General Discussion

Baby Luigi said:
I don't really agree with merging Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U together though. They have lots of separate content in them that justifies their separation, such as different stages, different game modes, different challenges, different trophies, etc. I think merging those two together would make a rather messy and a too necessarily huge article.
Click to expand...
Well then, we should delete the general Smash 4 article if we keep Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U separate.
 
Easter Yoshi said:
Baby Luigi said:
I don't really agree with merging Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U together though. They have lots of separate content in them that justifies their separation, such as different stages, different game modes, different challenges, different trophies, etc. I think merging those two together would make a rather messy and a too necessarily huge article.
Click to expand...
Well then, we should delete the general Smash 4 article if we keep Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U separate.
Click to expand...

I'd support getting rid of Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U since it seems to just combine info already found on both pages into one page, as well as Gallery:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U since the images can easily be split off to their respective gallery pages (which they mostly already are).
 
JC said:
I'd support getting rid of Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U since it seems to just combine info already found on both pages into one page, as well as Gallery:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U since the images can easily be split off to their respective gallery pages (which they mostly already are).
Click to expand...
I also agree. But as a compromise since the games are tied so closely together, I think the respective game articles could include a section about their exclusive content which is not found in the other version.
 
I support deleting the general Smash 4 article and its gallery (as many of the images can fit in the specific galleries), and I also agree with Shokora's suggestion.
 
I was concerned mostly of how intertwined they are in some cases, especially in character and item articles since they pretty much function exactly the same in both games. I think the reason they are merged together is for that reason in the first place.
 
As for Super Mario Maker, its remake is very different from the original. So much that I can't imagine them together. From Nintendo's official levels to the search functions to changes to the make function that you may or may not see right away. This is truly a different game. The only thing that could combine them is another Super Mario Maker game, either exactly like the other two or Super Mario Maker 2. Even then, it should be decided via proposal for best results. Poochy & Yoshi's Woolly World adds stuff to the original, while also be able to actually play the game on the 3DS. This is on the border line, but I believe it is different. Just look at the world layouts. Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D seems like it could easily be merged with the original, but here is a question: is it very similar to Ocarina of Time 3D and Majora's Mask 3D on the Zelda Wiki? I know it is Zelda Wiki, but the approached is very similar.
 
Yoshi the SSM said:
As for Super Mario Maker, its remake is very different from the original. So much that I can't imagine them together. From Nintendo's official levels to the search functions to changes to the make function that you may or may not see right away. This is truly a different game. The only thing that could combine them is another Super Mario Maker game, either exactly like the other two or Super Mario Maker 2. Even then, it should be decided via proposal for best results. Poochy & Yoshi's Woolly World adds stuff to the original, while also be able to actually play the game on the 3DS. This is on the border line, but I believe it is different. Just look at the world layouts. Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D seems like it could easily be merged with the original, but here is a question: is it very similar to Ocarina of Time 3D and Majora's Mask 3D on the Zelda Wiki? I know it is Zelda Wiki, but the approached is very similar.
Click to expand...
It’s the very fact that we currently classify them as “ports” and not “remakes” that I want to merge them.
 
JC said:
Easter Yoshi said:
Baby Luigi said:
I don't really agree with merging Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U together though. They have lots of separate content in them that justifies their separation, such as different stages, different game modes, different challenges, different trophies, etc. I think merging those two together would make a rather messy and a too necessarily huge article.
Click to expand...
Well then, we should delete the general Smash 4 article if we keep Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U separate.
Click to expand...

I'd support getting rid of Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U since it seems to just combine info already found on both pages into one page, as well as Gallery:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U since the images can easily be split off to their respective gallery pages (which they mostly already are).
Click to expand...

I was going to wait until after Smash Bros. for Switch is shown at E3 to start a proposal on this, but here it is (Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._for_Nintendo_3DS_/_Wii_U#Do_something_about_this_page). (Hopefully nothing is announced that somehow renders it pointless.) Basically, we can either get rid of the page and include a section covering exclusive content on both versions' pages per Shokora's suggestion, or keep the page and include only common elements while the 3DS and Wii U pages only cover exclusive content.
 
I guess it's a completely random question, but is it really necessary to wait until the game is released to update artwork for the infoboxes?
 
I think it's more like that the game isn't officially out yet so it's not officially part of the..."lore" (for the lack of the better word, I do apologize) yet. Or it's probably to keep the consistency of latest appearance, which I can understand why we don't update that part of the infobox.
 
Now to think of it, that probably makes sense considering that vaporware is not factored in their game appearances in history sections and that table.

Should their appearance in vaporware be acknowledged...even?
 
I mean, I know this article. I'm referring to documenting their unreleased games in their own articles ie Mario's article talking about Super Mario 128.
 
Maybe you can create a "planned appearances" in a small subsection that talks briefly about that and links to the unreleased stuff as a main article. It would also cover jokes-turned-rumors of Mario being in Sega racing and Wreck-it-Ralph, huh.
 
Currently, I don't know what the standard of the extremely minor NPC section should be like, especially in say Mario spin-off articles such as Mario Party and Mario Tennis. I'm in a situation where I'm not pleasing either side, and not even myself.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, take a look at the Mario Party: The Top 100 article, where the minor NPCs are sorted into some long tabled list detailing where and how they appear in that game, because of an oppose vote from Time Turner when I put up the article for a featured nomination. I've recently gotten an oppose vote in my Mario Party: Island Tour featured article nomination because I got rid of a rather ugly table that I made that people didn't like and I didn't like either, but chose to format in that particular way because it had more enemies than the Top 100 and therefore would naturally take a large amount of space up. Mario Party 10 by Toadette the Achiever has also taken inspiration from me and wrote a similar table too, so this could start a trend I want to see addressed before I have to clean up my mess I made.

The deal is, I don't really like expanding and elaborating the minor characters section that much because as Bazooka Mario pointed out, it's very minor information, and I thought a gallery would be the best compromise as it illustrates how they appear in, and their article that they link to should already give coordinates as to what minigames they appear in. On the other hand, I do like pinpointing exactly where these guys appear in the game in one article rather than clicking on links and potentially having issues loading navigating through gigantic enemy articles but then again, I find these characters very minor and take up far too much space in these game articles.

Finally, you have articles which are better suited for this than others. Mario Kart Arcade GP 2 for example has a lot of notable character cameos (not just generic enemies appearing as obstacles or as a picture in this minigame) that is interesting to note down. I don't think it's particularly important to note how a Moo Moo appears as a background element in Perilous Palace Path in the Mario Party: Island Tour article itself.

I just want further and more detailed opinions on this subject matter and presentation because I'm not fully content with how Mario Party: The Top 100 handles this even if it's a Featured Article that had addressed an oppose vote.
 
I feel Time Turner was just arguing "by-the-book" as those sections shouldn't require too much detail. Minor character appearances are minor character appearances and should be described thusly. Any detail should technically go into character's page anyway. I don't think you need images to show that they appear in a spot either. Again, they're background elements, and that tables of them taking up swaths of articles seems odd.
 
Should we consider splitting Luigi, Bowser's, and Peach's galleries yet?

And also, Mario's gallery still seems to take forever to load.

Hmmm, would it be a good idea to just use categories in tandem with galleries so people can more easily navigate through artwork?
 
I wouldn't object to splitting off those characters' galleries.
 
Perhaps the byte limit can be lowered, as 50K does seem a bit high now. I didn't want to set it too low when I made my proposal, but I'm for splitting the mentioned galleries.

Honestly not sure what to do with Mario's, he has way too many images.

Princess Mario said:
Hmmm, would it be a good idea to just use categories in tandem with galleries so people can more easily navigate through artwork?
Click to expand...

What do you mean?
 
I mean we create something like Category:Mario images and we just categorize all the artwork and stuff under that. I was thinking how Bulbapedia did it, but I wonder if categories can help too.

New comment: This proposal is going nowhere as there are no clear provisions or goals it's setting in the first place (hence why I even opposed it), and it only passed by the barest of margins. What exactly are we going to do about this one? The comments also indicate that there was doubt about this proposal. I think the best solution is to just veto it and draft something more feasible.
 
Princess Mario said:
New comment: This proposal is going nowhere as there are no clear provisions or goals it's setting in the first place (hence why I even opposed it), and it only passed by the barest of margins. What exactly are we going to do about this one? The comments also indicate that there was doubt about this proposal. I think the best solution is to just veto it and draft something more feasible.
Click to expand...

Could admins retroactively veto it without a proposal? I really think it shouldn't have passed the proposal, and I feel like it would be a waste of time trying to undo the proposed changes of the proposal just because it's not clear.

(it's also bugging me how long it's stuck on the unimplemented proposals list too)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back