General Discussion

It'd just be convenient if we had all the calendars under one page, eh?
 
Mario Party Σ said:
It'd just be convenient if we had all the calendars under one page, eh?
Click to expand...
Agreed, that's why I did this for another forum. I would be willing to update, revise and rewrite it a bit to accommodate this forum; I just don't want people straight on copying it, as I compiled the whole thing manually.
 
Bubbled enemies should NOT get articles. Enemies can emerge from crates in Super Smash Bros., you can find Goombas in crates in Super Mario Galaxy (I think?), and others. I view bubbles as merely packages for enemies (and items, even though that hasn't been brought up). Creating articles would just create redundant articles while adding to navigational clutter.
 
I already posted this on the article's discussion page, but I haven't gotten an answer yet. On the [wiki=Paper Mario (series)]Paper Mario series[/wiki] article, I'm thinking of separating the list of games to include a Crossovers section featuring games the Paper Mario series crosses over into, such as Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, which heavily appears on be moreso a Mario & Luigi game featuring Paper Mario characters than another Paper Mario game, and possibly Super Smash Bros.,since the series has had representation since Melee and got a stage in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS.
 
Time Turner said:
I'm not a personal fan of a "more is better" mentality, and I was going to cite giving articles to all of the Badges (Badge) as an example... but then I realized that giving articles for all the badges (at least the Paper Mario ones) wouldn't be a half-bad idea. Where they can be obtained, especially if they have multiple locations, can be more easily established and detailed, they all basically act as items that have a permanent effect rather than a one-off effect, there's certainly no shortage to describing their effects... Would they warrant articles (besides just "more is better")?
Click to expand...

At this point in time, this has already been put into effect: nearly every PM badge has an article, and the ones that don't are waiting in line. Now, I thought I'd revisit the topic for round 2: what about the other badges in the M&L series (Badge#Mario_.26_Luigi_series_badges)? On one hand, they don't have personalised images like their PM counterparts, quite a few of them are just stat boosts, and there's the issue of the completely-different system that BiS and DT uses, but on the other hand, there are a fair amount that have effects that could be elaborated on (besides the whole extra info on locations and other language names and yaddayaddayadda), and anything's gotta be better than a key 10 points long (Badge#Mario_.26_Luigi:_Superstar_Saga_2). Personally, I do think that the badges from at least SS and PiT would benefit from individual articles, and I believe that they have enough to substantiate them.
 
I don't know, do we give separate articles for, say, Super Nuts, Ultra Drops, etc.? Or should we?
 
I think the string of proposals that merged all those items together was a mistake. The different Mushrooms, Syrups, Nuts, etc. may be iterative health increases, but they're different health increases with different names that can be found in different locations, bought with different amounts of cost, and applied during different situations. By all means, they're distinct items and should be treated as distinct items. I think the biggest issue that a lot of people get caught up on is the lack of unique images for them (which also applies to the badges), but that doesn't automatically mean that they deserve to be lumped into the same article. This was never applied to PM, for whatever reason, so we still have Jelly Shroom, Jelly Super, and Jelly Ultra, among other examples, all with individual articles, which I find more than a bit inconsistent. I believe the idea at the time was that "small" articles are bad, so having one big article with all of the information would be much better, right? *coughbanjoconkercough*

...The more I talk about this, the more I want the badges to have individual articles.
 
The Banjo / Conker thing is an extreme example that doesn't quite work in this situation. This is a bananas-to-roses comparison, so don't use it. Having the badges in one convenient location rather than plastered across articles is a good point against creating redundant badge pages.

Also, should we also split every element in Clothing into separate articles (e.g. shoes, gloves, shells, rings, fangs, bands, socks, hammers)? Going by that, we'd have to do that as well, and I really don't know if all that effort into categories, navigational templates, and links is really, really worth the effort, especially since the vast majority of the information is already covered in those lists.

Paper Mario badges could benefit from a split because of the way Paper Mario badges work and from aesthetic differences. As for those Jelly things you've mentioned, not only do they have aesthetic differences, they have individual ingredient properties in recipes, so that example isn't exactly solid.

I'm opposed to splitting Mario & Luigi badges, clothing, and items as for these reasons.
 
I agree with LGM here. The badges in Paper Mario and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door are so mechanically different from the badges in the Mario & Luigi series that no comparison of the two is even viable, other than saying 'they are named the same in both series'. No badge in the Mario & Luigi series has the ability to give any character an extra move, nor does it cost anything to equip them. In fact, the player may only have one badge equipped at the same time in the Mario & Luigi series, or one combination of the two, as the case is with Bowser's Inside Story and Dream Team Bros.. Plus, they're just stat boosting items in the first two Mario & Luigi games, and being inconsistent with how we handle information in-series would look pretty bad. There is already sufficient information on the Badge article, and I don't understand why there needs to be more articles about something like this.
 
I think the wiki can benefit from another inline template, the {{clarify}} tag. Sure, you can inquire in the talk page, but the tag is more visible, and it more immediately conveys to the reader that the information is not clear. It's also different from {{rewrite}} or {{rewrite-expand}} in that it's a detail that's confusing rather than an entire paragraph, and it doesn't categorize entire articles as unclear.

Any other comments?
 
I dunno, part of me feels that's a shortcut to laziness, since if you see problems, you just slap the template on and keep going. The refneeded family is different because it's a way to flag stuff that's iffy factually, which is better than letting it sit there misleading people and wrecking our credibility until someone with time and ability to fix it does. Crappy writing is less harmful since everyone can see it's crappy; if it's confusing enough, I just remove it and hope that someone comes along and fills the info gap in a non-crappy manner eventually. Like, to me seeing {{clarify}} notices on Wikipedia just looks bad - worse than missing info or crappy writing because it means that they know it's bad, they just don't fix it.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, just don't wanna see us go template-crazy; again, Wikipedia pages weighed down by all these different templates look so meh.
 
Sometimes, it's not an issue of bad writing or laziness. It's simply an issue of certain details needed to help clarify. There are several statements that are not poorly written per se, but I've expressed in edit summaries my confusion over some phrases and terminology that require a detail or extra explaining, especially if you haven't played the game. I'm in situations where the information is too important to be removed, but I'm not willing to rewrite it because I may change the intent.

There are examples where I removed information, but I believe asking for more clarification goes some ways.

http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Kiddy_Kong&diff=prev&oldid=1856851

http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Volcanic_Smog&diff=prev&oldid=1846153

And probably several other things?

I don't know, we don't use TOO much inline templates compared to Wikipedia, so I don't see the concern about cluttering the text. I don't know how often users will put it (I might be the one using it the most anyhow since I'm always confused about everything; I love asking questions and stuff, I guess).
 
So then why not ask about it on the talk page? If you do, you can be more specific about your question, and get a better answer. Plus, this allows us to not have template bloat, since we can use a preexisting template to begin with.
 
I've just mentioned about the possibility of bringing it in talk page in the previous few posts, although awaiting responses from the talk page, especially on minor confusing details on writing and wording, isn't always ideal. From my own experience, these kinds of comments tend to just sit there forever. In paper, yeah, it looks good, but in practice, it hardly does anything, especially since the relevancy of these kinds of comments gets lost in later revisions of articles. A template showing a problem stays there until it's corrected.

Thanks for the feedback, though! I hope my ideas aren't horrible or anything... .-.
 
Recently, I stumbled upon an article based on Happiness, and oh my god, talk about a perfectly-preserved relic. The article starts off by defining what happiness is, because we're all amoral, and goes on to cover happiness as a general theme in Yoshi's Story. Jokes aside, the article really doesn't seem necessary, besides as an archive in BJAODN; anything that's actually substantial is already covered in more detail in other articles, like ♥ and Super Happy Tree without all of the cruft, and everything else is 100% cruft that isn't informative or well-written in the slightest. Would anyone oppose a delete?
 
Time Turner said:
Recently, I stumbled upon an article based on Happiness, and oh my god, talk about a perfectly-preserved relic. The article starts off by defining what happiness is, because we're all amoral, and goes on to cover happiness as a general theme in Yoshi's Story. Jokes aside, the article really doesn't seem necessary, besides as an archive in BJAODN; anything that's actually substantial is already covered in more detail in other articles, like ♥ and Super Happy Tree without all of the cruft, and everything else is 100% cruft that isn't informative or well-written in the slightest. Would anyone oppose a delete?
Click to expand...

That article makes me very unhappy
 
I've tagged it for deletion; just waiting for it to be shipped off to the graveyard. Glowsquid, since you seem to be the one that adds the completed articles to BJAODN, could Happiness be slotted in?
 
Wow, needlessly nested History subsections and everything. Feel free to delete and/or BJAODN it, imo.
 
Baby Luigi said:
Time Turner said:
Recently, I stumbled upon an article based on Happiness, and oh my god, talk about a perfectly-preserved relic. The article starts off by defining what happiness is, because we're all amoral, and goes on to cover happiness as a general theme in Yoshi's Story. Jokes aside, the article really doesn't seem necessary, besides as an archive in BJAODN; anything that's actually substantial is already covered in more detail in other articles, like ♥ and Super Happy Tree without all of the cruft, and everything else is 100% cruft that isn't informative or well-written in the slightest. Would anyone oppose a delete?
Click to expand...

That article makes me very unhappy
Click to expand...
Instant BJAODN comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back