User talk:A Link to the Past

Stop redirecting the toys. We Do need toy articles. Look at all the toy articles we have! Also, about the villains, and Metal Luigi thing, talk about that in their talk pages. And don't redirect the toy pages again,or you could get blocked. Paper Jorge ( Need to tell me something? Go to my talk page.&middot;Contributions&middot; ) 17:07, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

And you didn't need to add those old main page discussions to the archive. They were in the wrong section anyway. That was over a year ago and we're making sure all our content is original now. -- Steve (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

Merging
Merging what? 23:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Oh, a bunch of stuff. For instance, merge Axem Rangers all together (there really isn't enough to say about each of them individually), merge Tuff Puffs into Huff N. Puff, et al. - A Link to the Past 23:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I have to oppose both merges because each are separate enemies with different stats, and are thus different from the group. And looking above I remember you now: you were very resistant about redirecting what you thought was the same. Don't start up another issue. 23:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 * ...Fine. Leave Tuff Puffs alone, but merge the Axems. I'm watching to make sure nothing is lost. 23:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Sky Land
This message is regarding your edit to Sky Land. What's wrong with the individual level info in the article?? Please explain with as much detail as you can. Koopa lover 10:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Wario FA
Is reading like an ad a bad thing? Why so? I always thought that was a good thing, and purposly strived for it in the article.
 * Because an article is to be neutral. A Wiki isn't for the sake of selling a product or product associated with a subject. - A Link to the Past 01:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Oh. Well. Whatever. I just tried to make it sound exciting. Time for a rewrite... once I'm not grounded.
 * Actually, creative subtitles and writing are a good thing. See the Yoshi article for evidence of this. 21:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Merge
Beforing Merging Anything bring the topic up on the talkpage first. Great Gonzo

Counter
Because the l33t hammer bros. were characters in PiT. They deserve their own article. Great Gonzo

l33t hammer bors. is long and well written article, end of discussion it stays seprate. Great Gonzo

I will get around to helping neglected articles, but for now the l33t hamm3r broz. Stay unless a admin say otherwise. Great Gonzo

Before making Any Radical changes, consult an admin, patroller, or put this on the page.

==Vote== ===Support Merge=== ===Oppose Merge=== And see if any other users oppose it...like me of course. Great Gonzo

sysops or patrollers

That wasn't an option, the merging is left up to, admins and also the majority of users votes. Great Gonzo

Look here smarty, STOP merging articles without putting the merge template on and letting other users decide. Got it? Great Gonzo

Please use a talk page before making major edits, or after having it reverted as to discuss the issues. -- Son of Suns


 * Hence the need to bring this up on a talk page so we can figure out such criteria. But such rash edits are upsetting. Please use the talk pages so we can figure out criteria together. -- Son of Suns


 * I only protected to prevent you and Great Gonzo from countlessly reverting. I don't have opinion on this issue right now. I just wanted to stop the edit war and bring the issue to the talk page. I do not neccessarily agree with how the article is composed right now. -- Son of Suns


 * But we can find a consensus on what is included in the main Characters list. We already have a Donkey Kong Characters. -- Son of Suns


 * Species or creatures should not be on the Characters list for sure. The wiki has generally supported giving any officially named feature (character, item, etc.) its own article. Most people like it that way. And it's not bad if we have short articles - someone can always find content somewhere. -- Son of Suns

The problem is, how do you decided what is included in a bigger list article or not, if they are all independently named? And I'm sorry but I do have to go. -- Son of Suns

About our Standards Here
Here's the deal, Mr. Link to the Past. You're causing trouble. Again. You are being bold, which is good, but not in the way you're doing it. Be bold by proposing these changes on the talk page first, not actually making the changes without consensus. Your big changes were rash and as shown opposed by the community. If you still think the changes need to be instituted, present some reasons on the talk page again discussing why you still think these changes are needed. Then, users will respond a second time, and if it's still opposed a second time, it probably won't work the other times, so I advise you to not bother.

I'm going to respond to your "second-chance reasons", which I gathered from the talk pages. You think we need a "criteria for inclusion", that is, the subject in question has to be at a certain level of importance/not too specific that it has enough information to fill in for a "fair" article. If not, such as minor items, they go into a list to create one good fairly-sized article. You'll proposing List of Goomba varieties, List of Treasures from Wario Land 3, etc. This sounds like Wikipedia's standards: dump everything in a list for a nice article.

We are NOT Wikipedia. Here at the Super Mario Wiki we are here to create an article about everything in the Marioverse – even down to the tiniest details and collectibles. Each article, as my colleague Son of Suns pointed out, has potential for more details, with every new game there's new information to add to 100s of articles, even featured articles can always be improved. True, some subjects make small articles, but there's always at least a good paragraph or two to write about – or, that is our goal. There's always something to add.

I will point out in a couple of cases we have merged – Badges and List of Catch Cards, List of Sammer Guys. But Axem Rangers? From what I've seen now, each has a different personality. Also, Importance Policy accepts the Smash Bros. series on this wiki, as well as other series related to Mario, but not necessarily staring him.

Now that I've explained the above, you will be warned for any more rash edits and blocked if it continues. 16:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


 * 1) Proposing a merge for every single minor, insignificant aspect of the Marioverse is not being bold. Asking permission because there just MIGHT be opposition towards an edit is the exact opposite of being bold.
 * 2) Are you implying that Pokémon Pikachu is notable to the point where it warrants an article? Can you expand it any more without making it an article on the product (which is not very relevant on this Wiki, since aspects of the product aren't ever mentioned in the game)?
 * 3) Just because you have no standards whatsoever as to what warrants an article does not mean that I should "quit". Pardon me for saying, but it is a matter of fact that in the end, the Mario Wiki will not be quality. A quality Wiki doesn't prefer scattered petals over a full flower. Why are thousands of sentence-long articles better than a larger, more informative article?
 * 4) And another thing - you see, the priorities of this Wiki are completely screwed. You wish to give coverage of all Mario-related concepts, but how in the world are the Mario games stubs if this is so? Maybe this Wiki would be better if you didn't care so much more about using this Wiki to write about everything Mario-related that you couldn't write about on Wikipedia than you do about the games in the series. - A Link to the Past 21:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

If you don't like this wiki, that doesn't mean you have to stay here. 21:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Plumber, please understand that A Link to the Past does have good intentions. -- Son of Suns
 * My biggest reason I don't like this wiki is that the regulars don't want to meet me half-way on the criteria. - A Link to the Past 21:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Never mind Plumber – I'm willing to consider some of your points, but I must disagree on others. In response to your four points:

21:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * 1) You were bold to edit those articles without asking the community for a consensus first. You certainly did not "ask for permission".
 * 2) I removed all the useless Pokemon-only info from Pikachu, and, admittedly, it is kinda scarce besides game info. There's a chance a List of 3rd Party SSB Characters will do good here.
 * 3) Perhaps it's time for a change in the way we work around here. I highly disagree that the wiki will never have quality, with hard work anything is possible.
 * 4) A wiki is a continuous project. Do we wish that every game article was detailed & complete? Of course, but that's not going to happen overnight. I admit again, we have been neglecting work on our game articles. Since you're so concerned about them, maybe you can do your part here and expand those game stubs.

I think you have some valid complaints. Things like Pokemon Pikachu should be merged into a larger article, as they are only in the game for monetary value. There are no special techniques or descriptions, just value. That is suited for a list. The problem is, where do you draw the line? We should probably create one big article for all Mario enemies. You can get all your info in one article. What we need to figure out is what has potential and what doesn't. -- Son of Suns
 * My purpose here is to cover bases not covered. There needs to be someone to stop the endless supply of new articles every once in a while, but everyone should be expanding the game stubs, not just me.
 * And I never suggested merging all enemy articles into one. I suggested a very reasonable prospect - move one-shot generic Goomba species into a list of Goombas and possibly merge variations of Hyper Goombas and Gloombas together. Simple. - A Link to the Past 21:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Variations deserve their own articles. Some lesser things like Pokemon Pikachu don't deserve as much.
 * Bellhop Goomba does not warrant an article, and would only help the project by making a quality list of Goombas. - A Link to the Past 21:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Well you really can't stop users from doing what they do. I try to erase as many one sentence articles as I can. They don't offer any info. We don't like those articles, but they pop up, and need to be deleted in some cases. You can make suggestions, but you can't expect everyone to follow your lead, ya know? -- Son of Suns
 * Well, I'll happily make a list of one-sentence articles. - A Link to the Past 21:30, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Okay. We do need to keep those in check, especially new ones. We don't like one-sentence articles. We want users to write at least a full paragraph per new article if they can. -- Son of Suns
 * Well, when you see my user page as blue, you'll know when I'm finished. - A Link to the Past 21:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * If you will, please delete/merge the sports special move articles. Fairly unnecessary. And I suggest making a list of Mario Hoops 3-on-3 characters, and merge Cactuar, White Mage, etc. into it. - A Link to the Past 21:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Again, each of those has potential I feel. Maybe others don't, but I think a lot of users respect the fact that we keep articles seperate and distinct. You can definately suggest these things on talk pages, and call for votes, but we won't simply change them. -- Son of Suns
 * Minor characters deserve their own articles, as do sports moves. Only if they are one sentencestubs they should be merged and if they get bigger later, will get their own article. Don't merge once sentence articles that have recently been made (mainly Super Paper Mario), as we get more information, we will expand them later.
 * We shouldn't allow new one sentence articles to begin with though. They should be deleted on spot, forcing users to write a fuller article. -- Son of Suns
 * We need to give them time. At least warn them beforehand. Often, I will create an article on Wikipedia and expand it over time. Additionally, why do minor characters warrant articles? Even a single paragraph is a dubious size for an article. - A Link to the Past 21:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Again, it has to do with potential. Also, users prefer them I believe, so they will stay as independent articles for the time being, unless more users want things to be different. -- Son of Suns
 * Create a criteria, then. People can argue their points. THis isn't a vote - if one side provides a better rationale than the other, then they win, even if they're fewer in number. Additionally, Plumber, please merge Audience into Paper Mario TTYD and Super Paper Mario (the appropriate stuff - TTYD content into TTYD, SPM content into SPM). The TTYD article barely covers the game mechanics, so if I didn't already play it to death, I would have no idea what the game was like. - A Link to the Past 21:47, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * But it's all very subjective. What is "better" for one does not mean it is "better" for another. I think this has to be more of a case by case basis. Like Audience for example, as a gameplay mechanic, does it deserve its own article? It some ways yes and some ways no. What we need is consensus, not rule by the few. -- Son of Suns

Typically an officially named character warrants an article. If there is no official name for a specific character (like some nameless Doogan in Rogueport) info should go into a different article. -- Son of Suns
 * That's a pretty weak criteria - having a name doesn't seem like something that would say how notable they are. By the way, most Doogans and Goombas etc. in Rogueport do have names. - A Link to the Past 21:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I know. Some don't though. And I don't see how having a name is weak criteria. Nintendo took the the time to name them, so we should honor that decision with an article. It's a conceptual statement we are making about games - that even the minor is important. It's a mindset that people find pleasing, regardless if it conforms to convetional style. The concept of article itself is a more important criteria than style, and it is something to be respected, I think. Perhaps this idea will phase out in time, but it is still a legitimate form of intellectual expression. -- Son of Suns
 * The purpose of a Wiki is information. Like I said earlier (although not quite as eloquently), a flower is more beautiful than scattered petals. - A Link to the Past 22:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love scattered petals on the ground, as opposed to the flower itself. The flower is not pleasing, only its fragmentation is. -- Son of Suns
 * But you can't find all the petals, at least the flower is all there and you can look at it all quite easily. - A Link to the Past 22:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * That's what categories are for. ;) -- Son of Suns
 * And lists are for those one paragraph articles. ;) - A Link to the Past 22:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, I'm getting tired. I need some sleep. Goodnight, and I hope we can all reach some compromises both ways. -- Son of Suns
 * There's a list for people like you, too, Link to the past! The block list! ;)
 * A respondant who's upset by change... Republican? - A Link to the Past 22:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I dont like this user.
 * I'm not offended by not being liked by someone with your signature. - A Link to the Past 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm offended by someone trying to pass themself off as cool with that SN. When you aren't.
 * I don't really care about impressing anyone - for instance, perhaps you enjoy coming off as cool by featuring a username named after a KOTOR character. Nice to know that the populace of this place feels this threatened by improvement. - A Link to the Past 22:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Lol flame war. Actually, it really isnt improvment...
 * I don't believe I flamed anyone. It was a retort.
 * Additionally, speaking from someone who has actually featured video game articles (Katamari Damacy), video game character articles (Lakitu and Wario; albeit removed due to an increase in criteria to be an FA, such as more references being necessary), actor articles (Henry Fonda), and real-life articles (Cat), I'd say what I was doing was a significant improvement, especially since your featured articles read like ads and need much more work than you've done on them. - A Link to the Past 22:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No, the aritlces and stuff that you did to get this whole thing started. And, I wasnt talking to you- HK-47 said somethign about a ban list.
 * Are you implying that there should not be a criteria for inclusion? - A Link to the Past 22:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

You can play as Rabbit Wario. it deserves its own article.


 * In which game? - A Link to the Past 22:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Did you even read the aritcle?
 * At what point could you consider yourself a Mario aficionado? The Rabbit Wario form is only in Super Mario Land 2. Wario is a BOSS in Super Mario Land 2. You cannot play as a boss. - A Link to the Past 22:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

DAMNET. Uhh- I mean... Umm... Oh alright fine.
 * Well, I'm going to go and merge Hyper Goomba articles together, noting that I will allow you to unmerge if you are not satisfied on the condition that you allow me to go through will it. - A Link to the Past 22:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Wait- what? No. No. No. No. No. No. no. They are all different enemies. No. No. No.

Never mind. I understand now. Isyou

The merges.
Instead of just merging them with no discussion, make REASONS. For example the Hyper Goomba sub-species are seperate enemies. So you should actually DISCUSS the merges. TheGreatBlockyBoo 23:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * There was a discussion. And I didn't redirect the pages because I was waiting for opposition. On top of that, is there any stylistic reasons why Hyper Goomba cannot be about the species and not just that one type? - A Link to the Past 23:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Because they are specific named subspecies. Plus, if we have a lot to say on a topic, shouldn't it be its own articles?
 * But there isn't a lot to say without becoming a guide from the perspective of some Mariopedians. Again, it's not a stylistic problem at all. The article is of fine quality with them merged. - A Link to the Past 23:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Look. I just want to say that there should be a discussion of this WHOLE topic on the main page. TheGreatBlockyBoo 23:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree partially with you (Frog Luigi is the exact same thing as Frog Mario, only that Luigi wear the frog costume, what the point?) but I don't like the way you show it. There 1 unwritten rule that each Mariowikier should know: THIS IS NOT WIKIPEDIA! WE DON'T HAVE HAVE EXACT SAME POLICIES AND INCLUSION CRITERIA! You merged Bopping toadie with Toadie even though they have next to nothing in common. "No one will look up this enemy" is a very, VERY weak argument. Thing that are called "cruft" and "obscure" are actually very welcome here. Try to ask the community before merging a page. Gofer
 * Did you even read my edit to Bopping Toady? - A Link to the Past 14:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)