MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 5

I think...
That when searching for DDR, the page Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix Will appear.Isyou 14:30, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Red Spiked Para Buzzy Beetle Top
There's confusion with the names of the Buzzy Beetle family. Which ones end with buzzy, and which end with beetle? We need to get the official names for the ones in SMB3 and the Paper Mario's. - Yoshi Master

4000 Articles
Unfortunately, I could not identify the 4000th article itself. I'll find the 5000th for sure. :) 14:11, 28 January 2007 (EST)
 * Knife has informed me it's Balloon Bully.

YAY! I made the 4000th!


 * That's awesome!

'Shroom Deadline
The second issue of the 'Shroom is set to come out this Saturday. I post the message here in hopes that people will notice before I add a section in their talk pages tomorrow. 13:36, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Microsoft
Now that Banjo and Conker are part of the wiki, shouldnt we include some Microsoft information? - User: Ultimatetoad

Maybe, personally I never saw the point on having information on the companies and gaming systems. -- Sir Grodus

Me neither. I want to focus on the games. But if we do focus on the companies, I just wondered if we should do Microsoft. - User: Ultimatetoad

Canonical: DKR or DKRDS?
I took notice some individuals question the canonancy of DKR + DKRDS and it would require removal of the BK artiles we have worked hard of making. Well unless an official source is stated that the N64 version is non-canon, i beleive the Banjo articles and Conker articles should stay. Agree? -- 15:49, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Check out the latest at MarioWiki talk:Importance Policy. The issue is that, not to my knowledge before, the DS version is a complete remake: it's almost all the same, with better graphics and some new unlockables. Of course, the DS version replaces Banjo and Conker with Tiny and Dixie, now that Rare is separate from Nintendo. If DKRDS is more canonical, Banjo & Conker get the boot from this wiki. Opinions? 15:54, 2 February 2007 (EST)


 * How would you tell its canacal???? Its all in a matter of opinion and they should stay until its iofficial one is canon the other isn't, that goes to SM64DS. Its booting Conker and Banjo from the wiki for no reason. -- 16:34, 2 February 2007 (EST)

I don't think it matters which is canonical. Either way, Banjo and Conker are a spin-off of a spin-off of Mario, and thus should stay. - User: Ultimatetoad

Banjo and Conker got kicked out of DKRDS because Rare got sold to Microsoft and some legal issues...so if that hadn't happened not only would Banjo and Conker WOULD have been in DKRDS (maybe not Conker because of what he did in Bad Fur Day). So let's leave Banjo/Conker articles and WarioLoaf...I would like to have a word with you Paper Jorge

Sequel.

I don't understand. Banjo and Conker are copyrighted to Rare, always have been. Why would a seperation from Nintendo matter? -- Ghost Jam 14:39, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Either way, they should stay. How would DKRDS prove DKR uncanonical? Again, this has nothing to do with how canonical the info is. The simple reason is that the company would have copyright issues, otherwise they would still be there, trust me. So the Conker and Banjo series should stay. 21:08, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Indeed. I was about to say the same. O_o

If DKR DS is a remake, that means the original game has been changed to what it is intended to be. The remake is the most canonical version of the game, as the creators specifically changed the original to new specifications (just like the changes in Star Wars; older versions of Star Wars are less canonical). Like I said before, I don't know if DKR DS is a remake or a sequel. If it is a remake, we'll have to figure this whole thing out. -- Son of Suns

Oboy.


 * Oh boy...now I have to say it may be a sequel...that depends on what is on the game. We need to ask someone who has the DS version and someone who has the 64 version: Do they Have the Same Storyline? If yes, then well I guess it's a remake but...uhh...

Same storyline.

Really the only differences between versions (storywise) are Banjo and Conker. Plus, would the events of Super Mario 64 be more canonical than Super Mario 64 DS? The point is that remakes do not prove their predecessor to be uncanonical.-- 22:19, 16 February 2007 (EST)


 * SM64 DS is more canonical than SM64 - the newer game represents what could not be done earlier, and corrects the mistakes of the previous version. Does anyone know if the DKR DS game manual or the game itself make references to the original DKR? Something like, Wizpig came back, or Diddy gathered his friends again, or something else. Remember, DKL basically had the same story as DKC, but DKL still indicated it was a sequel. -- Son of Suns

I see where you're coming from, but it's an assumption, albiet one that I would call a hypothesis, as it is based off of very cool prior knowledge. The thing is, MarioWiki is here to report on Mario and how it is presented to us, right? As such, we are given certain gaps. Now, it is all well and good for us to note our theories in the articles, tying together bits and pieces, but we should not make these facts. I'm sorry that this issue came up, and I think everyone is doing a great job discussing it, so all the power to us! It is my opinion, though, based on what people, including the administrators, have edited out of articles, that we should mind what we write as fact and what we write as opinion. For example, I mistakenly wrote in the Mushroom Kingdom article that the Koopa Troop built the eight castles. Logical: they have traps, etc. in them, but not confirmed. Therefore, I should have written that "Based on the internal design of the castles, they may have been built or redesigned by the Koopa Troop." I believe this is the same sort of thing, but of much greater importance to the Wiki. Check the Talk Page for the Imporance Policy, I explain myself even more there. ;) --Stumpers

Locking the Move Feature OR Adding More Sysops
It is now necessary to reach an agreement based on consensus. Today's major vandalism, using the move feature, forcing the reverter to move the page back & delete the wrong redirect, is now the 2nd time it has happened. I cannot thank Sir Grodus enough for his efforts, but in both cases he was naturally not on the scene right away – how could we expect at least one sysop to be on 24 hours a day?

There are three solutions to stop or lessen the chances of this ultra-level vandalism: If you favor one option, sign your name below. If you favor both or neither, say so in the "Comments" section. 19:56, 17 February 2007 (EST)
 * 1) To stop it, we will have to lock the move feature to just sysops.
 * 2) To lessen the chances, we can add more sysops to cover a wider range of time daily.
 * 3) We can lock the move feature to new users only. &larr; Option taken

I have found a way to restrict moving pages to just new users – problem solved. 22:51, 17 February 2007 (EST)

I favor the second.----


 * I agree, regardless if the move problem's been solved or not. -- 02:39, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Just because a new trick was invented doesn't mean the problem is solved. I'm in favor on option 1. If a page needs to be moved, a user can make a note of it on that pages talk and a sysops will take care of it when able. -- Ghost Jam 03:58, 18 February 2007 (EST)
 * Well I'll revise my statement by saying that we've taken a bit of protection against the issue. New users = users less than 4 days old. 09:30, 18 February 2007 (EST)


 * No, since the majority of our contributers are users, why ask a sysop to do something as simple as a move. I mean I hate reverting vandalism too, but at what cost? The third option solves all, preventing vandalism and still allowing most users to move pages. For the first option to work, we'll need more sysops. I don't think we'll bother you guys by asking yall. 13:49, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Even though the problem is "solved" all someone has to do is wait five days then move. I think #2 and #3 should be done to lessen the problem and if it does happen, there will be a higher chance that a sysop will be on.
 * I strongly agree with Plumber. It appears that option 3 isn't enough for some of us. Why don't we have a vote between options 1 and 2? -- 23:10, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Ya, what if a five day old user comes on and starts vandalizing everything. If we keep 3., then the new user date must be increased.----

Option 3 seems to make the most sense, however, we may need to raise the "new user" limit. To what is up to you, but I suggest maybe two weeks or so. That should be enough to discourage users who have the goal of vandalizing. Most aren't patient and persistent enough to wait that long.


 * I've started a vote down below. If anybody has any other ideas, add them. -- 16:59, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Option 2 and 3

 * 1) Strong Support --
 * 2) Very Strong Support ----
 * 3) Super Strong Support
 * 4) Support -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]
 * 5) Strong Support -- 00:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Our revels are now ENDED?!
A lot of you have noticed that I have been quite inactive the last three weeks. Well, that's the way it will be for at least two more weeks. At the end of that period, one of three things will happen: A) I return to my normal self. B) I take a one-month hiatus. C) I retire. :( Due to personal issues, it is becoming evident that I may need to halt all activity one MarioWiki for an unknown amount of time, possibly and infinite period of time. I don't want to go anymore than you would, I'll bet, but it's a probabiylty. It is even possible that I will dissapear without warning, although I will try to notify you that I am going inactive. But for I while, I need to lay low. Sorry. :( I'd love more than anything to be on here 24/7, but one can't have everything...

HOW TERRIBLE :(.

Yeh. I'm hoping I'll return to normal.

C'mon "A"! C'mon "A:! If it has to be done then "B"! Just don't do "C"! Anything but "C"!!!!!

Here's hoping you return, 3D. We'd hate to lose you.

We can't lose you. You're one of the top editors.----

You'll be back. They always come back. -- Ghost Jam 21:37, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I am speechless. Waa. 23:32, 19 February 2007 (EST)

C'MON "A"! :P

PM Items
Since a lot of you would be offended, I have to ask; is merging all PM and PM2 Key Items on one page? We have one on SMRPG. 00:13, 20 February 2007 (EST)
 * This is a good idea and I support it. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 02:13, 20 February 2007 (EST)


 * Not that it's my place to say, but I'd love it if that happened! There are too many "stub" articles as it is, and that would be very useful!  ...and visually appealing.  --Stumpers


 * Uhhhh.. OK! Visually appealing.. :P

IMVU ads are back
I was just on the Big Eight page, and the Hot Tub IMVU ad was there. I don't think it's appropriate for the Mario Wiki, so I request to have it removed.

--Doopliss Fan 00:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)

The problem is that the ads bring in a lot of money. You can right-click the ads to disable them. 00:45, 21 February 2007 (EST)