MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 18

Citation Policy
Hello all philosophers of the SMWiki, who like to talk in nice, long paragraphs about Mario continuity and other issues (you know who you are :P).

With the citation proposal winning 16-3 and expiring in less than 19 hours, I'm going to go ahead and put this out: what exactly are we citing? As it stands information straight from a game is self-explanatory and has no need to be cited. So what about when unreleased games, with references to websites with confirmed info, becomes released? Do we get rid of all of those citations?

I invite anyone to discuss this matter (even those non-philosophers who make quick edits to user talk pages all the time :P) who has ideas for it. I'll take care of the templates to be used and the help pages for the inexperienced (aka all the coding I always do); I only need guidance on this so we can get started citing hopefully in a few days. 22:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)


 * Right, so here we go. Stumpers, activated.  Wayo, you know that I'm for citation but too much will cost us a bunch of users, so... here's what I'm thinking.  Traditional, real-life citation requires the citer to cite what he or she does not know from the beginning.  That's for writing where someone can cite you personally.  However, as an encyclopedia, we need to be a little more specific than that.  How about this:


 * Citation is there to prevent vandalism and people adding false information. It important because it increases credibility.  The more specific you are, the more credible you are.  However, the more focused a Wiki is, the less specific citation it requires, IMO, because everyone is pulling generally from the same sources (games, TV shows, etc.) SO!  Here it is.  Stumpers' Numbered Citation Extraveganza.


 * 1) Citing games/shows/movies/comics: Unnecesary to the extent of Wikipedia. You should not have to quote the individual line that is evidence, right?  However, I do feel that a quick note would be nice.  Example, "Princess Peach has been known to use her charms on villains, but only for the purpose of being a detriment to their plots."  Of course, this comes from Peach's initial relationship to T.E.C., but did you also know that it's from the the Mario Anime movie?  But, anything beyond this would be over the top.
 * 2) Citing official sites and material: A must for pre-release games like Brawl. If Nintendo has realeased a new press release or Nintendo Power magazine, this will save a lot of time.  For Nintendo Power, we should provide the issue, article title, pg. number, etc. where available.  You know, traditional stuff.  A URL should be sufficient for citing web sites.  Maybe a retrival date if we want to get picky.  This includes instruction booklets and boxes, by the way, because not everyone is familiar with 'em.
 * 3) Citing 3rd party sources: Same thing, but... we need to be extra careful about what we do here, because this is where things get sticky. I feel that, with any print source, the book/magazine title and pg. number (article title, too if it's an article) should be put down.  For a website, put as much down as possible.  Even a quote from the site if it's really, really weird.


 * Bottom line: the farther your source is from an official game or other medium, the more information should be placed in the citation. Let's say you get a paragraph based off of something you got from a game in a character's article.  The citation should go at the end.  In other words, "MC Ballyhoo hosts the Star Carnival blah blah blah a year's worth of candy." and then you would cite your source.


 * For citing, we should pick a uniform method. I'm going to go with Wikipedia on this one.  Here's [wikipedia:Mario#References an example] of how they cite.  It looks pretty simple actually.  Of course, no reason to get as in depth as some of their crud, like the whole quote from a certain video game thing.  I'm also leaning towards using their numbered source system, where you click a citation and it brings you to the bottom of the page.  It should be like that so only people who want to question your source can see it.


 * Ok, that's what I'm thinking. Let me know if there's a gaping hole in this idea.  22:37, 21 January 2008 (EST)

The Transformers wiki have good guidelines when it come to sourcing. We could use a similar policy. --Blitzwing 06:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)


 * When using Wikipedia's own citing environment, citing can be made very easy, apparently. You could cite like this:

Super Smash Bros. Brawl has been delayed up to January 31st in Japan.


 * Then, at the end of the article, you add a section which reads:

== References ==


 * All tags' content will automatically be listed at, you don't have to create extra links for it. This is, at least, how Wikipedia's system works. - 06:53, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Blitzwing, I think you're right about your transformers... and you said it with a lot fewer words than me! ;) I think we should be using Cobold's Wikipedia system for anything that is not a primary source (game, etc.) and something similar to the "Storylink" for the primary sources... maybe. I could also see not copying TransformerWiki on that, because it looks like two kinds of citations may be a little inconsistent.  12:32, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, I thought I added this last night...yes, we are using the &lt;ref> & &lt;references/> system. 16:53, 22 January 2008 (EST)
 * Okay, I've put up a demonstration in the Sandbox, looks cool. :) - 16:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)


 * I used Cobold's citation thing on the Snufit page. Is that how it's supposed to look? 20:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yep, good job. I have one template up for use, but it's currently in beta and not working:, to save a little bit of time hopefully when I get it working. I don't think the multi-column thing for the references list is necessary since we will never have 30+ references on one page, most likely, so we're going to stick to just . Help page, fix of that template, and maybe the policy all throughout this week, at latest done by Friday. 20:59, 22 January 2008 (EST)
 * Hey, Wayo, be sure you decide on what information you want in each reference. I just did up the Masahiro Sakurai article, but I think I cited wrong, so... anyway, you can kinda see another multiple-source article there.   I think your system is working well!  23:08, 23 January 2008 (EST)
 * Well the Sakurai article looks great, but you completely screwed up on Peach (item) – we explicitly said here to NOT cite games themselves, it's self-explanatory! 17:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * I understood when you said this on the Peach (item) page. But, please don't get rid of all my changes because this is the difference I have made.  I'm very good at editing when I know the criteria for what is good and bad.  I was still waiting for the word on games when I wrote that article, so please keep that in mind.  Don't publically flog me Wiki-style...! *cowers*.  Did I miss the new help page or something?  Anyway, good luck with all of this citation stuff.  18:23, 24 January 2008 (EST) EDIT: Sorry if I came across as rude the first time.  Today hasn't been so good for me.

Image Galleries
There was a proposal about this a few weeks ago and while I don't remember what the outcome was, I would like to correct something I stated.

A while back, I tried to add images to categories, which creates an image gallery within each category. Well, it didn't work for one or more reasons that Wayoshi pointed out. Well, it seems that it's working now and that might be something to think about.

As an example, I've added Image:1upShroom.jpg and Image:Volt shroom.PNG to Category:Mushrooms. Take a look when the chance permits. -- Chris 08:27, 27 January 2008 (EST)


 * As an afterthought, the one problem I see with this is that many images will be cross linked to various categories (IE: Super Mushroom to Power Ups, Mushrooms, Items, etc.). For that purpose, images could be categorized based direction on what they are (IE: Super Mushroom is a Mushroom first and an Item second). -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 08:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)
 * I've tried solutions with DPL, but apparently, " " is an evil word for DPL which makes the DPL go haywire or turn and run away. (" " "works") - 09:01, 27 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ok? I've already found a solution, as evident in the first paragraph. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 11:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)
 * The problem is, we are planning to use this on gallery pictures (like on Princess Peach), putting all these images in a category. And then remove them from the article. Then these images are marked unused! This is a major problem, you can put as many "don't delete" notices on unused pictures, we've had incidents in the past where sysops didn't actually look at the image, just saw that it is unused and deleted it. Being unused is very dangerous for any image on this wiki. - 11:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Cobold, are you trying to use a custom format for DPL to output? If so, I highly suggest you give a look at this section of this page. 12:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)
 * I put up some tests in the Sandbox, they didn't work. Anyway, thanks, I'll look at the site. :) - 12:49, 27 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ah yes – \n is much easier to do than s, and apparently the only way . Also, %PAGE% = %NAMESPACE%:%TITLE%. 13:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)
 * That's what I thought. But for images, %PAGE% gives : Image:Imagename, but %NAMESPACE%:%TITLE% gives Image:Imagename, which I want to have. - 13:04, 27 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ah ah yes, the cat/img escape link by default. I think I used Image:%TITLE% before or something, OK 13:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Headers
Why don't we use =Header Name= before doing ==Header Name== ? They also work.
 * Yes, but =Header Name= creates a headline that is as big as the name of the page at the very top. And this is too big. - 09:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ya, I know it creates a header in the size of the page title, but they could be good for pages that for example are merged because they are stubs or etc. Then it would be like other page.

Notablity
Some "minor" article get kept while others are deleted without question. Since I made that soon-to-be infamous proposal, can we PLEASE deside WHAT GET'S SOMETHING AN ARTICLE??? HyperToad 20:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)
 * Ok, well, affects game play is a bad thing, because that would include platforms, which isn't so great... I think we've argued that into a hole... how about this: a series of questions.
 * (1) How long would the article be for the subject? If more than one paragraph, create a separate page.  If not, go to (2).
 * (2) Does the subject belong on a pre-existing list list or can if fit as a sub-section on a larger article? Example: Snufit Ball could fit under Snufit.  If the answer both is no, create the article.  If the answer to the list question is yes, go to (3).  If the answer to the larger article question is yes, go to (4).  If the answer to both is yes, go to (5).
 * (3) Create/expand an entry on the list. Note: if you can expand the subject to more than a paragraph, make a separate article: subjects can be on both lists and individual articles.
 * (4) Create a sub-section of the article's page.
 * (5) Create a sub-section on the article's page and make an entry in the list.
 * Does that look good? If you want to edit is and then propose it, you're free to do so.  23:17, 28 January 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry to say I have no clue, let's wait for someone else's opinion, like Cobold or someone. HyperToad

IMO, The notabillity of a subject should be decided by mutiples factor, not just “it affect Gameplay“ or “It have an official name”. Here's my thought on the subject.:


 * The subject should be officialy named: Not a prerequisit, but it sure help. Having an official name show that Nintendo cares about the subject. Of course, conjectural stuff can still have theirs own articles. Mecha-Zinger is separate enough from Zinger to have it's own article.


 * The subject should affect Gameplay... in revelant ways.: Impacting the game world is another sign of nottability. However, it isn't everything. The afro-mentioned Snufit Ball (More on it later) affect Gameplay (It hurt Mario), however, this is only really marginal. In comparison, Cheese allow you to see a rare enemy in Luigi's Mansion, which is elaborate.


 * If creatures/objects/things similar to the subject exist, make sure there's enough to write about these separatly.: The various Isle Delfino Birds may have a few differences, but it only varies in their coloration and what they give when you kill 'em. In comparison, the various Mushroom have more varied appearances, effect (The Mega Mushroom and the plain Mushroom don't do the same thing), are obtained differently (Some Mushroom in the Paper Mario series can only be obtained by cooking various items), ect.


 * Having a different name doesn't mean the subject is itself different.: The Super Mario Land instruction manual refered to the Pirahna Plant enemy as “Pakkun Flower“. While a different name can be an indication of being a separate species, the Pakkun Flower look and act exactly like the garden variety Pirahna Plant. Futhermore, the ­SML instruction manual is notorious for it's rushed translation, and the japanese name of Piranha Plant is bassicaly written in English as “Pakkun Fura“. Because of these overwhelming evidences, Pakkun Flower was merged with Pirahna Plant, despite having a separate name.


 * It should have enough distinctive feature: OK, Snufit Ball affect gameplay, and..? It doesn't have an official name, it look like every generic firearm projectile, and it's generic. Do we have an article about the Fireball shooted by the Autobomb?


 * Implied articles are fine... as long as there is signifiant content: Having article on stuff that are mentioned but not seen is fine. Scarlette, despite being never seen, play a small role in PM:TYD since her letter is what make Bomberry join you. In comparison, Old Man Skoo from the same game is some dude who is mentioned to have been eaten by Hooktail, and is never heard from again.


 * Random Cameo by other videogames characters shouldn't have articles.: See List of Cameos.


 * We allow out of Universe article.: However, random voice actors don't get their owns articles since theirs isn't much information about 'em. Obliviously, Charle Martinet is an exception.


 * It's great to be different, but...: Young Cricket is a notable character with speaking lines and a proeminent role. Not so much for Master Mantis, who has no speaking lines and don't really do anything, making a separate article for Master Mantis would be a stub that couldn't be expanded. Since both characters are almost exclusively seen together, it make sense to have the two articles merged. --Blitzwing 08:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

That sounds good, now, to act upon it and make it an offical policy. HyperToad How do we do that?
 * Knife has started something and I'm helping him this weekend on it. It will go at the start of the Manual of Style, or on some other MarioWiki page, to make it official.

Yeah, and what Blitzwing said helps a lot with what were planning. Be sure to see it after the weekend! 17:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)
 * When I first joigned, I'd never thought I would help with something that would go in the frickin' Manual of style :O.

Link
Will I get in trouble for linking to Userpedia in my welcoming template? HyperToad
 * I'm sceptical about personal welcome templates - they have a big problem, not getting updated. For example, we now have a link to the glossary in Help:Contents and, because a proposal complained about that the abbreviations on the wiki were explained nowhere, but the personal welcome templates didn't get an update and thus don't link to the Glossary themselves, so as more personal welcome templates are in use, the less we can successfully update the Help section. So I wonder whether it's actually a good idea allowing personal welcome templates in the first place.
 * When you put a link to Userpedia in your template, you should make sure that it is pointed out that it is not part of the Wiki itself and we have no responsibility for it. - 15:32, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Preview
I find it annoying how people won't bother pressing the preview button when editing. Not only does it fill recent changes, but it adds to the persons edit count when they shouldnt have that. Once I have seen the same page being editing by the same person like 7 times in a row on recent changes maybe more. Alphaclaw11 16:24, 2 February 2008 (EST)
 * It's possible Media-Wiki wise to force users to preview the page once before submitting it, but it might also be in the way - for example, when you've created a new category and have to add it to a lot of pages, you have to preview every single of them. Or, when you've fixed a minor typo on a page like Princess Peach which takes very long to preview. I wouldn't advise using it. - 16:42, 2 February 2008 (EST)