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 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)