Template talk:SMO Moons

Power Moon articles
Do these really need their own individual articles? There are at least 900(!) Power Moons in the game, most of which serve more as collectibles scattered around the kingdom than actual goals/objectives like in 64, Sunshine and Galaxy, and don't really provide us with much information to go on other than "[Power Moon name] is a Power Moon in Super Mario Odyssey. It can be found in [location]." With the Power Star missions from previous games, you have a set goal, how to get there, and what you find along the way, all of which vary between missions, but with a lot of these Power Moons, you just have a location. If anything, the Power Moons that would have enough information to be separate articles are the objective-based ones (the ones found on the pedestals that trigger an event within the kingdom when collected), Multi Moons, and the secret areas. 10:00, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Yes, actually. We have coverage on Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door missions from the Trouble Center, missions from Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, and even cover secret missions from Super Mario Sunshine. Plus, these are technically missions, so they should get full coverage in separate articles as per policy. As for the issue of content, I think I can work around that. 15:06, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Padding is bad and you shouldn't try to force them to reach a certain word limit. 15:09, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I agree that there isn't a lot of information to put on these articles, and I opposed the creation of those Thousand-Year Door and Paper Jam missions for the same reason. Whatever information that's already on the page is really all there is. The missions and levels in other main Mario games require the player to play through the level in its entirety and/or complete specific requirements throughout said level. The Power Moons appear to just be a "one-and-done" type of thing and are more akin to Star Coins or maybe Green Stars. 15:12, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Please read this comment before any further discussion is made. 15:18, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I agree with Alex and Mario jc this time. While they do have individual names, they are much more like Green Stars or Star Coins than actual missions. I do not feel it is necessary to create over 800 pages of collectables that can be explained in one or two sentences on the kingdom pages. -- 15:21, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * That actually contradicts what you said about the PMTTYD Trouble Center missions. There is actually one of them that is very simple to complete, and yet it is an article because all the others have articles. Plus, Thousand-Year Door Trouble Canter missions also don't boot Mario back to the Trouble Center. How about if we actually start creating the articles to see if there is indeed a need for them, as it seems that the issue is currently one-sided. 15:34, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * How about we come to a decision first. 15:38, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Making the articles is not a valid solution when the point of the discussion is that we don't want the articles to be made. 15:40, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I should also point out that Perilous Vine Climb is also an article amid the level's very short length, and Double 1-Up Mushroom is also an article despite its short length. My point here is that the MarioWiki community has generally accepted short articles (and, as pointed out here, short articles are not stubs by themselves), and even if there are over eight hundred Power Moons, there are still measures we can take to alleviate the problems, such as splitting the "missions" category by kingdom.  15:46, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * 836 Power Moons (according to what I got when I added all the moons together from the SMO page) are in the game. I would imagine that story based moons (including Multi Moons) will be given articles. Although, the Multi Moon in the Darker Side is questionable due to not only it being the only moon there, but also the whole place is about getting to that moon. Article creation of those that are smaller isn't a good idea. How about you put it in a Sandbox (probably in your userpage) and then we can make a decision based on that. 15:47, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * * Smacks himself in the head* Right, the sandbox. Thanks, YSSM! I'll get around to that as soon as I can! 15:50, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Okay, so, just because an article is short doesn't mean it shouldn't be made. However, the type of the article's subject is the thing being called into question. Yes, these are the main collectables in the game, but they aren't levels and aren't exactly missions. They're more like Star Coins given an objective name. 15:51, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Would you give an article about each individual purple coin if they were all named? 15:52, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I would be for an expansive list of Power Moons like how mission charts are on Bob-omb Battlefield or Good Egg Galaxy, or maybe Blue Coins in Super Mario Sunshine, but I can't agree to individual pages. 15:53, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I would support turning them into a list similar to the lists of Blue Coins. I also do not believe my comment contradicts my comment on the Paper Jam missions, as this is specifically referring to collectables like Star Coins that have names, not actual missions. -- 16:14, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Let's first work on a few drafts, then see if it's actually worth creating them. Some Power Moons actually take quite long to get to. 17:28, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Expanding the template isn't going to make it any more agreeable. 19:31, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I side with not making individual pages. It's too much. Group the power moons together by kingdom.-- 19:47, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Maybe this should be a proposal?-- 20:58, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Alex95: I know already! @Eldritchdraaks: "Too much" isn't really an argument in and of itself. PS: I already contacted Steve, so I'm awaiting his response. By the way, you can view my first draft here; its description is slightly longer than In Full Bloom's. Also, I have a thought: What if we started with only the Power Moons and Multi Moons required to beat the game, and then work from there? 21:17, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm not here to contribute to the argument because I'd just be repeating what everyone else has already said. Again, shouldn't this be a proposal?-- 21:24, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Again, I'm not sure, considering that Steve is already hinting at the fact that he may be supporting my stance on this debate. 21:27, 30 October 2017 (EDT)
 *  has insisted that articles on Power Moon missions be created per a comment made here. 21:36, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

I strongly agree with Toadette and believe that we should make articles for every original power moon in the game. To not make articles for every power moon would be like not making articles for every power star or shine sprite. Seandwalsh (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

I want to repeat my comments from Discord and say I think this is a terrible idea. If we create all these articles it will mean around 4% of the wiki's total articles will be two-sentence pages just pointing out the location of an object. There will be a 1-in-25 chance every time someone clicks Random Page they will be taken to a two-sentence article which is not even a stub, but a complete article to which no more info can be added and it's two sentences long. Any other arrangement would be better than this. -- 00:44, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Tucayo: Try arguing the same thing for the Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle challenges. 00:51, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Don't cite something you started yourself as if it's a set-in-stone standard. 00:53, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I can very gladly push to have those merged into a list, if that's what you want. -- 00:54, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Nevermind (yeah, those ones CAN be improved), what I meant is, sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. As I said earlier, Porplemontage also supports separate articles for Power Moons, and he is showing no clear intention of backing away, either. 01:00, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * You do realize that he said to make a table first, right? 01:02, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Btw, I'm strongly opposed to the notion that the Power Moons should receive their own articles. They're collectibles in nearly the same exact fashion as Golden Bananas from Donkey Kong 64, and anything said about them can easily be summarized in a few words in a table like how Golden Banana does it. I don't really care if they have names, their names can better serve as anchors and redirects to a table. 01:04, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I actually would also have created articles for DK64's Golden Bananas if only they had official names tied to them. However, sadly, they do not. 01:08, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Do you now realize how incredibly weak the "named stuff get their own articles regardless of anything else" argument is? 01:09, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The premise that "name, therefore article" is staunchly false, least of all because we're not giving articles to every single Smash Bros. trophy, but also with smaller examples like Gramma Red and Gramma Green. 01:11, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * However, these specific goals should get their own articles. The fact that there's a lot of them actually helps that; there's too many for one page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Why? 01:15, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Because they're specific and there's too many for one article. Some have too many steps. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * You know, the trophies seem to be doing fine, with all of those entries on one page... 01:18, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * That's a transclusion list. Which often crashes computers I use. And are formulaic. These aren't so formulaic. Many of these are completely unique. Either way, you're committing a fallacy of comparing collectibles with goals. Goals deserve articles in games like this, and that is a fact. That's why we do it for Super Mario 64 and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The few articles that have been created don't really give me that impression. How many articles are truly unique and truly warrant the extra time and space given to them with a dedicated article, and how many of them can be fully written about in two sentences? 01:23, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Well they've just started. Either way, we've got a lot per Kingdom. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I'd argue that the individual mission articles are about as formulaic as the trophy lists, if not, even more so. They're just composed of "go here, avoid these assholes then go there" type sentences. At least the trophy articles have an excuse to be "formulaic". I'd also argue that goals are just another type of collectible but I ran out of time so don't expect a response from me today. 01:26, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * All our Power star missions have articles, including the red coin ones, with the exception of the miniature areas that really only have that going for them. They're about the exact same thing as you mentioned. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The fact that they've only started being created is irrelevant when the ones that we do have are already so uncomfortably short. And I can only think of a small handful of Power Stars that are exactly like what you've described. At best, they're the exception and not the rule, which certainly doesn't apply to the Power Moons. 01:32, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * They're still just as much missions as the Trouble Center missions. A specific task needs completed. Ergo, a mission. They are not an exception. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The point really isn't that they don't involve specific tasks, it's that spreading out this information doesn't benefit anyone in the slightest, not the readers, not the editors, and not even the pages themselves, and it just makes the entire process asinine. The occasional Power Star or Shine Sprite can scoot by because the majority of them are lengthy and involved, but that means nothing when the ultimately brief pages are the rule and not the exception.  01:39, 31 October 2017 (EDT)

When people say there's too much articles, they mean that the navigation and organization will be utterly horrendous for our readers in MarioWiki, especially for very little information each of those Power Moons will convey. How many articles do they have to sort through to find the Power Moon that they want? What if they don't remember the name of the extremely specific mission, which, mind you, is one out of 100 of them? What advantages will each individual article serve compared to making a list of Power Moons by Kingdom article (which I strongly believe will be far more useful than multiple small articles that aren't much different to each other and will be a pain in the ass to sort through) and redirecting and anchoring all of the names to there? 01:19, 31 October 2017 (EDT)


 * A suggestion on the Discord was to only create articles for Power Moons required for progression (with the more elaborate animation and the moon panel below it on the ground), as well as all multi-moons.


 * 01:20, 31 October 2017 (EDT)

Then we can work from there? I just don't see a compromise that anyone can agree on at all. Also, as I have pointed out, the proprietor does not yet wish to make any Power Moons an exception to the "all missions get articles" clause of the New Articles policy. 01:28, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Did we not read the same conversation, or are you missing the part where he said to make a table first? 01:34, 31 October 2017 (EDT)

I decree: Tables on the kingdom pages must be created first containing Moon #, name, image, and description (one table for each kingdom with the multi moons in there too, same order as in the in-game list). When those are complete, we will revisit the idea of individual articles (which I'm sure will be just as fun as this) possibly doing them all, creating some criteria like Shokora is saying, or not doing them. Baby steps - thank you! -- 01:35, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Thank you! (Just keep in mind that we have had some precedents in the past, like PMTTYD troubles.) 01:39, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * God, a comprise was already reached. Stop trying to pick a fight. 01:41, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
 * That should go for both of you, actually. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2017 (EDT)