Talk:Platform

Delete this article
To me, this page falls into the same hole as player, in that it's covering a topic that almost everyone should be aware of and otherwise doesn't have anything that's actually useful. Do we really need an article to give us a definition for the things that characters stand on? At the very least, we'll add in a sentence about platforms to Glossary, but having a whole article is pointlessly vague.

Proposer: Deadline: December 4, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Keeping pages like Lava is understandable since it acts differently in each game and affects multiple characters like Bowser, but generic platforms don't. The page could be a disambiguation page, but otherwise is not worth saving. We slammed the door on the Door article, so why shouldn't we do the same here?

Oppose

 * 1) I know this is about the fiftieth time I am going to stand on an end of a proposal all alone, but still. It's not a stub, its not redundant, it describes something used in many games. I'd delete: A platform is an obstacle part at the start, and restrict it to the moving ones/ones you can jump through    and it needs shaping up for sure, but I don't think it should be deleted.
 * 2) Ummm, that's like taking out the Penguin article because everyone knows what a penguin is. If you look at the generic subjects policy, you'll see that it deserves to be an article. Let's pretend other video games are real life and see:
 * 3) The subject must have a function which is different from the real world counterpart. If the differences are extremely minor, the subject may not meet this requirement. (No)
 * 4) The player can consume or collect the subject for use. This does not apply to sports games. (Mario can stand on it, not collect it)
 * 5) The subject is significant to the media's storyline. (no, but like any game, it's not important to the storyline)
 * 6) The subject is significant to the gameplay. This does not apply to sports games. (Yes it is)
 * 7) The subject is determined by the users to be notable. (Most likely, yes!) So, because of the policy, deleting this article isn't necessary.
 * 8) Analogy to player isn't the best, although I do understand how you got there, since this is considering a generic video game term. Furthermore, MarioWiki: Glossary doesn't really cover the tangible video game objects as much as video game terminology (e.g. lives, KOs, SDs, health, player). A ton of articles on generic video game elements including Elevator, Cannonball, Rope, Pit, Level, and a huge deal of things in the terms category and traps and obstacles category, where the example articles I've listed came from, exist. I'm not saying that every article within these categories is valid, but once this proposal passes, you have to start considering the validity of a lot of things in those categories and that's something I'm not comfortable doing just yet.
 * 9) This is probably not the most unique thing anywhere in the wiki, but still, you use it in many, many games. Per all.
 * 10) By your logic, we should delete Mario, everyone knows who he is.
 * 11) This like deleting the Boo article, since every Mario fan knows about that. Per all.
 * 12) per BabyLuigi64 and Glitchy Bowser Jr.
 * 13) Per all. (especially Glitchy Bowser Jr., I was thinking the same thing)
 * 14) - Per all, especially Mario. Deleting this unobtrusive little article is potentially starting down a slippery slope, whereas there's no harm done in leaving the page be: it's not like it's some huge crufty mess, just a paragraph and some pictures.
 * 15) Per all.

Comments
@Toadbrigdate5: The problem here isn't concerning about whether platform is a significant gameplay element. The argument is that we shouldn't be a dictionary for video game terminology, especially if our glossary is supposed to be doing the job. Unlike player, though, one can argue that platform is still an important video game element, while player is insignificant, definitely not a gameplay element, and to an extent, a crappier version of Fourth Wall. So the analogy to player here isn't the best. Also, while we we have articles on generic video game elements including Jump, Health Meter, Game Over, Punch, Lava, Spikes, and Pillar. Also, a big deal of the terms in our glossary aren't really tangible gameplay objects, unlike platforms.

I started leaning toward supporting, but I'm now leaning backward thanks to this argument, lol. 00:35, 21 November 2014 (EST)

@Madz the Penguin: I wouldn't say the analogy is the best either (me the critic, don't mind me) because Penguin takes on a consistent appearance since Super Mario 64 but has a generic name attached, much like Dolphin. Also, platform probably doesn't fall under generic objects; generic objects are real-life objects with a video game function; e.g. cheese, cake, banana, soccer ball, bomb, fruit. Platforms, the way they're depicted in video games, aren't really real life objects. 00:35, 21 November 2014 (EST)

@Mario @Madz the Penguin   Oh my god, I'm not alone! Yes this is a first! Sorry time turner. But yeah, we do support generic things as long as they are used differently. Nice argument Mario.Toadbrigade5 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2014 (EST)
 * lol, thanks. Yeah, I'm on a disagreeing streak with Time Turner. And this isn't a first, but it's a second! ;P 01:02, 21 November 2014 (EST)

First of all, and for the generic subjects policy: "The subject is significant to the gameplay.": it's partially significant, I mean it's not worth the mention of a platform so no. "The subject is determined by the users to be notable.": the platforms aren't really notable by players (except in SMB because they tend to fall); it's just a random thing I step on during the level, like having an article for Ground. Lastly, "The subject must have a function which is different from the real world counterpart.": I kinda say that they are different from the real-life (after all there is no "platforms" in the real world that are suspended in the air by apparently nothing.) I feel it should be written just as a note in the Glossary, however I cannot support because the the platforms have a function that is worth of mentioning. That it can be passed through in the SSB series, and that it can fall when Mario stands on it. Nonetheless, the article is terrible.-- 08:10, 21 November 2014 (EST)
 * You guys really like to add on to the humiliation conga, don't you? I kid, I kid.

@GlitchyBowserJr and @Boo4761: Not necessarily. Platforms are common objects throughout platform games; this is what the proposal is trying to address: why do we need a generic gaming object for an article? Mario and Boo are obviously Mario elements, so your analogies are not really good. 14:21, 21 November 2014 (EST)

@Mario I need to work on my analogies, sorry! At least it's better than the one with the Big Bang Theory and House, right? *Ahem* Anyway, this is an article about a video game series. Of course we're going to have articles that seem pointless. However, if platforms were taken away, Mario would have an unfortunate death in the miles of lava in Bowser's castle. We need this article because it's useful to Mario. Madz the Penguin (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2014 (EST)
 * Well, that's still not the point, and I don't think a lot of opposers are getting it either. Stuff like door, sun, they got deleted for being generic real-life objects that bear little difference to their real life counterparts. People are arguing that platform is a common object in the Mario series and they serve a function, so give them an article. They even provide comparisons to Mario and Boo as common elements in the Mario series, but the comparisons are, frankly, silly; platforms are generic video game objects; Mario and Boo are distinctively Mario.


 * td;lr:The proposal is deleting this article because it's a generic video game object; it doesn't matter if platforms are everywhere, you see platforms in Kirby games, Super Smash Bros., Sonic, Rayman... probably every platformer ever (hence the term). 22:06, 21 November 2014 (EST)
 * I feel like this is reminiscent of the allies proposal, where my proposal had flaws, but people were opposing it for reasons that had nothing to do with those flaws.
 * I don't think people understand it, that's why. This article is' pretty silly. Again, though, a lot of objects I've listed kind of fall in the same problem, so the main reason I'm opposing is the prevalence of all those articles, not necessarily that this is a valid article. 22:19, 21 November 2014 (EST)