General Discussion

So I'm really pondering about custom 3D renders on the wiki

We can take sprites out of sprite sheets and upload them as they are official frames of animation from the sprites. However, 3D models seem to be an iffy territory to me. Most of the time, they're T-posed if you rip them directly from the game but even if you pose them to exactly how they are idle in the game, they're considered "fan-poses" even though the model itself is still pretty official, as well as the pose they are in. Plus you can manipulate the lighting and render effects so they look really nice yet they're probably forbidden on the wiki on the grounds of unofficial rendering of 3D models. I know they're forbidden but there's something about why that I don't exactly know that makes it something on gray grounds to cover on the wiki. And taking sprites that require piecing together because they're flash animated is still somewhat official even though it requires a game screenshot to piece them together properly.

I'm not debating anything here as I'm still against, say, grabbing a Cheep Cheep model, making it look pretty in 3DS Max with a render with detailed lighting and stuff, and listing the model as "model" instead of "official artwork" but I wish I had an explanation for my question.
 
Lumastar said:
Prince Mush is categorized under princes and royalty.

Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's right.
Click to expand...
Then fix it.

Baby Luigi said:
So I'm really pondering about custom 3D renders on the wiki

We can take sprites out of sprite sheets and upload them as they are official frames of animation from the sprites. However, 3D models seem to be an iffy territory to me. Most of the time, they're T-posed if you rip them directly from the game but even if you pose them to exactly how they are idle in the game, they're considered "fan-poses" even though the model itself is still pretty official, as well as the pose they are in. Plus you can manipulate the lighting and render effects so they look really nice yet they're probably forbidden on the wiki on the grounds of unofficial rendering of 3D models. I know they're forbidden but there's something about why that I don't exactly know that makes it something on gray grounds to cover on the wiki. And taking sprites that require piecing together because they're flash animated is still somewhat official even though it requires a game screenshot to piece them together properly.

I'm not debating anything here as I'm still against, say, grabbing a Cheep Cheep model, making it look pretty in 3DS Max with a render with detailed lighting and stuff, and listing the model as "model" instead of "official artwork" but I wish I had an explanation for my question.
Click to expand...
I dunno... On the one hand, if the articles and aboutfiles clearly say the model's been reconstructed, it might be okay, and it'd be nice to have examples of models without needing to just rely on artwork and screenshots. But on the other hand, like you said, this sorta thing's often considered fan-made and some might oppose the inclusion on principle - and then there's the question of whether we can actually guarantee that the model is 100% accurate to what it'd look like if we took a screenshot, the way we can guarantee that 2D sprites are true to the game... It's a tough call...
 
Re: the recent Paper Mario recipe proposals-is there any official precedent on near-identical items other than Koopa/Turtely Leaf? If not, I think taking care of all of them under a single proposal would make more sense than tackling them individually.
 
Not that I know of. An overall proposal (on the central MW:Proposals page) would make sense - as long as everything really is in the same boat and doesn't require case-by-case consideration.
 
I'm not very familiar with Paper Mario myself, so I couldn't tell you, but it's worth looking into.
 
So, I was in the middle of writing out a proposal to split Atomic Boo (Atomic_Boo#Paper_Mario:_The_Thousand-Year_Door) from Big Boo. Here's what I wrote:

I'm going to disagree with the idea that the Atomic Boo from the Paper Mario series is the same thing as the Big Boos. To start off, the Atomic Boo isn't a species, it's a separate entity. Only one of it appears at any given point in each game (I'd consider Mansion Patrol to be a very weak opposition to this due to how estranged it is from the main game), which is unlike the Big Boos that have a habit of appearing alongside each other. There's also the fact that the Atomic Boo is clearly formed by a bunch of Boos combining with each other in two installments (TTYD and SS) and is implied to be formed this way in SPM, which is something that also distinguishes themselves from Big Boos and makes it closer to, say, Boolossus, another conglomeration of Boos. Yes, in TTYD they share the same name in Japan, and in SS they even share the same name in English, but the same name ''alone'' is not a good reason to merge two subjects, and this retreads the same reasons I laid out on the Gritty Goomba talk page (Talk:Gritty Goomba (Gwarhar Lagoon)|).

The difference in behaviour is also noticeable: Big Boos simply chase after Mario like smaller Boos, but in TTYD, the Atomic Boo can spit out its smaller boos and use a powerful glare, while the SS Big Boo not only has a visual difference, it can eat Mario and disappears in light. This isn't solely due to the difference between RPG's and platformers; there's a noticeable contrast between them and Big Boos. Granted, the SPM one has the same traits as a standard Big Boo, but there's a two-for-one ratio here.
Click to expand...

That last part made me realize, as I was writing it, that I don't have a plan on how to split them. Taking into consideration only TTYD and SS for now, they're both combinations of Boos, but they're different numbers of Boos and are (presumably) combined with different Boos, appear in different locations, have different powers, and different appearances, so they're definitely separate not only from other Big Boos, but from themselves as well. The SPM Atomic Boo is throwing me for a loop; it's the only one of its kind and shares its appearance and name with its predecessor, but it acts exactly like a regular Big Boo. Splitting the Boo from TTYD and not the one from SPM just seems odd to me, for some reason. Can someone help me wrap my head around this?
 
Well, the SPM one's tattle says "Some say this Boo is a huge, massive ball of many smaller Boos..." which is an obvious ref to the first two PM games. Also, the fact that there are Atomic Boos in different games being formed out of different groups of Boos means it's not actually a recurring individual entity - it's more like a form, although species also fits (it's kinda like a Man-o-war jellyfish) for lack of a better niche term. In fact, if I were to think outside the canon box, I'd even say Boolossus is an example of an Atomic Boo.

Anyway, I think splitting the Atomic Boo sounds like a reasonable idea - but all four PM games should move together.
 
I've already stood on my soapbox on the DK64 FA page, but I figure making my point in a more public space is worth it:

Whenever staff sections on game pages aren't empty or random credits copypasted from the target page, they usually end up just being a succession of "[Name] was the X and, Name did the music, and Name was another X" etc.

Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development developed Mario Kart 7, with Retro Studios as Co-Developers and Artists. The music composition is credited to Kenta Nagata and Satomi Terui.
Click to expand...

It's "better" from a presentation perspective since it's not just arbitrary copied credits, but as standalone writing, it's just not interesting or useful at all. When writing staff sections, make relevant links or give some context - say if the game was developed by most of the key staff as the previous installments or not, say if the game was the first/last work of someone who was important to the series, or on the contrary, if the game was the one Mario/DK/Wario game someone more famous for other things was involved in, give additional info on who did what. etc. If you're not familiar with dev teams, Mobygame is not 100% accurate but its "People who have worked on this game have also collaborated on the creation of the following games" feature at the end of their game credit pages provide a great base.

Point is, staff sections can be informative and interesting in their own right. Don't just drone a bunch of names and call it a day.