General Discussion

Walkazo said:
Toa 95 said:
Time Turner said:
Hopping Tap-Tap - There's zero mention of any sort of jumping Tap-Taps on the wiki, but they're clearly shown separately. I have no idea if there are actual differences between them and regular Tap-Taps besides the jumping, though, and whether that'd be enough to justify separate articles.
Click to expand...
The ones labeled as just Tap-Taps walk across the ground, while Hopping Tap-Taps hop in place.
Click to expand...
Isn't there also a slight colour difference?
Click to expand...

More than slight, since the hopping ones are grey and the walking ones are a peach color.
 
Walkazo said:
Toa 95 said:
Time Turner said:
Chomp Shark - The "guide" part of the guide consistently calls it a Chomp Shark, but the list calls it a Shark Chomp. It's a minor distinction, but which one takes priority?
Click to expand...
They aren't named in-game from what I can tell (haven't actually beaten the entire game yet but I am close), but it should be fine as-is unless a name shows up in a later game, just list both names.
Click to expand...
Yeah, add the second name to the page and as a redirect, but leave the article where it is: no sense changing things when we don't have to.
Click to expand...

My point was simply which name should actually be used for the article: they're both valid names, but which one was "more" valid than the other?

Walkazo said:
Time Turner said:
Hefty Goonie - I want to verify if "Very Goonie", which is what the article is called, is solely derived from Moltz the Very Goonie. If so, since the species otherwise doesn't seem to ever be called "Very Goonie", Moltz aside, the article would default to Hefty, no?
Click to expand...
I'd say just leave it as "Hefty Goonie" and don't worry about it unless more contrary information arises.
Click to expand...

The article is currently titled "Very Goonie" after Moltz (since Hefty was apparently a questionable name), so Moltz the Very Goonie would actually be the contrary information that's arisen.

Walkazo said:
Toa 95 said:
Time Turner said:
Hopping Tap-Tap - There's zero mention of any sort of jumping Tap-Taps on the wiki, but they're clearly shown separately. I have no idea if there are actual differences between them and regular Tap-Taps besides the jumping, though, and whether that'd be enough to justify separate articles.
Click to expand...
The ones labeled as just Tap-Taps walk across the ground, while Hopping Tap-Taps hop in place.
Click to expand...
Isn't there also a slight colour difference?
Click to expand...
Judging by the guide, the Jumping Tap-Taps are black whereas the regular ones are light brown. I suppose that's enough to warrant a separate article, isn't it?
 
Time Turner said:
Chomp Shark - The "guide" part of the guide consistently calls it a Chomp Shark, but the list calls it a Shark Chomp. It's a minor distinction, but which one takes priority?
Click to expand...
Time Turner said:
Walkazo said:
Toa 95 said:
They aren't named in-game from what I can tell (haven't actually beaten the entire game yet but I am close), but it should be fine as-is unless a name shows up in a later game, just list both names.
Click to expand...
Yeah, add the second name to the page and as a redirect, but leave the article where it is: no sense changing things when we don't have to.
Click to expand...
My point was simply which name should actually be used for the article: they're both valid names, but which one was "more" valid than the other?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got that (and I think Toa 95 did too), but if both names come from a guide, then they're equivalent in the eyes of MW:Naming and whatnot so there's no clear right or wrong answer. I guess you could go by whatever name shows up more often in the book, but even then, it's getting into judgement-call territory, and we might as well just stick with the established name we've been using all this time - unless we're given a good reason to change things up.

Time Turner said:
The article is currently titled "Very Goonie" after Moltz (since Hefty was apparently a questionable name), so Moltz the Very Goonie would actually be the contrary information that's arisen.
Click to expand...
Oops, didn't bother clicking the link (my computer's being laggy as all hell tonight so I'm avoiding loading pages if I can) and assumed it was the article, not a redirect. Anyway, the guide explicitly calling them "Hefty Goonies" overrides extracting the "Very Goonie" name from the single boss's title (which is a dubious practice that should only be used when no clear name is provided - that's not the case here anymore).

Toa 95 said:
Walkazo said:
Toa 95 said:
Time Turner said:
Hopping Tap-Tap - There's zero mention of any sort of jumping Tap-Taps on the wiki, but they're clearly shown separately. I have no idea if there are actual differences between them and regular Tap-Taps besides the jumping, though, and whether that'd be enough to justify separate articles.
Click to expand...
The ones labeled as just Tap-Taps walk across the ground, while Hopping Tap-Taps hop in place.
Click to expand...
Isn't there also a slight colour difference?
Click to expand...
More than slight, since the hopping ones are grey and the walking ones are a peach color.
Click to expand...
Time Turner said:
Judging by the guide, the Jumping Tap-Taps are black whereas the regular ones are light brown. I suppose that's enough to warrant a separate article, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, sounds like the Tap-Tap page can be split.
 
With the Tap Taps if I remember rightly there were brown and silver ones in SMW2, I do remember silver ones hopping, but I'm fairly certain when silver ones were just normally walking they'd turn around when they met an edge of a platform whereas the brown ones kept on walking, so maybe a split based colour instead.
 
Although in that case, we'd have to spit Red and Green Koopa Troopas, an that's a slipperly slope we'd be better off avoiding. At least the Tap Taps also appear in different areas, right? But I dunno, I'm starting to wonder now...
 
Well, you wanted to split the Green Toady from the Solo Toady based on its appearance and actions, right? Wouldn't the Hopping vs. non-hopping be the same thing?
 
Hopping vs. walking and walking off cliffs vs. not walking off cliffs are different than floating around on the stage and snatching the baby from Yoshi if encountered vs. swooping out of nowhere to nab the dislodged baby. I just worry about getting too split-happy. However, while Red and Green Koopa Troopas are different in some games (and listed separately in enemy rosters), they're the same save for colouration in others (plus there's other colours involved), so we can use that to counter any arguments that if we split the Tap-Tap pages, we have to split the Koopas, so it's probably fine.
 
There's a bit of inconsistency when it comes to covering characters' appearances in various episodes of the cartoons. Lemmy an article for all of the cartoons (List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa) and Mario has two (List of Super Mario World episodes featuring Mario) different (List of The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 episodes featuring Mario) articles for different cartoons. The thing is, Lemmy and Mario are seemingly the only characters to have these separate lists. I'm not sure if there was a proposal that nobody bothered to fully implement or if it's just a couple of users that decided this, but in any case, should we create articles that list every character's role in every episode, or should that be left for the main article? Regardless, Mario and Lemmy are outliers, so something has to be decided.
 
http://www.mariowiki.com/List_of_Donkey_Kong_Country_episodes_featuring_Candy_Kong
http://www.mariowiki.com/List_of_Donkey_Kong_Country_episodes_featuring_Donkey_Kong

every recurring characters in the animated shows is supposed to have these pages for episodes-by-episodes summary.
 
ninja'd


There are also a couple DKC cartoon (List of Donkey Kong Country episodes featuring Donkey Kong) subpages (List of Donkey Kong Country episodes featuring Candy Kong), and the goal is to make those sorta of pages for recurring major characters, so that History sections don't get clogged by miles of TV series plot summaries. I can't remember if/where it's written down in public view, but Porplemontage himself has said that we should aim to do this as part of efforts to try and manage character page sizes.

But it's a case-by-case thing: not every character requires subpages. If they only appeared in two or three episodes, you're not saving much space on the main articles to split the info (like how games that only have a couple glitches keep them on the main article instead of getting a whole subpage, etc.). That's also why Lemmy only has one subpage: there's no point making a separate page for his two SMW appearances, so they get merged with the TAoSMB3 episodes, whereas Mario does appear in enough episodes of the cartoons to get pages for each one (but TSMBSS subpage hasn't been made yet). Although, I actually feel lime it'd be easier if even Mario only had one overall DIC page: shorter titles, less navigation, and at only a paragraph per episode and no (or few) images, it's not like we're dealing with a tonne of martial even taking all three series into account.
 
Something has been annoying me for a long time, but I think the RPG enemy templates located in the official profiles and statistics section need replacement. The official profiles and statistics section is a good place to put these templates (since they otherwise clog up history section, especially if the character is recurring, but the problem is the mostly-vertical design looks, frankly, horrendous and unprofessional in those sections, padding the page and cluttering the section. It looks chaotic.

I think we should replace the vertical templates in the official profiles and statistics sections to a more horizontal layout, kind of like the bestiary articles from the respective RPG games. We're not replacing ALL vertical RPG templates, just those in the official profile/statistics section, generally.

Even if this suggestion should've been obvious and NOT have a discussion, the RPG templates on the profiles and statistics pages are pretty much established in this wiki, so I'd like some of a greenlight to do this.

I remember vaguely, years ago, that I was the user that attempted to make episode-by-episode summaries, starting in the Mario article, but I lost interest, and the information was eventually relocated to its own page. I might continue writing these, I might not. I like Walkazo's suggestion though, much better than those episode essays I've done with Mario. >_>
 
How many enemies in RPG's actually have official stat sections? For the most part, the very large majority of them appear only in a single game, and thus feature their infoboxes at the top of the page. Having horizontal infoboxes seems like the greater evil: it my be cumbersome for a few articles, but it's much neater for the rest of them and is consistent with every other infobox out there. Unless you could show me an example of what you're suggesting, I'd rather keep things the way they are now.
 
Example: List of Koopa Troopa profiles and statistics. In the PM section, the infoboxes are either all in a row on a wide screen (not too bad), 2x2 in narrow screens (less than ideal), and with the first three in a row and the PMSS one either below SPM or PM depending on whether or not the SPM template is longer than the PMTTYD one (looks bad either way).

Besides the oneshot enemy concerns (a very valid point), the other main problem with putting PM/etc. info horizontally is that it might not all fit in narrow screens: I'm especially leery of the tattle getting stretched vertically due to horizontal compression. One way around could potentially be using rows for the HP, Attack and Defence, but then that's starting to have issues with the other extreme of wide screens, with some stuff looking unnecessary compact and the rest either getting stretched horizontally or with negative space everywhere.
 
Time Turner said:
How many enemies in RPG's actually have official stat sections? For the most part, the very large majority of them appear only in a single game, and thus feature their infoboxes at the top of the page. Having horizontal infoboxes seems like the greater evil: it my be cumbersome for a few articles, but it's much neater for the rest of them and is consistent with every other infobox out there. Unless you could show me an example of what you're suggesting, I'd rather keep things the way they are now.
Click to expand...
I was trying to address this concern. I was trying to exclude these kinds of infoboxes in my post, emphasizing the official profiles and stats sections rather than the infobox designs themselves. To make things clear: infoboxes in one-off enemy articles like Anuboos, Diving Goombas, Koopeas (spelling?), Fuzzipede, the infoboxes do not concern me, and they can be left alone. I'm more focused on the infoxboxes that are in sections or pages similar to what Walkazo has mentioned.

I think the RPG stat section in the Koopa Troopa profiles and statistics don't look very good in any resolution. Sure, the infoboxes are aligned in the large resolutions, but they are in differing lengths, creating an ueven amount of empty space, so I think a horizontal layout similar to the Paper Mario bestiary can actually work. Now, I don't know how the bestiary looks in smaller resolutions, but I think we can simply extract the general layout from the bestiaries and apply them to the appropriate sections. It seems like an easy fix, and it looks cleaner that way.
 
The scrunching is due to the excessively large sprites, which maybe should be scaled down? Even in large resolutions, the large sprites are too distracting. The center text is another problem in large resolutions, which look horrid, but that's an easy fix.
 
Do we need Jerry? Jerry doesn't seem like a major character, and the only piece of dialogue that mentions his name is only after a certain Magikoopa has expressed an idea: "Wait, we're not doing that Jerry, remember?", which, you know, sounds like some offhanded comment made by a group of generic enemies.

Maybe I'm getting too trigger-happy on this, but creating an entire article on a light-hearted dialogue is kind of ... um... silly?
 
PM Jerry should never have been moved: the plain names should only become disambig pages when there's an equal chance that either name could be searched for, which there isn't here. As for BIS Jerry, unlike TTYD Johnson, Jerry has a line of dialogue and he can be specifically identified in the crowd, iirc. It's still a relatively grey area, but it'd be harder to justify a merge (and even Johnson's merge was due to a very close TTP (Talk:Johnson_(Paper_Mario:_The_Thousand-Year_Door)#Merge_to_Implied_Characters)).

EDIT: I moved the PM Jerry back to "Jerry", but I haven't touched the BIS Jerry page (aside from updating the articleabout link, of course).
 
Still some other redirects left, but all the mainspace "Super Star (power up)" ones are taken care of. Always do the templates first: it generally shaves many dozens of links off of the list and makes the task a lot less daunting (plus, then you're not stuck looking for links on pages that don't actually have them).
 
Sure. I've periodically thought about that split, but I didn't want to snipe anyone's editing projects...
 
Walkazo said:
Sure. I've periodically thought about that split, but I didn't want to snipe anyone's editing projects...
Click to expand...
I got started on it with the okay with the original proposer, I resorted through the categories from A-R (and some on S). I've seen said it in the edit summaries that I'd love anyone to help "snipe" my edits, but I made it more explicit here.

Speaking of sniped edits, I'm kind of bummed that I was working on creating a full page for Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS, but it just happened recently.
 
I'd help with the category stuff, but I'm preoccupied with completing challenges in order to have images. Speaking of, does someone happen to know anyone that's completed the really hard challenges and can upload them to the wiki?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back