MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 27

Latest Appearance
I wasn't entirely sure where it would be best to discuss this, as it involves all of the character pages that say "Latest Appearance" in the info box, so I'll just discuss here. Does that actually mean "Latest Game Appearance"? Because if you count comic books and such, take Mario for example, he has appeared in the 40th edition of Super Mario-Kun after he appeared in New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Because it may be too difficult to keep track of most recent appearance anywhere, we may want to rename the infobox column as "Latest Game Appearance". --
 * Good catch. If we want to be unprejudiced in canon matters, we might have to re-think the name of this section. - 14:28, 5 February 2010 (EST)
 * I think latest game appearance is enough for an infobox like this, as it is indeed hard to keep track of all comic releases. - 14:47, 5 February 2010 (EST)
 * So is it OK if I rename the infobox row as "Latest Game Appearance"? --
 * I'm fine with it, go ahead. - 15:16, 5 February 2010 (EST)
 * Well, putting appearances in other media than games there is interesting for more obscure characters such as Bomberman or Santa Claus... And what about characters who never appeared in any game? They may have those infoboxes as well, see e.g. Mr. President. 16:51, 5 February 2010 (EST)
 * I'm also for remaing that to Latest Game Appearance as well. The only rule is that the INFO itself for that row is to be changed only when the game has been release onto store shelves regardless of region, correct? --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 17:37, 5 February 2010 (EST)


 * Time Q has a point. Perhaps we should add another line to that template reserved for other media appearances? The only issue with that is that it implies that games are more important than other media. We could split it up into distinct types of media (cartoon, comics, etc.), but that would just make the template unnecessarily long.-- 19:52, 5 February 2010 (EST)
 * Yup. I think we should just leave it as "Latest Appearance". If we know about a more recent appearance (e.g. Mario appearing in the 40th edition of Super Mario-Kun) then we can update it, but I don't think there'd be a problem if we just have the not-quite-most-recent appearance there. 05:31, 6 February 2010 (EST)
 * Well, saying that something is the latest appearance when it in fact isn't, actually is somewhat of a problem. --
 * If someone notices that in fact it isn't the latest appearance, they can edit it, that's what makes us a wiki. And if no one notices, that probably means that the source of the latest appearance is rather obscure and it's not that much of a problem to not have it there. At least it's less of a problem than having "Latest Game Appearance" there when there is no game appearance at all, or to discriminate between games and other appearances which we're trying to avoid. 06:12, 6 February 2010 (EST)
 * But then again, discriminating more obscure appearances (usually comics and cartoons) essentially is the same thing. --
 * As far as I know, a new Super Mario-Kun story is released every month in Japan, and various characters appear in those comics. It would be indeed hard to keep track of them, unless there is a user who reads them regularly and would make those changes. But limiting the latest appearance to games isn't the best solution. If a user knows about the actual latest appearance, he or she can always add it, it's a wiki. --Grandy02 06:51, 6 February 2010 (EST)
 * Another option is to simply get rid of the latest appearance thing. Then we would be neither limiting ourselves to games or presenting false information. (It doesn't provide much useful information IMO) --
 * That would be fair option, I guess. Any oppositions? 15:05, 6 February 2010 (EST)
 * I would have to say that we should get rid it because If we don't, then someone sees this and change the Mario article to like Latest appearance: On ***'s locker at **** school in **** . 4:44, 12 April 2010 (CST)
 * Well, obviously that never happened and won't happen in future. 18:23, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

I actually think the "Latest Appearance" listing has merit, seeing as the complete chronological list of appearances doesn't come until the bottom of an article and anything besides major games would seem inappropriate if we mentioned them in the Introduction itself (Super Mario-Kun fits in the infobox, but it would seem too trivial for the text). Removing it is a better option than changing it to games only, but I'd rather it simply be left as-is: as Time Q and Grandy02 have pointed out, if someone notices that the infobox is outdated, they should simply fix it. - 18:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)
 * But if we really want to include every single appearance, Mario has actually appeared on the front cover of the February 2010 edition of Nintendo Power. Yes, it's a wiki, but it's still virtually impossible to keep up with this stuff. Also, I still don't think the Latest Appearance really provides a lot of information. First Appearance, yes, but is there really that much of a merit in showing where the character appeared most recently?--
 * I think latest appearances are worth keeping track of when it comes to peripheral characters (and items, species, locations, etc.): of course Mario's in the latest Mario game, but what about characters like Petey Piranha? I find it interesting that this "regular boss"'s last appearance was two years ago - perhaps he's not so "popular" these days (this is a relatively speculative observation, though, so I can understand why his introduction itself doesn't address it). However, I agree with your aversion to having lots of really random and minor "latest appearances" cluttering up the place, so perhaps we could change it to "Latest Major Appearance" - i.e. games, TV shows, movies, comics and other notable media. The vagueness is actually a good thing, since a "major" appearance for one character may be nothing to a central character like Mario, and it gives us wiggle room when it comes to keeping things updated (i.e. if anyone says we forgot Super Mario-Kun, we could argue that while it is more major than something like Nintendo Power artwork, it's also serialized, meaning the fact that Mario appears in Issue X isn't very noteworthy and so we choose to leave it out of his page; however, for a minor NPC, being in the comic might be a big deal and so we include it in their infobox). We're already fairly loose with what we use as the infobox's image: it's supposed to be as up-to-date as possible, but if something's latest depiction doesn't come with good artwork, we default to something older without any ado at all; perhaps some flexibility with this issue will go over as smoothly. - 17:31, 7 February 2010 (EST)
 * But how do we distinguish "Major" from "Minor"? My only fear is that if we start doing that, we would start leaning towards game appearances as "major", because the most people know about them. There are no major and minor appearances because of the no-canon policy; everything is just as significant as the other. --
 * Just because something is significant doesn't mean it's "major": a game and a Japan-only serialized comic are just as important as far as our policies are concerned, but when it comes to Mario's history, Super Mario-Kun isn't as defining as New Super Mario Bros. Wii, for example. I think deciding what is "major" or "minor" is a subjective case-by-case situation: we can't possibly include every magazine article that mentions Mario on his page, but that does not mean we should not try to cover the magazine elsewhere in the Wiki, nor does it mean we should omit references concerning minor characters, for which the small appearance is actually a big deal when you consider the fact they've only been in two or three other games or publications (1/4 is bigger than 1/400). There is no hard line between "major" and "minor", and something that ambiguity is a good thing: common sense can sometimes do what rules are too rigid to accomplish. - 19:55, 9 February 2010 (EST)
 * But the problem with common sense is that everybody is different. Also, I don't tend to agree with the statement about ambiguity being a good thing. Another thing: "[...]when it comes to Mario's history, Super Mario-Kun isn't as defining as New Super Mario Bros. Wii[...]"
 * This is essentially saying that New Super Mario Bros. Wii is more "canon" than Super Mario-Kun. Or were you trying to say something else? (Because that's what this wiki is trying to avoid; every Mario that appears anywhere is the same Mario as any other, and anything that happens to him or whatever he does applies to the entirety of Mario, not to be regarded as separate entities.)
 * I wasn't talking about canonicity at all, I was just saying that since Mario appears in every monthly installment of Super Mario-Kun, it doesn't have much impact in the grand scheme of things, unlike a game, movie, or complete (i.e. serialized but now finished and summarizable) comic, etc. There's no reason why we shouldn't add it, but if we forget it one month or if a n00b reverts the infobox back to the last game, or whatever, it's no big deal because we're not omitting a key piece of information. The "Major" qualifier just makes things easier for us; like I said before, it gives us room to breathe, which can be handy: is someone really going to go around and change the infobox of every major character appearing in Super Mario-Kun every month? And what if another TV show ever turns up: will we realistically overturn the infoboxes every week? No - it's too onerous a project. - 23:17, 9 February 2010 (EST)

So if I understood you correctly, you are not trying to say that Super Mario-Kun is less worth in regards of the whole series than the games, but that it is difficult to capture something if it isn't completed yet. And would the manga ever come to an end, it would become material for that section...

Hmm... I gotta say, Super Mario-Kun is like a grey area here... Updating the section in question monthly can be nasty, but it is also doable. You are probably right that it would be too much on a weekly base in regards to a cartoon, but this is another case. I think the question here would be if one installment of Super Mario-Kun can already be seen as an independant system (like one game of a series). If it can stand on his own, then it can be seen as a whole thing and added to that section. I'm not too familiar with that Manga though, so someone else has to judge that. - 00:17, 10 February 2010 (EST)
 * I'd see the chapters of Super Mario-Kun like the episodes of a TV series. If The Super Mario Bros. Super Show was not broadcast in 1989, but today in 2010, would we update the infoboxes of Mario, Luigi, Peach, Toad and Bowser every day after the most recent episode? --Grandy02 13:54, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Unable to Edit own Userspace
I tried editing my Sig only to find that: This page has been protected from editing, because it is included in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option turned on:

[etc... I won't include all the pages] You can view and copy the source of this page:
 * MarioWiki:The 'Shroom/Single/Issue XVIII
 * MarioWiki:The 'Shroom/Single/Issue XVI
 * MarioWiki:The 'Shroom/Single/Issue XVIV

What does it mean those pages are protected with the "cascading" option turned on? --
 * Obviously those pages shouldn't have a cascading protection. I changed it to a regular protection. - 12:53, 8 February 2010 (EST)
 * Thanks. Does cascading mean that pages included in the protected page also become protected? --
 * Yes it does. - 12:58, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Edit Count bug
While checking my edits through Special:EditCount, I decided to see if there was a user called "Mario". There was, and he had no edits. Yet the page said the total amount of edits was 16. Is this some kind of glitch in the server?
 * Weird...I checked it too, same thing happened, and I checked contributions, and there was nothing there. –
 * It's probably because those edits were vandalism and have been removed from the affected pages' edit histories (and the vandal's Contributions) by a Sysop. These edits are still in the database, and so they still get counted, but I suspect they are somehow disassociated from the pages they were made on, and therefore, don't fit into any of the subtotals in the Special:EditCount chart. I don't know exactly how or why this happens, but I can assure you it's not a glitch or any other cause for alarm. - 23:37, 18 February 2010 (EST)
 * ^That's also what I suspected at first, but then looked at his block log, only to find that nothing was listed. If he made valdalism edits that were so bad for them to be deleted, you'd think he would have been blocked, but nothing is listed there, which puzzles me.
 * Maybe the IP address itself was blocked. - 18:58, 23 February 2010 (EST)
 * The user would of been banned first.
 * I don't know if that is the case. When I added my total along with other users (how they don't mind in my experiment) the total was off, varied by how many edits a user had. For example, mine says 2136, while when I add them on a calculator, it is truly 1896. In percent wise, it would be about 12-16% in difference. So I think that there is a problem or glitch in it.
 * I found another cause for the discrepancies: when a page is deleted, the subtotals in the chart no longer register the edits, but the total at the bottom does not go down. Moving pages might also change things (it messes up Oversight's records), but I haven't tested that yet. Again, this is nothing to get worried about: it all makes perfectly logical sense. - 22:40, 23 February 2010 (EST)
 * Well, I checked the block log and found a user named Mario was blocked.

The Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance
I apologise if this is in the wrong section, however I couldn't find the right article to discuss it. On the niwa section on the sidebar to the left of the wiki there is a link to the Metroid Wiki, however on the Main Hub for the niwi site the Metroid Wiki isn't mentioned there does it still belong here? Thanks, --Chickasaurus 17:07, 19 February 2010 (EST) =)
 * THe current situation of the MetroidWiki is complicated... However, unless indeicated otherwise, the link should be there :) -- 22:46, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Nintendo Media Summit 2010
If you guys didn't know -- Nintendo had announced that it will host a Summit to show off their new games or possibly new trailers this Wedesnday and Thursday (Feburary 24, and 25) with one from CA, and one from Europe. So if you catch any Mario related info, including possibly new info of SMG2 (so people can collaborate the differences between last year and this year for the beta pg). http://wii.kombo.com/article.php?artid=15684 Additionally, if there are new games, please add them in the Mario & Nintendo News, or add this info as well. :o 15:41, 23 February 2010 (EST)
 * I found out a rumor.. Nintendo may have possibly leaked the SMG2 boxart.  -- 15:04, 27 February 2010 (EST)
 * Utter speculation. (I don't even think it was a "leak"; it is the boxart, and it's not like Nintendo was trying to hide it or anything)

Scrollboxes on Talk Pages
For settled Talk Page Proposals, we use so they don't clutter the talk pages. There's one problem about that, though. For example, look at Talk:Midbus: If one attempts to edit the section called "Pig" by clicking on the "edit" link next to it, one will be taken to the "Keep it the same" section which is actually included in the scrollbox above. This is because sections included in scrollboxes are not counted in the "edit" links (which end by "edit&section=x", x being a number), but are counted when an actual section is selected. It's hard to describe, but I think you'll know what I mean. 06:48, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Oh yeah, I remember this. I think we had the same problem when we decided to go for scroll boxes on some other pages. I'm not sure what to do, I think being able to edit the page properly is more important than it being too long though. Maybe replace the sub-headers inside the scroll boxes with tags.  -  08:47, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Or perhaps the fake headers used in "MW:Chronology"? After all, there is no real need to edit them. -- 13:46, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
 * In any case, the system should be straightforward and easy to apply for every user. - 16:15, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
 * I agree. I tried to use it, and is not as simple as I thought. -- 16:52, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Using seems the best option to me, it's relatively easy and we can keep the scrollboxes.  07:08, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Using the fake headers will also be easy if we put a note in the TPP rules to replace all the "==="s with and - anyone can cut-and-paste. The fake headers look exactly the same as real headers, whereas just making things big wouldn't mimic the look as well; or at least, I'm assuming it doesn't look the same, since  doesn't actually make the type bigger on my computer... -  23:13, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Do they really have to look the same? I don't know, I just think that copying and pasting that coding is still too intricate. 06:49, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

(Un)Used images
If one goes to Special:Unusedimages, he can see that there are some "unused" Bowser images. And I use unused loosely, because all those Bowser images are actually used, but for some reason, are listed as unused images. Anybody know how come this happens?
 * That is really odd. The unused images page is known to glitch quite often. Maybe we should add some kind of template notice to the images in question so that they are not deleted by accident. - 09:20, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
 * I agree with Cobold. We should have a template to protect those files from deletion.
 * Made one, . - 10:10, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Thank you.

told me one day that the glitch may come from a syntax error in the image, I mean, if the link has an space between "image" and the filename -, this will cause that this (as well as other images in the article) don't be registered as used.
 * But that's not the case in the Bowser article. - 13:39, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
 * There's probably some sort of coding snafu buried in the article that's responsible for the glitches. It's a huge page, so I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least one little mistake hiding in there... - 20:27, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

WarioWiki
Shouldn't the WarioWiki be merged into the MarioWiki now because of this??? If yes, then why do we still have this [wario.wikia.com] ???
 * WE don't have that at all. We are completely independent from Wikia. - 19:52, 20 March 2010 (EDT)

NIWA
Is SMW's relationship with NIWA detailed in any article on the wiki? Culex 14:41, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Not yet :/ -- 19:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)


 * The other wikis have articles about the alliance. While we should probably not have a mainspace article about it, perhaps we can create a MarioWiki article or add on to another MarioWiki article.  A prominent link to or mention of the main NIWA site might be a good idea as well. Culex 20:41, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Seems like a good idea. I will bring it up to the otehr admins :) -- 15:49, 12 April 2010 (EDT)


 * Just for reference, ZeldaWiki.org has an article about NIWA in their, while Bulbapedia has its own NIWA article and even features a NIWA box linking to the other wikis on their Main Page. Culex 16:14, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
 * And they have a page for the MW :O -- 16:25, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Where???
 * :) -- 17:47, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Shouldn't we create a page for it in here?? 16:50, 12 April 2010 (CST)

We are discussing it with the admins. -- 20:03, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

Prob.
I was just trying to edit Talk:Birdo, when this came up. It seems to only happen when I try to edit the last section on the page. Then I clicked on the [edit] icon in the section above. I was taken to the section below it instead. Is this just some weird glitch or something? I don't even see any scrollboxes or anything on the page.
 * It's fixed. Don't ask me why, but the glitch was caused by a sig that was put right on the same line as a header. 18:39, 12 April 2010 (EDT)