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)