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.
 
Walkazo said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, just to clarify, you think that the three PM series ones (didn't appear in the first installment) should all be lumped into a different article?
 
Glowsquid said:
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.
Click to expand...

i admit i'm guilty of that
 
Those sections are also good for talking about things you can't really fit into the credits list, like how the Japanese version called the Main director of SMW the "Total Director" (Super_Mario_World#Staff), or potentially clarifying things like when someone listed as "Special Thanks" is really the translator or whatever.

But really, those {{main}} sections in general are shit more often than not. Like, for stats, don't just paste a couple random games' stats (Dixie_Kong#Official_Profiles_and_Statistics) - even just a tiny overview (Diddy_Kong#Official_profiles_and_statistics) of the typical stats of the character is loads better. Gallery sections are pretty much the only place where an "excerpt" is the only option, but even then, attempts should be made to cover basics like an example artwork, an example logo, an example sprite, etc. - not just an arbitrary assortment of artwork or pointless screenshots (i.e. the SMW page again: the title screen and Bowser sprite are the only ones that aren't uselessly random), and there should only be 4 or 5 at most.

Time Turner said:
Walkazo said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, just to clarify, you think that the three PM series ones (didn't appear in the first installment) should all be lumped into a different article?
Click to expand...
I thought the last line made that clear, the "four" instead of "three" notwithstanding.
 
To be frank, I honestly don't get why we should even have an issue about empty sections at all. All we're basically doing is pointing out redundant and useless info that's already covered by a link that links to the article that already have all the information covered, with a pretty damn straightforward title (List of profiles and statistics is already more than enough to give you a clue to what the main article is already all about). I can get behind listing development and staff as there is interesting stuff but do we really need to place an excerpt of some of this (glitches, beta elements, gallery, profiles) on the aforementioned article since the link to the main is already straightforward to begin with? I don't really need an explanation that a main link to "Gallery:Wario" = a gallery of pics of Wario in them nor do I need a preview thingy to know exactly what I'm going to get.

My bottom line is that yes, the staff could use more interesting information, yes, but profiles & statistics and galleries don't really need a redundant thing explaining what they are or what, especially since the Diddy Kong example is already restated earlier in the article (the personality, relationships, and powers and abilities section already describe his abilities and his general "bios" and whatnot).

And yes I'm a bit frustrated for being criticized, since I was the one filling in the sections with ---- so excuse me, I'm not trying to attack anyone here.
 
It was Porplemontage's idea to make the sections have something as part of an overall push back in late 2012 to decrease article sized by offloading the larger sections into subpages without making the parent page look depoverished by having mostly {{main}}-only sections. tbh, I'd be perfectly fine with no previews for Galleries, but I think having a general statement about the typical stats and bios has merit - then if all someone wants to know is whether X is usually a medium or light character, they can get it without needing to scan and summarize in their own heads. Quotes sections also having typical quotes seems fine for similar reasons: it typifies the character - as long as they're well-selected, or they fall into "pointless randomness" issue Gallery previews suffer from. Glitches and Beta Elements are in-between stats/staff and galleries/quotes, but you could still use the section to mention notable glitches/beta elements in passing rather than having to resort to posting an excerpt.

Don't take the criticism personally: I was talking about the wiki in general and really don't know or care how much of a role you or any other given user played in filling the empty sections wrongly. What matters is actually trying to get the place to follow the policy that's been in place since 2012 (MarioWiki:Empty Section Policy), and which was even updated in 2013 (following a SiteNotice about it) to make it really obvious not to just post excerpts. Admittedly, some aspects of MW:ESP need to be spruced up and updated a bit, but still, it's been here for over two years: while the admins could have done a better job trying to reinforce it, the hope is still that editors know to check policy pages in the first place. Negligence all around, in other words, but that's wiki life for ya.
 
In my mind, gallery pages should be used to illustrate a reasonably wide range of content and not just throw a bunch of character artworks and call it a day. They can also be used to provide info about the visual style that may not fit neatly in the rest of the article.
 
I have a question: how come we don't update the Mario Kart retro tracks infoboxes with their latest appearances (ie Baby Park uses the GCN version of it)? What makes it any different than latest appearances of characters in games?
 
You mean the images? Because the info seems to cover all the appearances equally... (Baby Park) Anyway, maybe it's because the later appearances are explicit call-backs (for lack of a better word off the top of my head) to the origin games, while characters reappearing are just appearances and not "hey, it's Peach from SMB, back again by popular demand but with a makeover to fit in with the rest of the game" or something. idk
 
Lumastar said:
Baby Luigi said:
I have a question: how come we don't update the Mario Kart retro tracks infoboxes with their latest appearances (ie Baby Park uses the GCN version of it)? What makes it any different than latest appearances of characters in games?
Click to expand...
If you haven't already, make it a proposal.
Click to expand...

I want some discussion before I make a proposal

Walkazo said:
Anyway, maybe it's because the later appearances are explicit call-backs (for lack of a better word off the top of my head) to the origin games, while characters reappearing are just appearances and not "hey, it's Peach from SMB, back again by popular demand but with a makeover to fit in with the rest of the game" or something. idk
Click to expand...

Yes I'm talking about the image infobox

Is this maybe why the original levels in games, such as, say Super Mario Advance do not take priority over Super Mario World?
 
I asked the question here (Category talk:Koopa Troop), but the talk pages hardly get any attention, especially after some edits are made: how do we know that all of the enemies that are listed on the Koopa Troop category are actually a part of the Koopa Troop and aren't just creatures that happen to be hostile to Mario and co.? Even if there's some throwaway line in the game or manual that mentions Mario having to fight his way through Bowser's minions or something, that doesn't mean that everyone he fights was specifically recruited by Bowser in order to attack Mario.
 
Yeah, I feel like the category is over-used too. Like, Amazee Dayzees that run for their lives as you mercilessly hunt them down for level grinding probably aren't part of Bowser's army. However, at the same time, there is the matter of whether it's actually more speculative to pick and choose what to include rather than just saying everything's Koopa Troop members, especially when it comes to platformers (like, oldschool ones where the manuals actually gave out enemy lists). I wonder if it might just be easier to make it a character-only category, rather than one that includes enemies as well as specific groups and individuals...
 
I dunno if we can just delete the category all together (radical move), since it's basically the "Enemy" category in a different name and that they appeared in the Mario series.

Walkazo said:
Yeah, true, I suppose it is in same vein as "originals > remake/port".
Click to expand...

By the way, I've just noticed yesterday that "retro" Mario Party minigames have both the old and new versions in the image infobox (example Bob-omb Breakers). So uhhh...
 
Time Turner said:
I asked the question here (Category talk:Koopa Troop), but the talk pages hardly get any attention, especially after some edits are made: how do we know that all of the enemies that are listed on the Koopa Troop category are actually a part of the Koopa Troop and aren't just creatures that happen to be hostile to Mario and co.? Even if there's some throwaway line in the game or manual that mentions Mario having to fight his way through Bowser's minions or something, that doesn't mean that everyone he fights was specifically recruited by Bowser in order to attack Mario.
Click to expand...
I had a discussion with my sister recently. Something like Wiggler has never been seen directly involved with Bowser unlike Koopas and Goombas. You don't see Bowser employing Wigglers and then ordering them to attack Mayro. Most often, Mayro just provokes them and then eventually defeats those poor things. There are quite a few enemies where Bowser has actually gave orders to, as if they're affiliated with him, including Koopas, Goombas, Magikoopas, and Hammer Bros., but the majority isn't clear-cut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back