User:Walkazo/Essays

Here's where I shall rant about my views on the Mario series or the Super Mario Wiki itself and/or draft stuff to actually use on the wiki.

MarioWiki:Courtesy
The Super Mario Wiki is a collaboration between hundreds of users, all of whom are expected to exercise common courtesy when editing and interacting with other members of the community. Rude, intrusive or disruptive behaviour makes editing unpleasant for other users, and will not be tolerated.

Dealing with Discourtesy
Unlike the offences listed on Warning and other policy infringements, discourteous behavior is not serious enough to warrant an official right off the bat. Instead, if you witness someone behaving inconsiderately, you should simply write the user a message on their talk page, explaining why they should not be acting that way and asking them to stop now that they know it is against our courtesy policy. The user probably does not know they are being impolite, and in many cases, they may have even been trying to help. However, if the behaviour persists after they have been asked to stop, a can be issued, since they are now willfully acting discourteous to their fellow users.

Different users may have different ideas about what is discourteous, so to ensure everyone abides by the same set of standards, a list of behaviour that should be avoided is provided below. Some of these offences overlap with those listed on Warning, and both pages should be consulted when dealing with questionable behaviour on the wiki. If you are unsure whether another user's behaviour should be addressed with a Warning/Reminder template or an off-the-record comment, feel free to contact a Sysop or a Patroller for help or advice.

If you were given a Warning/Reminder for discourteous behaviour that you feel should have only merited an unofficial notice as outlined above, you can appeal to have the template removed. However, keep in mind that excessive impolite or disruptive behaviour may earn you a Warning right off the bat: if the administrators feel that you should have known better than to act the way you did even without an unofficial request to stop, your Warning will not be removed.

Discourteous Behaviour
The list of behaviours that are considered discourteous and unacceptable on this wiki are as follows. While some offences are straightforward, others require lengthy explanation. Similar or related offences are usually clustered together. If you have witnessed behaviour that is not listed here or on Warning that you feel is rude, invasive or disruptive, please contact a Sysop or a Patroller before proceeding with any punitive action.


 * Users should not...
 * participate in other users' editing projects without asking if they wanted help.
 * While you may be trying to help out, some users honestly want to do the work themselves and may grow frustrated when their projects are taken away from them. "Sniping" edits is a good way to earn other users' resentment, so unless you are sure a user missed something and is not coming back to fix it, do not step in to finish what they started. When in doubt, ask for permission or simply do something else. Editing projects can be anything ranging from systematic maintenance work, splits and merges, section-by-section rewriting of pages, or entire organization overhauls of related articles.
 * give someone a hard time for undoing their edits.
 * If someone reverted a bunch of your edits, they're doing it because they felt there was a problem with your changes, not because they are maliciously stalking you. If they did not explain themselves in any of their edit summaries, you can contact them and ask why they reverted your edits, but don't be defensive or hostile about it. Instead, discuss the matter civilly and come to an agreement on the talk pages, be that restoring your edits, leaving their reversions or making a compromise of some sort. Do not simply restore your edits and expect the other user to leave them alone this time, as that can easily spiral into an edit war, which is a warnable offence.
 * make fun of a user's writing ability.
 * Bad writing may be annoying to undo or rewrite, but keep in mind that we have a lot of young users and users who speak English as a second or third language: for all you know, they could be trying to write to the best of their abilities, so be nice.
 * make derogatory edit summaries.
 * There is no need to be nasty when you undo an edit or clean up someone else's work. For example, if you're fixing someone's bad grammar, just say "fixing grammar" or "bad grammar", but don't make snide remarks like "what the heck are you trying to say?" or "learn to write better". Insulting, ridiculing or otherwise antagonizing other users with your edit summaries is almost as inappropriate as flaming them directly. Don't do it.
 * speak unkindly of other users, either behind their backs or to their face.
 * Don't make fun of someone's editing skills, idiosyncrasies, interests or people skills. Don't ream off every last mistake they've made or otherwise pick at their flaws. Don't incite others in joining you with the hatedom. We don't want bullies on our wiki.
 * act condescendingly towards new users.
 * They may be new to the wiki, but that doesn't give you free reign over them. Lots of new users are competent editors right out of the gate, and even the ones that stumble at first have the potential to become valued users once they have a chance to learn the ropes. You don't have to take every new user under your wing, but don't write them off as dispensable "n00bs" either. Just remember, you were a newbie once too.


 * solicit other users to vote for their proposals.
 * If you have a proposal on the go, don't ask people to vote, period. Even if you don't explicitly ask your friends to support you, simply contacting them makes it look like you're fishing for votes in your favour. The only time you can draw someone's attention to a proposal is when it concerns a subject that is important to them. Far from being a discourteous action, giving them a heads-up about some possible changes being made to that subject would be a very considerate thing to do.


 * ask other users for personal information.
 * While some users freely share details about their name, age and where they live, others are more private. It is considered bad form to ask others about what they look like or fish for other information that could be used to identify them offline. While casual conversations often involve chatting about real life matters, if someone implies they do not want to talk about something, drop the subject.
 * pursue a conversation with someone even after they've implied/stated that they don't want to chat anymore.
 * Talking and making friends is fine, but some users simply want to edit sometimes, and they should be left to it.


 * give out warnings for incidents that occurred months or years ago and are no longer a problem.
 * hold old offences against an otherwise good user.
 * If it's ancient history, don't bring it up again: the user has moved on, and so should you. While a user's record should not be forgotten, how they act now is more important than what they were like a few years ago, and focusing on problems they have since outgrown does no one any good.


 * fish for compliments, especially from admins.
 * kiss up to the admins.
 * ask for a promotion.
 * Rather than praise and appreciation, the above three self-serving behaviours will earn you contempt from the admins and your fellow users alike. Users should edit because they want to improve the wiki, not because they want recognition and rewards. Taking pride in your work is fine, but being boastful is not. See also: MarioWiki:FAQ#How do I become an admin?.


 * critique an admin's performance.
 * incite other users against the administration.
 * tell admins what to do.
 * give an admin a Warning/Reminder or imply that they deserve one.
 * All of this is considered to be undermining admin authority, and as well as being incredibly rude to the people who are supposed to be trusted with maintaining the wiki, might get you in real trouble if the admins feel you are becoming more trouble than you're worth as an editor. While Sysops and Patrollers aren't infallible, they have earned their positions through their hard work and dedication, and they do not need to be told how to edit or do their jobs. Any problems that do arise with an admin will be dealt with internally by the other Sysops and Patrollers. Just as it is not a user's place to pick at the shortcomings of other users, so to should they keep their opinions about the performance of the administrators to themselves.


 * forgo the usage of proper grammar, punctuation, spelling and capitalization when communicating with other users.
 * If you're chatting with your buddies, you can be as lazy with your writing conventions as you want, but when you participate in proposals or talk page discussions, or when you ask an admin or another user a wiki-related question on their talk page, you must use proper English (although short-forms and common slang fine). Users should not be forced to decipher what is being said to them in order to follow important talk page discussions or proposals. Non-native English speakers should be given more leniency with grammar and spelling, although they are expected to be able to use basic punctuation and capitalization.

Categorizing Merged Levels
If all the levels were merged into their parent world pages, it would cut down on stubs, red links, navigation time, template space and organizational hassles when it comes to the many forms of "Level 1-1" and its ilk. The only thing it would cut back on that isn't so great are categories. For example, if single level in a world is underwater while the rest is a forest, an impasse is reached: the level must be acknowledged on a navigational level as an underwater area, but the entire world cannot be categorized as such. The solution: adding the links to the individual sections to the "summary" of the category page itself. I don't think this has ever been done before, and new things are very scary, but hear me out: with a little work, this could be a very good thing instead.

Firstly, not all categories are gonna get tripped up by a merge. The categories that apply to individual games or series will still work: they'll merely go on the world pages instead of on each level page (and complaining that the world itself isn't a level is sorta splitting hairs at this point - all the info in the page is about the levels, after-all).

On the other and, some categories will be rendered completely unfeasible: fir example, if all the Ghost Houses are part of the Super Mario World world pages, there hardly needs to be a category for them. However this isn't a problem in this case, since the Ghost House page itself sports a directory of Ghost House locations - the category is hardly needed when all the pages are already linked to in one place.

And between the two extremes we have the categories that will need to be rewritten to include the introductory list. Merely using the links will probably mess us some of the fancier aspects of how the Wiki works (like DPL and other things I don't even try to understand), but at a basic level, it'll ensure that the readers still get all the applicable links when they search using a category. It could even make navigation easier: right now, all the levels from all the various games are mixed together, often with worlds and miscellaneous areas thrown in as well; a list gives us the option to organize the raw data. We could subdivide the lists into the parent games, sparing people the task of having to comb through all the pages if they're looking for things like the subterranean areas of Yoshi's Island DS, for example. Some games will even allow for the levels to be clustered together into their worlds in the lists. Take the Subterranean Areas of Super Mario World for example (with all the unmade section-links left as raw coding; also, the ";" header coder doesn't work in quoteblocks):

;Super Mario World
 * Donut Plains 2 and Donut Secret.
 * All basic levels of Vanilla Dome, including Vanilla Ghost House and Lemmy's Castle, as well as Vanilla Secrets 1 and 3, and the Red Switch Palace.
 * Chocolate Island 4 and Chocolate Secret.
 * All the levels in the Valley of Bowser, including Larry's Castle and Bowser's Castle, and the Valley Ghost House.

Which would look like:

Super Mario World
 * and.
 * All basic levels of Vanilla Dome, including and, as well as Vanilla Secrets  and , and the Red Switch Palace.
 * and.
 * All the levels in the Valley of Bowser, including and Bowser's Castle, and the.

It could even be simpler: when an entire world fits the category, linking to the individual sections seems redundant. However, when only a couple levels in the world fit the bill, they should both get their own section-links, since linking to the page as a whole would be wrong. With these changes, it would be written like this:

;Super Mario World
 * Donut Plains 2 and Donut Secret.
 * All basic levels of Vanilla Dome, including Vanilla Ghost House and Lemmy's Castle, as well as Vanilla Secrets 1 and 3, and the Red Switch Palace.
 * Chocolate Island 4 and Chocolate Secret.
 * All the levels in the Valley of Bowser, including Larry's Castle and Bowser's Castles, and the Valley Ghost House]].

And look like this:

Super Mario World
 * Donut Plains 2 and Donut Secret.
 * All basic levels of Vanilla Dome, including Vanilla Ghost House and Lemmy's Castle, as well as Vanilla Secrets 1 and 3, and the Red Switch Palace.
 * Chocolate Island 4 and Chocolate Secret.
 * All the levels in the Valley of Bowser, including Larry's Castle and Bowser's Castles, and the Valley Ghost House]].

Both versions make it much easier to see what levels are from SMW if you didn't know to look for "Donut Plains" and whatnot. Proving additional tidbits of info, like how the Red Switch Palace is underground because it's in Vanilla Dome is also a plus - though the reader would have learned this the moment they clicked on any of the related links. While games like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island - and its evenly distributed subterranean levels - couldn't be grouped like this (it'd have to be traditional one-by-one lists), seeing the different organizational methods would be another bonus heads-up to the nature of the games. It may not be a direct goal of this innovation, but it's certainly not a detractor.

Also, while I've organized my example by sequential order, the actual lists should be alphabetical (by world, if they're like SMW) - to match the category entries below. This is a given for the one-by-one lists, but as you can see in my example, the "compound" lists lend themselves to the sequential order quite nicely. I organized my example like that to make sure I got all the levels (I haven't played SMW in a while), and I was too lazy to change it back; also, I personally prefer it this way, though I know it would look too inconsistent to actually employ.

Koopa Taxonomy
There are many kinds of Koopa: some are like Koopa Troopas, some are like Bowser, some are like Lakitu, some are like Hammer Bros., and if I had my way, Buzzy Beetles and Clubbas would be Koopas too. Are these different species? Are Red Magikoopas and Yellow Magikoopas different species, or do they just wear different clothes? And what are sub-species? Koopatrols? KP Koopas? What's the relationship between Dark Koopas in Paper Mario and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and Dark Koopas in Super Paper Mario? What is Bowser? And what the heck is a Koopa anyway? Since Nintendo didn't give us any sort of Koopa taxonomy, evolutionary chart, fossil record or family tree, it's totally up to us to answer those questions.

This is not impossible: mother nature didn't share her blueprints either, and yet we still know that spiders and crabs are cousins, and that tapeworms and earthworms aren't. We can't tell if Koopas evolved from turtles or dinosaurs, but we can tell that Bowser is not a Koopa Troopa based on the fact that they look nothing alike, besides their shells and overall skin colour. It's just like how tapeworms and earthworms look nothing alike beyond the fact that they're long and limbless and don't make for pleasant dinner conversations. By analyzing the facts, we can make reasonable deductions, enabling us to organize these enemy pages logically with minimal speculation involved, if we do it right. For example, we can associate Fire Bros. and Boomerang Bros. in because they are nearly identical except for colouration and some physical capabilities (fire or boomerang), just as we can say Ruby-crowned Kinglets and Golden-crowned Kinglets are closely related based on the fact that their body makeup is virtually the same, but their facial feathers and songs are different. But unlike the cute little birdies, we can't speculate on how the Fire and Boomerang Bros. are related: we can't assign them genera or place them in phylogenetic trees, but I think we can say they're different species. True, Nintendo never said they are, but, I mean, one breathes fire and one doesn't: any biologist will tell you that's enough to separate them.

Unfortunately, the "species" vs. "sub-species" debate is where things get really sticky; if you bring race into it too, all the stickier. It's easier just to say they're different "types" of a larger "group" of Koopas which are "related" to one-another, but our nature is to stick "species" in there as well - since it sounds more professional, and more importantly, way more posh. We can justify "species" when there's no doubt to the biology (if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck; if it's pitch black and throws hammers, it's a Dark Hammer Bro.), but when you have really similar enemies, the arguments start to waver. A no-brainer example: KP Koopas are basic Koopa Troopas who merely dyed their shells a different colour; they're "different", but not different species or even a different race or sub-species, just like how punk rockers who dyed their hair blue are still humans - very cool humans. A more difficult example: Dark Koopas in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and Paper Mario are more Koopa Troopas of a different colour, but they also have unique skills and live in a specific habitat, so are they a sub-species, or a race, or what? In cases like these, to label them is to make an assumption out of uncertainty, which we have to avoid as much we can: no more of this "sub-species" nonsense - therein lies the face of speculation.

Now, the reason for this spiel (aside from my love of taxonomy) is the confusion over "Koopa" vs. "Koopa Troopa", and what to do with their respective articles. As I said before, to the best of my understanding, the "Koopa Troopa" is a specific species (with many similar species and races attached to it, though the actual relationships between the organisms are ambiguous), and "Koopa" is a general term for all the vaguely turtle/dragonish creatures (I'd call it an Order, but that would be speculation to the max). Therefore, I believe it is a very good thing to have separate Koopa and Koopa Troopa pages: one for the species, one for all the shelled enemies. Currently, Koopa is just a partial list of all the major species and some of the minor species, and that should be changed: it should be an annotated list of all the species. Note the "annotated" part: that's what will set the page apart from a mere category or a list in Koopa (disambiguation): it will give context to the Koopas, allowing us to present them in an organized and logical manner, and as long as we watch ourselves, it can be one that is virtually free of speculation. An example of what the Lakitu section could look like is at the end of this essay.

Of course, some level of speculation is unavoidable. Like tapeworms and earthworms, things like Sumo Bro. and Hammer 'Bro. may not be related at all, but if names are good enough reasons to cram everything else on the Wiki together (A Pirate Goomba is a Goomba? Who knew!), why not here too? No matter what we do, we will have to make some assumptions, but none wil be as large and misguided as saying "Koopa" = "Koopa Troopa" = all Koopas and merging the pages. Bowser is not a Koopa Troopa: any biologist could tell you that even if they never played a videogame in their life (like my Animal Diversity teacher: instead, he spends all his free time studying tapeworms). Therefore, we can't write about Bowser's species in Koopa Troopa, and if we merge Koopa, we lose the only logical place to put it - we'd have to make a nameless stub about them, which would be against various Super Mario Wiki policies. For this specific reason, and for the organizational benefits I stated above, in the name of taxonomy and in the spirit of organization, I say we leave the pages separate.

Lakitu
Lakitus are bespectacled Koopas who ride clouds through the skies, and which can occasionally be found snorkeling in water and hiding in walls or pipes. Unlike most Koopa species, they do not have snouts or beaks, but flat faces; their shells are also unique in their circular patterning. To attack, Lakitus typically throw unlimited numbers of Spiny Eggs at their opponents, and some will also dangle 1-Up Mushrooms from fishing poles to lure their targets closer.


 * Lakitus
 * Aqua Lakitu - A race of Lakitu that lives underwater with the aid of scuba gear, coming to the surface to breathe and throw Spiny Eggs.
 * Calm Lakitu - Lakitus that inhabit Vibe Island, where they are associated with the Calm Vibe, incarnating the power by sleeping most of the time.
 * Dark Lakitu - Lakitus that are darker in colour with red shells and that throw Sky-Blue Spinies.
 * Fishin' Lakitu - Lakitus that use Fishing Rods baited with a 1-Up Mushroom to lure enemies near their clouds. Once the bait is taken the rod is withdrawn and Spinies are thrown. The Fishing Rod can also be used to hook enemies, support various objects, or to simply fish.
 * Lakipea - The Beanish Lakitus. Lakipea have a leaf-like appendage growing from their head, inhabit vine-covered clouds, and throw the Beanish variation of Spiny, Sharpea.
 * Lakitufo - Red-shelled Lakitus bioengineered by the Shroobs to possess strange extraterrestrial features, including antennae in place of hair. They ride UFOs instead of clouds and beam down Spiny Shroopas in lieu of Spinies. They can also jump off their UFOs and assault their enemies themselves with a screw attack.
 * Pipe Lakitu - Lakitus that hide in Warp Pipes to ambush enemies (still attacking with Spiny Eggs).
 * Roketon - A species of Lakitu that flies in airplanes through the skies of Sarasaland. Instead of throwing Spinies, Roketons fire large amounts of Giras from their aircraft to attack their enemies.
 * Thunder Lakitu - This species of Lakitu has a red shell (like Dark Lakitus) and tanned skin. Instead of throwing Spinies it shoots fire generated by a device in its cloud that harnesses the energy from the sun.
 * Wall Lakitu - Lakitus that hide behind hills and other objects in order to throw Spiny Eggs in surprise-attacks.

Timeline
Every Mario game, show, movie and publication in chronological order (right), and in chronological order sub-divided by series (left). Things without specific dates go before everything else released in that month/year. Non-game titles are bold. Issues in serialized publications and the set-of-three anime are marked with dashes on the right column; usually not included in left column. Remakes and notable ports are in brackets, although most ports/re-releases aren't listed. All that is to help with organization/comprehension. Non-English names often have translations (just for fun), and I also have the NA names in parentheses for the things we use the PAL titles for (because my memory is bad).

For the left column, games (or books, special comic issues (most not included), TV series, movies, etc.) in a series are numbered in most cases. Ports/remakes are in brackets and bulleted under the game they are a remake/port of; compilations are also bracketed, but are numbered like original game (All-Stars within the Super Mario series; Nintendo Puzzle Collection is on its own, as it includes games from multiple series). Similarly, the Super Mario Advance series of games is broken apart, with each game being filed under the original it is porting. In some cases, sequels are merely bulleted under the original (without brackets), rather than a new series being made for the two games. All other important notes are more case-specific, and are included as references (listed at the bottom); the entries with references are denoted with goldenrod text.