MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 21

Response to Feedback
There is  no guarantee the results from Feedback will have us take action. However, if there's an agreeable consensus (and the worry of a quorum is not needed – at least 30 have answered already, even 40+ on one), we will act. It'll be a couple of weeks at the minimumas we continue to take in more data before we come to any conclusions. 20:13, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Right call on this? (and trying to get this straight about reminders/warnings)
Okay, I just had to hand out a reminder to this person because he was repeatedly replacing images in character infoboxes (for main character article pages) with their artworks for Mario Super Sluggers. What this the right call/explanation? I'm very confident about this, but still had to ask to be sure on this.

Also, in the case of reminders/warnings -- I am lead to the conclusion -- if warnings are issued -- they are to be treated as permanent records on the talk page itself (meaning that those warnings are set in stone and cannot be removed)? As for issuing them, I would imagine having to hand our reminders and warnings when necessary (if the need arises) -- does the same procedure apply for "last warnings" as well? I do understand having to contact Sysops if any users are problematic, though.

All right; thanks! --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! 12:36, 9 September 2008 (EDT) User Page | Talk Page

1:: Errr... What?

2: err, if I understand you correctly, Yes, warnings are permanent. Reminders are kind of in a grey zone, however. --Blitzwing 15:27, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

On 1), important artwork such as infoboxes shouldn't have any extra items that relate the character to a particular game. That's why Mario Party works so well – it's just the character, most often. But in MSS, the bats are often in the artwork, so, favorably, that is not the optimal choice for the top infobox image. MP8 is fine for now 15:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)


 * That's what I also thought -- in terms of just "general" character artwork itself on infoboxes; not artwork of characters with extra stuff. I also explained this to the guy that I placed the reminder on via his talk page. Thanks for clearing that part up. Also, I understand that the warnings are permanent -- that applies for "last warnings", right? (Only that afterwards is when the sysops have to be called in if the violator(s) still ignore that one; this part I know). --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! 15:57, 9 September 2008 (EDT) User Page | Talk Page

Hold up: am I right in understanding that you warned a guy because he was putting valid artwork in an infobox? There's actually no policy regarding this issue right now, so he didn't do anything wrong... unless I'm not understanding all of this. 00:43, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 * No, not a warning - a reminder -- because he accessed every article of the main characters and replaced the pictures in their infoboxes with the artworks of them for Mario Super Sluggers. I noticed the red flag immediately and changed them back to more suitable artworks (as Wayoshi said earlier). Besides, using artworks done for sports installments to "feature" in character infoboxes for main articles just doesn't make sense to begin with, anyway. "General" pictures are better. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page
 * I don't think it's much of a problem of giving out reminders for issues like that: I mean, it's just reminders. I don't think there's a difference between giving a reminder on the one hand and simply telling the user that (s)he did something wrong on the other. 05:33, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Exactly: why not just take the time to explain the issue fully rather than just put a reminder on someone's page? The reminder is so generic that I've always had to explain why I was issuing it.  I think the removal of a reminder should be dealt with individually: something like this is fine because it's just for the user's benefit.  But, something like swearing or advertising would be the kind of reminder that should be kept, IMO, that way, if the user does it again a warning can be issued.  Regardless, we DO need a policy for the main image - personal opinions on the matter may be valid but it doesn't mean anything unless it's backed by policy.  10:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry to cause a bit of an issue. If the template can't explain the problem clearly, it should be elaborated on, yes. And, what would we call such a policy? 15:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think the current "reminder" template is fine, actually. Just as long as the situation warrants it. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! 16:09, 11 September 2008 (EDT) User Page | Talk Page
 * Actually, a policy might be a good idea to avoid confusion. It'd be much easier than handing out reminders and explaining to users how things work. We could call the policy the "General Image Policy" or something like that. It would explain which kind of artwork would be the main image in character articles, the appropriate locations for screenshots, etcetera. 17:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, I think a policy could work. There already is a policy named Image Use, so we could call it or something, which we might even cover about the "3 images per game in the gallery" rule, "Two Images in one article" rule, and other non-written laws. On a different note, I don't think a reminder for Koopalmier was very appropriate, 1) Because there was no official rule against it when he changed it; he did it unknowingly, and 2) He even left a note on the talk page(s), so he wasn't being bossy or anything. But yeah, that's my opinion.
 * I agree with Garlic Man, except that maybe we could just keep Image User Policy and add more information and rules to it. 18:27, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm... well, they seem to cover different areas(one's about image file format), but since they're(or will be) both policies, I suppose that could work. Either way(seperate or combined) would probably work effectively. I'm not picking on Merit C, but we would like to make sure to make rules clear for users who did something, not knowing that it was generally unrespected.
 * I agree. 18:47, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Poll problem again
Once again, the vote button on the poll box is not there. To all the people who made the polls, this is why there was a guideline seven-option limit. 08:14, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It could be your browser; I can access the vote button just fine. 11:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * How about: What is your display resolution? This is why I added the (full) link after the question. -- 14:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think a vertical scroll bar should be in order. ...Unless it ruins how the main page looks. :< However, I can indirectly scroll down to the view results button without voting lawl. 7 vote limit. Right, unless it can be leaked somehow!

another poll option
shouldn't a "other" option be added to the polls
 * I agree with Tucayo. 12:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * This was the last poll chosen by me. In the future any such changes to a poll should be suggested during the selection process. -- 15:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Sweet. Will do.  21:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Canonicity Update
A while back GhostJam started a discussion among the sysops as to our canonicity policy at Canonicity. The discussion concluded and updates to the page were made. Few, if any, changes will be required as a result of the new canonicity policy - it's mostly just a vocalization of the policy that we have been endorsing for the last half of a year (example: We have been removing uses of the terms "canon and "alternate canon" from articles. Now, MW:Canonicity no longer mentions alternate canon and prohibits the use of the term "canon.")   11:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yay. Template:Conjecture should be updated to read "unofficial". - 13:03, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Speaking of said template, should we change it add more emphasis on the fact that the subjects we use it on are unnamed? 19:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That would be a good idea. - 12:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Is Mariowiki also dying?
Well, Ive been experiencing data errors alot, I cant connect to chat anymore, and some other stuff. Is our server really that bad, slow, or what? Im starting to get annoyed that the fact that pages are taking longer to load, errors popping up every 10 seconds, and Mwiki being down sometimes. It eventually goes back up though. So, have you been experiencing this problem, or have something to say?

I've been experiencing errors to. This is really starting to get annoying. I almost lost a huge rewrite because of this what is starting to be an 'unstable' server. I'm not saying its one but the way the server is going is very odd indeed. I don't want this server to go as well since Scribblewiki is already down :(

We used to have this problem on Porple's other forum. I personally haven't seen the errors for a while there (Have they moved over here?) But I would hate to see this site die >: Neurario 01:53, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Nah, It's just a sign we need to change host once again. I remember that past errors used to be far, far worse (The "Mario is not amused" crash, anyone?"). --Blitzwing 06:45, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Per Blitz. I remember several server crashes and malfunctions that were worse than this; give it around a week and the site will probably be back to normal. 11:58, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh ok.
 * Yeah don't worry S-Y. Mariowiki goes through these kinda phases once in a while.
 * (oh and by the way, the first time I wrote this, the site gave me an error so I couldn't save it XD)

Let's not overreact yet. That server move 14.5 months ago put us offline for a fortnight, and really killed the activity at a critical time - the start of summer. Things seem to be back to normal at this moment, anyways. 20:35, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I remember those two weeks; I was like "Wut?" when I saw the Brawl artwork for Mario, and the text at the bottom, which I don't remeber what it said.

I remember a friend of mine telling me that he made an edit to a page and it came up as "Mario is not impressed". Could that have been some sort of hack?

GIFs
Is it against the rules to implement GIFs into articles that demonstrate a certain enemy's or character's performance? Ex: If one were to make a GIF demonstrating the Chuckolator's attacks, would this be alright to implement into an article? Of course, you would use official game sprites. 21:17, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it would be alright, but they can't be made up. ☆R.O.B 128♂ 21:24, 25 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Yup. No policy exists against it and it has already been done on the Bubbles page.  22:23, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Anybody got a GIF for ROB? ☆R.O.B 128♂ 22:34, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Check out his old NES games and see if he ever appeared in-game. If not, you'll know that no official sprite GIFs will exist.  22:39, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I know that there aren't any so far, but what about Warioware? I'll look for that. ☆R.O.B 128♂ 22:45, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Alright, thanks guys. :) 22:49, 25 September 2008 (EDT)