General Discussion

Writing lags behind language evolution: "so" is becoming increasingly popular as an intensifier in speech and informal writing, but generally isn't seen in formal stuff, so maybe just to avoid others coming and saying statements like "X is so powerful" are wrong and changing them, I'd say just try using "very" and other more accepted terms. But I think things like "X is so powerful, it destroyed Y." should be fine. But that's just my take on it.
 
Though the word has been used as an intensifier, it's also commonly used as a means of connecting two sentences, such as "Mario was too weak to beat Bowser, so he decided to get a Star." Would you still consider it acceptable in that sense?
 
The best course of action would be to re-merge Template:Spinoffs into Template:Mariogames and eliminate the problem of ambiguous terms like "spinoff" altogether.

After all, looking at it as the core "Super Mario" games being the games that are spun off of, the template already has plenty of "spinoffs" in the platformers section (i.e. "Hotel Mario" or "Mario's Bombs Away"), and looking at it as adventure games vs. match-based games, RPGs makes sense in with the platformers while the sports and things are off on their own. However, neither definition is what was used to split the template in the first place, but rather, the idea that "spinoff" = games that Nintendo didn't make, which seems pretty flimsy and as far as I know, was not discussed or approved (no one replied to his talk page comment) before the user went and made the changes (and then no one cared enough to change it back, I guess).

Having all the games in one template wouldn't be too large when you compare it to some of the RPG templates, and then the games can be sorted by genre and then subseries using two tiers of headers. I'd be happy to do it: I love messing around with templates~
 
I would love for you to do it. I'm not exactly fond of updating links in every single article anyway.
 
Licensing sometimes confuse me, specially for personal-images. What license should fit the Fanworks? What license should fit the edited sprites? Probably more, but that what is in mind now.
 
I also use this for some of my sprites

{{cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}}
 
Lakitu de Vlot said:
Dashbot said:
Licensing sometimes confuse me, specially for personal-images. What license should fit the Fanworks? What license should fit the edited sprites? Probably more, but that what is in mind now.
Click to expand...
{{derivative-work}}
Click to expand...
Alright, I wasn't sure that fanwork can be considered as a derivative of the official artworks.

Baby Luigi said:
I also use this for some of my sprites

{{cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}}
Click to expand...
dunno, don't feel it. Aren't you supposed to go to creative common to license it yourself or what?
 
*shrug* it said "home-made sprite" in the description, that's why I used it
 
Dashbot said:
Lakitu de Vlot said:
Dashbot said:
Licensing sometimes confuse me, specially for personal-images. What license should fit the Fanworks? What license should fit the edited sprites? Probably more, but that what is in mind now.
Click to expand...
{{derivative-work}}
Click to expand...
Alright, I wasn't sure that fanwork can be considered as a derivative of the official artworks.
Click to expand...
100% fanwork not really, but edited sprites and edited artworks do.
 
From Image Use Policy:
  • Images should be optimized and not exceed 5 megabytes in file size.
  • Images' dimensions should be in the original size and never exceed 5000 pixels in width or height.
  • Images cannot exceed an area of 12.5 million pixels or about 3500x3500 for a square image.
Click to expand...
YoshiKong had uploaded some humongous artwork which clearly violate one more more of these rules. I'd ignore these rules, but I'm not going to make it a potential problem for editors later on, so I'd like to bring this one up. See the talk page as well.
 
Written rules are written rules, and I doubt anyone's going to mourn the compression of 6.000 x 6.000 px artworks of frozen trees. If someone wants retardly high-res images, there's Pidgiwiki for that.
 
What the point of articles like List of enemies / bosses in the Donkey Kong / Wario series pages? At the top of the list of enemies and bosses pages it even says "This is a list of enemies from the Mario series and all related series of video games and other media." and Wario and DK enemies appear in the enemies page, and Wario bosses appear in the bosses page. The list of enemies in Donkey Kong / Wario pages just seem redundant as the information is all present on another article that serves the exact same function.

Same goes for places ones as well.
 
Jim McGinn said:
What the point of articles like List of enemies / bosses in the Donkey Kong / Wario series pages? At the top of the list of enemies and bosses pages it even says "This is a list of enemies from the Mario series and all related series of video games and other media." and Wario and DK enemies appear in the enemies page, and Wario bosses appear in the bosses page. The list of enemies in Donkey Kong / Wario pages just seem redundant as the information is all present on another article that serves the exact same function.

Same goes for places ones as well.
Click to expand...
Actually the Donkey kong pages are supposed to be merged as per this proposal http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_27#Merge_all_Donkey_Kong_sidebar_lists_with_Mario_lists
 
In my recent proposal about real-world animal templates, I said that it would be silly to place, say, Manager Joe and Wolf O'Donnell on the same template just because they're dogs. They don't resemble each other at all, they play completely different roles, they have completely different characteristics, they're in no way associated with one another besides species... I found the idea silly.

And then, I found Template:Stars, and this is a heck of a lot sillier than a template for dogs. With this template, we're implying that there's a concrete thread that ties Brighton, Ztar, Star Gate, the Sun, and Geno besides their appearance, which there totally is not. Half of these aren't "genuine" stars, but things that have a resemblance to stars, and not to mention that the stars that do show up often have radically different appearances between one-another.

The point I'm trying to make is, can I get the A-OK for deleting this?
 
The Stars template is more like a mix of an item template (which is worth having), and a species template (a bit trickier since it's not a generic RL species), plus some miscellaneous stuff at the bottom (which could be dealt with better). I dunno, unlike like the animal templates, I'm leery about deleting this one. At the very least, the items part should stay, and I'm inclined to say the character and species stuff should stay too - yes, there's variety, but I think saying the template's implying there's strong connections between things is reading too much into the organization method.
 
It just feels like the things in this template simply aren't related enough for them to be in a template. There are a large number of different types of stars in the series, each of them being completely different from each other in several ways, and I find it really disjointed. If the template was reorganized to be limited to variants of the standard Star (Super Star (power-up)), or even simply the items, I'd accept it.
 
The article reminds me of Mushroom Universe and All worlds, and the "Worlds distinct from Mushroom World" section bugs me especially. How about we skip the discussion about the name and go straight to deciding whether or not it should be deleted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back