General Discussion

Transcribing the bios and uploading any artwork that's not already on the wiki is great. I was saying I don't think it's necessary to screencap the bios in addition to transcribing them.
 
Is it just me, or does some of the images in an article (like Cranky Kong's) look really big when viewing the article on an iPad?
 
A user keeps telling me about how you can unlock Yoshi in SMG (probably due my completion guide on my user page, I dunno). I'm like 99% sure it's a hoax, but he's been pushing his point for a while, claiming "he's done it himself." I highly doubt this (there's zero information about this on the wiki). He recently sent a link (see this). It's stupidly complex and obviously satirical, but I would like to confirm just in case before I respond to him for like the third time.
 
Nope, Yoshi does not appear in SMG1. The process of getting this "egg" is fake.
 
Tell him that Waluigi is unlockable too, because you saw it on DevaintArt.
 
Andymii said:
A user keeps telling me about how you can unlock Yoshi in SMG (probably due my completion guide on my user page, I dunno). I'm like 99% sure it's a hoax, but he's been pushing his point for a while, claiming "he's done it himself." I highly doubt this (there's zero information about this on the wiki). He recently sent a link (see this). It's stupidly complex and obviously satirical, but I would like to confirm just in case before I respond to him for like the third time.
Click to expand...
Obviously, the infalliable hackers of Galaxy 1, those that opened the key to the file system of that game, would've found something, but zip nada.
 
tell him you can unlock yoshi if you have 3ds max, your mario model file, rig him over model, inject him back to the model format into the super mario galaxy iso

next time you boot up the game, you'll be greeted with yoshi flying through the title screen instead of mario
 
On the usage of "cover" on the wiki

Sometimes ago, it was pointed out "remix" is used incorrect in the wiki (which it was) and "cover version" was suggested as a replacement. I didn't offer a strong opposition at the time, but now I think it was a bad choice and needs to be replaced. Here's why.

-It doesn't match the usage. When people say "cover version", it overwhelming refers to a band doing their take on another band's/performer song, it's only rarely used when talking about the score for media works, and when it is, it's often about an amateur doing his own version of an iconic song. It's almost never used to talk about professional composers scoring sequels in media franchises - the wiki is the only place I know of where "cover" is the default for "new version of a song in a video game series". Nobody says the composers of the various Star Wars video games and TV shows are "doing covers" of John William's compositions

-It still has potential for incorect usage (though not as much): Every dictionary definition I found of "cover song" specificy the cover has to be done by another artist, which of course doesn't work well for video games that share the same composer(s). Konji Kondo has been a composer on many Mario games and has done many new takes on his compositions, but by definition, he can't do "covers" of his own tunes.

So as a proper replacement, I suggest arrangement in all its flavours (new arrangement, "rearrangement", etc). Not only is it the proper, inclusive term when people say "remix", it's the actual terminology used in soundtrack CDs and the like. Plus it just flows a hell lot better.

But what does everyone think.
 
Never really loved how "cover" is used, but I opted over "remix" because "remix" is wholly inaccurate. I really prefer "version" "rearranged", etc.
 
I'm still strongly against using "remix" because of how egregiously it is misused online especially in video game factions, but just like "his/her" squabble, I don't like how "cover" or "cover version" rolls off either. "Arrangement" sounds far better than simply "cover", so I have to agree that we could opt for "arrangement" rather than "cover version".
 
It has quite bothered me as of late how the term "cover" was used in the wiki. I'd suggest changing all to "arrangement" or "versions".
 
Generally, per all. We were only really using remix due to the same misunderstanding of terms we're now trying to correct. :/
 
Time Turner said:
Considering the addition that YoshiKong rolled out for MarioWiki:Categories, which says that "Articles should use these categories only when a more specific one cannot be applied instead," does that give everyone carte blanche to start dividing categories and creating more specific ones, or should we wait for an official "go ahead"?
Click to expand...
Hi there. You'll find that most article subjects are already able to fit into more a specific category regarding the section you quoted. But no need for a go-ahead from us; the update to the policy could just be seen as a reminder on how we should be doing things. And new categories may indeed be created where valid.

For an example, I'll brief you on the structure of the broad "character" category from the section you quoted: Category:Characters is split into the "big 4": Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario and Yoshi characters. These may be further split into "series characters", such as "Mario Party characters", which then extend to games. Although, Category:Mario Characters could still jump straight to a specific game if there's no series to belong to.

Per the policy, MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope says that a game may have it's own "characters" category where it would qualify at least five entries. Those entries would then be receiving one of the most specific levels of "character" categories. If a game does not already have a pre-existing subcategory for characters, then it may be created following the "size and scope" section on the policy. And you may replace the less specific category being used on relevant articles.

Still on the topic of "characters", if you feel that there is a non-series/game subcategory which may be created (namely the kinds which are seen under the subcategory letters at Category:Characters, like the species-specific categories), then you may also divide relevant pages, still following the "size and scope" guidelines.

I hope this is enough to fully answer your question.
 
Are Bill Blasters (Bill Blaster) a species? I always assumed they were an insentient object: they're never given any facial features or anything that might make them look sentient, they never act like sentient beings beyond the fact that they launch out other sentient beings, and they're generally treated as standard objects without any life. However, the wiki still classifies them as a species.
 
Their Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga incarnations make me think they're a species. They're different from normal props, like, say the tree root in the King Goomba fight. They look autonomous beings, animate like autonomous beings, and react like autonomous beings when being struck by attacks. I think they're in some weird limbo that they're often treated as a prop. Even the log for Paper Mario: Thousand-Year Doors states that it is "unknown whether it is alive or not." But for the purpose of organization and categorizing, I think it's best they are a species. They fit very well along with other creatures in the categories, at least in the Paper Mario-related categories.
 
Question, Mario Party Star Rush and Paper Mario: Color Splash release on the exact same day, even in the exact same territory (Europe)

For character infoboxes for characters that appear in both games, what do we use for "Latest Appearance"?
 
Interesting. I'd say CS only because Paper Mario feels like a more integral part of the Mario franchise than Mario Party, but I think there's no objective way to choose one over the other.
 
Question, is it possible or at least worth it to write the reception tables in a template format?
 
Baby Luigi said:
Question, is it possible or at least worth it to write the reception tables in a template format?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if it translates well. You'd probably end up with a lot of "reviewer3" and "comment5" variables, and it probably won't come out very pretty. Still, if you can write it up, the end result might be good.

Category:Artifacts, as it stands, is useless and completely unhelpful. Besides being far too vague as-is, all of the items in this category already have homes in other and clearer categories. The only salvageable part I can think of is if it's retooled to contain only it-belongs-in-a-museum artifacts and not the "mystical properties" fluff, but even then, there's a lot of wiggle room that I'm not comfortable with. I'd be fine with getting rid of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back