User talk:Walkazo/Archive 8

Status: As always, school keeps me too busy for social calls, but if you have any questions about the Super Mario Wiki, feel free to ask away - I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Ridley Proposal Extended...
My bad dude... 14:05, 4 March 2011 (EST)
 * *dudette
 * But anyway, it's no problem; we haven't had an extension in months, so there was nothing for you to go on: I don't think it says to show the extension in the rules (it's just an unwritten style thing). - Walkazo 14:13, 4 March 2011 (EST)

Okay, cool...um, I have another question (I know, big surprise, right? :D), can u just make a new category on anything u think there should be a category about?

00:17, 5 March 2011 (EST)


 * Depends on the type of category. If there's only a few pages that would go in it, it's probably not a good idea; other than that, it'll probably be allowed, but I can't say for certain without knowing any specifics - it's not a subject that lends itself to generalities. Why, are you thinking of making a couple categories? - Walkazo 00:27, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Yeah, I was thinking one for Books, and one for Giant Creatures...

00:30, 5 March 2011 (EST)
 * We've actually decided to use Category:Publications, rather than around the wiki (we used to have a "books" category, but it was deleted in 2009). IIRC, "Publications" was chosen because it avoids the possible confusion about whether the category is talking about in-universe books or actual RL books, and it incorporates a broader range of things (i.e. comics, compilations of comics, magazines), which makes it more useful as a navigation tool. I can see where you're coming from with the Giant Creatures category, but you'd have to be really specific (i.e. it's "giant" forms of standard enemies, rather than large creatures in general, since that would probably be considered unnecessary), and even then, it might not be accepted. You might want to consult another Sysop before making such a category. - Walkazo 00:50, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Yeah, see what I was talking about was in-universe books, but I was only able to find four books that would fit into that category, though I'm sure there are more, 'cuz there's tons of Mario games I've never even played before... :)

01:06, 5 March 2011 (EST)


 * I actually doubt that there's enough in-universe books to justify making an entire category for them. - Walkazo 01:15, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Good point...

01:27, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Hello Again

 * Its me DKC2 King Liam with a different username. Hows stuff going?
 * "school keeps me too busy for social calls" - Walkazo 15:19, 6 March 2011 (EST)
 * Um... you are online. Can you explain what you mean?
 * School keeps me busy a lot, so when I do make it online, I want to do work, not waste my time chit-chatting. - Walkazo 15:22, 6 March 2011 (EST)

"Title Screen" stuff
No offense, obviously, but the person who's been uploading screenshots of title screens has been doing so very frequently as compared to the majority of screenshots we have of actual gameplay. I did tell the person in question that in the future to not just upload title screens alone for that doesn't do the articles in the mainspace justice. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 12:58, 7 March 2011 (EST)
 * But I don't see why title screens "don't do the articles" justice. Sure they don't show gameplay, but they do show a perfectly valid (and interesting, imho) aspect of the game. What's the harm? - Walkazo 13:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)

What now...?
So now that this has already been extended an extra week, is it still considered to be a tie, or not?

01:33, 11 March 2011 (EST)


 * It gets extended for another week. If it's still tied by the end of the 17th, it'll have to be extended again (and again, and again, and again until a consensus is reached). - Walkazo 01:39, 11 March 2011 (EST)

Omg! I'm almost starting to wish I hadn't proposed it in the first place... :D

01:45, 11 March 2011 (EST)

Birdo^_^
Hiya Walkazo, what's wrong with my recent edit on Bido's article?? =0 I'm not lying  =/
 * Your observation may be valid, but the specifics of how she runs isn't really important to the reader's understanding of Birdo, and it breaks up the flow of the paragraph, which is focusing on her personality (running around and waving her arms from side to side doesn't exactly invoke the idea of her exuding beauty). - Walkazo 19:03, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

You're right, I just thought for a moment that this form of running could show up a part of her personality. Because every character runs in a different way and I think that shows their personality. e.g. Bowser, Mario, Birdo, Peach and Yoshi. =/

You've recently 2 years ago protected the Template:Personal-image. You see, the idea of "This image belongs to blablabla, etc." is incorrect. For example, if someone wants to upload audio file (*.ogg), he can't place this template because there's that "image" thing. Can you edit this so it says "This file belongs to blablabla, etc."?
 * But the entire template is about images, not just that one line: altering that first use of "file" won't change the fact that a personal image template is being used on a completely different form of media. I can see the wisdom of counting personal image and audio files together, but right now, the entire system of organization is not set up to do that. You should suggest adding a line about audio files to Personal Images on its talk page if you really want to change things, but I don't really see the point. Does anyone even have a personal audio file? Would anyone ever want one? Most of the time, users can just embed a YouTube video to share songs/themes they like, and frankly, it's preferable that they do that, instead of uploading a song themselves (saving on server space, and whatnot). - Walkazo 18:53, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

Double King Boos?
Hey, so, I was just wondering, is there a reason that the King Boo article is completely separate from the King Boo (Super Mario Sunshine) article? I mean, they seem to be the exact same creature, just with a different appearance between games. Like, if you take away their crowns, then they're basically just this:and this:, right? What I'm trying to say is that, if you omit the fact that they're kings, underneath they're really just large Boos, and despite their different appearance, both of the above Boos in the second set of pictures are classified as the same creature on the same article, just with a different appearance in different games.

07:47, 16 March 2011 (EDT)


 * It's explained here. Basically, they're different in Japan and the translators changed that for no good reason (not the first time this has happened), so we decided to go with the original idea and split them. The point about Boos in general being redesigned for SMS is interesting, but it's probably not good enough to outweigh the name-based decision, and the idea that "they're just big Boos who are kings" is redundant because everything is just a member of its species if you take away whatever happens to make it special. - Walkazo 22:24, 16 March 2011 (EDT)


 * Ahhh, I see...

00:55, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Question
I was wondering if when you said you didn't want any help removing the spoiler templates, did that mean you wanted people not to help you or you weren't going to ask people to help you. I would like to help if you don't mind people helping you, because I don't make a large enough percentage of mainspace edits, and want to come up with ways to contribute. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 16:29, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Well, I'm not going to get angry and tell people to stop if they start taking down Spoiler templates, or anything, but I'm definitely not soliciting help. I feel very strongly about getting rid of these things, and after years of begrudgingly putting up with them, I'm really looking forward to removing them with my own two hands - or at least be the one who takes the most down. I don't want to go away to eat dinner on Saturday, come back an hour later and find it's all been done for me by a bunch of folks who just want higher edit counts (of course, that's an extreme example). Also, sometimes a bunch of people trying to do the same maintenance work can backfire: if we're all using WhatLinksHere, we might keep getting edit conflicts as we tackle the same pages at the top of the list, for example. It's good that you want to help, and you can if you really want to, but you should try thinking of your own projects to improve the wiki. I sometimes rustle up maintenance work by choosing a game and then going around to all the pages linked in its navigation template looking for little things that I can fix, like removing unnecessary spaces in the headers, infoboxes and categories; or, I simply choose a template itself to "follow around" the wiki. - Walkazo 17:23, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Alright, I won't begrudge you the chance to get rid of those ugly templates. I actually do have an idea for a project, I'm just waiting on comments. I already asked Edofenrir this question and he said that while he thought it was a good idea, he wasn't really the person to ask. Here is the question:

I have noticed that we aren't very consistent when linking to other NIWA sites on SSB articles and the like. I find this a little odd, because, for example, we have an article on Link, which deals very well with all his appearances in Mario and SSB games, and gives enough info for someone else to understand a bit about him, but let's say that someone on this site finds Link an interesting character, and would like to know more about him. Instead of him having to ask or be told by another user that there is a better article on Link on the Zelda Wiki, wouldn't it be better to link (pun not intended) to the featured article on Link on Zelda Wiki, which would tell any user all about him? The same applies to, say, Samus, Pikachu, and Kirby, I'm sure the articles on their respective wikis would be a good thing to link people to if they want more information. If it is a good idea, I have a few other questions. Is putting the information on something I should create a pipe project for, or something I need to make a proposal about, or something I should just do myself? (I don't think I can do that) Do you have an answer? Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 20:22, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Yeah, we definitely need to be more consistent and upfront with our links to the other wikis. Some pages have links to NIWA in sections at the bottom, but I don't think that's good enough. The templates in the SSB sections is probably enough to get folks to SmashWiki, and I'd say adding Main to the tops of the non-Mario pages linking to ZeldaWiki or whatever would the simplest way to go about getting folks to those other wikis too. (Things that are merely embedded in list pages can just have the other wikis linked to in their name, like our list of Pokémon: Main wouldn't work in these situations.) Since nothing is really being changed about the pages, you'd probably only need a PipeProject, and not a Proposal, but you never know: people can be weird about inter-wiki stuff like this sometimes... One thing's for sure, for anything more ambitious in regards to these pages' layouts, you should definitely seek community approval first. - Walkazo 00:03, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Sorry about this and I really hate butting in on other people's conversations but I was just passing through and I realized that before linking such things, we should create a policy page demonstrating the standards for such linking (MarioWiki:Linking to Affiliates?). Otherwise it will be hectic with users creating inconsistencies between articles because they can't decide on one format. We already made this mistake with the FA archiving process; we didn't set it into stone and it collapsed. Once again, sorry for intruding on your conversation Walkazo but I just had to say that; now we return to your regularly-scheduled program conversation
 * @Marioguy: That's why I asked this question, just look at the sticker section for Link, and you'll see that two of the games the stickers are from have links, and the other two do not. We link to ZW:Hyrule, but not to the Zelda Wiki page for Link. Am I even allowed to make a policy like that?
 * @Walkazo: Thank you for answering, I think I'll create a proposal soon asking for a clear policy on inter-wiki linking, unless the Sysops/Admins decide to make a policy first.

Changed my mind, the last question made no sense. Alright, here is the new question. Do the Sysops need to discuss making a policy first, and then add links accordingly, or do I need to create a proposal asking for one clear standard? Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 18:41, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 * SMB brought the issue onto the Admin board on the forum after seeing the message you left him, and we're currently discussing possible ways to regulate it. Unless you have a specific idea, making a proposal simply saying "we need a clear standard of some sort" won't be of much use, but you can always contribute by telling me your ideas, and I'll pass them along to the others to take into consideration. And if/when we come up with a policy and links have to be added, you can definitely help with that. And if you draft your own policy on your own before we come up with anything publishable, feel free to make a proposal to make it official: Users contribute to Wiki policy all the time. - Walkazo 19:18, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Alright, thanks for answering, and I'll be checking the sitenotice. (Unless, by some miracle, I get enough inspiration to write a coherent draft of a policy) In the meantime, I'll be looking around for mistakes to fix and articles to unstubify. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 19:53, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

Help here
Am I being too hard on this user ? I just got done showing his contributions to the wiki and I said that if he does this again, he'll be blocked indefinitely per ruling of administrators. Chris Helper Got something to say? Put it on my talk page! See how much editing I did to the wiki. 22:36, 20 March 2011 (EDT)
 * You weren't too hard on him, but you should really leave chastising like that to the Sysops, rather than speaking on our behalf. Users can give out official warnings and such, no problem, but informal messages like that aren't really professional... - Walkazo 23:11, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

yeah i want to add a proposal to re create the big guys and giant ninjis articles but im confused as to how i would go about doing that User:Iggykoopa
 * Just make a new TPP on Talk:Giant Ninji. There's always been discussion about the pros and cons of having separate articles on that page, so it'll be best to put the new discussion there too. The rules for TPPs are on Proposals, and you can also look at a current TPP to get a good idea of what to do formatting-wise. - Walkazo 18:47, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

Re:Links
Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't know that was a rule. And I thought that the links looks bad since the 's part isn't blue with the link like you would with something like Goombas. Sorry for doing that.:/--

My Monobook skin

 * You got to test it out. It is so kewl! 8D

Good call
I know this is kind of your victory, but wow, it just looks so much clearer around here without those stupid spoiler templates everywhere anymore! :D

01:45, 28 March 2011 (EDT)


 * Thanks! Removing them made me happy: best maintenance project ever. XD - Walkazo 10:23, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
 * That's a great idea! I helped, too!Reddragon19k 10:25, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

"Don't quote me on this..." (as I told him, I'm a wordplay weirdo)
Anyway...so when you have a box at the top of an article the quote is always supposed to go under it? Or does it sometimes go above?

19:57, 28 March 2011 (EDT)


 * It always goes under: that makes it show up beside the infobox or image, cutting down on negative space. I don't think there's a rule about it, but a lot of stylistic things like that are unwritten. - Walkazo 20:00, 28 March 2011 (EDT)


 * Fudge...that means I gotta lotta work to do...well, better get started! :)

20:10, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Koopalings Question
If you look at my contribs or the history, I'm the one who made ten or so edits to their separate pages. My main issue is that there is little information in the Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga section, so I'm wondering if adding the Rewrite-expand template on those sections was a good idea. Also, the navigation templates at the bottom were in a different order on each Koopaling, what is the best order so I can fix all of them? Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 21:26, 30 March 2011 (EDT)
 * The Koopalings had really small roles in M&L:SS, so I don't think the sections actually can be expanded all that much. More battle details can be added, and such, but I think the templates are overkill. As for the nav templates, put the appearance-based ones in chronological order (i.e. SMB3 first, then the TV shows, then SMW, HM and finally NSMB Wii), with any other templates going on the bottom. It's not official, but I think that order would make the most sense, and the last bit isn't just me talking: it's based on a conversation a bunch of us had a while ago (I don't remember exactly where, when or who was involved, tho). - Walkazo 21:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Alright, I'll remove the templates then. Does that mean remove the template for the whole page to be expanded on Roy's and Wendy's pages too? Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 07:37, 31 March 2011 (EDT)
 * I took the one off Wendy's page, since it seemed pretty expanded already; I also moved the template on Larry's page to the SMW TV show section, since it's pretty good overall as well (but compared to the in-depth TAoSMB3 coverage, the SMW bit is a bit lacking). The rewrite-expand template seems a little out of place in Roy's quote section, seeing as no rewriting actually has to happen: might be better choice. - Walkazo 13:46, 31 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Does that mean it's okay to replace the template on Roy's page with sectionstub? Also, (why do I always have a new question?) is there a nav template for Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island? If not, why not? Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 20:23, 31 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Yes: I want you to replace it (if you didn't, I'd do it myself). Hmm, actually, no, there isn't. There's (self-explanatory), and, which mashes all the Yoshi games' enemies together. There is no good reason for why there is no SMW2:YI template: I guess no one with the know-how or patience to make a nav template has noticed it until now. You can make one if you want (formatted like , but perhaps with "Characters" instead of "Babies", so Kamek and the Stork can be included), although I'd be happy to do it if you don't want to. - Walkazo 09:59, 1 April 2011 (EDT)
 * I replaced the template on Roy's page. I'm going to attempt to make the nav template, it's on my work page, and I don't mind if a sysop edits it, because I'm not perfect (although I will fix any mistakes brought to my attention before I actually make it official). Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 13:26, 1 April 2011 (EDT)
 * It looks good so far! - Walkazo 14:55, 1 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Thanks, my only issue thus far is what qualifies as an item or object, and how to classify the enemies. I could just wing it, but I'd prefer to have a guideline. Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 15:08, 1 April 2011 (EDT)
 * I'd just have one "Items & Objects" row if I were you, like the YIDS template. I also think the YIDS enemies are classified like that because they were in an in-game museum, but I don't recall SMW2:YI having such a feature (but I could be wrong). Whatever you do, don't wing it: a purely alphabetical list is still better than speculation. - Walkazo 15:55, 1 April 2011 (EDT)
 * I finished the test template. I left the enemies alphabetical as you suggested. If the template is presentable, I don't know the best way to get it into a template article... which articles would I add the template to? Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 16:39, 1 April 2011 (EDT)
 * The template looks great. If by "I don't know the best way to get it into a template article", you're asking how to make it an actual template, just choose a descriptive name (such as Template:Yoshi's Island, or some other simply and descriptive name), type it into the search bar, and click the red link it provides you with (or, if you want to use the name I suggested, just click on the red link here). Once the template is made, simply add it to every article that's linked to by the template itself. - Walkazo 19:27, 1 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Alright, the template page is up. Thanks for your help, now I have to add the template to 100 pages or so. Enough to keep me busy for a while. Thanks again! Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 19:50, 1 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Awesome. And you're welcome: I'm happy to help. - Walkazo 19:57, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

Cosmic Spirit quote
Okay, I know you're not supposed to go against what a sysop says (and btw I'm really not trying to be a pain in the ___ by messaging you like every other day), but if you would be so kind, could you please explain to me why we don't need a quote for the Cosmic Spirit article?

01:34, 31 March 2011 (EDT)


 * Often, people put quotations on pages just for the sake of the page having a quotation, but they don't really add anything to the article, so we remove them. However, I think the Cosmic Spirit quote is perfectly appropriate for that article (it's actually her speaking, not some random Joe commenting on something, and it's pretty illustrative of what she does and what her mannerisms are like), so I put it back up. - Walkazo 13:46, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

Thank you.

18:40, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

Proposal voting
Hi. Could we maybe add a rule to the TPP page that says that any votes cast for a proposal that are deleted before the voting time starts get automatically added back in after the voting time starts? It seems like proposals can lose a lot of potentially helpful votes this way (I'm not just saying this for me, I'm talking about everyone who this has happened to).

19:30, 7 April 2011 (EDT)


 * TPPs don't have voting delays: people can vote immediately. As for the main Proposals, no. Putting the votes back sorta defeats the purpose of saying they can't be made in the first place, and it punishes the people who actually paid attention to the rule and knew to remove the early votes (since they'd have to remember whose votes they removed, and come back and re-add them). People should just learn the rules and vote when they're supposed to: it's not rocket science. Alternatively, you could make a proposal to get rid of the voting delay altogether. - Walkazo 19:35, 7 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Funny you should say that; I had already thought about doing that... :) If you don't mind my asking, why is there a delay anyway?

19:39, 7 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Here's the proposal that created the delay. In those days, it made sense to have a delay since the nature of proposals was a bit different, I think: a lot of the time, people would simply flock to the support of a proposal just because its proposer was one of the "usual suspects" (one of us folks who hung out on the proposals page all the time; most of us were Sysops or long-time users, and it was pretty much accepted that we all knew what we were talking about, which is why people would automatically per us without worry (I generally wasn't the one making proposals, mind you: I was just a spoiler at best, or one of the "per"-ing people, typically)). Usually, that was fine, and if there was a flaw in their idea, one of the other usual suspects would point it out and a fierce battle would ensue. However, if one of us didn't notice the flaw until a couple days into a proposal, it could be too late: most of the people had already voted, and turning the tides when a proposal already had a dozen support votes would be hopeless. The delay gave late-comers a better chance of getting their voices heard before the landslide of votes; going the other way, it gave a flawed proposal more time to be salvaged before everyone voted against it. I vaguely recall being frustrated a couple times over minor issues, but I don't remember any bad proposals getting through that way; however, I have a bad memory, so maybe some damage was done - I'm sure Time Q had a good reason for proposing it. These days, there aren't really "usual suspects" who everyone reverently flocks behind; there are still a bunch of us who vote on most things and get "per"d a lot as a result, but it's not the same. There's also more people overall: more folks pass through during the first 24 hours, meaning flaws will almost certainly be found by someone right away, and a lot more people wander in and vote throughout the week too, so an early lead isn't the end of the world for the other team. Also, keep in mind that I sorta view those older days of the proposals through rose-coloured glasses, so my depiction here might be a bit romanticized and idealized... - Walkazo 21:05, 7 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Okay, that all makes sense, but after reading Time Q's argument, my only question is: "Why doesn't this same policy, then, apply to Talk Page Proposals as well?" Or is it just because mainspace proposals are usually more important than Talk Page Proposals, or deal with a larger portion of the Wiki and therefore have the potential to create a greater impact as a result? And, I really hope this doesn't sound rude, but as a sysop, if you view the policy to be obsolete, why not simply abolish it yourself?

05:01, 8 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Talk Page Proposals go on for a while, and their off-site location means it's always more likely that people will wander in and vote at their leisure (it's not like they're staring you in the face on the main proposals page, demanding attention), so the first 24 hours were never really a make-or-break period of time for them. And, since the TPPs are more minor and straightforward, they generally don't need last-minute amendments. Not having the delay also makes the TPPs simpler, and simple is good. Looking at the history, I was the one who removed the delay for TPPs; that was probably based on a discussion held elsewhere, but I can't actually remember it anymore and have no idea where it could be (besides possibly the admin discussion board on the forum), so I'm afraid I can't look it up for you. As for why I don't just remove the rule, that's beyond my powers: I can rewrite rules to make them clearer, but I need to confer with the other Sysops before completely changing, adding or removing anything (otherwise, another admin might come along and make a stink; it's happened to me before, and I'd rather it not happen again). People also might call it power abuse, even if the rule is obsolete and won't be missed, and I'd just be saving everyone the trouble of a full-on proposal (needless to say, if I didn't think the community would vote in favour of it, I wouldn't even consider taking any action myself: that would be abuse). Long story short, it's just better to go by the book with things like this. (And don't worry, your question wasn't rude.) - Walkazo 11:03, 8 April 2011 (EDT)