Talk:Axem Rangers

Each Axem Ranger, as an individual character, deserves an article. They do act independently - each has their own stats and attacks. The articles will not be merged, and it's not a big deal that they are seperate but shorter. -- Son of Suns


 * I agreee they should be kept seperate. Great Gonzo
 * You know what's funny? It actually IS a big deal that they are short and will never be more than a stub. If you can't make the articles larger without adding guide content, then how are you going to validate them having an article? On top of that, I did indeed consult with Wayoshi, who appears to be of importance in the community of the Super Mario Wiki. - A Link to the Past 14:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes but so is Son of Suns and I, and we both appear to oppose this merge, there is potential here. Great Gonzo
 * Question is, will you bother to exercise that potential? On top of that, focus on forming some criteria for inclusion. - A Link to the Past 14:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Guide content is fine as long as it is official. Those articles have potential. And Wayoshi does not speak for the entire wiki - he is one member of a greater community. -- Son of Suns
 * Why is it fine? This isn't a guide. - A Link to the Past 14:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


 * The Mariowiki is a knowlege base contain all sorts of iinformation as long as its true. Great Gonzo
 * So would it be appropriate to assess the difficulty of the Axem Rangers? - A Link to the Past 14:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Only if an official guide did. -- Son of Suns
 * Not even then. If someone feels that it's not difficult, what should be done? A guide is only good as a source for certain facts - any mention of difficulty is the opinion of one writer. - A Link to the Past 14:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Nintendo did not have to release such opinions or information, but they did. It is the opinon of Nintendo as a whole, not one writer. -- Son of Suns
 * It is not as if Iwata looks over the guides NoA makes. It's no different from one staff member's review in NP. - A Link to the Past 14:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * It still is officially created by Nintendo, regardless of who approves it. If Nintendo wanted to control such information, they would. -- Son of Suns
 * That's "if". They don't. - A Link to the Past 14:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * They don't want to, but they could. They want to be affiliated with the opinions of these writers. -- Son of Suns
 * So does this mean that we should say that Super Mario Strikers is merely a seven in quality because that's what it scored in NP? - A Link to the Past 14:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

We could include it in the article somewhere. "Nintendo Power gave this game a seven". -- Son of Suns
 * But if it was NP, it would be official, so we would have to address it as the official opinion of Nintendo. - A Link to the Past 14:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Note that NP is not the only official Nintendo magazine, duh. Gofer
 * And are you saying that NoA-published guides are the only Nintendo-made guides in the world? - A Link to the Past 20:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for incorrectly giving the "go-ahead" light to a Link to the Past when I knew little about the game. Consensus says they'll be separate, and so they shall be. 16:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * For no reason, they shall be separate. Is there a single reason why this Wiki should be about having a lot of articles, but with the majority of them being extremely minor, insignificant, and tiny. Instead of having long, interesting, fleshed-out articles, we demand of the reader to go to thousands of pages to get all relevant information. Nothing is lost when merged, and nothing can be added to the Axem articles otherwise. Separate, they are infinitely stubs and will never be able to be expanded. - A Link to the Past 20:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Except they can be expanded if someone so desires. What about all the special attacks, their roles in the capture of the Star Piece, strategy recommended by Nintendo Power, personality traits, number of attacks per round, among other pieces of information. Plus, what's the difference between one article with a bunch of sections and five articles with different information. They all have the same information. It's not like users have to search for more information, links are provided for them. There is easy access to the information. Why does an article have to be long to be good? Even the smallest article can be interesting. -- Son of Suns
 * Merging makes one article longer, and thus creates more room for expansion. Several short articles will be, for the readers, just scanning a sentence or two and then moving onto the next. Are you saying that one longer article with more information is worse than several smaller articles with less information? It's more convenient to the reader to have articles put together as one, it's more informative, and it makes it longer. The way I see it, most people want the articles to remain articles because they're A. in charge, B. they like it, and/or C. to amass a ton of articles. Fun to have a lot of articles, but it's a lot more fun to have a more informative, more convenient, long article. - A Link to the Past 21:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * That's your opinion. One long article is better than smaller ones. Maybe others don't feel that way. You have to respect that. I'm not saying a longer article is worse, and I'm not saying its better. They are just two different ways of representing information. -- Son of Suns
 * Stubs vs. long, informative articles is a no-brainer. Besides wringing the Axem Rangers dry of any information that could possibly be added to the articles, there's nothing to add. Really, this article is set up as an encyclopedia, not a strategy guide. Giving game strategies is not encyclopedic. - A Link to the Past 21:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Well maybe in Mario's world it is. ;) -- Son of Suns