Unpopular opinions about the Mario Wiki

[GmanSir]

there might have been a few threads like this before for specific things, but I don't think I've seen one for the wiki as a whole, so...

just say some opinions about whatever in the Mario Wiki that not many people seem to agree with. this can also apply to featured pages like Donkey Kong, Yoshi, Wario, etc.

I've got quite a few that most members don't seem to agree with:

-In the History section of characters/items, I think non-games media like comic and cartoons should be moved at the end, or be part of its own section.
-Layouts of wiki pages should be more considerate of the mobile users. Remember that the wiki isn't just for you, but for everyone, including casuals looking for information.
-Why in the living hell do the enemies without a name in Mario Party Advance get their own page? How are they "notable characters"?

I probably have more, but I can't think of them right now.

 

[Time Turner]

-Why in the living hell do the enemies without a name in Mario Party Advance get their own page? How are they "notable characters"?

oi, m8

If you want to have a productive discussion relating to the wiki's content, we have the Wiki Contributions board for just that purpose.

 

[Glowsquid]

For everyone's I, I'm not going to shut this thread just yet, partly because shutting down criticism of the site is not good looks, and more importantly because communities that don't allow any self-reflection inevitanly decay into shit. Be polite and thoughtful when engaging thoughts you'll disagree with and it'll be cool.

-Layouts of wiki pages should be more considerate of the mobile users. Remember that the wiki isn't just for you, but for everyone, including casuals looking for information.

How do you feel page layouts could be better adapted for mobile displays?

----

Personally, I'm not fond of the extent of the Smash Bros. coverage. I don,t see it as providing additional value when it's largely redundant with Smashwiki's and inferior in all respect. Especially, I see splitting all of the special moves into their own pages as a big step back. But the community obviously thinks otherwise, so.

 

[Time Turner]

Especially, I see splitting all of the special moves into their own pages as a big step back. But the community obviously thinks otherwise, so.

If we're covering all of the information anyways, might as well present it in such a way that's more accessible for readers. Besides, we're not covering the same things as the SmashWiki; we're both pulling our information from the same source, but we're describing them in different ways.

 

[Glowsquid]

Besides, we're not covering the same things as the SmashWiki; we're both pulling our information from the same source, but we're describing them in different ways.

"Different" in that the writing is clearly original, but how does Mariowiki brings a truly different perspective or organize the information in a notably different way? To take just one random example, compare Mariowiki's take on Marth's Shield Breaker move with Smashwiki's. Both pages have essentially the same information, but Smashwiki's is far more throughout about the move's properties and uses, describes its change between Smash Bros. installments in greater details than "it was made more/less powerful in [game]", goes into much greater details into the move's basis in the Fire Emblem games, describes the animation and property differences between Marth and Lucina's version of the move (something completely absent from the Mariowiki article), et cetera. How is the Mariowiki page preferable in any way?

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

oi, m8

I disagree. Why do Mario Party Advance characters get their own articles? "The Lakitu that is present in Mario Party Advance, alongside all of the other MPA characters, have distinct dialog, distinct quests, distinct rewards, distinct personalities, distinct characteristics, and so on and so forth."

Quests and rewards are strictly gameplay things. But this potentially means splitting the guide Lakitu in the Mario Baseball series and the Pink Boo who steals things from the Pink Boo article and also has a distinct dialogue (she even has her own gender and she talks in a slangy female teenager way) and distinct gameplay and a distinct personality from the other Pink Boos. But there's other media. Why not give the Para Buzzy Beetle in that Mario anime her own article? Why not give that one recurring Koopa from the Super Mario Bros. Super show its own page? Why not give that Rex character in Super Mario-Kun who's even a friend of Yoshi, his own page? The only thing left is just "quests and rewards" but those traits don't directly relate to the character. Akiki, Coach (Mario Party Advance), Goombetty, Goombob, Hulu probably got their own pages because they're named characters and some look different to boot (not Goombob and Hulu and maybe Coach). That's why we have articles on many Paper Mario non-playable characters, including Koover and Igor who also look the same as their species but not articles on every otherwise unnamed character who has a "role" like the Koopa from Koopa's Shop. What's wrong with otherwise putting redirect anchors for Mario Party Advance on the enemy pages?

This also applies to the Koopa in Mario Party DS.



Also Smash Bros. coverage while I did work hard on the Equipment page, it's virtually identical to the SmashWiki variant. Smh.

One thing that we do have over SmashWiki is our game pages are better overviews. SmashWiki's Brawl article doesn't even list the items, and changes in gameplay is one list, which can be organized, split into gameplay, aesthetics (like voice effects and generic animations if applicable), misc (like more collectibles). Not a Smash Wikian though. Anyhow, I don't think any other NIWA covers Smash Bros. as extensively as we do. Might wonder why.

 

[Time Turner]

There's something to be said for creating something concise. SmashWiki's intro sentence alone brings up edgeguarding, aerials, "overhead vertical" attacks, and tech chases without explaining any of it in the rest of the article. These are completely meaningless to people who aren't familiar with the series - heck, I'm more than familiar with the series and I don't know half of what they're talking about and what it means in relation to the move itself. MarioWiki's articles presents the information in a way that's accessible to anyone, while still linking to the SmashWiki for those who are looking for a more technical look into it. I wouldn't say that it's as simple as "more vs. less detail".

(purely personal preference that means nothing for this discusison: I always thought the SmashWiki's articles were too bogged down with technical details)

oi, m8

I disagree. Why do Mario Party Advance characters get their own articles? "The Lakitu that is present in Mario Party Advance, alongside all of the other MPA characters, have distinct dialog, distinct quests, distinct rewards, distinct personalities, distinct characteristics, and so on and so forth."

Quests and rewards are strictly gameplay things. But this potentially means splitting the guide Lakitu in the Mario Baseball series and the Pink Boo who steals things from the Pink Boo article and also has a distinct dialogue (she even has her own gender and she talks in a slangy female teenager way) and distinct gameplay and a distinct personality from the other Pink Boos. But there's other media. Why not give the Para Buzzy Beetle in that Mario anime her own article? Why not give that one recurring Koopa from the Super Mario Bros. Super show its own page? Why not give that Rex character in Super Mario-Kun who's even a friend of Yoshi, his own page? The only thing left is just "quests and rewards" but those traits don't directly relate to the character. Akiki, Coach (Mario Party Advance), Goombetty, Goombob, Hulu probably got their own pages because they're named characters and some look different to boot (not Goombob and Hulu and maybe Coach). That's why we have articles on many Paper Mario non-playable characters, including Koover and Igor who also look the same as their species but not articles on every otherwise unnamed character who has a "role" like the Koopa from Koopa's Shop. What's wrong with otherwise putting redirect anchors for Mario Party Advance on the enemy pages?

This also applies to the Koopa in Mario Party DS.

Consistency is the name of the game. You're telling me that literally, the only thing that keeps Hulu, Goombob, and the others from not being merged is their unique name, even though all of the MPA characters play the exact same role and are treated exactly the same? That's just ridiculous, which is to say nothing of the fact that the "generic"-named characters are in fact named - they introduce themselves as "Goomba" and "Koopa", not as just generic members of their species. A name should be far from the only deciding factor.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

I don't think it's a good case for those articles when the only reason for existing is that other named characters exist. They have no merit on their own though. As I said, what's exactly wrong with piping in the Mario Party Advance page and them have them link to the Mario Party Advance section in the character article? If we're creating articles on consistency, what about virtually every friendly NPC in Paper Mario? And so, yeah, they call themselves "generic NPC" but the Koopa Troopa from the Mario show is called "Koopa Troopa", a shop in Paper Mario that a Koopa owns is called "Koopa's shop" and I think the Wiggler from Mario Party DS is just called "Wiggler". I think there are a lot of cases where the characters or the game refer to the characters as their generic name.

It seems like "if it has a name, it should get its own article" is usually the standard. Maude and Flo, Johnson (Super Paper Mario) (to be fair, Johnson named for an NPC is a running joke), Koover, Igor, and others.

 

[Time Turner]

I didn't say that a character's name shouldn't matter at all, but it shouldn't be the crucial deciding factor as to whether or not an NPC should get an article (again, to say nothing of them actually having names, but I've already made that point). If they have a name, great, give them an article (I'm going to stress that they do have names)! If they don't have a name, then do their other qualities merit an individual article for them? This is loosely documented on MarioWiki:Minor NPCs, and MarioWiki:Conjectural names is all about giving articles to subjects without official names. If you're going to ask me why they shouldn't be merged to their species article, then let me reverse the question on you: why shouldn't Hulu, Goombob and the other be merged? Why don't we just merge all NPCs to their species, save people the trouble of having to click around? I'm being facetious, of course, but if you're going to ask hypotheticals like that, the sky's the limit.

 

[GmanSir]

How do you feel page layouts could be better adapted for mobile displays?

Something I find odd is how different the layout for things like enemies is for each game. SMB, SMB2, and SMB3 all have a different layout, and one of them is completely broke on mobile.

 

[Time Turner]

How do you feel page layouts could be better adapted for mobile displays?

Something I find odd is how different the layout for things like enemies is for each game. SMB, SMB2, and SMB3 all have a different layout, and one of them is completely broke on mobile.

Ideally, every game article with enemies would have some sort of table like the SMB and SMB2 articles, but there's no set standard as to what they should look like. From the examples you posted, the SMB2 table may be the best for the future (our site really isn't kind for mobile...).

 

[Ray Trace]

I'm not here to lock out criticism, but wouldn't this be a better idea to talk about wiki matters in the General Discussions thread in Wiki Collaborations, or set up a thread on your own? I feel it would be more productive and practical that way.

 

[Time Turner]

If I may, I've always had an issue with one of the sections of MarioWiki:Courtesy:

• give an admin a Warning/Reminder or imply that they deserve one.
• critique an admin's performance behind their back.
• incite other users against the administration.
• tell admins what to do.

All of this is considered to be undermining admin authority, and as well as being incredibly rude to the people who are supposed to be trusted with maintaining the wiki, doing this might get you in real trouble if the admins feel you are becoming more trouble than you're worth as an editor. It makes it harder for the administrators to maintain the peace and quality of the wiki if they have to worry about users second guessing and rebelling against their decisions, so it is in everyone's best interests to simply treat them with deference. While administrators and patrollers aren't infallible, they have earned their positions through their hard work and dedication, and they do not need to be told how to edit or do their jobs. Any problems that do arise with an admin will be dealt with internally by the other administrators and patrollers. Just as it is not your place to pick at the shortcomings of other users, so too should you keep your opinions about the performance of the administrators to yourself.

I don't disagree with the overall message at all, and I definitely don't mean to say that regular users should be able to walk over admins, but at the same time, I've always thought that this came off as rather aggressive. Obviously, if someone is being obscenely rude to an admin and generally insinuating that they're not doing a good job, call them out on that, but at the same time, this always gave me the impression that admins were put on some sort of pedestal. MarioWiki:Administrators talks about how administrators are just regular users who happen to be particularly trustworthy, but the Courtesy goes so far as to say that regular users can't criticize an admin's editing. What if an administrator genuinely doesn't know one of the lesser-known rules of the wiki, like, say, not putting periods at the end of image captions if it's a sentence fragment (MarioWiki:Manual_of_Style#Image_captions), and they make multiple edits without that knowledge? If I bring that up with them, do I need to worry about being given a warning for undermining admin authority?

Let me make it clear that I don't want to completely upheave this or claim that this shouldn't be here at all, but at the same time, I wish that it was rewritten to be a bit less rough.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

IDK it's the same issue I have that "warnings by admins cannot be appealed". That rule, I have a big problem with. We say that "oh it's because admins will be checked by other admins" but I think it unnecessarily puts admins on a pedestal (and the answer for that also assumed admins are on a pedestal too), on a "higher" rank, treats adminship like a trophy (I can give one example but I don't want to come off as insensitive), and conflicts with the "admins are only users with a bigger toolbox". The potential for abuse is there and while it's easily checked and not a real problem, the potential is still there and I find it a bit problematic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#More_specifically

Wikipedia has summed up the points here.



Do we honestly need a reason for voting? It's a useless policy. If people are required to vote and have no additional reasons, they're just gonna stick with "per all". A simple "per all" vote generally equates to a vote without a reason. If people don't know what the hell they're voting for, just slap per all. I suppose first opposing vote should get a reason but that's common sense. But otherwise, if people don't know what the hell they're voting for, they can just bull*bleep* it with "per all". We did get rid of "support reasons" for FA but IMO I think forcing to remove "support reasons" is a stupid rule too.

 

[Time Turner]

Do we honestly need a reason for voting? It's a useless policy. If people are required to vote and have no additional reasons, they're just gonna stick with "per all". A simple "per all" vote generally equates to a vote without a reason.

At the very least, it discourages fan votes, i.e. voting to not merge a character because you really like them or attempting to nominate a character as a featured article because you just want to see the pretty star in the corner. I do think our standards for voting reasons are a bit too lax, but I don't think the solution is to get rid of them entirely.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

The thing is, fan votes in Featured Articles accomplish almost nothing, exactly nothing if you discount maybe a bump (since there is a "last edit" timer in feature nominations) if there is any opposing votes. There always be people who vote from their ass and it might be easier to detect if they give a bullshit reason, but they can easily change their bs reason to a "per all" and then it's fine and dandy. That might be an issue with polling via proposals in general. Fan votes were a problem years ago mainly because they're annoying rather than detrimental, but I think it's less of a problem today. The issue with removing support reasons becomes a problem if a supporting vote wants to expand more than a mere vote and is forced to put the reasons in the comment section.

 

[Duskull]

If I may, I've always had an issue with one of the sections of MarioWiki:Courtesy:

• give an admin a Warning/Reminder or imply that they deserve one.
• critique an admin's performance behind their back.
• incite other users against the administration.
• tell admins what to do.

All of this is considered to be undermining admin authority, and as well as being incredibly rude to the people who are supposed to be trusted with maintaining the wiki, doing this might get you in real trouble if the admins feel you are becoming more trouble than you're worth as an editor. It makes it harder for the administrators to maintain the peace and quality of the wiki if they have to worry about users second guessing and rebelling against their decisions, so it is in everyone's best interests to simply treat them with deference. While administrators and patrollers aren't infallible, they have earned their positions through their hard work and dedication, and they do not need to be told how to edit or do their jobs. Any problems that do arise with an admin will be dealt with internally by the other administrators and patrollers. Just as it is not your place to pick at the shortcomings of other users, so too should you keep your opinions about the performance of the administrators to yourself.

I don't disagree with the overall message at all, and I definitely don't mean to say that regular users should be able to walk over admins, but at the same time, I've always thought that this came off as rather aggressive. Obviously, if someone is being obscenely rude to an admin and generally insinuating that they're not doing a good job, call them out on that, but at the same time, this always gave me the impression that admins were put on some sort of pedestal. MarioWiki:Administrators talks about how administrators are just regular users who happen to be particularly trustworthy, but the Courtesy goes so far as to say that regular users can't criticize an admin's editing. What if an administrator genuinely doesn't know one of the lesser-known rules of the wiki, like, say, not putting periods at the end of image captions if it's a sentence fragment (MarioWiki:Manual_of_Style#Image_captions), and they make multiple edits without that knowledge? If I bring that up with them, do I need to worry about being given a warning for undermining admin authority?

Let me make it clear that I don't want to completely upheave this or claim that this shouldn't be here at all, but at the same time, I wish that it was rewritten to be a bit less rough.

I'm aware this response comes after a week, and I'm not planning on picking up every point you've addressed, but I am going to pick up the whole critiquing performance thing.

I agree that it should be rewritten, or potentially removed. The way I look at that point, it's not that you can't critique an edit, it's more the "behind the back point".

If, for example, I wasn't putting periods at the end of image captions, and then someone wrote on someone else's talkpage, "That Y876 isn't putting periods at the end. What's that about?" it's not really helping the issue, and is just going for point scoring. If they posted it on my talkpage asking about it, and bringing attention to policy, then I see absolutely no issue, because at the end of the day it's just informing someone of policy.

But, at the end of the day, I feel that sort of thing should apply to everyone, not just admins. There's no point critiquing someone behind their back, because then they'll never learn, unless they just happen to stumble across the comment.