General Discussion

They're literally mathematically equivalent and changing them will not affect the value at all.
 
Walkazo said:
My approach is that the first section toggles between "Creation" and "Creation and development" depending on whether or not there actually is development to talk about. (Sorta like how the last section of History can be "Other appearances, cameos and references", or just "Other appearances and cameos", or just "Other appearances", or "cameos", or any other sort o comvination, depending on the contents - so it's an existing precedent.)

For example, after Bowser's basic design was finalized, he hasn't really changed aside from minor detail here and there, which isn't worth talking about at the top of the page, but should be discussed in the "Physical description" section (really, noting this sorta stuff is the most worthwhile use of these sections). On the other hand, Princess Daisy and Yoshi both had major design changes, so it made sense to do a quick overview of them before getting into the game-by-game History that shows the conflicting appearances side-by-side - and then leaving more detailed discussion for the "Physical description" section (hence some pages seem to have two such sections). Same deal for personality, potentially, although most Mario characters haven't developed enough to really need an upfront discussion about it before getting into the history.

If there's nothing interesting to say about development beyond early installation weirdness that can still be chalked up to creation, my feeling is, don't say the section is something it isn't, or pad the section to justify a double-barrel header, and instead leave the "General info" with the nitty-gritty devo stuff, and the top of the page as just plain "Creation".
Click to expand...
All right, that sounds good. Although from this approach, some sections do need to be changed, such as Donkey Kong getting some comparisons between his arcade and his Donkey Kong '98 / Donkey Kong Country look.

But my question about the film stuff remains unanswered. Any thoughts?



Yeah, it makes sense to use least common denominator (if that's what we're doing). But why can't we just divide the rates first and then make them in decimal?
 
Dr. Mario said:
All right, that sounds good. Although from this approach, some sections do need to be changed, such as Donkey Kong getting some comparisons between his arcade and his Donkey Kong '98 / Donkey Kong Country look.

But my question about the film stuff remains unanswered. Any thoughts?



Yeah, it makes sense to use least common denominator (if that's what we're doing). But why can't we just divide the rates first and then make them in decimal?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the "Creation (and development)" section should definitely go through and clear up stuff about the two Donkey Kongs (or more... (User:Walkazo/Essays#Kong_family)).

I'd have to think about it before committing to a decision: on the one hand, it reeks of segregating by media type being passed off as something else, but on the other hand, we keep Dr. Mario and baby characters separate. In general, there's also been a push to split certain subjects when differences between appearances differ greatly, although different names in at least one language is generally how we justify that, so it's not quit the same case. (Incidentally, the NSMB Skeeter example you mentioned earlier probably should be split, based on the different Japanese name and how it behaves differently from all the non-bomb-dropping versions, and while the other three appearances each have different looks, afaik, the enemy behaves the same in all of them and there's no accompanying name changes, so they'd all be left together.)

Even better than decimals, just use percents, like I already said we should two days ago:

Walkazo said:
the drop rates (converted to 1% and 0.33% because all that hover-over stuff is stupid)
Click to expand...

It's the most simple and straightforward for us to present (one value, no fractions) and for the readers to read (as we'd be doing the math for them), plus it's consistent with how the new status effect stats work in the infobox.
 
Heh, yeah, but you have to convert to decimal before using percents, if I recall correctly.

Dr. Mario and the baby versions seem to be different forms/aliases though of an existing character and both have been their own playable character (although Dr. Mario has his own series to boot, which would probably be the reason he has his own article and not Tanooki Mario or Gold Mario). Baby Mario interacts with his older self and has been playable quite frequently in the spinoffs, not to mention fairly frequently get his own merchandising alongside his adult self. IMO I think keeping film Mario separate from Mario due to appearance would be like keeping Paper Mario separate from Mario or Yarn Yoshi separate from Yoshi or Bowser from King Koopa or live-action Lou Albano Mario from Mario simply because their portrayals are drastically different. They're, in the end, intended to be the same character with the same alias and name (Mario Mario IS apparently confirmed now, grumble grumble) unlike Baby Mario and Dr. Mario. In my opinion, the only thing that's really keeping them separate would simply be media type and lack of faith to the Mario series, and keeping them separate reeks of "the film isn't canon" when we're supposed to be actively avoiding injecting canon in our coverage.
 
Time Turner said:
...In the meantime, could I ask if anyone's heard of "Will Co., Ltd."? A user has been adding them as a developer to several games, but I haven't heard anything about that company. They also haven't gotten back to me yet.
Click to expand...
The user didn't respond even after multiple notifications, so I'm reverting his edits until he can provide a source. While I'm doing this, I've just realized that Nintendo SPD, Nintendo EAD, and a lot of the gnomework developers get labelled as having developed a lot of games, but I swear that I've never seen a source for one of them. There's obviously some logic behind it, but I've not caught onto it yet.
 
Time Turner said:
, I've just realized that Nintendo SPD, Nintendo EAD, and a lot of the gnomework developers get labelled as having developed a lot of games, but I swear that I've never seen a source for one of them. There's obviously some logic behind it, but I've not caught onto it yet.
Click to expand...

simple: individual names in the credit and their position. For ex, Nintendo SPD is for overseeing projects with third-parties, so if Shinya Takahashi (general manager of SPD) is credited as "general producer", that means SPD was involved in the game. Likewise, if a game with a predominantly western development team has Kensuke Tanabe and other jp staff in management positions, that means Nintendo SPD3 was involved (since their purpose is meanly assiting western productions)... etc. Mobygames credit list for developers is a great way to get an idea for who does what.
 
Time Turner said:
Of course it's that simple...
Click to expand...
No need for sarcasm...

Dr. Mario said:
Dr. Mario and the baby versions seem to be different forms/aliases though of an existing character and both have been their own playable character (although Dr. Mario has his own series to boot, which would probably be the reason he has his own article and not Tanooki Mario or Gold Mario). Baby Mario interacts with his older self and has been playable quite frequently in the spinoffs, not to mention fairly frequently get his own merchandising alongside his adult self. IMO I think keeping film Mario separate from Mario due to appearance would be like keeping Paper Mario separate from Mario or Yarn Yoshi separate from Yoshi or Bowser from King Koopa or live-action Lou Albano Mario from Mario simply because their portrayals are drastically different. They're, in the end, intended to be the same character with the same alias and name (Mario Mario IS apparently confirmed now, grumble grumble) unlike Baby Mario and Dr. Mario. In my opinion, the only thing that's really keeping them separate would simply be media type and lack of faith to the Mario series, and keeping them separate reeks of "the film isn't canon" when we're supposed to be actively avoiding injecting canon in our coverage.
Click to expand...
Hmm, very true. Although Paper Jam sorta complicates the Paper Mario stuff, but I think the best way for that is to just have a separate M&L:PJ Paper Mario character and assume the rest of the series is normal Mario (kinda like [wiki=Talk:Luigi#Split_a_SMG_Luigi_into_a_new_article]the second Luigi from Super Mario Galaxy[/wiki], only that TPP failed, so...). Anyway, if the film characters being separate could be used as an argument to make Paper Mario separate always using the one co-appearance as the other foothold, then that in itself is another good reason to merge.
 
re: the film characters pages: the plot summary for Mario/Luigi etc are really big. even if you merged them back into the main Mario page. sure, they may be crufty in spots, but you'd still require a separate page to describe their role in the film adequatly without making the Mario page even more bloated

so might as well keep it
 
Only for Mario, Luigi, Daisy and Koopa; Yoshi, Toad, Iggy and the King are all reasonably short (as is Big Bertha, although whether or not she should really be merged with the fish is a bit iffy, so might wanna leave it). Either way, I'd argue that it's not actually a good thing that the bios are so long, regardless of where they are or whether they get merged or moved or what - most RPGs have as much plot as the movies, yet Mario's page doesn't retell them and require separate pages, even though he's directly involved in everything - similarly, the movie's plot summaries should be saved for the movie's page, while the characters get comprehensive summaries only.
 
Advertising proposals is really bad form (MarioWiki:Courtesy#Fish): "Do not ask other users to vote for anything, period. [...] Even if you don't explicitly ask your friends to support your cause (or to join you in opposing something), simply contacting them makes it look like you're fishing for votes in your favour."

Also, the lukewarm response does tell you that the community's not receptive to the idea, but probably due to overall feelings of unease, leeriness or fatigue about just how much splitting is going on of a sudden, especially seeing as this is a gateway to splitting all the Equipment/clothing too, or simply because they don't care enough to look into it in-depth and/or get into an ugly argument about it (the main reason I abstain from proposals), since it's not a horrible idea, just not one that folks might not think is necessary.
 
Walkazo said:
Advertising proposals is really bad form (MarioWiki:Courtesy#Fish): "Do not ask other users to vote for anything, period. [...] Even if you don't explicitly ask your friends to support your cause (or to join you in opposing something), simply contacting them makes it look like you're fishing for votes in your favour."
Click to expand...
Sorry about that. The last time I asked about the lack of votes for a proposal, the general consensus was that it was fine.
 
I think we should rename "Category:Koopa Troop" to "Category:Mario Enemies" especially when none exists and recategorize Mario subseries categories. As it is, the category makes a lot of assumptions but a quick rename would remove that assumption and also be consistent with Wario Enemies, Yoshi Enemies, and Donkey Kong Enemies. There might be minor issues I've overlooked but the entire idea is good, right?



I thought my skepticism in the comments section stymied potential votes in the proposal so yeah, that may be a reason.



Glowsquid said:
re: the film characters pages: the plot summary for Mario/Luigi etc are really big. even if you merged them back into the main Mario page. sure, they may be crufty in spots, but you'd still require a separate page to describe their role in the film adequatly without making the Mario page even more bloated

so might as well keep it
Click to expand...
edit: I didn't even look at Walkazo points, but I ended up repeating her point about the RPG information, so we have the same thoughts.

I was trying my best to look past the sheer size of the content because we don't keep Mario RPG plot information in its own page even though those bloat Mario, Bowser, Luigi, etc. respectably. If we hadn't split the plot information from the movie in the first place, we wouldn't be advocating splitting it due to sheer size, right? I know cartoon episodes of said character have their own pages, but that's several episodes we're dealing, that's serious chunks of information, and we still have general Mario cartoon information anyway.

Walkazo said:
Hmm, very true. Although Paper Jam sorta complicates the Paper Mario stuff, but I think the best way for that is to just have a separate M&L:PJ Paper Mario character and assume the rest of the series is normal Mario (kinda like [wiki=Talk:Luigi#Split_a_SMG_Luigi_into_a_new_article]the second Luigi from Super Mario Galaxy[/wiki], only that TPP failed, so...). Anyway, if the film characters being separate could be used as an argument to make Paper Mario separate always using the one co-appearance as the other foothold, then that in itself is another good reason to merge.
Click to expand...
Well, Paper Mario is a pretty special case since he's appeared alongside the "real" Mario and has interacted with each other as if the Paper guy is his own character. I do advocate creating a page entitled "Paper Mario (Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam)". I still think Luigis should remain merged since the game makes a joke of it and seems like it wants its players to treat it as the same guy, but in two different places, if that makes any sense. But this Luigi has his missions and Power Stars........... I'd go either way, but if I was forced at gunpoint, I'd keep that Luigi the same.

But any opinion on my analogies to Yarn Yoshi, live action Lou Albano Mario, and King Koopa? Especially King Koopa, the green alligator, who differs from Bowser very drastically and the medium expects its viewers to treat it as Bowser. Same thing as the movie depiction, no?
 
Dr. Mario said:
I think we should rename "Category:Koopa Troop" to "Category:Mario Enemies" especially when none exists and recategorize Mario subseries categories. As it is, the category makes a lot of assumptions but a quick rename would remove that assumption and also be consistent with Wario Enemies, Yoshi Enemies, and Donkey Kong Enemies. There might be minor issues I've overlooked but the entire idea is good, right?
Click to expand...

I'd support this, seeing as how most Mario enemies aren't specifically tied to the Koopa Troop anyway.
 
Yeah, I'd say just get rid of it if's overused and problematic. The normal series/game-based sets of enemy categories should have stuff covered already.
 
But we don't even have "Category:Mario Enemies" that includes, well, the Mario series and its subseries. So that's why we should rename it. But what's going to happen when we're done? Don't we have to update all those categories? ugh... But I can't stand this category's name or its description. I think I'm going to go proposal route since the results are going to be major. I also need to analyze what needs to be moved or recategorized as well, but you can also help me if that's needed.
 
In theory, we should have that, and then by-series categories, and then by-game categories, for every major type of subject, and then only the most specific ones go on pages. But updating the category system is low on everyones' priority (and I'm still working on rewriting the policy page to be shorter and simpler).
 
Since I don't have much knowledge about the new DKC games, would anyone know if the names on the wiki come from the games themselves? I've picked up the Prima guide for Returns 3D and Tropical Freeze, and there are a few inconsistent names. Firehead Neds (Firehead Ned) are "Hothead Jeds", Squidlies (Squidly) are "Squiddles", Snaps (Snaps) are "Snippys", Cling Cobras (Cling Cobra) are "Wiggles", and so on and so forth. I don't want to make any edits without any context, so here we are.
 
In the Prima guide, there are a few instances of "five-doored temple": "Inside the five-doored temple, grab the coin and shoot the Feather Switch," "Enter Lanky's five-doored temple," and "Remember that Blueprint piece you got in the five-doored temple?" There are also instances of "the temple" and "the Temple", though it's hard to tell if it's referred to the five-doored temple or the Llama's Temple (incidentally, the guide calls it "the Llama Temple"). What's the reference for the JP name, though? It'd be a bit handier if it was translated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back