Talk:3DS Music Park

Shouldn't there be the music from MK8? --WhiteYoshi2014 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2014 (EDT)

Split Bouncing Note from Music Park
There's no reason to keep them on the same page, considering we have a lot of pages for minor enemies that only appeared in one game or its remakes (even conjecturally named ones, and ones that only appeared in one area). Besides, we even have pages for non-game one-time enemies, so why not this?

Proposer: Deadline: April 22, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: April 29, 2015, 23:59 GMT May 6, 2015, 23:59 GMT May 13, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) I support my proposal.
 * 2) I support this proposal, because Bouncing Note appear twice (Mario Kart 7 and 8), more then one-time only enemies who have a article. So I think the Bouncing Notes deserves an article. Per Binarystep.
 * 3) Since Bouncing Notes appear twice in Mario Kart so, let's support it. The checkered flag has been waved and I approve this proposal!
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Honestly, I don't think this even needs a proposal, though apparently not everyone agrees, so I guess I shall explain. In the comments section, I've used Kurokyura as an example, and I'll use it here as well for convenience's sake (though their are many others I can provide if requested). Kurokyura literally appears only once in a single level in a single game; we have a healthy article for it. The Bouncing Note is just that kind of character. It has an official name, is just as notable as Thwomp (in a Mario Kart sense), and, judging by its facial expression, is a living character. Put simply, the lack of information isn't an issue.
 * 6) While I'd oppose splitting Moving Trees, snowballs or rolling rocks, I support this since Bouncing Notes are more on like living objects rather than generic inanimate objects.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Well, unlike all the other Mario Kart obstacles it's a living thing. Therefore, I think it deserves to be split.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my reasons it got split in the first place. There is little reason to create an article on a stage hazard that is exclusive to one stage, Music Park, when being included in the course description is sufficient. Saying it appeared in two games is a fantastically weak argument since it is the same course, but with enhanced graphics. The gratuitous amounts of links provided is supposed to suggest that the lack of a Bouncing Notes article is a coverage gap. The proposal then suggests that since minor enemies get articles, minor stage hazards in one-off courses get articles. This comparison does not compel me in any form simply because there is a difference: the enemies are notable enough to have their own article. We'd have a coverage gap if we covered common enemies but left out the more elusive ones. Simple course hazards, unlike enemies, do not deserve their own articles unless they are a common element, since there are other course hazards that do not get their own articles. If we let this proposal pass, we'd open the doors to create articles for Moving Tree, the rolling thing from Thwomp Ruins, the pinballs in Waluigi Pinball (which appear in TWO games, Mario Kart DS excluding the remade 3DS version, and Mario Sports Mix!), the mechanical Piranha Plants in Waluigi Stadium, the snowballs from DK Pass, the falling pillars in Dry Dry Desert, the shooting spaceship from Spacedust Alley, the Yellow Devil from Wily Castle (which honestly needs a merge anyway since King Bulblin and Lord Bullbo are so), the drawbridge bell from Boulder Canyon, and so on. Perhaps a lot are just generic objects (although I don't see how Bouncing Note is somehow more notable than those), but this proposal, I feel, might open the doors to these mostly-redundant articles. Wiggler Bus might be used as an example, but I think it's borderline too much, and it has the excuse of appearing in two different stages in one game.  td;lr I think Bouncing Notes fail the significance test, and it would be mostly redundant. If it is missing, there wouldn't be a coverage gap. The comparisons made to one-off enemies are not sound. It leads to questions on other, arguably as notable or more notable, stage hazards which are redundant to their stage hazards.  td;lr of td;lr It's going to be redundant.
 * 2) Per the person above.
 * 3) Per Mario, but I'd argue for Yellow Devil to stay separate since it's a full-fledged boss and standards have changed since Bulblin and Bullbo got merged.
 * 4) Per Mario.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) While it's true that there are less prominent enemies and they are a living thing, I cannot support unless a good counter to Mario's points are provided. Per all.

Comments
Wow, this is link heaven. I'd like to note that my poor article Bouncing Notes was turned into a redirect, along with a few other articles, as a result of this proposal here. Since these things haven't appeared since, I'm not sure anyone's opinion changed...

@Mario: Actually, the rolling Thwomp Ruins thing already has an article, although I have no idea why... -- 12:48, 9 April 2015 (EDT)
 * That shouldn't be there, it was merged with the Thwomp Ruins article after the proposal I (and Mario now) have linked to.
 * Yeah, that's true. My proposal even called for merging that item, so I don't know why it was removed from the query in the proposals page. 15:15, 9 April 2015 (EDT)

@Mario Bouncing Notes are more alive than snowballs and rolling rocks. I mean they have faces and change expression when they jump. Maybe not the best comparison, but they're more alike to Thwomps in both identity and role. In that case, I feel them to be more notable than most hazards on race tracks.
 * I agree with Tails777. Andymii (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Well, what about mechanical piranha plants? They're not exactly still life either. Organic hazards are hazards. Going by your logic, the dinosaurs from Ancient Lake and Dino Dino Jungle need their own page. We have dinosaur, but I mean "Dinosaur (Ancient Lake)" and "Dinosaur (Dino Dino Jungle)". 22:43, 9 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Well the dinosaurs are being covered in an article that better relates to the topic (dinosaurs to dinosaurs). Music Park's focus is more on the track and its details, not so much the living music notes themselves.
 * But this isn't about if the stage hazard just happens to be a generic subject that also happens to have its own article. You're originally basing that Bouncing Notes are animate, living objects which makes them distinct compared to snowballs and pinballs, and falling pillars. So I countered with dinosaurs. And moving trees. And mechanical Piranha Plants. The dinosaur article doesn't go into detail about the hazards in Dino Dino Jungle so are we obligated to cover that? If the notes themselves appeared in more levels and more games, then, yes, give them an article. But right now, I think the Music Note articles would be redundant when the simple stage descriptions of them will suffice. 00:14, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

@Mario How is a "minor stage hazard in a one-off course" less notable than a minor stage hazard in a one-off level or a one-off implied enemy? Binarystep (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Karamenbo falls in a similar category as Spike Pillar, so I think stage hazards from plaforming games have more leeway than stage hazards in race courses, maybe not. Karamenbo also has an official name, which is probably the only reason it's a separate article rather than being in Spike Pillar. Bouncing Note is derived from Prima Guide, so it's not exactly official, but I admit, it's close. But consider this other question: what about other hazards in race courses? Do they deserve articles too? The Piranha Plant from Dry Dry Desert (it's linked to Big Piranha Plant, but it looks drastically different from one, so I doubt it's a normal Big Piranha Plant)? The mechanical Piranha Plants in Waluigi Stadium? The dinosaur from Ancient Lake? It sounds like a lot of redundant articles that don't help with our coverage. 22:43, 9 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Karamenbō supposedly has an official name. It's not sourced, and people make up foreign names all the time, usually by putting a phrase through Google Translate. I also don't think it's logical to have pages on anything, at all, ever if it's from a main series game, but completely disregard other series or act as if they're "less important" because they aren't platformers. Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Prima guides considered official naming sources now? Binarystep (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Also, how many other hazards are actually named? Binarystep (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Without getting involved with either side, I'll just say that claiming a name is fake with absolutely nothing to back you up discredits the user who submitted the name in the first place and is an easy argument to pick since anything is possible if you bring hypothetical scenarios into this. Since there isn't a source, it's fine to be skeptical, put a there or something, but using that as one of your main points is rather weak imo.
 * You're still not answering my question on creating stage hazard articles and now going on a tangent on the validity of Karamenbo's nomenclature. I'd say Karamenbo is treading the line, actually, but we have Spike Pillar. I wouldn't say it's the best example since it's from another game. Now I'm being evasive, I guess. I've never stated about how the mainstream platformers deserve pages on insignificant objects simply because they're mainstream. I'm looking at existing examples. We have articles on minor hazards on a level, but we don't have articles on minor hazards on race tracks. The problem is that I can't put my finger on why this is so. 00:09, 10 April 2015 (EDT)

So are we going to delete every article on this wiki that is not "important?" It's not like we're creating article like "Random Toad #63"; in my opinion, individual enemies are individual enemies no matter their size, and deserve their own page. (BTW, if this passes, the title might have to be conjectural.) Andymii (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2015 (EDT)
 * The name comes from the Prima guide. I know Prima (thanks to its numerous mistakes) is not exactly the most trustworthy resource there is, but it's something, and it's the only resource we have. Considering the Bouncing Notes article was never marked with a conjectural name template before it was merged, I think it's okay.
 * @Andymii: Yeah, when did I ever argue that? Ever? Stop simplifying my points. I've been saying that Bouncing Notes is a redundant page and this proposal opens up opportunities to create pages like the course hazards I've outlined above. My problem with this potential has never been answered and I'm frustrated that this proposal is passing without my concerns being addressed. 19:28, 12 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Finally, while I do agree that Bouncing Note has been given an actual name so it might need a page for search results, is there a real advantage to creating a separate article of Bouncing Note rather than a redirect to Music Park? The one-off enemies should have articles also because the related navigational templates have links to the enemy articles, so you need named obstacles in stuff or else it would be complete. Mario Kart navigational templates don't a section devoted to road hazards, so, furthermore, there isn't a real drive to create an article on Bouncing Note. 19:33, 12 April 2015 (EDT)

You make a point, but then why do we have pages for all the Super Mario Land 2 enemies (such as Kurokyura), some of which literally appeared in one level and never again? Not that I want them deleted, but using this logic, shouldn't they also be gone? Andymii (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2015 (EDT)

@most opposers: I've said it before, and I'm going to say it again: "failing the significance test" shouldn't be an issue. After all, we have a healthy article on Kurokyura, a character that literally makes one appearance in one level in one game (just like these Bouncing Notes). How is that "significant?" And yet, people have found enough information to fill the article with useful information. I personally have faith in a full, non-stub article if this is created. Andymii (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Finally, while I do agree that Bouncing Note has been given an actual name so it might need a page for search results, is there a real advantage to creating a separate article of Bouncing Note rather than a redirect to Music Park? The one-off enemies should have articles also because the related navigational templates have links to the enemy articles, so you need named obstacles in stuff or else it would be complete. Mario Kart navigational templates don't [need] a section devoted to road hazards, so, furthermore, there isn't a real drive to create an article on Bouncing Note.
 * [...]
 * You're still not answering my question on creating stage hazard articles and now going on a tangent on the validity of Karamenbo's nomenclature. I'd say Karamenbo is treading the line, actually, but we have Spike Pillar. I wouldn't say it's the best example since it's from another game. Now I'm being evasive, I guess. I've never stated about how the mainstream platformers deserve pages on insignificant objects simply because they're mainstream. I'm looking at existing examples. We have articles on minor hazards on a level, but we don't have articles on minor hazards on race tracks. The problem is that I can't put my finger on why this is so.
 * For Christ sake, read what I put out. Finally, this whole "Bouncing Note is a living being" isn't valid at all. The Dinosaur in Ancient Lake is a living being, same goes for the one in Dino Dino Jungle. Should they get specific articles on them, emphasis on "specific"? 17:05, 30 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Then maybe we could just make pages for road hazards (that aren't overly generic), like we've done with platformer hazards? Binarystep (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2015 (EDT)

Music Park flags
I seem to remember a bit about the flags not being changed in the PAL version "for online play purposes" being added and removed multiple times in the past. Since it just came up again, I think it's time to settle this once and for all: What proof is there of this? Why would a mere flag texture need to be kept the same for online play if textures do not actually affect online play? 15:18, 12 November 2016 (EST)