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.

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.

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)