page now (aw yeah!). But I'm still curious though -- what is the criteria to meet to edit a semi-protected page anyway? I know that being logged in is the main requirement, obviously. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 21:57, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Have an account for 15 days. Wa _T^C_@^Y 23:08, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

We've got a problem again - I've got a few edit plans in mind for the Mario Super Sluggers page again, but it's still locked on my end! Reason I say this is because I edited that page a few times before. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 11:25, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

There may be a chance there's a edit count requirement...? Can you post the error you get here? Wa _T^C_@^Y 11:32, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually is when I'm logged in and proceed to the Mario Super Sluggers article, I do not see the "edit" link on my end. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 11:35, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

If you see "view source", then maybe the 15-day requirement has been raised... Wa _T^C_@^Y 11:43, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

It has -- specifically on the Mario Super Sluggers page that I posted about earlier. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 14:11, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Character Debut Insanity!

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait -- let me get this straight -- in the regards to my recent edits, it's been driving me crazy! So am I led to the conclusion that the debut of certain characters in the Mario series are mainly targeted to where they debuted, regardless of it's a game installment or anything else in relation to the Mario series as a whole (including outside of the games)?

Example - the majority want to keep information of the character's REAL debut info to the Mario series as a whole (Baby Peach = Super Mario Bros. cartoon; Baby Daisy = Super Mario Bros. live action movie).

I SO gotta put this nagging question to rest. HELP!!! --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 21:28, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's the deal: the first time a character appears historically should be listed as the first appearance, regardless of whether its a video game or a cartoon show or a movie. For example: Baby Mario appeared in both the Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 and the Nintendo Comics System prior to the release of Yoshi's Island. Therefore, we'd list his first appearance as Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. Since Baby Daisy appeared in the film in 1991 before she appeared in Mario Kart Wii in 2008, we list that as the first appearance. We only list one appearance as the first appearance. Stumpers! 00:37, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Quote of the Day

“OK big brother! I'll be waiting.That's Punio's sister, Petuni. She really cares about her brother. I mean, you can just FEEL her love for him! I feel totally awful that's she's all trapped in here. Let's hurry up and help her and the rest of them, OK?That's Petuni, Punio's sister. She really trusts her brother. Let's hurry up and get her out of here. Oh and all of the others too.”

—PetuniGoombellaGoombella, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year DoorPaper Mario: The Thousand-Year DoorPaper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door

Copied and paste'D again. Someone please fix. - Girrrtacos

This problem is resolved. ;) MegaMario9910 (talk) tried to make the edits from that section as I checked. RAP... That method the user was making reminds me of the Wario article, ;_; I might revert it back...

(For the future) This is caused by multiple uses of {{quote}} on the same page. Other quotes must be substituted in to avoid it. Wa _T^C_@^Y 20:02, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Notice regarding passed proposal

As people involved in the merging of the Recipes articles may not necessarily view the Recipes talk page, I thought I had better post the notice I posted there here as well, in order to help ensure that it is not overlooked. I see no reason why this shouldn't be here, but if it shoudn't, please remove it. It is displayed below as it appears on the Recipes talk page. —Soler (talk · edits · edit count) 16:29, 30 June 2008 (EDT).

N.B.: Due to the success of this proposal (if the link does not work any longer, click here), if the Recipes pages are eventually merged into this page, all possible recipe combinations and all pieces of important trivia must remain somewhere easily accessible on the wiki. —Soler (talk · edits · edit count) 15:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT).

Chatroom

Not sure where to bring this up, but here seems OK.

I was demoted because Ops thought I wasn't active enough, because I mostly only come when there are none. The Ops thought it was just an excuse, a lie. I've been in the chatroom for two weeks and every time there's been no ops. Here's proof. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Doesn't the chatroom need ops when there are none? Example- look at the fourth picture.

So there's my case to be re-promoted, and my proof. Girrrtacos

We really need to get the chat under control. -- Chris 23:40, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Girrrtacos: This doesn't excuse the fact that during your stay as op, you broke several rules such as swearing in another language and making several inappropriate posts. And yes, we all agreed on this: You never did anything.

Ghost Jam: Easier said than done -_-. --Blitzwing 06:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Talking in a language you don't know isn't swearing. (I don't even remember, the only other language I ever remember speaking in is Hawaiian) Yes, and as for the You never did anything, your only asking ops right? Well lookey at my first post. The time zone that I'm currently in and my schedule makes it so I'm in the chatroom at the time when there are no ops. I didn't have proof at the time I was getting demoted, but now I do. Girrrtacos

1: I didn't say that speaking in another language is swearing, I said that you swore in another language.

2:By "not doing anything", I meant that, as an op, you practically never did the administrative work (Kicking users, banning, tells everyone to calm down). OK, you may be more active when no other ops are around, but how can I be witness of that :P? --Blitzwing 12:33, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

1. I don't remember swearing in another language. If I did do it, it most have been months ago.

2. I kicked and banned people when I was there. So what your saying is, don't have any ops in that timezone because we can't monitor them? Than what's the point of having these ops in the first place? Girrrtacos

I'd like to stop the discussion right here and point out this is all community related crap, so let's move this discussion to the forums. Thanks. -- Chris 23:29, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Game Guide Insanity

Now it's my dealing with MORE edit wars in regards to stuff from Mario series' game guides. So, let me get this straight - ANY piece of info from any Mario series' installment -- whether it's from a guide done by Nintendo themselves, or a third-party "official" guide that's licensed by Nintendo should be accepted as fact to be posted here?!?! Now this part is driving me NUTS! o_O MeritC

I find it a very silly thing to do. Obviously, a source that makes claims as to Peach and Daisy being cousins, and then mistakenly says that both Mario and Luigi saved Daisy from Tatanga is obviously not a reliable source. Stumpers! 02:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Wait, hold up -- are you talking about a previous so-called official guide from Prima themselves? And that they said that?!?!?! I'm still wondering where they have gotten the info about Peach/Daisy being cousins, for that's the heated debate for that Princess Daisy article (and the Princess Peach article too!) Folks are saying that whatever is in an "official" guide, regardless or not it was published by Nintendo, should be considered as fact. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 15:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

With everyone seeing it either black or white and not accepting compromises, we get nowhere on a community wiki. When it is disputed, then we should take note of that and say that the information is from the guide only and not from the games, thus less reliable. We shouldn't say it without the notice, but not get rid of it either. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, we could note that a guide/instruction manual/whatever said something, but we should also notes that said guide have errors/inconsistencies and thus, shouldn't be taken as a valid source. --Blitzwing 06:47, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Wait a sec, not all official guides are accepted as valid article sources. Prima's guides only count if they were made in 2007 or beyond; see MarioWiki:Citation Policy. But per Blitz for anything with contradictions that falls within those lines, unless they need be altered or something. YELLOWYOSHI398

Character info "connections"

Okay, I think I'm reaching the conclusion in terms of biographical info on characters, but I'm still pulling my hair out (no wonder there are "edit wars" on certain articles!!!) So let me get this straight -- am I led to conclude that we are to attempt making "connections" of a certain character by combining the various soures in relation to the entire Mario series, be it games themselves, related guides, movie, Japanese guides, etc.? Becauase I'm let to conclude and others are telling me like for example the Princess Daisy/Baby Daisy articles -- we are to "connect" the "evolved dinosaur" info from the Super Mario Bros. Movie to the main articles themselves here on this wiki?!?!

Sorry if I'm going nuts over here, but it seems like that's the only conclusion I'm coming across here. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast!

Other media like the movie is considered alternate-canon according to MarioWiki:Canonicity, so it can only be included in its part of a character's article rather than be included in that character's canonical story. All guides, Japanese or not, are OK if they're either made by Nintendo or made by Prima during or after 2007 according to MarioWiki:Citation Policy. YELLOWYOSHI398

Messed Up Templates

I noticed that various templates look messed up now in the articles. That includes Character-infobox (e.g. in Bowser), Foreignname (e.g. in Shake King) and Aboutfile (e.g. in Image:BrawlLuigi.jpg). What happened? --Grandy02 10:27, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

The problem appears specially to those optional descriptions: If you look on the templates' pages, the optional info is held by the next syntax:

• {{#if:"the optional info is set here, therefore, if you don't put the info here, it won't appear in the template in a cell"}}

However, the optional info that must appear in the template, appears out of it instead,where the problem appears. ¢oincoll€ctor 12:05, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I've fixed it, everyone. :) Some random n00b user thought that {{!}} was spam and deleted it. Template:! is actually a substitute of the all-important | character, and is used quite often in the more complex templates. I'm in the process (damn slow computer) of protecting it now, sorry I somehow didn't do that before. Wa _T^C_@^Y 12:39, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually I protected it now. Wayo you owe me a cookie! To clear up what Wayoshi said, the result of the templates acting buggy is not because of the hack but because a user trying to help thought the Template:! was spam and deleted the whole template. Paper Jorge ( Talk·Contributions)·

Hlavco (talk) is the culprit. Makes sure to pick your Torchs and Pitchforks!--Blitzwing 12:53, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Be easy on the guy, he's new. But if I had to choose a weapon, I'd choose the fork. :> Paper Jorge (Talk·Contribs)

So, Template: ! has no dirct article purpose, but is for holding together other templates? TheGreatBlockyBoo 17:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

You got it. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:57, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Chatroom Troll

Could some Chatroom op PLEASE ban Mimicmaster in chat? HyperToad@Main Page talk archive 20

why does the qoute have vandilism?--Blue Blooper 10:00, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Which quote? Time Questions 10:17, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

IDk but it said the person who said it twice and superpapermario twice like tihs SuperPaperMarioSuperPaperMario

That's a mistake we're trying to fix... Paper Jorge (Talk·Contribs)

Main page proposal needs updating

Just thought I'd like to point out that the proposal currently shown on the main page was archived yesterday. Pikax (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

HELP

Does anyone know how to solve this problem ; when I get into some users talk pages I end up being given a notice that says internet finds a problem. Does anyone have this prbolem ?F g

Some browsers have trouble supporting talk pages...especially large ones. There could also be some coding problems on the talk pages. — Stooben Rooben 17:59, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey welcome Back Stooby! the only reason I respond here is because for some reason I can't access to your talk Page.F g

I can access it. It really sounds like a brower problem, like the one with the Proposals page because it had too many signature codes in it. Long talk pages are of course prone to the same error. The only way to fix this would be to forbid templated signatures altogether, and that's going a bit far if I may say so. I'm unsure about the solution. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 18:12, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

SMB3 Background scenes

Can I upload all the levels including airships, fortress, etc. in here from super mario bros. 3? As I have the sprites for these backgrounds. Anyone agree?F g Here's the vote:
Agreed

1. F g

Diagreed

You should make this an actual Proposal. - Walkazo 19:28, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

This currently follows Wiki policy as seen with the Super Mario Bros. pages for worlds 1-8, so you don't even need to ask. Maps help articles look good and also made nice reference for other articles! But, Walkazo is right: making a concrete proposal would ensure that no one will erase your hard work. Stumpers! 22:31, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

If the current norm supports having such images, a proposal would be a waste of time and bandwidth. Make a proposal if an issue regarding the images pops up. -- Chris 15:16, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

As long as everybody agrees I will start uploading smb3 pics. F g

Uploading Images

I have a question: Whenever I upload an image can I put this - symbol in the filename? Despite the rules says please do not use & nor + cause it can corrupted images.F g

Minus symbols are allowed, only plus and & create problems. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:27, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Also note that ? creates problems as well. — Stooben Rooben Or, at least it has with me. 22:40, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip, I added it to the upload form. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:08, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. — Stooben Rooben 21:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Too much focus on SSB?

There have been many complaints concerning the SSB articles on the wiki. They cover quite a lot, while not being truly Mario-related. When looking at a page like Captain Falcon, I see no real reason for it to exist.

• Character pages have
  • a brief description of the character's origin (can be in the games' articles in the character section)
  • official artwork (can be in the games' articles)
  • description of the character and his playstyle (is in the games' articles)
  • moveset (is in the games' articles already)
  • Subspace Emissary role (described in the Story section of the Brawl article already)
  • Snake Codec Conversation (is on List of Snake's Codec Conversations)
  • Trophy Description (is at Trophy Descriptions (SSBM) and Trophy Descriptions (SSBB))
• The Final Smash articles like Blue Falcon were also covered here. That information is now in own articles, as all normal moves like Falcon Punch are.
• Item articles like Fan offer a brief description. That description is in the games' articles as well.
• Stage articles like Bridge of Eldin offer a stage description and a list of my music songs. Those are in the games' articles, too.

When you look at it, all specific SSB pages except for the special moves have their content somewhere else as well. They're completely superflous. We could easily merge all SSB content into those list articles (the games' articles, the trophy description articles, the Snake codec list, the Final Smash list), and would have much less "focus" on SSB while still providing the same amount of information. It just has to be guarranteed that the lists are covering everything.

What's your opinion? Should this become a proposal? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I blame part of the userbase being SSB fanboys...but if it'll make us look more focused on the actual Mario games, I would support. Wa _T^C_@^Y 14:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure we could also merge special moves, say one page per character, or simply merge the special moves with the article about the character (in the case of Captain Falcon and others). Stumpers! 14:30, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

What Wayoshi said. SJ derp :P

I do agree with Stumpers about the Special moves. But I am against removing the character articles (i.e. Captain Falcon), for it is an easier way to find more organized, and more thorough information on that particular subject, rather than going on a scavenger hunt on the game article itself. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Why don't we make merged pages as in, "Items (SSB)", "Items (SSBM)", and "Items (SSBB)" and then we can link to these articles from the game articles and have the current articles (Fan, Motion Sensor Bomb, etc.) be disambiguation pages that point to the three lists. Stumpers! 14:45, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Stumpers: not a bad idea, but we would end up with quite a lot useless disambiguation pages. What would you do about items like Fire Flower which are from the Mario series?

Garlic Man: When we would merge the special move pages to the characters (have Falcon Punch in Captain Falcon's article), then they would actually provide information that's not somewhere else. We wouldn't need to delete them in that case. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Why can't we just make a single page article for each character and then link off to a SSBWiki (which I'm sure exists)? -- Chris 19:04, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

You're going to want to take that up with the other users (I think Cobold is the one you want to see), but I think that the SSB Wikia is the most prominent but some users have problems with it. My understanding is that we are an alternative where readers can be assured that manipulative glitches, famous SSB players, and fan content will not interfere with the central, official sources. Stumpers! 02:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Before I say if I'm for or against this whole idea, I want to ask: Isn't any other main character article the same in this case? Take Mario for example: It gives descriptions of his roles in every game he's been in, (which is already in the games' articles); it explains his different moves and abilities, (which can be found here and on the games' articles that allow him said abilities); it gives a list of quotes, (which each game now has a "list of quotes" page); it gives a gallery of artwork from each game he's been in, (which can be placed in the games' articles if it hasn't already); it explains his relations with other main characters, (which is already depicted in the storyline of each game he has had a role with said person(s) in); it has a list of his SSB series trophies, (which can be found on the "list of trophies" page for the according SSB game); once all of that has been removed, you are left with a menial trivia section which most likely has each point mentioned elsewhere in game articles, (i.e. his Strikers outfit number). But, I could be misinterpreting something here that would completely change my mind. All in all, for now I support the safekeeping of the SSB character articles. — Stooben Rooben 03:29, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

It's okay for Mario, there are just so many games around that you can't get an overview. The SSB characters are in a different league - there are only few games, and they show personality in them, and we don't cover their physical description, etc. The SSB series is of tertiary importance. The difference is that articles on Mario are our main focus, and articles on Pikachu are not.

I'm only collecting ideas here - there are rightful complaints about too much focus on the series. The rules which allowed all these articles are quite outdated, they were made when SSB was the only crossover franchise. Now there's Mario & Sonic and other stuff like Tetris DS. I try to update those rules. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I fully see your point now – for future reference, I didn't know about that Importance Policy page. While I do believe that there is a bit too much focus on the SSB series, I tend to think that removing SSB character articles is too much "compensation" (for lack of a better word)...even if basically all of the information in the character articles are in other articles. If one were to compile the SSB series characters into a neat list (that isn't absurdly large), I would have no objection to that, as those characters are not main Mario series characters. In the same aspect though, I believe all items in SSB should be compiled into a list as well (considering the fact that they would technically be of tertiary importance too). — Stooben Rooben 19:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

So I see we're starting to come to a consensus of merging Item articles into one list. So, same sort of deal, should stages also be merged into one as well? I see that the would also be Tertiary importance, as they virtually have nothing to do with the Mario series. And, I would also like to bring up a fact about R.O.B.. He, despite appearing in a Mario Game(MKDS), is not a Mario character. What happens to these "Guest Appearances"? He appeared in a Mario spin-off game(Primary importance), but yet is not part of the series (Tertiary importance). Marcelagus (T • C • E)

It was my understanding that the character articles are going to stay in place. The only merging that will happen with them is that their special moves will be merged. Stumpers! 16:56, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe merging the character articles would go to far, but I guess we can simplify the items and special moves not from the Mario series. E.g. merge Falcon Punch with Captain Falcon, but keep Super Jump Punch even when Mario only used the move in SSB games. How's that solution? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:21, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Sounds good. — Stooben Rooben 17:41, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Stumpers: So, what you're saying, is that we should merge non-Mario special moves, but keep Mario series special moves? Which means Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong, Diddy Kong, Yoshi, and Wario still keep their special moves articles? I think the moves should all just be merged to the character articles. It seems to be more consistent, and it's not like the special moves articles have all that much info on them in the first place. Most are stubs. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

That would be Cobold who suggested that. It makes sense to keep those articles though: we're about the Mario series, both when it is central (Mario Party) or a cross-over (Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games). Stumpers! 13:54, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Concerning Mario special moves, some like Fireball have other Mario-content on the page already, so I didn't think it would be good to merge them. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 17:24, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Captain Rainbow

I would like to know your opinions about the references to Mario-unrelated characters in the Captain Rainbow article. Please go here, thanks. --Grandy02 07:05, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Article or Cameo....

I was listing all the mario games I have on my user page when I realized I forgot Tetris for the Gameboy. In 2 player mode, player 1 is Mario and Player 2 is Luigi. However when I went to link the page, there is no article created for the origional tetris, only later versions (Tetris DS etc....). Anyways I was wondering if this appearence should be made as a cameo or the whole game as an article (as tetris DS has its own article).

You be the judge.

MCHammerBro. Does this seem too much like a proposal? (it's long but it's only for one article so it doesn't belong there).

I think, based on precedent, not policy, that such an appearance should be mentioned in Game Sightings, which really should be called, "Mario series cameos in video games." Stumpers! 00:15, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Pauline = Mario's Niece

On several pages throughout the Wiki, we make the claim that in the Saturday Supercade, Pauline was Mario's niece rather than his girlfriend. I've been tromping all over the internet, including the surviving episodes of the show, in the hopes of finding hard proof, but the best I came up with was a fan website from a guy who didn't record the episodes and was simply recounting memories of the show. Wikipedia doesn't cite a source for it either. Could someone cite specific proof regarding this issue, or at least verify that they, too, remember her being his niece? The closest thing I've found is that Pauline was Donkey Kong's trainer at Mario's circus. Stumpers! 21:20, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Automatic Translator

I've been thinking very hard on this idea, but I don't know if it could work. Is it possible for the MarioWiki to have an auto-translator? For instance: if one of our users lived in France, our articles appear in English to them. If he/she spoke very little English, it could be hard for him/her to edit the article in English. I find this unfair to any user who has trouble speaking English. Here's my idea: is it possible for that French user to see the article entirely in French? Then, he/she could edit the article in French. Now, at the same time, for someone who speaks English, that same article would appear in English, and any edits that Frenchman made would also appear in English. The same would apply for a person who lives in Japan, Spain, Russia, Iran, etcetera.

Now, to make this easily transferable, in that user's preferences there would be an option for "preferred language". The option would scroll down to include many languages, such as: English, French, Deutch, Spanish, etc. I don't know if this is possible or not.

Now, please don't take this as I'm trying to make all users speak English; that's NOT what I'm attempting to do. I am merely trying to make it easier for any and all users to communicate with each other, and edit on the wiki. — Stooben Rooben 20:38, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia would have done it already if they could have. That's why they have different language wikis - it's impossible.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wayoshi (talk).

Lol Wayo, that was sorta phail XD Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Trust Me, if we used Auto-Translator, we'd look like a bunch of retard to foreign users. Auto-translation is well... Not very good. --Blitzwing 07:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's a nice idea, but with the current capabilities of auto-translators, it wouldn't be of any use. Time Questions 07:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Somehow, I don't see this working very well. It would make articles look like they're written by 2-year-olds on crack, when read by foreigners. Translators aren't advanced enough at this time to make this worth considering. But it would be cool if it worked, I agree with you there Stooben. Dom »» McTalk And that's my n00bish opinion...

Wow, that was embarassing. :/ Wa _T^C_@^Y 12:47, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

A year or so ago, I toyed with the idea of having foreign language MarioWikis, but it seems more trouble than it's worth. Far as I can tell, the vast majority of our reader base is from English speaking countries. If someone of a different language wishes to read our articles with very little knowledge of English can use Babel Fish. -- Chris 18:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, I see all of your points. It was just a concept; that's why I wanted opinions. I was toying around with some coding the other day, and thought I could make it work, but I got stuck. :| — Stooben Rooben 23:18, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Different Timelines

For those of you who haven't noticed, since no one protested it, I've gone ahead and updated the MarioWiki:Chronology page with the claim that the film occurs in a different timeline - which we know because the narrator establishes it as a what-if scenario. Because of this, I was wondering if we should separate character articles by timeline a la the Sonic characters on Wikipedia. This would also mean that Super Smash Bros. appearances would be separated, but perhaps we should wait on that and just see how the movie thing would go. Stumpers! 00:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't think Super Smash Bros. appearances should be separated considering there's little to tell. No sports game fits into the time line anyway. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Very true. I was thinking about how we'd be making the policy anyway, "Mario series characters should be divided into central and Smash timelines, but not 3rd party characters because their articles would be too short." Just seems like a waste considering. Also, we've been trying to merge Smash content, not expand. Stumpers! 18:42, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Semi-Protected Pages

On the Mario talk page, White Knight brought up that there should be a rivalry section, and Stumpers told him to add a section. It turns out the page was semi-protected, and he couldn't do so. I asked how long it takes to enable editing on a Semi-protected page, and Stooben told me 15 days. I have moved parts of the conversation that are concerned with what I am talking about. (Proposals only last 7 days, so I figured it would just be easier to ask for the general opinion)

But, honestly; How long do you have to be registered to edit a semi-protected page? Marcelagus (T • C • E) Seems a little unfair to the people who want to contribute.

Garlic Man: I believe you have to be registered for 15 days before being able to edit this page. — Stooben Rooben 18:21, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, ok. But doesn't that seem a bit long, though? Is the time changable, or is it set by MediaWiki or something? Before asking Steve, I think we should gather some opinions on whether 15 days is too long or not(that's half a month!). I really doubt a vandal is going to wait 15 days just to mess up a/multiple page(s). What do you guys think? Marcelagus (T • C • E) 5 days even sounds sufficient to me...

I personally believe it should be 7 days, but it may be set in stone by MediaWiki. However, before we go any further into discussion, I'd suggest moving this conversation to the Main Talk Page. — Stooben Rooben 18:31, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Discussion has been moved. Copied, rather. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

The default is 0 seconds. Steve at first made it 4 days (345600s), then made it longer after a vandal DID wait... Wa _T^C_@^Y 19:40, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Well... could we at least not make it 15 full days? As White Knight pointed out, even when there seems to be a section missing(or maybe even just a typo), he couldn't edit those pages for 15 days. I really think good contributors should be able to make edits from early on; and besides, whatever the limit would be, vandals are virtually unavoidable. :\ Marcelagus (T • C • E)

No, 15 days is a good amount of time IMO. If I were a vandal (I'm not, obviously), I wouldn't be scared of waiting 5 days or a week, in fact... I'd just go and stuff up other Wikis while I wait *cough Bulbapedia cough* - vandals are annoying enough to wait for their stupid idea of fun to be put into action. You have to put yourself in a vandal's mind to figure out these things. In fact, I think the time should be increased to a month at least. Anyone agree? Dom »» McTalk

No, definitely not. It's more than unfair to punish all new users, just because there might be a vandal among them. When there's a vandal, that's our problem, but not the one of an innocent new user who registered to edit and improve the wiki. When a vandal is willing to wait a week, he will also be willing to wait 15 days, in most cases. And if he's willing to wait 15 days, he will probably be willing to wait a month. Maybe you can slowly decrease the number of vandals if you increase the number of days, but this completey defeats the purpose of a wiki. Time Questions 07:47, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, exactly. As I said before, vandals that wait will never dissapear, and are unavoidable. The long time limit, rather than discouraging vandals, might actually discourage the newbies, because they might not want to wait 15 days to edit a page. For instance, Dom, if you were a vandal(which I know you're not), you might wait 15 days to vandalise. But, if you were a new guy here, dying to make contributions, but found out you couldn't edit a lot of the pages, would you be patient enough to wait for 15 days? I'm still thinking 5 days is good, does anyone else have opinions? Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Well, as Time Q and Garlic Man have said, it is seemingly unfair for any new (innocent) users who wish to edit articles with a time-limited protection. I find that 7 days is perfectly reasonable, but 5 days could be acceptable as well. But, since it's not up to me, I won't force my opinions. — Stooben Rooben 17:46, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

As far as I know, Mario is the only semi-protected page. So I think that it is reasonable to have to wait 15 days if one can edit every other article. Although, I was on this wiki for a little over twenty days and I still couldn't edit the Mario page. Maybe I made a mistake when I was seeing how long I had my account. WK

Release date formatting

Currently, the Wiki has many different ways of formatting release date lists. E.g:

• (USA) May 15, 2006
• (JP) May 25, 2006
• (Aus) June 8, 2006
• (EU) June 30, 2006

or:

• (JP) July 19, 2002
• (US) August 26, 2002
• (EU) October 4, 2002

or:

• (US) November 14, 2005
• (AUS) November 17, 2005
• (EU) November 25, 2005
• (JP) December 8, 2005
• (SK) April 5, 2007

First, I think that US should be changed to NA, as all these dates apply to Canada as well. Then, I'm not entirely sure about Australia, but we should decide whether to capitalize it or not. Third, should we list release dates from regions such as South Korea and China as well? A possibility would also be to use country flags instead of the letters, depending on what you like better. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:44, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I noticed the same problem with Wikipedia recently; sometimes they use flags, sometimes letters, and whatnot. The thing about flags, though, is when we say "North America", that(as you said), is not exclusively the US, so we can't just put the American Flag. I always thought it was: "JP", "US", "EU", and "Aus". But there's no real official thing, so, I'm not sure if any are "correct". Marcelagus (T • C • E) As for China, SK, etc. I'm not sure. Maybe then we'll have to put everything else as well. (kinda useless)

In many of the cases I've seen, only major countries are listed for release dates. As America is the most major country in North America, I think we can safely use the USA flag for North American released dates. -- Chris 20:29, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the reason for using the South Korean and Chinese release dates is that the games get localized for these regions. Other regions such as Latin America and South Africa just get the American or European version, as far as I know. In total, there would be six regions we cover, which all get their own version of a game (or at least five of them, are there significant differences in Australian versions?). That's okay in my opinion. --Grandy02 04:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

For flags it should go okay to simply use the USA flag because of lack of alternatives. We should only change it when we keep the letters. We could use the USA flag, the Japanese flag, the Flag of Europe and the Flag of Australia for most of our stuff. I think this is also too trivial for a proposal. Anybody opposing? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:24, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Cobold: I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Nintendo of America licensing, but their headquarters are in Washington (or were... I don't think they've moved). Washington (the state) shares a border with Canada, but the important part is that Nintendo of America operates out of the United States of America, and thus the flag is even more fitting. I'm not sure how they do the French translation for Quebec and other French-speaking areas of Canada, though. Perhaps that also is done in Washington? Stumpers! 16:29, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I know that Nintendo of Europe is seated in Germany, though I still don't think we should put a Germany flag there. There's a handy Europe flag, after all. ;) - Cobold (talk · contribs) 07:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Stumpers: About the Us-Quebec language barrier, I'm guessing that it's covered, mostly because when they say "Europe", they mean Germany, Britian, France, Italy, etc, etc. I'm sure the US is doing the same for the non-english speaking areas. Like... Mexico. Marcelagus (T • C • E) Unless those people just have to bear with English... because I doubt they import it from the European countries.

Not every language has their own translation. Wii manuals come in Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Portuguese and Greek, but no game supports those languages. Dutch is only supported in Wii Ware games. Though I don't see how that matters for our release dates. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Attention Sysops

We are currently having a discussion about the fate of the Canonicity policy. More than likely, you have already received the notice e-mail and know about the discussion. However, if you, for some ungodly reason, are a Sysops without a forum account, make one and PM Steve about gaining access to the Sysops board. We will hear no complaints about it not being fair that you couldn't participate in the discussion simple because you were to lazy to register.

Thanks -- Chris 20:23, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Wait, there is? I'm not a sysop don't kill meeeee I thought it was a discussion about removing certain sections from Character articles. Anyway, I guess non-sysops can't read it, so... our opinions cannot be heard. Marcelagus (T • C • E) Yeah, yeah, I know. It's not a democracy, as sysops have told me countless many times...

As Canonicity is a MarioWiki Policy, the discussion and end results are being limited to staff only. -- Chris 20:58, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Staff? What are we, a non-profit organization? :P Anyway, can we at least know what the discussion is about? Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Read above, lol. Canon. MarioWiki:Canonicity, in particular, we're reviewing. Wa _T^C_@^Y 01:09, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I know that :P. Like, what about the "policy's fate"? Is something going to change? Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Keeping it or ditching it and the best way to do either. -- Chris 02:25, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Un-Featuring Articles

There's a discussion going on on the Featured Articles talk page - well, actually it's only Stumpers and me, that's why I'm bringing it up here. Anyway, we're discussing to implement a new system that allows us to "un-feature" an article - that is to deny its FA status. Just think of Luigi's Mansion, an FA that nobody seems to be very happy about. Please give your opinions here. Thanks! Time Questions 19:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Wait... I'm trying to clear this up in my mind...

Okay, so I have just done the honors of merging this into the main article for Mario Super Sluggers (as the majority requested from a proposal). Still, am I led to conclude that the main target is to be sure that ALL info is on one article, unless it really needs to be branched off? Because I have a feeling that's the mission for a majority of articles here on the SMW. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! 12:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT) User Page | Talk Page

Something that I didn't get a chance to voice on the proposal is that it would be a good idea for the longer articles to use main article sections to link to much more detailed articles. Imagine how much more manageable the game articles would be if we had articles like: "Super Mario Sluggers storyline." Stumpers! 14:04, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Only that in terms of the Mario Super Sluggers game -- "storyline" wouldn't be necessary. :P It's fine as it is. Just as long as the info itself is dead-on accurate, which I believe it is. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! 21:15, 29 August 2008 (EDT) User Page | Talk Page

The Mario Bros.

Are they twins, or are they just brothers? SMW2 states after defeating Bowser, "Thank you Yoshi! The twins will meet their parents soon!" However, on Paper Luigi's trophy, it states "The legendary hero Mario's younger brother." So what is it? Twins or brothers? Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

On Luigi's brawl trophy (at least in the German version), it reads "younger twin brother". Twins also can be older and younger, if only by a minute's margin. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Luigi is the younger brother.The Bros. are techinquelly Fraternal twins, not identical twins.

MCHammerBro.

Ahh k. Thanks for your responses. Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

MC Hammer Bro: Your response, if cited, could be valid solely in America. Birdo is stated to be a girl in some countries, a boy in others, and I believe I heard the possibility that she's a trans-gender as well. I believe it merely relies on the sources, which vary slightly from game to game, and from country to country. My opinion, is to user information that has been stated more; but alas, it is not my decision. — Stooben Rooben 20:54, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Well I've heard that and also...they are twins but don't look identical. Height, hair color, and abilities (if it is based on genes :P) are different. MC Hammer Bro. 21:07, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Cobold: That should be cited and used profusely! I can't tell you how many users have undone other's edits b/c they believed that Nintendo had retconed the twin/younger brother thing. Stumpers! 15:16, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

How to cite an in-game source? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)