MarioWiki talk:Generic subjects

Shouldn't this be protected? It used to be protected, but the protection stayed on the redirect when it was moved.-- 22:41, 6 July 2017 (EDT)


 * Thanks, it's been protected now. 23:47, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

Change the parameters of this rule to not include living, moving creatures
Oh, this rule. The rule that's caused the loss of so much information. Why don't the birds in front of Peach's Castle get an article or even a mention under a greater article but a tree with a name originating from a tie-in toy does? The former can be interacted with, as in they fly away in a panic when they're approached, but nope! They have no "gameplay purpose," which somehow matters more than definitively existing, and they have no official name. But I digress. My main problem with this rule is that it tends to be arbitrarily executed and is completely open to interpretation, something we really should avoid on a wiki. Cow, Bird, Frog, Butterfly....yes, they're all generic subjects, but so are coins when you get right down to it, as they've had different purposes and appearances throughout the different franchises, as have Bananas and Mushrooms, and they haven't really been scrutinized like this. Hence "arbitrary." This rule is simply obstructive and annoying.

EDIT: I'm changing this from "delete entirely" to "lessen the effect this has on living, moving species," because I'll admit articles for chairs, hills, and every stinkin' thing with eyes in Double Dash!! is a tad excessive. This was, things like the bluebirds in 64 and the butterflies and frogs in Yoshi's Island would still get a mention.

Proposer: Deadline: "October 14, 2017, 23:59 GMT"

Support

 * 1) Per above. I can not express how much this rule annoys me. Other than say where part of it deserves to go.

Oppose

 * 1) I feel that covering every bird, beehive, and butterfly in the series would be excessive, as some games would have no more than "Butterflies appear in Paper Mario: Color Splash, where they fly around flowers." I feel it is better to have restrictions than nothing.
 * 2) Per all. We do not need to cover every tree branch that appears in the background.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) This would just end up creating articles for things that it's so obvious what they are they don't need articles. Per all.

Comments
@Time Turner that's not what I'm saying. And you know it. I mean things that are creatures and actually move around and stuff. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The generic subjects policy covers inanimate objects. You want to delete the generic subjects policy. Ergo, you're leaving the wiki open to covering every tree branch. 22:50, 30 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Not every single one. Maybe tree branches in general. I'm still in wonder over why Rock doesn't have a page, especially given that the ones in Super Mario Galaxy can be interacted with. How about this: If a thing exists in a gameplay-affecting form in at least one game, other appearances shall also be noted? I still think the birds in 64 and the various small animals in Yoshi's Island should be noted somewhere. And this rule (which happens to be the unholy mixture of Stonk, Attacky Sack, and Stinky Kong) is preventing that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2017 (EDT)

OK....can I make changes to the proposal at this current juncture? I'll modify it so stays, but doesn't affect living, moving creatures. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2017 (EDT)


 * "Not every single one. Maybe tree branches in general."


 * Bruh.


 * 07:54, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I meant like grabbable ones. What I'm saying now is if it has a gameplay-affecting appearance once, it should get coverage for all. And I've specified it to be for creatures now, like Bees and Cows and Sheep and such. I no longer care about tree branches and all of that, because I've decided that's silly. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2017 (EDT)