General Discussion

There aren't too many examples afaik: from browsing the category, I'd name Artifact, Form Baton and Balance Stone, Elemental Tablets, Beanstone, Aladdin's Lamp, Red Jar, Pulse Stone, Lunar Stone, Pyramid Stone, Diamond Stone, Dream Stone, and Excalibur. There are probably more that haven't been categorized under Artifacts, a couple of the MTM (Mario's Time Machine) items would probably qualify once I get around to making those articles, but I'm not sure if that's enough to warrant keeping the article category.

edit: a word
 
I'd support the deletion of the category. Broad categories like that are normally best focused by categories for object type/game, which most of the article entries fit into anyway. Or alternatively, have all the entries fit into an "in-game objects of historical or cultural significance" description, and perhaps have the category renamed to "Historical artifacts", so the category's focus is immediately understandable. I'm fine about it either way.
 
Question, is Template:MK Players really necessary? No other game series with a large roster of playable characters has a template like this, and its purpose is made redundant by respective Mario Kart games nav templates and the big Mario Franchise template. I think we should either delete it or create Template:MP Players, Template: MT Players, Template: MG Players, etc. to match with the consistency and the latter route is a route I don't like.
 
I really don't like how it continuously re-links to characters on every line. And the table at Mario Kart (series)#Playable characters is a far better way to present that sort of information. The nav template policy recommends to only create series-wide templates when it would help to streamline navigation. Because this template is only being used on character pages (where there are a billion other navigation templates), I don't think Template:MK Players assists with navigation at all.

I'd vote to delete it.
 
With this in mind, can we also talk about Template:MK? It covers the Mario Kart items and has all of the same issues as the MK Players template, except that all of the items have been excluded from the main templates for some reason. There aren't that many items, so they can easily fit into the main templates without any issue. I support completely scrapping it.
 
I support deleting that template as well.
 
Time Turner said:
With this in mind, can we also talk about Template:MK? It covers the Mario Kart items and has all of the same issues as the MK Players template, except that all of the items have been excluded from the main templates for some reason. There aren't that many items, so they can easily fit into the main templates without any issue. I support completely scrapping it.
Click to expand...
Lol, literally everything about this template is against policy.
  • It has substituted the corresponding sections in the game-specific templates.
  • It re-lists entries when they re-appear in later titles.
  • On the item articles, the template replaces all game-specific templates.
Once these issues are corrected, the template may be deleted.
 
While cleaning up one of the MK templates, I noticed that we have an article on a Nitro Course, which is basically the opposite of a Retro Course; it lists every stage that appears in an MK game for the first time. Two questions: is this a term that appears in-game, and do we need an article about it?
 
I think that term was used only in Mario Kart DS probably in the instruction manual or something. My memory sucks though.
 
It probably was taken from the usage of "Nitro Cup", which does indeed appear in the manual. Like any Retro Cup is made up of "Retro Courses", I think the user applied the same naming logic to the article.
 
BTW, does the deletion of the two templates require a proposal or....? I'd like action be taken ASAP so it doesn't get out of our minds.
 
Time Turner said:
While cleaning up one of the MK templates, I noticed that we have an article on a Nitro Course, which is basically the opposite of a Retro Course; it lists every stage that appears in an MK game for the first time. Two questions: is this a term that appears in-game, and do we need an article about it?
Click to expand...
Baby Luigi said:
I think that term was used only in Mario Kart DS probably in the instruction manual or something. My memory sucks though.
Click to expand...
It does and it doesn't. The US manual talks about "Nitro Grand Prix" and "Nitro Cup" (both as opposed to Retro GP/Cup). The UK manual mentions only "Nitro Grand Prix" (replacing the mention of "Nitro Cup" in the latter instance, probably because they realised "Cup" was a typo), again as opposed to Retro. If the screenshots included are valid, "Nitro Grand Prix" is in the game itself. Don't know about "nitro course" - although it's a valid derivation if "retro course" is a used term, of course.
 
Time Turner said:
While cleaning up one of the MK templates, I noticed that we have an article on a Nitro Course, which is basically the opposite of a Retro Course; it lists every stage that appears in an MK game for the first time. Two questions: is this a term that appears in-game, and do we need an article about it?
Click to expand...
It's absolutely ridiculous to have stuff from Super Mario Kart and Mario Kart 64. You can argue on Super Circuit, but the old stuff are "extra" courses, not retro/nitro, and how it handed them is different, mainly because it has all Super Circuit courses compared to a sample of older courses that's been done since Mario Kart DS.

Also, why do we need a gallery of every single cup in that article?
 
http://www.mariowiki.com/User_talk:78.143.168.59

I don't think anon's are allowed to thematically customize their talk pages.

Also the anon created a psuedosig that first of all violates height policy and second I don't think it's something anons are allowed to have
 
I wanted to ask , is this correct?
1X86h2A.png


The information regarding Rosalina being a princess comes from a Prima guide. Its well known that Prima guides often include certain information that HAS NEVER been adressed inside the games or ''canonically'' confirmed , like Peach and Daisy being cousins for example.

My point against this is not only the above mentioned fact , but also all the games where Rosalina appears not only fail to call her a ''princess'' , they also seem to avoid doing so as her descriptions do not match Peach or Daisy , both always described as '' The cute Princess'' , ''The Mushroom Kingdom Princess'' or ''The tomboy Princess'' , ''The Princess of Sarasaland'' etc ... Rosalina is never refered as ''Princess of whatever cosmos or Galaxy'' and etc.

While there are some things that would imply Rosalina being art of some sort of Royalty , this idea seems to be abandoned altogether as she is always said to be ''A mysterious woman'' etc.

It also doesnt match her page , because her title page is still ''Rosalina'' rather than Princess Rosalina ...

Finally , a ''full name'' wouldn't be your name and your title.

As in Peach case , her name is Peach , her title is Princess and her last name is Toadstool.

Her full name would be Peach Toadstool and with her title she becomes Princess Peach Toadstool. Her full name is not ''Princess Peach'' , Princess is not a name (unless you are a dog or that character from the Power puff girls)

Thoughts? Is this really correct considering it doesnt come from an actual reliable source? ( i would not call Prima Guides a reliable source for character information)
 
Reminds me of this proposal.

The second source isn't really valid because it doesn't refer to her directly as "Princess Rosalina". The first one is a bit better, but Prima is known for being shaky on the names. The official bios don't ever refer to her as "Princess Rosalina" directly, though (according to the proposal, though, Baby Rosalina is referred to as a "baby princess" in the Mario Kart 8 bio). The article probably has to state that she's been referred to as a princess, but using that as part of an infobox? Eh. I think we can chop off "Princess" in "Princess Rosalina" while leaving the the categories and whatnot intact, since she has been referred as a princess not once, but at least three times (two sources shown here and the aforementioned Mario Kart 8 bio) plus implications of royalty.

Peach, in comparison, is referred to as "Princess Peach" frequently but often shortened to "Peach" as. I think that can stay in Peach's article.
 
Either way its handled it really doesnt bother me that much.

The point i was trying to touch was the use of a Prima guide to make such claim as the character is never really called that way , and even if Baby Rosalina is called a princess , she is a non canon character that has little weight in the actual Rosalina.

If she was in fact a Princess, i dont see the huge problem into calling her one inside the games. As i said , they seem to avoid that frequently , possibly because she is not.
 
The problem is that Mario doesn't have a canon. If Baby Rosalina has been described as a "baby princess", we have to extrapolate that to Rosalina. She does have weight in the actual Rosalina regardless of her trivial appearance in a Mario Kart game. I still think Rosalina should be categorized described as a princess, since there are some sources that call her that. MarioWiki goes by sources and handles the type of source by a tier, where Prima is shakiest, but still considered. If Prima calls her a princess several times, we'll have to categorize Rosalina as such. But I think there is more liberty to edit Rosalina's full name to remove the "princess" part since that's even shakier than Rosalina's identity.
 
I don't see the big deal in calling her princess: we have a (usually) trusted source that calls her that, and the section in the infobox usually encompasses titles, such as King Bowser Koopa (Bowser).
 
Swiftie_Luma said:
It also doesnt match her page , because her title page is still ''Rosalina'' rather than Princess Rosalina ...

Finally , a ''full name'' wouldn't be your name and your title.
Click to expand...
The page's name wouldn't change unless her "princess" title is addressed a lot more often within game, bios and other licensed material. That's why the Cranky Kong article acknowledges his title "Professor", but doesn't use it as the article's name (as it hasn't been acknowledged since Donkey Kong 64 as far as I know).

Speaking of which, a character's full name should actually include their title, such as "Professor Cranky Kong". This translates to the real world: for example, "dr." and "professor" can legally become part of the person's addressed name. I remember how my great-aunt's mail was always addressed to her as "Professor Such and Such". And I know that gaining a "PhD" university doctorate grants you the title of "Doctor". I'd assume that this extends to titles of royalty.

I think that Rosalina's full name should show her princess title, because content from Prima shouldn't exactly be written off unless it's proved incorrect, such as obvious mistakes, incorrectly describing game mechanics, contradictions for well established characters (quoting from here). However, the "princess" title doesn't directly contradict anything. Sure, according to most other bios, she's simply a "lonely woman", "commander" of a starship, or a Luma adopter. But nothing explicitly states "By the way, she's not a princess".

I also think it's fair to acknowledge the use of the title somewhere in the article, perhaps in the opening paragraph or the article's profiles and statistics section, that only Prima has addressed her directly as "Princess Rosalina", and she is yet to be called as such in-game. And a mention of that Baby Rosalina bio could belong there too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back