MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 24

Toys and Merchandise Information in Character articles
It has come to my attention that the things that can be found in Toys and other similar pages should be covered a bit more. If a toy/merchandise happen to represent a specific character, we could put it under a blanket "Merchandise" heading in the character article and describe what it does.

Or, we could continue to neglect the real-world stuff like we alway do. Not that I would be surprised if that's what actually happen. <.< --Blitzwing 15:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. It would expand the article, and make it look better IMO. So per Blitz.
 * I have Mario Uno! :3 but yeah, I agree, there should be more coverage. It's like the wiki is split between games and merchandise. There's really no crossover whatsoever, and seeing some would be nice.
 * I think those articles should be split into separate articles (e.g. by toy series). I see nothing what speaks against a coverage of merchandise with individual articles, even if there is usually no "story-line" involved, but they are officially licensed products, like cartoons and comics. Anyway, the articles can't stay in their current form. Only look at Figurines, the pure mess. A bunch of images with very little to no information on the manufacturers, release dates, material, regions where they were released and so on. Just photos with partly biased comments ("cute figurine" or "Hang ten, man!"). That needs to be changed. --Grandy02 09:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * "I see nothing what speaks against a coverage of merchandis".

When I threw out the idea on the Sysop board, some disagreed. I agree than the Merchandise articles are an horrible mess, but I own none of these things, so yeah... --Blitzwing 10:11, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * I would like to know what was the point of disagreement. Actually, several things already got own articles ages ago, e.g. Marshmallow Jelly Pop, NSMB Stylus Pens and Super Mario 3D Gummy Candies, and nobody complained. Looks thousand times better than that horrible mess. Whatever will be, the current articles just can't stay in their form. --Grandy02 11:06, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * "Too Minor" was the reason given. --Blitzwing 11:58, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * And those overcrowded pages should stay? I'd support separate articles, it's official merchandise, after all. Well, maybe not articles on all shirts, cups, socks, briefs and other stuff where Mario is just printed on. But figurine, plushie, PEZ and other collections, more special food (e.g. candies formed like Mario), toys, electronic toys, "palpable" games and so on deserve articles in my opinion. Anyway, there really needs to be consensus on this very issue. --Grandy02 13:11, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * Proposal, anyone? That would certainly iron the issue out. And yeah, separate articles would be great, IMO.

100,000,000 Page Views
Back in December 2006, we only had 2,869,440 page views. Page view increase always went up very high when I did my statistics. Now at a rate at least 18 times as much as 12/06, we should reach 200 million views in about another year, maybe 18 months. 15:43, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * That's extremely awesome. Shows that we're a well-established Wiki. But how do we compare to other similar Wikis? Got any statistics?
 * Is it any Mariowiki page views or Main Page views?
 * Views of all pages combined, I think. - 08:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)
 * It's definitely all view of every page on the Wiki, as the Main Page only has a bit over 6,000,000. But wait a minute... does the number include Userspace pages?
 * Pageviews is every single time you refresh, go to preferences/contributions, etc. A new load of the same site, no matter what type of page, is a page view. 22:08, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Mario & Luigi Infobox Template Thing
Ok, so I made a Enemy Infobox for the Mario & Luigi series. It's lot like the PM one. I was pretty sure someone would complain about it if I just made a huge template and started implementing it, so I thought I'd bring it here. All the info on the infobox (pun completely intended) is in the link I supplied. You can see the template in action here. I need help with the colors, I know.
 * Looks good to me, but there's no tattle in M&L, so how are we going to find HP? Other than that, yea, this should be a great idea.
 * here. People found all the HP, a job which would be really boring, but it is quite useful to me.

It looks to me too similar to the PM infobox. I can manage with the appearance of the table if you want Other new templates had the same problem and look how they are now!
 * Or the PM infobox's colours could be updated: green's more M&L:SS than PM (yellow, tan and white seem more papery). - 23:42, 9 January 2009 (EST)
 * That's what I thought. Green is more Beanish, IMO.

Nuke:DPL
Sometimes ago, Wayoshi introduced a tool that allowed deleting multiple pages at once using a few set criteria. However, after this happened, I question the usefulness of the extension:


 * As seen above, anyone insane could nuke the wiki for s*** and giggle. Or heck, the same could happen by complete mistake. As far as I know, the tool can't undelete anything,
 * No one except Wayoshi know the kind of coding needed to operate the extension: The program was put there without any kind of instructions and when we requested that, Wayoshi threw a link to some DPL tutorial that wasn't very helpful.
 * A few things (Such as anything in the null set) are not supported, making the whole thing even more useless.

So yeah, Nuke or no Nuke? --Blitzwing 16:56, 9 January 2009 (EST)

We should get rid of it. I don't think we have the need to eliminate large amounts of articles. --

I agree with SoS.
 * It should definitely be removed. The only time it could ever come in handy is if some vandal made 30+ articles in a matter of minutes; but with vandals like Sonic Rocks who spammed like that, it's easy enough to block the vandal and just manually delete the articles. The coding for NukeDPL is extremely tricky and even the smallest screw-up can cause devastating effects. I tried to use it once, but I was too afraid that I'd end up doing something that I didn't even mean to, and not be able to undo it. 17:36, 9 January 2009 (EST)


 * I'm actually reading about this tool for the first time (which is quite embarrassing for a 'crat, I know that...), but if all it does really is to delete multiple pages at once, I don't see a reason to keep it either. 17:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

At one point, Wayoshi stated that we could use the DPL to access and delete system generated lists. That is, unused images could be pulled up and mass deleted with the push of a button. He later stated that it couldn't be done. Now we just a WMD plugged into the wiki and, unless someone can come up with an actual use for the thing, I'm all for ditching it. -- Chris 17:58, 9 January 2009 (EST)
 * OK, well, first off, I found it was hilarious that you were talking on #mwawards. But, secondly, yeah, definitely trash it. If someone could do something like that, then definitely get rid of it. One-by-one deletions are time-consuming, but far safer.
 * There was nothing funny about that. --Blitzwing 18:27, 9 January 2009 (EST)
 * Wait, wait, I don't think I've ever been in #mwawards........ -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 18:48, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I vote for "Get rid of it!" (aka per all/everyone agreeing in order). Two reasons, I can't delete the unused images (and if it does, my work would be done, cuz I specialize in imgs from time to time) and other junk such as deleting a very large # of spam pages, and two, Wayo only knows such stuff about this DPL and that DPL. Just about all of us except Wayo can use this "special" tool. It's like he has the power to play around this weapon; but since he's a user again, and that he can't access to this special weapon. I'd say remove it. ..."cannot undelete it...?" O_O THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS! I saw the pros and the cons of having this tool here, but it has the most cons. One problem probably burned down to be solved, just about a thousand moar problems to go! :o

That's scary. O_O

I'm sorry unused images can't work, linksfrom and linksto still can't except the null set (that is, nothing). But it's still a VERY USEFUL TOOL. I'm saddened that I'm still the only one that can effectively code in this...and it's not like it's a one-time click and it's gone (duh!). You are given a checklist of all pages that match the DPL parameters, after submitting them, and then you can manually remove any that you don't want to delete. The only defect in the code is the first result isn't included in the set, which just requires a little more work afterwards,

I won't bring up why I purposefully self-demoted myself (albeit in the freakiest way my brain could imagine) – but the sysops are always chosen well with care, and honestly, the chances of a "major screw-up" are very low. If you guys would just learn JUST SOME parameters (NOT ALL – I know I specified in that forum thread which section would work for this application), it's an absolute keep. Anyways, shouldn't this be in a proposal, where I can explain things a bit more in-depth? 22:15, 9 January 2009 (EST)
 * Not to be rude, Wayoshi, but you've had well over a year to explain things a bit more in-depth. The guide you gave us on how to use the damn thing is next to useless for most of us. Generally speaking, most of the Sysops seem to be looking for something that can quick delete lists. Personally, I'm thinking that we could do with a bot. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 22:27, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Bots?? But I thought that rank wasn't used?
 * Not currently. But we could use them if we so desired.

Unfortunately, I don't know about this new function, where you can delete articles, pages or images at once by adding a click or a code [!]. However, as no other users know how to use in the proper way but Wayoshi, it is necessary that this function must be revoqued... :/ Even with a help that results cumbersome to other users to understand (something like understanding the source code of this page to know every function shown here), it won't work as expected in response for all. Per all.

'K. Wait you mean those red ''' ! . But I thought Sysop, 'Crats and Steve can only see these  ! '''.

K well im talking to Wayoshi in chat and he's pretty upset that this is going. I don't think we will be needing this, alot of sysops are on, if spam or something happens we can just delete it one by one. So per all.

This explains how to use NukeDPL. It's really not that hard. Simpler than regular DPL. 23:02, 9 January 2009 (EST)

To Grapes: the red "!" symbol indicates that such edits are not patrolled. With sysops that doesn't appear because it is automatic...

Okay.

Deleting things manually isn't that hard, so the tool seems like too much trouble for what it's worth. It's too bad Wayoshi went to all that trouble to bring it here in the first place (and no wonder he's upset that we want to scrap it), but it's just not right for this Wiki at this point in time. - 23:32, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Heh, a manual... it kinda looks simpler. ;o Still, I think you have to read all of that (or part of it) just to know the basics of using the NukeDPL. All of those things I see are different ways to delete the info by a certain command, like say... delete the images that are only shown in my page, and only my page, not everyone else who uses my images. Or... delete an article that has the category entries of: Mario & Luigi Enemies Series, Enemies, and Goombas, and a command of skipping only the Tanoomba article. Therfore, I should except the system to delete all the articles of Goombas that appeared in the Mario & Luigi series, and not the Tanoomba article, metaphorically speaking. But the thing is, should sysops be afraid to this and wanted to lock it up, and never use it again? ...Or risk themselves into using it by investing their time learning the basics, and using the tool property? Just a question for all of you guys to decide. ;o *is the you know what disturbed face towards Wayo* Proposal? Most talk pages feel like quick proposals even if the official proposals page already exists dude...

Thank you, 2257, for pointing out that only a PART of DPL is needed for this. You don't need to create tags. You don't even need to do the hardest parts of it (formatting). GJ, how can you say what 2257 linked to isn't understandable?? It's all organized and includes examples. I know I occasionally saved myself a lot of time by doing packs of 20-30, and it can always have the potential to do 100+ when we need it to. The productivity of manually deleting is on a logarithmic curve, and NukeDPL is exponential... 03:43, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 * If you take a careful look at what I said, I've said nothing about what 2257 linked to. I said that the explanation you gave the Sysops when we asked you about it made little to no sense. I haven't actually had a chance to look at what 2257 has linked to yet, but I will. Also, am I to understand that once something is deleted via DPL, there is no way to recover it? If so, can a way to recover deleted materials be worked in? -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 05:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)
 * Whoah whoah whoah, something has been misunderstood...first of all, I linked in that forum thread to EXACTLY what 2257 just linked to. I KNOW it. Check. Second, I never said there's no way to recover it. It's just like a normal deleted page, it can be restored. There's just no way to "RestoreDPL" these pages, DPL has no parameters for deleted pages, it's finding existing pages. Also, very interesingly, in the next section here, it seems like you could use it for once, wow! 12:48, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I made a forum topic of this but a GM locked. :/

Hmmm...so normal users can use Nuke: DPL? Probably not the best thing for everyone to have access to. --
 * I'm sure this was never a problem...Steve if trying to fix it now, I guess we'll just truly "nuke" it for good if it can't be fixed. 03:59, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I'm leaving NukeDPL disabled unless we need to use it for a specific reason, at which point I'll hand over the nuclear codes. -- 04:00, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yanno, it seems that this is an extension wide defect. Even the creator's wiki is vulnerable. Anyway, I'd like to point out the extensions Nuke and DeleteBatch, which, while less flexible, could replace some of the lost functionality. Neither has this security hole. They also require exactly zero coding. 19:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Impending Spam Attack
There might a troll claiming to be "Willy" coming sometime soon. He's spamming Userpedia right now, and he claimed he was warnming up for an attack on the MarioWiki. If his actions on Userpedia are an indication, he's gonna make a ton of articles beginning with "C:/Windows/" that are impossible to access or delete. Just a heads-up.

What!!! O_O Should the sysop protect all the pages.

Wait, actually, I just found a way to delete them. xP Hit "history" on the article creation log. But yeah, he might still be coming.
 * "I"? --Blitzwing 12:24, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Even better, you can use NukeDPL to find all these pages in an instant. The only parameter would simply be: titlematch=C:/Windows/% 12:46, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Phew.

Patrollers
After a bit of discussion, it was suggested that we bring back the Patroller position. Users that we feel are ready for a promotion, but not quite ready to be a Sysop are perfect for this position. So, please welcome our two newest patrollers, Grapes and M&SG! 18:54, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Why couldn't we regular folk vote on this in a proposal? 19:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Me, Blitz, and Ghost Jam (in chat), and Stumpers and Super-Yoshi (on the forums) all agreed that the Patroller ranking wasn't entirely useless. It provides a perfect stepping stone to see how users handle a little more power, mainly because they aren't necessarily for all of the Sysops' magic. (:P) I had planned to see what the Sysops thought about bringing back the position first before going ahead with a proposal, but Steve brought back the ranking, and most of the Sysops have already discussed how a couple users deserve promotion, but aren't ready to be Sysops. 19:28, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * I suppose what we could do now is have a proposal to remove the ranking, but ultimately I think it would fail. There was unanimous support.  Still, Wayoshi, feel free to make that proposal if it would make you feel better.  And yeah, I gotta say, we probably shouldn't get into the pattern of doing things without proposals, but I think it was fine in this case.  20:01, 11 January 2009 (EST)


 * My patroller powers isn't working (Okay that sounded weird) I don't see the red ! and I don't see the word roll back on the History. Is this rank even working??
 * Stumpers: I agree completely. Wayoshi, if you feel it's necessary, go ahead and make a proposal. I didn't expect the position to come back automatically, otherwise I would have made a proposal. Grapes: Hit the 'compare selected versions' in the history. You should see a rollback feature. And I don't believe Patrollers can see the red !s. 20:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Isn't the point of the red "!"s so those edits can be patrolled? It seems a bit silly that the patrollers can't use them... - 20:14, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I did that. I didn't see the word roll back.
 * Walkazo: Yeah, actually. I reread the Patroller page, and it does say that they "patrol pages", hence the name. Between that and the rollback problem, I'll talk to Steve about getting it fixed. 20:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with Wayo for a proposal.

Say, Stooby? I'm just curious, but what was it that Ghost Jam said in his agreement that patrollers were a good thing? I only ask because I talked to him the other day and he seemed to solidly be in the neighborhood of 'they are completely useless'. -- Chris 21:57, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 * Ah, I see. It was a communications error. That happens sometimes, I think Ghost Jam will be cool with it. I'll talk to him about it. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 23:24, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 * Tell Ghost Jam I said "thanks for clearing things up". 23:42, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Request for ...
Has this Wiki got a Request for Adminship/Patroller/'Crat system? Alex25 Editcount/Master Hand 20:50, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Nope

Kthx. Alex25 O RLY?
 * No, nominations for promotions are decided solely by the Sysops and 'Crats. 21:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)
 * Requesting to be promoted in any way merely reduces your chances, as it suggests you only come here to try and level up get ranked up to abuse power or something.

.ogg files?
What is the point in or what purpose is there for using .ogg(music) files? -
 * So that we can hear the music from Mario games. If done (and used) correctly, every game page could have an .ogg file or two so that we could sample the music from the game.
 * I think what he's asking is why that file format. If it was a more common format, Users such as me would be able to help by uploading these files.
 * Creepy? I wouldn't go that far. But yeah, I see what you mean. OGG is the only file we can use, however, because it is free of copyright issues and is (I think) under that GNU free documentation license, whereas, for example, MP3's and ACC's are copyrighted.
 * To the best of my knowledge, Partier has it dead on. Even wikipedia can't use .mp3 files (because an .mp3 file originates from an MP3, a copyrighted invention), whereas .ogg is a universal sound file that is accepted widely, yet originated from no copyrighted device. 21:38, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Ah, no wonder. Thanks for informing me. But I don't have a way of converting to OGG, so I won't be able to help :(

GNU basically means that you may use the content for free private purpose as long as you always label it as GNU licensed (=not sell it). The entire Wiki article content falls under that category. - 09:04, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, the first post after me was what i was wanting, but the rest of it was interesting. for some reason, i cant go onto this page without my comp going screwy(just this page), so i havnt been able to reply here. i have actuall made a pipeproject about ogg files on the pipeproject page. -

Super Mario Bros. Film Articles
Hey, folks. I've started work on expanding our coverage of the Super Mario Bros. film. Two questions:

There's a promotional documentary about the making of the film, but I'm not sure whether it's "official" or not... and what I mean by that is this: it includes official footage, official music, and interviews with the directors, producers, visual effects guys, AND actors, but nowhere does it say, "Officially endorsed by Nintendo" or whatever. However, it obviously was endorsed by the, as they put it in the special thanks, "Cast & Crew of Super Mario Bros." There is is much valuable information regarding the creation of the movie in that documentary, and it most definitely was part of the films promotion. Therefore, I say we cover it as its own individual article (it even has an official name). Protest now or forever hold your peace. :)

Second question: we need to decide whether we want ALL characters with the same name to be merged with their respective movie characters or NONE of them. I plan on bringing this up in a proposal soon if it causes an issue. See you guys soon! 12:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)


 * We should cover the documentary content somehow, as it would at least be considered a notable mainstream appearance. However, I have to ask if the documentary is part of the film DVD, or is it its own independent product?  If part of the DVD, the content may be best suited for the film article itself.  If not, it could get its own article.


 * And I'm not sure what you mean by the last comment. The only character of issue right now is the multiple Iggy articles (I think).  And I think they should be merged.  I believe all other game-film characters have sections in their respective articles. --
 * There is also Big Bertha, with the same name as Big Bertha. --Grandy02 13:04, 14 January 2009 (EST)


 * Yup - Iggy's the odd man out. I seem to remember an argument where someone decided he was obviously NOT the Iggy from the video games, even though by the same logic (s)he used, we'd have to separate all the movie characters.  Maybe that was the end goal, and I wouldn't have a problem with that, but right now we need some consistency one way or another is all.  Big Bertha and Spike are both named after a species of enemy, making them, if anything, individuals named after a species like Yoshi and Toad.  For that reason we may want to make an exception, but it's debatable.  I was considering putting the documentary on the film's article for the reason you listed, but ultimately I haven't found a version that advertises it.  Plus, look at the size of the article as it is: the story alone takes up 14 pages in Microsoft Word and there's way more to be written about the movie).  Including the documentary you're looking at somewhere in 3 more Microsoft Word pages, and that's before we get into critical reviews, production, cast & crew, credits, references to the rest of the Mario series, social impact, and soundtrack (and that last bit has much more information than I'd expect - covers made exclusively for use in the film, formation of "The Goombas," and Roxette's negative reaction to having their song used in the movie rather in their film of choice).  I think we'd want to look into splitting the page as it is. :( What do you think?  13:14, 14 January 2009 (EST)


 * Iggy should be merged, but Big Bertha and Spike should be kept separate for being specific characters. Both the Koopaling Iggy and "cousin" Iggy are characters, so that information should be on the same page.  The same is not true for the other two examples.


 * About the documentary, it sounds like we should create an article about it, but any important information in the documentary regarding the film should be added to the appropriate sections of the film article, and then referenced to the documentary. -- --


 * I beg to differ on the Iggy merging. I don't think they are associated, because their personalities appear quite different.


 * But whatever. I really came here to ask this: when we are sorting articles by release date, do we use the U.S. date, the Japan date, or the earliest? Just wondering. I'm gonna do some work on articles.

Well both Iggys are reptiles, are related to Koopa, and are both kinda eccentric, so I think they are similar enough for a merge. And use the earliest international release date. So if U.S. is earlier, use that; if Japan is earlier, use that; if some other country is earlier, use that. --
 * I guess you have a point. And thanks. That's what I thought, just wasn't sure.
 * I don't think the Iggys should be merged. The "both are reptiles" thing doesn't hold water - lots of things are reptiles, like Lemmy and Spike (and both are assosiated with an Iggy); the only difference is the Iggys happen to share a name (so do Marine Iguanas and Land Iguanas, but it doesn't make them the same thing). Their relation to Koopa is also weak: children and cousins are not the same thing. As for their eccentricities, they're totally different. The movie's Iggy was a dunce until he got brain-zapped, and then he started speaking poshly; the Koopaling Iggy is alternatly "demented", a brainiac, or a mischevious twin, and only the latter resembles the movie's Iggy, barring that fact that his name is "Hop" in that incarnation. But at least the many facets of Iggy Koopa all have a relatively same face (if not name), and the same relation to King Koopa (and was it ever revealed that Iggy and/or Spike had the surname "Koopa"? If not, that's another strike against the Iggy merger). The movie based many of it's characters on Mario characters/species, but that doesn't mean they are those characters. Mario, Luigi, Koopa, Yoshi, and the Mushroom King could all be considered reimaginings of their respective characters (like Hop for Iggy in the TV series), but most (like Big Bertha) aren't. If you ask me, the real grey area is Daisy and Toad... - 00:06, 15 January 2009 (EST)


 * You could apply the same logic to any character that appears in multiple sources. We don't know that the Mario that appears in every game is the same Mario - they could all be different characters, but should we give them different articles?  Each video game appearance is simply based on previous appearances, but they could all be different Marios.  There is no evidence to the contrary.  They are all simply reimaginings of the same character, and Iggy would follow under a similar reimagining.  Afterall, why choose the obscure name Iggy if not to indicate a reimagining of the original Iggy?  They could have easily named him Reptilio or something.  Our articles are not about establishing who the "true" form of a character is, but detailing all those re-imaginings in one location so people can make up their own minds about the character. --
 * Mario has always been identified with the exact same appearance, identity, and personality though. The two Iggys &mdash; along with the many characters and species with duplicate names &mdash; have two entirely different appearances. Not to mention, Iggy Koopa in the cartoons and games was one of Bowser's children, correct? But the Iggy from the film is represented as Bowser's cousin. That right there seems like it would denote enough of a difference to keep them separate. 00:50, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * At first I was also concerned at merging the Iggys, but then I thought again. The film versions of King Koopa, Goomba and Toad also don't have that much to do with the game counterparts, yet they are described in the respective articles. King Koopa is relatively "close" to his game counterpart - in terms of this film, of course. Goombas are dumb minions of Koopa, but otherwise, they have almost nothing in common with the game counterparts. Toad acts as an ally of the Bros., but there aren't many more similarities with Toad in the games, either. The film's Iggy is a henchman of Koopa, and while he's not his son, he's at least related to Koopa. Doesn't bear much resemblance to Iggy Koopa in the games, but the film in a whole is very different from the rest of the Mario franchise. If Iggy wouldn't be from this film, I won't support a merge, but I do because otherwise we also had to split the film incarnations of Goomba, Toad and so on because they are so different. And Luigi doesn't even have a mustache. :P --Grandy02 06:27, 15 January 2009 (EST)

To respond to Stooby, Mario has not had the exact same appearance, identity and personality throughout the Mario franchise. Look at Paper Mario - Mario is literally two-dimensional, which differs from the 3-D Mario games. Technically, his literal appearance in the artwork is also changing from game to game (which, in fanon terms, would indicate that all these Marios are the descendents of the original Mario =P). His personality also changes from game to game. In Donkey Kong Jr he was a villain, summoning monsters to kill Donkey Kong Jr., while in Super Mario Bros. he is the hero of the Mushroom Kingdom. And his identity has also been inconsistent - according to the Super Mario 64 player's guide, Mario is from Brooklyn, but in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, he's from a small Mushroom community. And that's not including the film, cartoons, anime, comics, which all represent Mario differently. For example, in Super Mario Momotaro, Mario was born from a giant peach and raised by two elderly Hammer Bros., not the parents from SMW2: YI. He doesn't even have a brother Luigi. And the Luigi in the film is actually Mario's "adopted brother." Basically, every new appearance is a new representation based on the previous development of the character, but they are not consistent. What we have is a central character concept which others develop as they see fit, often contradicting previous developments. Our job is to catalgoue all these appearances, regardless of how contradictory they are. As such, we should merge the Iggys, even though they have some differences. -- P.S. I don't know if Iggy is called "Iggy Koopa" during the film, but at the end of the movie the game "Super Koopa Cousins" is developed, an obvious parody of Super Mario Bros. In the film, Mario was Mario's last name, so by extension, Koopa would be Iggy's last name.
 * SoS took the words out of my mouth about Mario and Luigi's relationship and difference in Mario's appearances over time. However, I'd like to refocus this discussion: regardless of how similar or different the movie and game versions of Iggy are, we ultimately need to be consistent and base our decision on something objective rather than our own beliefs on what is "too different" or "similar enough."  It seems to me that all the arguments about Iggy can be brought up against every character in the film, especially the Mushroom King.  Not only is Dinohattan never called the Mushroom Kingdom (it is called "this little mushroom kingdom" as a reference to the Mushroom Kingdom, but never called the kingdom explicitly), but the king is never called the Mushroom King -- rather he is called "the king" and "King Bowser" in the movie and children's book.  So, what we need to decide is this: does having the same name and being very loosely based around the characters merit information being on the same article?  Debate that, rather than argue over whether you personally feel that this or that character should be merged or split.  11:32, 15 January 2009 (EST)


 * I think the best objective (for the most part) is names of characters. So film Mario goes with video game Mario, and film Iggy goes with video game Iggy.  However, if subjects are named differently, they should have separate articles.  So Dinohattan should have its own article, and perhaps at the bottom of the Mushroom Kingdom article it could mention how elements of Dinohattan were based somewhat on the Mushroom Kingdom, then have a link to the Dinohattan page.  Similarly, the film "King Bowser" should have its own article, with a redirect on top of the Bowser article (which is clearly "Koopa" in the film) to the King Bowser article.  The Mushroom King article could then say a similar character named King Bowser appeared in the film. --
 * I'd still rather see Toad and Iggy get seperate articles too, but I guess you guys are right that calling their differences seperation-worthy while the differencs between (for example) the two versions of Luigi aren't is speculation and thus, is not something we wanna incoporate into the Wiki. However, in response to one of Son of Suns' earlier comments, this doesn't change anything policy-wise, but I'd just like to say I got the impression that Luigi was Mario's biological younger brother, but their parents died when he was a baby and Mario was "like a father and a mother" to Luigi (if I remember the movie quote correctly, as it's solely what I'm basing my opinion on, here). Anyway, going with the names, the characters named for species are still getting their own articles, right? I know it's sorta obvious the answer's yes (film vs. game discussions aside, the policy is already in use, i.e. Yoshi vs. Yoshi (species)), but I just want to be sure (being a whiney pain in the rear, and all). - 22:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)


 * Yeah I don't remember the film that much, so my Luigi idea could be off. And yes, I believe characters and species will be separate, as we do that with other character/species of same names. --

"You mean, you don't know you your parents are neither? [...] Because, Mario here brought me up." That's the direct quote from Luigi's response after Daisy reveals that she was abandoned. Mario later mentions that he got his tools, "from Papa" not from "my Papa" or "our Papa." Those two quotes are the only ones I can remember that discuss Luigi's story, so really, the adoption theory is speculation. All we know is that Mario brought him up. 01:38, 16 January 2009 (EST)
 * CORRECTION: According to an interview with Bob Hoskins in "The Making of Super Mario Bros.", they are genetic brothers, but Mario is a much older brother. Mario was tasked with bringing up Luigi.  So, yes, Walkazo is correct.  14:38, 16 January 2009 (EST)

So can we make a final verdict on who is/isn't getting seperate articles? Or at least agree on a couple and take the controversial ones (Iggy) to the Proposals. - 21:20, 22 January 2009 (EST)

This is my verdict:


 * Film Daisy with Daisy
 * Film Mario with Mario
 * Film Luigi with Luigi
 * Film Toad with Toad
 * Film Koopa with Bowser
 * Film Iggy Koopa with Iggy Koopa
 * Film Spike Koopa gets own article
 * Film Big Bertha gets own article
 * Film King Bowser (the "king") gets own article

--


 * I agree with all of them except Iggy. The fact that he's portrayed as a member of the Koopalings in all the other series yet only has one sibling (which is a comedic villain standard in movies, and isn't really indicative of a Koopaling reference) makes it really hard for me to think of them as the same person. I'm really sorry for dragging this out, but though I've tried, I can't change my opinion about that merger. For now, the articles are different, but there's also a SMB film section in Iggy Koopa stating they're the same, with a linking to Iggy (Super Mario Bros.). I like this solution, as it enables both sides of the argument (though I originally put the Main template up as a temporary thing until we sort this out). Anyway, if Iggy remains the only thing that can't be agreed upon here, I think a proposal is in order to put the discussion to rest once and for all. -  22:04, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Well, if everything else is agreed upon, we can go about doing what we need to do for those articles. Iggy can be kept as is unless someone wants to make a proposal about it. --
 * If it helps, I agree with Walkazo. Everything except for merging the Iggys is fine with me. 00:08, 23 January 2009 (EST)
 * I'm starting to bend on Iggy too. Mario and Luigi are still the brothers and heroes of the adventure, Daisy is still the princess and damsel in distress, Koopa is still the evil dictator, and so on.  But, Iggy is a defecting minion of Koopa's, rather than his loyal son.  Provided we do mention the connection between the two Iggies as Walkazo suggested, I am A-OK with this.  01:47, 23 January 2009 (EST)


 * And Yoshi is a pet dinosaur instead of being a sapient being. And Toad is a reptilian street musician instead of a mushroom attendant.  All of the characters are dramatically changed - for the most part they grafted the names of video game characters onto characters for the film.  And this applies to Iggy as well.  Of all the names they could of chose, they chose Iggy, establishing a link between the video game character and the film character.  And since when has the Koopaling Iggy been officially described as "loyal" to his father?  Based on the article here, he is a "mad genius," and in the comics considered himself smarter than Koopa (hmmm...sounds familiar).  Regardless of the actual relationship, he is still kin to Koopa.  Just like Daisy is still the damsel in distress, Iggy is still family to Koopa.  And just like in the games, Iggy assists in capturing the damsel. --
 * Then make a proposal. 13:47, 23 January 2009 (EST)


 * I don't care enough about it to make a proposal. Just seems odd to keep them seperate. --
 * Seeing as Koopa's was the only rularship, there was no real place to put Toad as a royal attaché, however not including him would have been a glaring omission. Like the game's Toad, he resists Koopa (before and after he was turned into a Goomba, which is sorta profound), and he helps Daisy (his Koopa-given assignment sorta makes him her servant - he goes to a lot of trouble to serves her veggies, after all). Yoshi's in a similar boat, but even though he's a pet, he can tell that Daisy is good, and he saves her from Lena. He also retains his long tongue, and his pet dinosaur appearance is much more similar to his in-game looks than any of the other Mushroom World-derrived characters. Anyway, as Stumpers said in his post before last, as far as the character conversions go, Iggy is the odd-man-out. I think his name is just a way the writers found to reference the Koopalings, just as they referenced Boom Booms with the Boom Boom bar, and Big Betha the fish with Big Bertha the character, and the Spike species with Spike the character (unless they're referencing Foreman Spike), and all countless other little details in the movie. Anyway, I'm happy the way it is now with the appearance in both Iggy articles - it seems like a good compromise. But I'm fine with writing the proposal if anyone insists. - 20:16, 23 January 2009 (EST)

List of implied species
If no one protests, I will be making a page like List of Implied Characters, except for species that are mentioned but never appear. In addition to the animals mentioned in the Super Mario Bros. film, we also would include squirrels, donkeys, and Business Bros. 11:14, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * Rats and "burpin' beetles" are two more, so this list would have at least six... maybe more depending on how many are in the SMB movie. 17:15, 20 January 2009 (EST)
 * Sounds good. But wouldn't squirrels not be implied with Conker around? I know Conker (and Banjo) species aren't our problem (pardon the figure of speech), but I think it's reasonable to say his squirrelly appearance in Diddy Kong Racing can be counted when we're tallying up the Mario series species. - 21:45, 20 January 2009 (EST)


 * Several (real world) species are mentioned in Mario is Missing!, they could also be added to the list. 13:11, 21 January 2009 (EST)
 * Good point, Walkazo! I'll have to see if someone put up the script to Mario is Missing... that would be a big help.  Thanks for telling me about it, Time Q!  15:13, 21 January 2009 (EST)
 * I could help with putting up the script. A lot of it is already on the wiki (e.g. the pamphlet information on the landmarks' pages, such as here), but there is much more. 15:50, 21 January 2009 (EST)
 * That would be awesome! I'm starting the page as we speak, so check out this link once it turns blue: List of implied species.  17:03, 21 January 2009 (EST)
 * Uhm, would you like me to upload the entire script to the wiki? It could be useful for future reference (although it'll take some time until it's finished). If so, where do you think I should put it? 06:11, 22 January 2009 (EST)
 * Even better, you could upload it onto GameFAQs.com, where most people look for game scripts. Because full scripts are something we haven't yet included on the Wiki, I'd think we'd want to bring up the issue of where to put it with the rest of the Wiki.  I could see it being on its own page due to its size.  But, don't just finish the script on my account, okay? :) But, really, thank you so much for documenting the script, it's really good of you.  14:16, 22 January 2009 (EST)

What's that one conjecture template...
You know that one template that says that only part of the article's name is conjecture but not all? Like on the Webber page, we don't actually know that the one from SML3:WL is a Webber. We just assume. But the WL3/Dr Mario name is official. So yeah. I need that template for more than one Wario Land enemy. Thanks!
 * Is it ? - 13:33, 21 January 2009 (EST)
 * Indeed. Thanks much!

Animated Images
Note: This discussion was originally on the proposal namespace.

OK, so me and good 'ol had a little talk here on animations in articles. This discussion can be found here. Now, the article in question had an animation as the main image of the article. This proposal is to remove all animations in all articles. Reasoning:


 * They are annoying.
 * They are usually poorly done.
 * They make it hard to concentrate on the article itself and its nonmoving images.

Now, the exception to this proposed rule is when the animation is actually showing something other than how the thing looks in-game. For example, on Blooper, there is animation that shows how a Blooper moves. This is useful because describing the erratic, zigzag movement of a Blooper is quite difficult in words. Usually, "useful" animations can be found low on the page in large articles.

So now I turn it over to you: to eradicate, or not to eradicate?

Please hold while I make a semi-complete listing of useful animations. It will contain very few articles. Feel free to point me out some useful ones. -


 * Cape has a good animation, although it needs to be explained more. --


 * Indeed. I shall add it to my list, which can be found here.

What about Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro.'s image? Also, while this isn't so bad (it does a good job at showing the difference in how they look and move), the first gif on the Paragoomba article is unnecessary. -

I think the problem with some of these images is that they aren't "natural" to the game. Like, they are way too quick. Any animated image that actually matches the motion of the game should be fine. (Or slower, to show movement details.) --

Maybe voting to allow/disallow animations is too extreme. There'll be too many exceptions to the rule. It would be better if we just voted to agree or disagree that there should be less animations, and that making more should be discouraged unless there's a really good reason for it. Then we can delete the existing bad images on a case-by-case basis (which is basically what we're doing now to find the exceptions). -

It is possible to remove those funny animated sprites, like characters when idle (i.e: The Paragoomba image) these images are really monotonous and don't say almost anything...


 * Idle sprites show exactly what something looks like in a game, which can be just as useful as artwork. However, most of the animated ones don't need the animation to show what needs to be shown: it's gratuitous and that makes the article look bad. -


 * I think they should be looked at by a committee. Like Bloc Partier said above, some (Paragoomba!) are bad, there are exceptions.  Anyone agree with me?
 * It's sorta already done like that: someone finds a bad image, and comments on its talk page that it might be a good idea to delete it. People respond, and eventually a decision's reached. In theory, at least - sometimes queries made on talk pages aren't picked-up by other Users for quite a while... -
 * It's sorta already done like that: someone finds a bad image, and comments on its talk page that it might be a good idea to delete it. People respond, and eventually a decision's reached. In theory, at least - sometimes queries made on talk pages aren't picked-up by other Users for quite a while... -


 * Hmmm... I see what you mean. I agree with SoS on this one: half the animations are not even the right speed, such as the Paragoomba one that I made here. It's far too fast. So it's a useful animation, but poor quality. I agree with Walkazo a few lines up about the extremity of the proposal. Lastly, how about we move this discussion to Main Page talk? I plan on deleting this proposal.


 * Moving this to the main talk page would be fine. We could then start compiling a list to stay and a list to go, slowly agreeing on the "best" type of animation images. --