MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 24

Main Page Layout Suggestions
The QOTD should be directly below the notice template. No one's going to scroll to the bottom of the page to see a quote every day. For the same reason, the Latest Proposal should be above the Mario Calendar. Also, the QOTD should be called the random quote instead since it IS random and changes every time :| 18:09, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Disagree with the first, agree with the second. I say we torch the QOTD, but that's just my boredom speaking.
 * I agree with moving the proposal template above the Mario Calendar.

As for QOTD.... Well, I should say we scrape the random quoting entirely and instead use the Wookiepedia system of voting for what quotes goes on the Main page. But that's just me. --Blitzwing 06:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

While we are discussing this, would anyone want to get rid of the calendar and replace it with something else? It's the one template I never use. --
 * I'm all for scrapping QOTD. It's really useless, IMO. It doesn't provide the main page with any information. I feel that we should also have the "Latest Proposal" directly next to the Featured Article. Mario News and the Mario Calendar should be kept side by side directly under those. 14:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I also agree with getting rid of QOTD. Most of the randomly selected quotes aren't that great, and voting for yet another feature (especially one that needs to be switched every day) is too much trouble for what it's worth; the "Did You Now?" thing is enough to get people interested in random articles. However, I think the "Latest Proposal" should stay beneath the "FA" and "Mario News" templates, since Wiki Policy probably concerns less people than upcoming Mario events. The people that do care will scroll down before moving on. As for the Calendar, I wouldn't mind if we got rid of it, but as long as we don't have another fiasco like at the beginning of this month, I wouldn't mind if we kept it either. - 19:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

We can have something like Mariowiki's info, like "Mariowiki was founded, etc" Or, how many members are or something like that

Templates Needed?
I was wondering if we could do with a television show template and a film/anime template? The former would apply to many pages (Supercade, the DiC cartoons) and the later would apply to at the American film and the four Japanese animes. Would anyone else find them useful? And, more importantly, would anyone be willing and able to made them? 17:08, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * I'm not sure what you mean...aren't those speculative groupings? --
 * Only if you consider "these are television shows" to be speculative... I'm not sure what YOU mean! :) We could make a template for the ONE film, but I would think that there would be some overlap between the relevant information about the anime and the movies... look, I'm horrible when it comes to templates, so I don't want to ask for three of them... even asking for one feels weird.  If you think it would be better to have three templates... whatever floats your boat.  Now, while I'm stabbing in the dark trying to figure out what you meant, do you mean grouping the four Amada productions would be speculative?  17:41, 11 February 2009 (EST)


 * I'm still kinda lost...okay. We have a Super Mario Bros. Super Show template, right?  So we should make an individual template for each television series.  We should also make a template for the Super Mario Bros. film.  And...I am pretty sure The Great Mission to Save Princess Peach was not made by Amada, but made by several other companies including Toei.  It's a stand alone product, just like the SMB film, so that would also get its own template.  But the three Amada OVA re-tellings could have one template, as they are part of a definite series, as indicated by the use of the "Super Mario" title and the same ending credits.  Am I making sense now? =) --  P.S. You know who's good at making templates... =P
 * Right, we have templates for individual Super Show episodes, but we have no template to go on the literal pages for The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, The Saturday Supercade, The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3, etc. follow those links and you'll see - no template on any of 'em!  I checked, btw, and it turns out I was misinformed about the Amada thing - they had little to no involvement in the anime, which makes a lot of sense, really.  This is what happens when fansites don't check their sources. >:(  I suppose, since we have individual templates for all of the different television shows' episodes (one for Super Show, one for DKC, etc.), we'd also need one for the Saturday Supercade, once those articles start getting created (working on it...).  Really, as long as you can and want to make the templates, fire away and make as many as you want.  I was just trying to limit the number required!  Thanks!  18:33, 11 February 2009 (EST)


 * Ohhhhhhhhh.........I understand now. You are talking about like a profile template that appears right at the beginning.  I was talking about templates you place at the bottom of articles.  In that case, maybe we should create three templates: one for television shows (which would include number of episodes and original run of the series, etc.), one for films (we have two - SMB and Great Mission to Save Toadstool; both were released theatrically, so we should state when and where they were released in theaters, along with run time, etc.), and then we can have one about OVAs (including release date, length of video, etc.).  So...yeah...three templates would be all we need, I think. --  P.S. We really need to split the Super Mario Amada Series article.
 * Hecks yes. After the finals and holidays I'd almost forgot about that.  ...one more thing to do before I start the Saturday Supercade...  20:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Cool. Well, we should generate a list of criteria for each of the three templates, and then go about creating them (perhaps enlisting the help of the self-proclaimed creator of 20% of the wiki's templates...) --

Based on Wikipedia’s templates (shameful of me to rip off, I know…), here would be a list of parameters for the templates… of course, I didn’t rip off Wikipedia or the Saturday Supercade template because they don’t have one. :)


 * Television program – I’ve gone through this page and picked out what is applicable to us… check it out for inspiration.
 * General
 * Show name
 * Image
 * Image size
 * Image caption
 * Alternate show names (ie other languages, common abbreviations)
 * Genre
 * Format
 * Creator(s) (separated by line breaks)
 * Developer(s) (again, line breaks)
 * Writer(s) (like, the five most common)
 * Director(s)
 * Creative director(s)
 * Presenter(s) (only applicable for King Koopa’s Kool Kartoons)
 * Starring (live actors)
 * Voices (voice actors)
 * Theme music composer
 * Opening theme (name)
 * Closing theme (name)
 * Composer (of incidental music)
 * Country (of origin… include flag)
 * Language (original)
 * Seasons (number of)
 * Episodes (number of linked to the section of article or separate article with episode list)
 * Production
 * Executive producer
 * Producer
 * Editor
 * Location (production location, only used if different from the country of origin on Wikipedia… not sure if we need this even)
 * Cinematography (director of cinematography or lead camera man… only if we have the information from the Super Show would we need this I believe…)
 * Camera (Single-camera or Multi-camera… again, only if we can find for the Super Show)
 * Runtime (episode duration not including commercials)
 * Company (production company… ie DiC)
 * Distributor (distributor company)
 * Broadcast
 * Original channel (ie CBS for the Supercade)
 * Picture format (video/film format the show was originally recorded and broadcast in. Examples include NTSC, PAL, and Film)
 * Audio format (ie stereo)
 * First run (country where it was first broadcast… only needed if we have a show for which this is different than country of origin)
 * First aired (beginning date of the original run)
 * Last aired (ending date of the original run… should be on the same line as “first aired” to read something like [date 1] to [date 2])
 * Status (Airing, Hiatus, Ended)
 * Chronology
 * Preceded by (applicable for the DiC trilogy – the order was Super Show, Adventures of SMB3, and SMW)
 * Followed by (see preceded by)
 * Related (the DiC trilogy would have a link to King Koopa's Kool Kartoons here, for example)


 * Film (heavily taken from Wikipedia: see here.
 * Name
 * Image
 * Image size
 * Caption
 * Director(s)
 * Producer(s)
 * Writer(s)
 * Narrator (only applies to SMB, which only has one narrator, so no need for (s))
 * Starring
 * Composer(s)
 * Cinematography
 * Editor(s)
 * Production and Distribution
 * Studio (company that produced the film… I don’t believe we need plural here either)
 * Distributor(s) (company that distributed the film)
 * Release date(s)
 * Running time
 * Country (in which the film was produced)
 * Language (in which the film originally was released)
 * Budget
 * Gross revenue (can be found at Box Office Mojo, apparently…)


 * Original video animation (heavily taken from here and here)
 * Title
 * Image
 * Image size
 * Caption
 * Kanji/Kana name (does this apply to us?)
 * Genre
 * Director(s)
 * Writer(s)
 * Studio
 * Released
 * Runtime
 * Episodes (number of linked to a section or page with the episode list… technically this is supposed to be for a single OVA released with multiple episodes, but since we have an article for each… I dunno)
 * Preceded by
 * Followed by


 * The Saturday Supercade episode (taken from the Mario Wiki… yay us!)
 * General
 * Title
 * Image
 * Image size
 * Caption
 * Production and Chronology
 * Writer(s)
 * Season
 * Original broadcast
 * Preceded by
 * Followed by
 * Plot Information
 * Setting
 * Minor protagonists
 * Villain(s)

Wow. I pity the guys who created the templates this is based off of, and whoever wants to take on this job. :( 16:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)


 * Dang. I better call in the big guns... --
 * You rang? ...Wow, that is a lot of parameters to put in an infobox. I think I can manage doing that, though. It might take a few hours to actually make it though. Lemme see what I can do. 21:54, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Those look a bit too detailed. Most readers probably don't care about a lot of the finicky things, like the number of cameras or the music composer. Take the general we use for games, it only has eleven headers (not including the Image stuff):


 * Name
 * Image
 * Image size
 * Caption
 * Developer(s)
 * Publisher(s)
 * Platform(s)
 * Release date
 * Genre
 * Rating(s)
 * Mode(s)
 * Media
 * Input

We should aim for something like more than something like Wikipedia. Any production details can be lumped into a section, and the majority of the people who worked on the production can get their own headers too (I know that's done for a few games around here). Any plot overviews (i.e. the Villain(s) of an episode) should be left out: that's what the introductory paragraph of the article is for. So as an alternative idea, here's a shortened version of Stumpers' templates:


 * Television program
 * General
 * Name
 * Image
 * Image size
 * Caption
 * Developer(s) (a.k.a. Production Company)
 * Publisher(s)
 * Country of origin/Production Location (include flag - if different, skip lines and make sub-headers)
 * Genre
 * Status (Airing, Hiatus, Ended)
 * Crew
 * Director(s)
 * Producer(s)
 * Writer(s)
 * Starring (including Voice Actors)
 * Stats (etc.)
 * Seasons (number of)
 * Episodes (number of linked to the section of article or separate article with episode list)
 * Runtime (episode duration not including commercials)
 * First aired (beginning date of the original run)
 * Last aired (ending date of the original run… should be on the same line as “first aired” to read something like [date 1] to [date 2])
 * Preceded by (applicable for the DiC trilogy – the order was Super Show, Adventures of SMB3, and SMW)
 * Followed by (see preceded by)
 * Related (the DiC trilogy would have a link to King Koopa's Kool Kartoons here, for example)


 * Film (including animated film)
 * General
 * Name
 * Image
 * Image size
 * Caption
 * Developer(s) (a.k.a. Production Company/Studio)
 * Publisher(s)
 * Country of origin/Production Location (include flag - if different, skip lines and make sub-headers)
 * Genre
 * Crew
 * Director(s)
 * Producer(s)
 * Writer(s)
 * Starring (including the Narrator and Voice Actors)
 * Stats
 * Release date(s)
 * Running time
 * Budget
 * Gross revenue (can be found at Box Office Mojo, apparently…)
 * Related (i.e. this is where the other Amada movies would be mentioned)


 * TV Show episodes
 * General
 * Title
 * Image
 * Image size
 * Caption
 * Production
 * Writer(s)
 * Season
 * Original broadcast
 * Preceded by
 * Followed by
 * Related

Short and Sweet. - 22:30, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * I made the television infobox. I designed it so that if there is any information we do not have, we don't have to put it in the template. (Thus, that header will not appear unless used.) Image sizes are judged by adding "|250px" in an image link; image captions are added by added a  and then the caption.  22:38, 12 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thanks, Rooben! You're the best!!  00:04, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Interestin info
Here is some interestin info about the wiki here


 * o!! There's something odd about it... It said that MW Expires on Aug 12,09 :o
 * Is there a way to renew it?

Perhaps this sounds N00b, but what is that? and how the wiki expires at such date?
 * It expires when Steve doesn't pay again. Just the basic feed they have for the domain or the server. It will be renewed before expiring. - 16:22, 13 February 2009 (EST)


 * Got it -- 19:09, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Regarding English Title Proposal
Well, the deadline hit, and there was a tie on the recent English title proposal (Arend's vote came in after the deadline and should not be accepted). That means there was no quorum and no official action should be taken. However, there is still no official policy about naming titles of articles (I believe). This means that any article can be switched to any English name, and if there is disagreement, the issue can be resolved (or voted on) in the article's talk page. A new similar or changed proposal can also be submitted at any time if desired. Basically, as there is no policy about naming, what articles should be named is up in the air, and is up for continued debate on individual articles and on future proposals. Anyways, the proposal is officially a tie. --
 * Actually, when the issue came up last (while you were still in hiatus I believe), the Wiki agreed to use the North American titles, which is why things are the way they currently are. Yes, we should be placing all of these policies in writing, but the reality is that a large number of debates have gone undocumented by policy pages but have been acted on extensively.  If you don't find a proposal about it, it is because the last time this issue came up that I remember was immediately before our proposals system came into use.  A no quorum proposal means that no action is taken.  Thus, our previous, unwritten standard about naming articles should be followed.  What I gather from what you wrote above, you believe that this no quorum means that either method can be used.  However, that would mean a change to policy has occurred.  Additionally, this is essentially giving the proposal a second chance for each article.  As you know, our policy is not to let a proposal be resubmitted for six months.  No action should be taken.  It's all part of the trade off with proposals: the support side has its argument (the proposal itself) read by all voters, but will only win if more people support than oppose.  The oppose side does not have its argument read by all voters (many voters will simply support or oppose without reading all of the oppose votes), but in the case of a tie, the opposers still essentially win.  In order to preserve the democracy of our proposals system, in the event of a tie we cannot allow the proposer to make a decision based on personal analysis of the meaning of the tie.  That being said, no one can deny that the antagonism between certain US and non-US users is being revisited and now, as a result of the proposal, is in the air.  Thus, it is imperative that we act while keeping in mind that we now have to wait six months before your idea can be revisited.  In the event that another idea for naming is developed, it can still be submitted before the six month period passes.  That is what we should be focusing on right now rather than debating individual article titles, which will eventually result in Wikipedia-like inconsistency.  23:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)


 * Could you provide a link to the North American titles policy? I didn't know we had a firmly established naming policy.  If there is an official policy, then No Quorum would mean we follow that policy.  If there is no established policy, then we are just working on an individual basis for each article.  Also, is there a link to the policy about a six-month waiting period?  Is that an official policy as well?  And I thought that would only be applied to the oppose side winning, not a tie.  Regardless, as you pointed out, the tie would not prevent people from creating other naming proposals or proposals (as opposed to talk page votes) about changing the name of individual article titles. --
 * The decision was made on sysop and bureaucrat talk pages, I would assume, but since I wasn't either at the time I have no way to link you to the discussions. In any case, if it wasn't firmly established, you wouldn't see the 9000 some pages with English titles named in such a way.  You'll find the six-month waiting period with the rest of the proposals in the archive, as usual.  Whether the proposer had the foresight to think of ties or not, I dunno.  Let's hunt down that proposal shall we?  Really though, regardless of what we find, I hardly think it wise to copy Wikipedia on an issue that we've just established we didn't want happening to our Wiki.  09:22, 18 February 2009 (EST)


 * I feel that since a formal policy has never been established (regardless of past sysop discussions), it's still fair game to switch to other English titles for any article. (Basically, sysops are like the "executive branch" of the wiki, but they still need to go through legislative procedures in order to set in stone any policy they feel the wiki should have.)  Anyways, given the precedent of many NA named articles in the past, if an edit war results it should be restored to the original NA name (a vote can then be called on the article's talk page to decide the title if needed).  And yes, it would help to find that six-month proposal to see if this recent proposal can be re-issued (not that I plan on doing that, but just so we know if it's a possibility).  I also agree that we shouldn't have Wikipedia's inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean other users couldn't create a proposal or a vote to change an individual article's title.  We need to respect the right for users to create change in the wiki as needed. --  P.S. And it's not like we don't have other inconsistencies...haha.
 * Huh, I wonder which inconsistencies you are referring to? :D Honestly, since Arend's vote would have tipped the scale, I can imagine that the proposal would pass if we resubmitted it... crap. I hate digging through the proposals archive, but I suppose I have to.  13:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Actually... Arend did vote in time. It was 13 minutes before deadline. So that would solve this issue, right? 14:48, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I remember distinctly that Steve set his foot down on the NA policy – I think it's in the Manual of Style. 14:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * It is, right here. He also had stats that said something like 96% of the visitors are from the USA, 2% Canada and 2% Europe. - 15:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Oh wait. So it did pass? The deadline was 17:00 EST or (5 p.m. EST)? Did Arend get his vote in before that time? Walkazo seemed to indicate that Arend's vote was late, but it appears he was in time. Can we confirm this? The times get confusing...Anyways, it seems the proposal actually passed, so the Manual of Style page will be changed. --

It did pass. http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Use_First_Official_English_Title_for_Articles
 * The link that Time Q provided shows that Arend's vote was 1hr, 13min after the deadline. 19:00, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Then that means the proposal tied, right?

Okay. I performed a test at 6:08 p.m. Central Time on the proposals page. The wiki states this edit occurred at 00:08 wiki time. This means 00:00 (or 24:00) occurs at 6:00 p.m. where I live. Arend's vote occurred at "21:47, 17 February 2009." 21:00 would be three hours behind 24:00, which means the vote occurred at 3:47 p.m. Central time. Eastern time is an hour ahead of Central time, so the vote occurred at 4:47 p.m. Eastern time, 13 minutes before the closing time. Therefore, the proposal passed. --
 * Alright then. It's settled. =) 19:21, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why don't you have your time zone fixed in preferences? Anyways it was at 16:47 EST, so it counts. 20:12, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * I do have it fixed. I have it set to EST to avoid confusions like this. It was clearly a system glitch. 20:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)
 * Mario Strikers Charged Football has been moved back to Mario Strikers Charged by Yoshario; should it be now changed back to Mario Strikers Charged Football, now that we it's clear the proposal is indeed passed?


 * Yes, and I have done so. =) --
 * I suggest that we now make a policy page regarding how each subject should be named. If we had a massive list of subjects that should be named as they are in the UK, users could easily see which pages need to be moved, or in the future, how each page should be linked to (I could see having a guide open in a new tab increasing efficiency of writers).  Anyway, it's up to you how you want to proceed.  Perhaps we should also strive to collect UK artwork for games while we're in the process of this.  Of course, I would assume we want the UK artwork in the infobox of games released in the UK first?  Ah - one more thought: let's not use the "also known as" phrase at the beginning of the articles as was done earlier today; let's instead be sure to specify which region carries which name as currently done in Football.   21:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)


 * Well, I think we found most of them...but if anyone knows of any other games with different named released in the PAL region (not simply UK) before the North American release, please let us know here. I will try to compile a list, and maybe place it in the Manual of Style (??).  We also have all the PAL box artwork - they were in the gallery before - they are now in the infoboxes.  And would "also known as" be fine as long as the region is mentioned. --

Well, for what it's worth, I did some checking, and nearly three fifths of our users come from the United States, with the next highest being the United Kingdom, with just 5.7%. Wouldn't it make more sense to name the articles after the region the majority of our visitors come from?


 * We just had a vote on this, and a majority of voting users wanted first international English titles to be used. --
 * To be precise, 14 out of the 27 voters (approx. 52%) wanted the change. However, two other people commented on the proposal but abstained from voting, making the total more like 14/29, which makes it a minority ruling (but a larger minority than the opposition, so it still "wins"). But in reality, most contributing users probably didn't vote or comment on the proposal at all... - 22:26, 18 February 2009 (EST)


 * Haha. Like I said, a "majority of voting users." =) --

Okay. So here is the list of subjects that have different names now based on the proposal:


 * Yoshi's Universal Gravitation
 * Mario Smash Football
 * Mario Strikers Charged
 * Mario Power Tennis (GBA)
 * A handful of karts and bikes from Mario Kart Wii. However, many of the vehicles have the same name in all English versions.  I believe Shiancoe has changed the Mario Kart Wii article and vehicle template to reflect the new changes.
 * One course from Mario Kart Wii - DK's Snowboard Cross.

And that's all I know. If there are anymore, please add it to the list. --
 * SoS, if you'd clarified that there were only 20 something pages to which this would apply, I'm sure myself and many others would have supported. 01:26, 19 February 2009 (EST)


 * Oh, ahaha. Yeah, I guess so.  To be honest though, I didn't know myself.  These are just the games and subjects I have found, but there may be a couple more (although likely not many more).  For the most part, the names of subjects are consistent throughout English speaking-regions, even if the game was released in PAL regions first.  The policy is about those exceptions where there is conflict, and now we have a simple way to resolve such conflicts - release date. --
 * Won't all the links and references to these games (etc.) have to be updated as well? It'd seem strange, not to mention inconsistent, if only the pages themselves bore PAL titles but were referred to by the NA names everywhere else. Taking that into consideration, it's more like hundreds of articles that need work, not just tens. -  14:25, 19 February 2009 (EST)


 * That's true. The work is not over yet, but at least the titles have been fixed.  Fortunately I believe Shiancoe has completed all the Mario Kart Wii updates. =) --
 * I'd also like to note how utterly confused I am about having this inconsistency. It seems to me that all articles should either be UK- or Australian-titled now. I'm not trying to complain or poke holes in the proposal, but it's just very inconsistent to see an American-titled article, a UK-titled article, and then an Australian-titled article right in a row. I clicked 'random page' three times, and received those results. I had to research the history of these articles in order to know which country the titles originated from. Surely there's some way to make it easier to tell if one is looking at a US, UK, or AUS titled article? 14:40, 19 February 2009 (EST)


 * Personally, I am less confused. This makes a lot of sense to me.  Just think of them as the first English names.  It's much more consistent than before.  But we do need to clarify our region names, because I believe US is part of the NTSC region, but the UK and Australia are part of the PAL region.  --
 * I guess I'll get used to it eventually. I refuse to obsess over a small detail. Nonetheless, I agree that our regions should be noted somewhere. 14:55, 19 February 2009 (EST)
 * Also, it isn't needed to research the history of the article, I don't think; for games, it lists release date in chronological order in the template, so the first on the list(excluding Japan) should be the official English. In the case of other games, the first sentence of the article will have something along the lines of (also known as "Example" in North America), so you know which countries the name is coming from(In this case, Europe and Australia). --
 * Hold up with that - we can't say "also known as ___ in North America" because that would imply that the title was known by the article name outside of America and known by both its American name and non-American name within North America. The correct grammar would be either "known as ___ in North America" or "___ in North America".  22:31, 20 February 2009 (EST)


 * Oh right. That makes sense. =) --
 * Well, if we went into technicality, there are people in North America who refer to Super Mario Strikers as Mario Smash Football interchangably, but I think what you said would be fine, as long as its refering to the country itself, not every person living there. --


 * Yeah, that's what I was thinking originally. Both names are known by people all over the world, regardless of where they live.  But I guess it is more sensible to write it as "known as," in order to reflect Nintendo's different naming practices in different regions. --
 * Or, we could simply describe Nintendo's actions by saying "released as ___ in North America" 12:31, 21 February 2009 (EST)


 * Hmmm...not a bad idea... --

Separate Articles for Walkthroughs
Are we allowed to have Seperate Articles for Walkthroughs? (e.g. I could create an article, "Super Mario Sunshine Walkthrough"). Yoshario'''
 * I beleive the wiki is not meant for walkthroughs, but rather information only. --


 * "Walkthrough"-styled information should be placed in the level, area, etc., articles that need such content. Users can then follow the "course" of the game by going to the next level in sequence, as indicated by the templates and content on the previous page. --
 * Yeah, like SoS said; I think the progression of the level can be described, but walkthroughs usually refer to the player like "And you can find the red coin behind the large tree".
 * Indeed. As walkthroughs often use the word "you," they are usually unacceptable here. ;)
 * Even if they don't use "you", the huge passages telling the "player", "Mario" or "Yoshi" (etc.) what they have to do look really bad compared to how the rest of the Wiki is set up. For the 3D titles, exactly what happens in each level can be important to the game as a whole, however for most 2D side-scrollers, the details aren't necessary and can actually take away from the facts. For these levels, a mere summary of the types of enemies, items, and some interesting/unique features is just as informative, and much easier to read and digest. - 17:38, 23 February 2009 (EST)


 * I don't see how the details can take away from the facts (after all, details are facts), but yeah, most level articles are poorly written. Perhaps they need to take a cue from Hooktail Castle and write walkthroughs with flair, i.e., taking time (and a paragraph or two) to describe each area as well as ways to get through it (instead of simply "Mario should do this").  A lot of our level articles are just gigantic paragraphs, purely providing action-based walkthroughs, instead of describing how the level is composed. --
 * Yeah I've also noticed that; I've worked on some of them to break them up into smaller paragraphs and sections, while rewriting it in to a cause and effect structure, not a "do this do that" sort of walkthrough. --

By details, I mean the locations of every single Red Coin and advice on when to use things like Flutter Jumps; there are websites dedicated to those sorts of things, but this isn't one of them. It's like the difference between an encyclopedia article and a visitor's guide to a city: the article includes historic and big-picture facts, whereas the guide focuses on where to go to see the historic facts, and where to grab a bite to eat on the way. Take BLIZZARD!!! for example: before it was 4 pgs long on Word, and I managed to shorten it to just over 1 pg (sorry, I don't know how to link directly to the Differences Between Edits yet - you'll have to do it yourselves to see what I mean). I still find it too long: IMO, the exact locations of the coins and Flowers aren't what our articles are about. However, that's as much as I could shorten it without losing any "important" information, so I'm leaving it as-is for now. - 23:49, 23 February 2009 (EST)


 * Well, we are a website dedicated to a video game series, so it makes sense that we describe how a game is played. Our level articles should include the location of every Red Coin and Flower - it's just a matter of presenting the information in a quality way.  What is "important" is a matter of point-of-view, as I obviously view the location of Red Coins to be very important for the level and the article.  Yoshi levels wouldn't be Yoshi levels without Red Coins and Flowers.  So we should be detailed, but detailed in a better way (not a 4-page walkthrough).  Say there were sections about the Red Coins and Flowers in the article, divided from the main Overview.  Or perhaps each area in the level could get its own detailed section (it all doesn't need to be in one).  This might allow us to have fully detailed level articles while allowing the articles to also flow well.  Anyways, I think for the most part, we should try to describe everything in the level, but not necessarily explain every way to get through the level (i.e., not describing every place to flutter jump, like you said).  Maybe we should take some precedent from Nintendo guides, where all the details are included, but how the game is played is left up to interpretation for the player, besides the major features of the level.  No Nintendo guide ever tells you how to do exactly everything in the level - only how to get through those "notable" points in the level. --
 * That'y why I put "important" in quotation marks - I don't think they're noteworthy, but I know my opinion isn't the norm, so I left them in based on the general idea of "importance" around here (and I hope it didn't come off as arrogance). The problem is that almost nothing's set in stone, and any policy pertaining to it is spread out over multiple pages, so for now it's just a matter of opinion, and whose to say which of us has the better definition of "importance"? I think there was a proposal that had something to do with walkthroughs a few months back, but I can't remember any details right now (nor can I check on my old computer)... Anyway, I think we should focus on fleshing-out stubs before getting too detailed with other articles: spread the wealth, and all. - 00:22, 24 February 2009 (EST)


 * No I didn't think you came off as arrogant (I hope I didn't come off as too brash...I'm tired), but I was just trying to extend your point (that there are multiple views on importance). I actually don't have much of an investment in the level articles, so I can't really say how they should be written.  I do know I would want the Red Coin/Flower information to be in the articles somehow if I were writing them.  And by more detailed, I don't mean a more detailed walkthrough (I think a lot of us are having problems with these walkthrough style articles...) but more detailed in terms of the content of the level (as opposed to how to progress through the level).  Also, I think we should let users work on what they can - if someone can write a solid, high-quality detailed (less walkthrough-based) level article, I would love to see that before the expansion of a few stubs. =D --
 * I think we were both tired XP Anyway, as long as everything's not buried in one 7-paragraph-long text, I'm pretty impartial to level articles myself. However, I do think it's redundant to mention every batch of normal coins and the red coins hidden therein - almost every level has these, and it'd make more sense to only say it once in each of the game and coin articles. - 18:10, 24 February 2009 (EST)


 * Well, since the Red Coins are "bound" to the level (in terms of getting a perfect score for that specific level), they need to be represented somehow on the article level. But yeah, we don't need to say "There are eight coins in this area.  From left to right, coins #2 and #7 are Red Coins."  We can say "In this area, there are a large group of coins containing two Red Coins."  Or something like that.  Does that make sense? --

Foreign Names Problem
I noticed that users sometimes add names under "Foreign Names" that are exactly the same as the English one. For example, in Bowser's article we learn that Bowser is also known as Bowser in German. Going by that, every "western" language could be added where Bowser is named Bowser. I think this template's purpose is to show in which languages names are different from the English ones and not where they are the same, isn't it? --Grandy02 13:29, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * The advantage to allowing identical names is that it keeps people from confusing situations where the name is the same as the English, and where we simply don't know it yet. 15:46, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * I agree with Grandy02; the repetition looks worse than the lack of foreign names (IMO). In my experience, people don't notice when things are missing (barring glaring omissions), but they do notice what's there: the repetition may make more of a negative impression on most people than if there was simply no German name on that particular article (for example). The only people who will be inconvenienced are people looking for the German name, but they could always ask someone, or Google it - there are a lot of forgein-language sites out there. But most of the time, the Forgein Names are more like another aspect of Trivia: it's fun to read, but it's probably not the reason someone's reading the article in the first place. OR there could be a note at the top of the section listing the languages in which "Bowser" is still "Bowser" (i.e. "Bowser's name is the same in English, German..."); that way all the info is there, but the chart remains clear of repetition. - 23:44, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Image Tags for People
Over the last few days I've worked on Leslie Swan and couldn't find an image of her anywhere - I can only think that is a personal choice and I'd like to respect it. I removed the image tag for that reason, but I was hoping someone else might have been able to get an image of her, maybe from an e3 event or something where we can say, "Okay - this person doesn't mind her picture being on the internet." 16:51, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Comments on New Policies
Now that we've had some experience with the new article organization and inclusion policies (namely, the sorting by series and the inclusion of Banjo and Conker), I just wanted to see what people think of how it's working. Everyone happy? I've only got a couple of minor things myself.

First, we're now calling sections detailing appearances, sorted by series (previously known as "appearances" sections) as "history" sections. Just by what the word "history" means to me, I'm thinking a history section would be a better place for how a character was conceived, named, and developed over the years... in other words, an overview of major points in the character's... history for lack of a better world. We could then just rename the current "history" sections "appearances" sections. My reasoning is this: with our current organization, we can't discuss, for example, Mario appearing in Super Mario Bros. 2 and then his first two adventures inspiring The Super Mario Bros. Super Show, which established his character and backstory for the first time on American shores. This is because we divide by series, and thus we can't go from Super Mario Bros. to The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! - the Super Show comes MUCH later in Mario's article. The only problem I could foresee with this changing of names would be the backstory section we see in some articles (and should see in more). If we moved that to the history section, we could explore the backstory in addition to how it has evolved over the years. For example, Mario used to have little/no backstory, then he became a grocer who was foretold in Mushroom Kingdom prophecy, an average Brooklyn plumber who happened to find his way into the Mushroom Kingdom, and then became a baby carried by a story who was foreseen to cause trouble for the Koopas. So, what do you think?

Secondly, we have all of our Conker and Banjo stuff in two articles, plus whichever subjects appeared in a Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, Wario, or Smash Bros. title. Frankly, it just looks disorganized to me. Recognizing the desire of many to keep Banjo and Conker from "overflowing" and taking up too much space, I was thinking: what if we divided the articles into something like, for Banjo: Characters in the Banjo series, Items in the Banjo series, Locations in the Banjo series, etc. and then left Banjo (series) to be an article about the games themselves? Someone with more experience in writing about the series will have to tell me if we even have enough subjects for that.

Lastly, I remember talk that we were including Banjo and Conker because Nintendo had put the seal of quality on the games in the series. Although the proposal itself that allowed us to include Banjo and Conker articles (if you don't remember, it was tied to the importance policy - many people missed the note about Banjo and Conker at the bottom of the new policy because their attention wasn't directed to it, if I remember correctly) didn't mention that, the concept was frequently brought up, and actually, Microsoft released titles didn't appear until later, as if we were following that policy. So, how do we feel about covering content that had no approval or involvement from Nintendo? Is that something that we're all cool with? Thanks for your time! 00:05, 13 March 2009 (EDT)


 * First, I am a big fan of the term "History," as it is a way of combining both how the character has changed over time in different series as well as the fictional history of the characters, as those appearances are all part of their fictional history as well. Ideally, History sections should be detailing changes (developments) between appearances (when appropriate), just as they detail the appearances themselves.  Recently a user has been adding an Appearances section to articles - that is, a list of all their appearances in chronological order (in a table).  I feel that a section like that is a good supplement to the History section, which is designed to detail these Appearances as they relate to both the out-of-universe and in-universe development of the character.  As such, to connect Super Mario Bros. 2 to the Super Show, one could link from the game section directly to the show section of the same article, saying the show was inspired by the game, but also indicating it makes up its own distinct series (and vice versa, linking back from the show section to the game section).  Even if you organized purely by release date (minus series), a Super Mario Land section would still be in between the Super Mario Bros. 2 and Super Show sections.


 * Right now, I would wait to break up the big series articles until they are relatively complete (which they are not close to). But perhaps in the future it would be a good idea to take those larger sections and break them away from the main series article.  Also, I would consider the couple future titles to be at least "mainstream cameo" appearances of the series as covered by  Canonicity and thus important for the articles.  Especially since Rare has worked with Nintendo on developing the series further past its acquisition by Microsoft, it would be sensible to include non-Nintendo games for the sake of coherency.  While the Microsoft content is not protected by the Coverage policy, I would say its significant enough for inclusion in the wiki.  Walkazo said it best during the proposal discussion...something about a fish... basically, she said Banjo and Conker, in the end, still originated with Rare, and thus it makes sense to continue covering the series, ultimately allowing users to choose to read what they think is "true" for them. --


 * For the first issue, I agree with Son of Suns and would like to add that developments in a character's personality/physical appearance/special abilities/etc. can also be included in the actual "Personality" (etc.) sections (as well as being highlighted in the History). For the second issue, I also agree with SoS in that we should wait before separating the list of characters/places/items/etc. from the Banjo and Conker series articles. However, I don't think those articles should then be dedicated to just the games: they should be structured like the Mario series article, with the major characters/places/items lists still included with the games (i.e. Conker and Berri would stay, whereas Heinrich wouldn't). For the third issue, I still stand by what I said during the proposal (including my "It's still Rare's fish" metaphor, which, if anything, proves I watch too much House...), and again, SoS summed it up quite nicely, so I'll leave it at that. The only other thing I have to add is that maybe we should consider adding seperate articles for the games themselves; they're significant additions to the Mario "superseries" and a dozen or so pages reflecting this fact won't open the floodgates to articles about every single character/item/place/etc. within those games - those aspects are a different kettle of fish all together. - 20:41, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Sidebar
Any objections to adding this page, (the community portal), to the sidebar? 23:35, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Nope; that's a good idea. Will it be under "Navigation" like on Userpedia or "Community"? - 01:39, 17 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Huh? Which page is that? --