User talk:A Link to the Past: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary
Line 66: Line 66:


Now that I've explained the above, you will be warned for any more rash edits and blocked if it continues. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 16:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Now that I've explained the above, you will be warned for any more rash edits and blocked if it continues. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 16:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
#Proposing a merge for every single minor, insignificant aspect of the Marioverse is not being bold. Asking permission because there just MIGHT be opposition towards an edit is the exact opposite of being bold.
#Are you implying that Pokémon Pikachu is notable to the point where it warrants an article? Can you expand it any more without making it an article on the product (which is not very relevant on this Wiki, since aspects of the product aren't ever mentioned in the game)?
#Just because you have no standards whatsoever as to what warrants an article does not mean that I should "quit". Pardon me for saying, but it is a matter of fact that in the end, the Mario Wiki will '''not''' be quality. A quality Wiki doesn't prefer scattered petals over a full flower. Why are thousands of sentence-long articles better than a larger, more informative article?
#And another thing - you see, the priorities of this Wiki are completely screwed. You wish to give coverage of all Mario-related concepts, but how in the world are the Mario games stubs if this is so? Maybe this Wiki would be better if you didn't care so much more about using this Wiki to write about everything Mario-related that you couldn't write about on Wikipedia than you do about the games in the series. - [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] 21:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:06, May 7, 2007

Stop redirecting the toys. We Do need toy articles. Look at all the toy articles we have! Also, about the villains, and Metal Luigi thing, talk about that in their talk pages. And don't redirect the toy pages again,or you could get blocked. Paper Jorge ( Need to tell me something? Go to my talk page.·Contributions·) 17:07, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

And you didn't need to add those old main page discussions to the archive. They were in the wrong section anyway. That was over a year ago and we're making sure all our content is original now. --Steve (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

Merging

Merging what? Wa Yoshihead.png TC@Y 23:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, a bunch of stuff. For instance, merge Axem Rangers all together (there really isn't enough to say about each of them individually), merge Tuff Puffs into Huff N. Puff, et al. - A Link to the Past 23:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
I have to oppose both merges because each are separate enemies with different stats, and are thus different from the group. And looking above I remember you now: you were very resistant about redirecting what you thought was the same. Don't start up another issue. Wa Yoshihead.png TC@Y 23:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
...Fine. Leave Tuff Puffs alone, but merge the Axems. I'm watching to make sure nothing is lost. Wa Yoshihead.png TC@Y 23:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Sky Land

This message is regarding your edit to Sky Land. What's wrong with the individual level info in the article?? Please explain with as much detail as you can. Koopa lover 10:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Merge

Beforing Merging Anything bring the topic up on the talkpage first. Great Gonzo

Counter

Because the l33t hammer bros. were characters in PiT. They deserve their own article. Great Gonzo

l33t hammer bors. is long and well written article, end of discussion it stays seprate. Great Gonzo

I will get around to helping neglected articles, but for now the l33t hamm3r broz. Stay unless a admin say otherwise. Great Gonzo

Before making Any Radical changes, consult an admin, patroller, or put this on the page.

Wario FA

Is reading like an ad a bad thing? Why so? I always thought that was a good thing, and purposly strived for it in the article. 3dhammer.gif 3D, it looks like a FLAME WAR! Too bad I'm grounded. 3dhammer.gif

Because an article is to be neutral. A Wiki isn't for the sake of selling a product or product associated with a subject. - A Link to the Past 01:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh. Well. Whatever. I just tried to make it sound exciting. Time for a rewrite... once I'm not grounded. 3dhammer.gif 3D, don't turn around... der kommissar's in town.. 3dhammer.gif
Actually, creative subtitles and writing are a good thing. See the Yoshi article for evidence of this. Tadaa!2.gifPlumberTadaaa!.gif 21:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
==Vote==
===Support Merge===
===Oppose Merge===

And see if any other users oppose it...like me of course. Great Gonzo

sysops or patrollers

That wasn't an option, the merging is left up to, admins and also the majority of users votes. Great Gonzo

Look here smarty, STOP merging articles without putting the merge template on and letting other users decide. Got it? Great Gonzo

Please use a talk page before making major edits, or after having it reverted as to discuss the issues. -- Son of Suns

Hence the need to bring this up on a talk page so we can figure out such criteria. But such rash edits are upsetting. Please use the talk pages so we can figure out criteria together. -- Son of Suns
I only protected to prevent you and Great Gonzo from countlessly reverting. I don't have opinion on this issue right now. I just wanted to stop the edit war and bring the issue to the talk page. I do not neccessarily agree with how the article is composed right now. -- Son of Suns
But we can find a consensus on what is included in the main Characters list. We already have a Donkey Kong Characters. -- Son of Suns
Species or creatures should not be on the Characters list for sure. The wiki has generally supported giving any officially named feature (character, item, etc.) its own article. Most people like it that way. And it's not bad if we have short articles - someone can always find content somewhere. -- Son of Suns

The problem is, how do you decided what is included in a bigger list article or not, if they are all independently named? And I'm sorry but I do have to go. -- Son of Suns

About our Standards Here

Here's the deal, Mr. Link to the Past. You're causing trouble. Again. You are being bold, which is good, but not in the way you're doing it. Be bold by proposing these changes on the talk page first, not actually making the changes without consensus. Your big changes were rash and as shown opposed by the community. If you still think the changes need to be instituted, present some reasons on the talk page again discussing why you still think these changes are needed. Then, users will respond a second time, and if it's still opposed a second time, it probably won't work the other times, so I advise you to not bother.

I'm going to respond to your "second-chance reasons", which I gathered from the talk pages. You think we need a "criteria for inclusion", that is, the subject in question has to be at a certain level of importance/not too specific that it has enough information to fill in for a "fair" article. If not, such as minor items, they go into a list to create one good fairly-sized article. You'll proposing List of Goomba varieties, List of Treasures from Wario Land 3, etc. This sounds like Wikipedia's standards: dump everything in a list for a nice article.

We are NOT Wikipedia. Here at the Super Mario Wiki we are here to create an article about everything in the Marioverse – even down to the tiniest details and collectibles. Each article, as my colleague Son of Suns pointed out, has potential for more details, with every new game there's new information to add to 100s of articles, even featured articles can always be improved. True, some subjects make small articles, but there's always at least a good paragraph or two to write about – or, that is our goal. There's always something to add.

I will point out in a couple of cases we have merged – Badges and List of Catch Cards, List of Sammer Guys. But Axem Rangers? From what I've seen now, each has a different personality. Also, MarioWiki:Importance Policy accepts the Smash Bros. series on this wiki, as well as other series related to Mario, but not necessarily staring him.

Now that I've explained the above, you will be warned for any more rash edits and blocked if it continues. Wa Yoshihead.png TC@Y 16:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  1. Proposing a merge for every single minor, insignificant aspect of the Marioverse is not being bold. Asking permission because there just MIGHT be opposition towards an edit is the exact opposite of being bold.
  2. Are you implying that Pokémon Pikachu is notable to the point where it warrants an article? Can you expand it any more without making it an article on the product (which is not very relevant on this Wiki, since aspects of the product aren't ever mentioned in the game)?
  3. Just because you have no standards whatsoever as to what warrants an article does not mean that I should "quit". Pardon me for saying, but it is a matter of fact that in the end, the Mario Wiki will not be quality. A quality Wiki doesn't prefer scattered petals over a full flower. Why are thousands of sentence-long articles better than a larger, more informative article?
  4. And another thing - you see, the priorities of this Wiki are completely screwed. You wish to give coverage of all Mario-related concepts, but how in the world are the Mario games stubs if this is so? Maybe this Wiki would be better if you didn't care so much more about using this Wiki to write about everything Mario-related that you couldn't write about on Wikipedia than you do about the games in the series. - A Link to the Past 21:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)