Gallery talk:Mario

Power-Up Artworks

I think the artworks of Mario's forms should be removed from this gallery since there is no power-up forms of Luigi on his gallery. I think we should create gallery called Gallery:Mario and Luigi's Forms, or something like that.--UM3000

Why can't they be here? I mean powered up or not, they are still forms of Mario, also Luigi's gallery should be fixed to include power-up forms too. Xzelion^ETC

Well I guess that makes sense, but wouldn't the gallery be cluttered cuz I also need to put in many and many upload sprites of Mario + many sprites of his power-ups, which makes this gallery really massive.--UM3000

Is having a big gallery really a bad thing? Wouldn't it be a good thing? Xzelion^ETC (maybe forms can have they're own section?)

I know having a big gallery is a good thing, but getting it so mildly large up to the point of lagging is sorta a bad thing.--UM3000

Should we remove the Fire Mario artworks atleast as Fire Mario now has his own gallery?--UM3000

Anyone agree?--UM3000

Yes. I do. Supremo

Ok, I guess I should remove Ice Mario as well as he has a gallery too.--UM3000

Why can't we add forms, like Ice Mario, Hammer Mario, and Gold Mario to Fire Mario's gallery in their own section, called Similar Forms or something like that? --User:Davey/sig

You add new comments at the bottom instead of haphazardly lumping it in the middle of the discussion. Anyway, I brought up it at one point via forum post, and it's generally agreed that we don't add power-ups and stuff because they are in another gallery and article. This would keep the size, clutter, and repetition down while maintaining focus on Mario rather than his power-ups. Mario's gallery is huge as it is, we don't need even more images that can serve elsewhere. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:20, 26 February 2016 (EST)

New Image

Should that be on the page? It's from Superstar Saga.PikaSamus (talk)

If no one argues... PikaSamus (talk)

Could someone please add the Mercades commercial to the Live action section?

Title says all. Just a screencap or two would do, perhaps one from the first commercial and one from the recent second commercial. Other than that, I don't think this page is missing anything. --User:Hateater12/sig

Regarding Mario's Smash Render

His Smash render is both the Offical Artwork section and the Sprites/Models section. Shouldn't that be changed, because the render isn't a in game model. Rosetta The Fanboy 04:11, 20 February 2015 (EST)

Possible split?

This page is large. Very, very large. 87,131 bytes of almost nothing but images, which makes the page take a loooong time to load. Is it alright to split this gallery, maybe split into Gallery:Mario1, which has all 1.4.4 sections of the artwork, and Gallery:Mario2, which has everything else? I realize this is fairly unconventional, though it's certainly possible, and it would make loading times shorter and easier. 17:58, 16 January 2017 (EST)

If not now, I'm sure we'd have to split it eventually. Splitting the artwork sounds like a good idea, though they shouldn't be given a number for a naming convention, any necessary identifyer should be more encyclopedic than that. I'd suggest keeping this page as "Gallery:Mario", and the artwork off to "Gallery:Mario artwork", with a "see also" noted at the top of each.

Shokora (talk · edits) 19:20, 16 January 2017 (EST)

I was just giving an example for the identifier, really. It can be named whatever it needs to.

So do you mean moving the artwork to "Gallery:Mario artwork" and leaving everything else here as "Gallery:Mario"? That seems like it could be kinda confusing to me, as "Gallery:Mario", in accordance with the rest of the wiki, would signify an entire gallery of Mario. Looking back at the page (why did I reload that?), we could probably group the scans with the artwork and call the other page "Gallery:Mario sprites and screenshots". The base page of "Gallery:Mario" would probably become a disambiguation. 19:28, 16 January 2017 (EST)

While there is concern over the page size, splitting it into Mario1 and Mario2 isn't a good idea. How is the split going to be decided? It can't be by age since older artwork may be found and uploaded in the future. It also invites navigational clutter and inconvenience to browsers and it'll put a layer of work guessing which artwork would this Mario gallery fall in.

The splitting sounds nice, but we'll have to apply within these three pages: Mario artwork, Mario sprites, Mario screenshots, Mario miscellaneous. Splitting off artwork seems purely arbitrary given that sprites and screenshots take a huge bulk of the loading time and they are arguably just as big as the artwork section. I know artwork is "more notable" hence why it is placed at the top in the first place (it wasn't always like this, though), but the argument also goes the other way: why not leave the artwork there as the "main" gallery and split the other two, since we already have artwork of Mario to fill in the main article in the gallery section per Empty Sections policy?

One of my ideas is to create a category of images via Category:Mario Images like pidgiwiki, where we can further divide it by individual artwork, piece artwork, sprites, and screenshots so we don't have to parse through individual artwork being lumped with boxart and piece images where Mario is tiny. One problem is deciding how screenshots will be handled since screenshots featuring Mario or even containing barely a trace of Mario may be a problem, but it won't impact loading times thanks to category pagination. Maybe that'll be further divided by game. But anyhow, how does this new type of categorial organization work? It'll help readers mass-browse through images with the advantages of categories. Additionally, we can apply this to all galleries rather than have Mario's gallery singled out for its size, so we might have a more robust organizational system for images. One problem, however, is that categories are based on how artwork is named rather than their source game, so how would we organize that without having to add clutter of organization, unless artwork is named properly? Another potential problem is screenshots and how Mario's gallery will be treated. Maybe we can trim that down by using only one artwork per media and then showing users a link to "more Mario images". How that one artwork will be decided will be subjective, but similar to how we choose the infobox: something that best represents Mario from that game. One more thing, it'll add yet another layer of pre-uploading management that time has shown that users often simply neglect to do (forgetting to format aboutfile, not adding a category). But IDK if that'll work well since I'm just spouting ideas on how to deal with gallery loading times.

How's this idea? I know it's pretty ambitious and brainstormy, but it may solve some of the problems of the ever-increasing gallery Mario is dealing with. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:53, 16 January 2017 (EST)

Yeesh.

The idea is that all the artwork and scans are on one page and the sprites and screens are on another. Otherwise, they would be updated just like a regular gallery.

Splitting into more than two pages worth of images seems kinda space-wastey. I don't think there's any need to use more than two pages. I'm just trying to keep things simple while also trying to fix a problem. And yes, screenshots (not sure about sprites myself) take longer to load mainly due to how large screens are. If we really need to, we could separate the page into a page for each gallery, but that's seems kinda overkill to me. If at any point should the galleries become too large for just simply halving the content, then maybe we could do a four-way split???

As far as I can tell, categorizing images wouldn't be a problem. It's just the placement of the image that requires a bit more thought than the other galleries, seeing as categorizing an image doesn't automatically place it within a gallery. Category pages are already split up page by page for every 200 images, anyway. As for neglecting to do the proper steps during an upload...that something the users themselves will have to work on. Category:Mario Images I don't see working too well, as that'll just become a big mess of artworks, screens, and sprites, and the alphabetizing will be confusing seeing as, like you said, users may not name or categorize images correctly.

I think just simply keeping it between artwork/scans and sprites/screenshots should work. I don't think that'll mess up anything (other than links to Gallery:Mario, which I think should become a disambig if this happens), but I cannot see any foreseeable problems other than "Mario's artwork and scans page is too long. We have to split this!" once 2045 rolls around. However, splitting it between four pages would work as well, and, assuming it's good with the staff, we could do that to any other gallery that runs into this problem as well in the future. 20:15, 16 January 2017 (EST)

Spent some more time thinking about this last night and considered just how large each of the sections are. In that case, splitting the gallery three ways makes the best sense to me. There are a lot of artworks, a lot of sprites, and a lot of screenshots. There aren't as much scans, though, so it wouldn't make sense to give it its own page. Thinking we could group scans with artwork as per the original plan. Thinking the main Gallery:Mario page could look like this:

"Due to the size of this gallery, it has been split to reduce loading times.

• For artworks and scans of Mario, see [[Gallery:Mario artwork and scans|here]].
• For sprites of Mario, see [[Gallery:Mario sprites|here]].
• For screenshots of Mario, see [[Gallery:Mario screenshots|here]].

• For the gallery of images relating to Mario's younger form, Baby Mario, see [[Gallery:Baby Mario|here]].
• For images relating to Mario's powered-up forms, see [[:Category:Forms|here]]."

What do you think? 12:30, 17 January 2017 (EST)

Sounds like a plan. I support. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2017 (EST)