General Discussion

How exactly can you tell the difference between someone experimenting with the code while doing silly things with it and someone abusing the wiki for the sole purpose of being silly?
 
Fair enough, but those are really obvious outliers. The looseness of the sandbox lets new users edit without worrying about accidentally breaking a rule or doing anything wrong, but if we start actively analyzing and criticizing every edit that's made to the sandbox, we've pretty much lost its whole purpose. If one or two users are abusing the system, tell them off, but don't get rid of the entire garden because of a couple of weeds.
 
Well, that's settled then. Thanks, Time Turner.
 
Baby Luigi said:
This entire IP edit history.

And this very blatant edit summary (he was even told to stop.)
Click to expand...
That's called vandalism and spam, respectively, the same as if it was done to any other page besides the sandbox; the IP gets a block, and the user gets a warning, 'nuf said.

(And on that note, don't give warnings, informal or otherwise, to blatantly vandalizing/spamming/trolling IPs/new accounts: just report them to an admin immediately so we can get rid of them sooner than later.)
 
Okay then, but it's pretty hard to determine whether it's spamming or not on the MarioWiki: Sandbox, so you have to look into the history. I know this particular IP wants to spam solely because, today, I've noticed that it edited the sandbox again, with the same thing, and I took a look at its edit history. The reason no one took action was because it edited the sandbox.

Eh, I just wanted to slap some sense into the IP but I guess it probably wouldn't listen otherwise.
 
For me, it was both: had I noticed the edits previous times the IP came around to spam the sandbox, I would have blocked them then, but I only noticed when I saw Baby Luigi's helpfully long and descriptive edit summary on RecentChanges just now, since otherwise I don't really pay attention to the sandbox back-and-forths, because I generally have my hands full with patrolling mainspace edits, which are higher priority.

Baby Luigi said:
Okay then, but it's pretty hard to determine whether it's spamming or not on the MarioWiki: Sandbox, so you have to look into the history. I know this particular IP wants to spam solely because, today, I've noticed that it edited the sandbox again, with the same thing, and I took a look at its edit history. The reason no one took action was because it edited the sandbox.

Eh, I just wanted to slap some sense into the IP but I guess it probably wouldn't listen otherwise.
Click to expand...
You have to look into an account's history regardless of where they're spamming: if they have a history of shady edits, block 'em; if the spam's their first edit, they're probably just gonna continue, so block 'em before there's more to clean up; however, if it's making mostly legit edits, but then just randomly spams once, I'd be less inclined to block them on sight, and just give them a heads up that this latest bsns is Not Cool (and also CheckUser them to see if it's just a different person altogether, who happens to share an IP, especially if there's a long time gap in between editing patterns).
 
And why does Mail Truck get its own article while Milk Truck and Fruit Truck don't?
 
They need to be merged too. Especially since most have conjectural names.
 
Tbh I don't completely agree with merging the obstacles instead of giving them articles (we have plenty of articles on entities that only appear in one level) but I don't think this batch of articles is going to sway people to the other way. A proposal's probably not necessary, considering past consensus; even if someone were to disagree, they'd be going against status quo and/or would have to justify keeping these articles and not the others.
 
I'd rather see more non-generic hazards get split out than lose pages like Mushroom Car - even though they're conjectural, users could still want to read about them and try to look them up (i.e. the Wiggler Bus used to be the bane of my existence in MK:DD, so I'd try to look up info about them, and our wee page from back in the day was better than nothing), and while short, the articles are complete, and not stubs, so w/e, no harm done in having them imo.

Referring to the original merging proposal (Talk:Moving_Tree#Merge_Moving_Tree_into_Luigi.27s_Mansion_.28course.29) (which, tbh, should have been a mainspace one, not a TPP, as it was calling for blanket merges/standards as well as the specific article-by-article choice it was billed as), things like snowballs, moving walls and bells shouldn't get pages (since they're pretty generic), but the dinosaurs could still get described on the overall Dinosaur article like how the snowmen are already covered in their overall page (Snowman#Mario_Kart_series), and I feel like Bouncing Note and maybe even Moving Tree itself could stay too.

As for the Mail/Fruit/Milk trucks, since giving pages to every generic vehicle (i.e. not the Mushroom, Wiggler or Bob-omb cars) that appears in MK would be excessive, I feel like a compromise List page of everything (ideally with Mail Truck-style pictures) would be ideal.
 
I can do with this. List of traffic hazards? Not sure what the name would be, though.
 
But there's non-traffic hazards too. "List of traffic hazards in Mario Kart" would hopefully be clearly about the non-kart/bike vehicles.
 
Mario Party World

It's not clear where the fanon vehicle ends and the actual information begins, not even its talk page sounds very conclusive to me.

I'll get around to the vehicle thing pretty soon, although I think the hazards really should be organized by track or game.

Finally, I need some peace of mind that all my expansion and proofreading efforts on Mario won't be in hella vain because character articles tend to be a dip in quality compared to most other articles (not to mention, the article's huge and still incomplete). It's kind of like the (series) pages in that sense when I tried hard to do a good job on expanding on WarioWare series but before discovering that I was doing this over a really flawed framework. I've only thought about this only from parsing from older comments in the talk space (especially "We actually discussed this on the Sysop board a while back, and we all agreed the current characters articles are pretty abominable as is. But of course, we kind of forgot about it.") I know the article was atrocious back in 2010 (although I'm only aware of this now after reading an old revision) but I'm worried if its foundation is even that good especially given the quality of major character articles; to illustrate, every single article on a majorly recurring character has been unfeatured or has seen a featured nomination that has failed miserably, which I sometimes suspect it's probably the sheer difficulty of getting these up to top standards or maybe a flawed foundation. It's not about featuring or not featuring an article, I just want to set, maybe an example, or maybe I'm unknowingly falling into the traps of the character articles like what I did with WarioWare (series).
 
Dr. Mario said:
Mario Party World

It's not clear where the fanon vehicle ends and the actual information begins, not even its talk page sounds very conclusive to me.
Click to expand...
I had time to kill today, so I went through some of the cutscenes from each game to see if the term shows up.

Mario Party: The only overarching location that's mentioned is the Mushroom Village.

Mario Party 2: The characters refer to making a new world, and though the world is named after whoever wins the Party, the game defaults to Mario Land (which we already have an article on (Mario Land (Mario Party 2))).

Mario Party 3: The whole game takes place inside of a toy box and doesn't mention a "Party World" anyways.

Mario Party 4: The whole game takes place inside of the Party Cube and doesn't mention a "Party World" anyways.

Mario Party 5: The whole game takes place inside of the Dream Depot and doesn't mention a "Party World" anyways.

Mario Party 6: This seems to be the first mention of "Mario Party world," with an uncapitalized w. It does seem to imply that there's an overarching world that the series takes place in, but the past three games kinda prove that false.

Mario Party Advance: The game refers to "Party World" in the opening cutscene and a later cutscene, but that seems to be more of a setting for the specific Lands and Shroom City that appear exclusively in that game.

Mario Party 7: No location at all is mentioned; the characters are on a cruise liner sailing from board to board in a generic world.

Mario Party 8: The menu takes place at the Star Carnival, and I guess they warp from board to board or something.

Mario Party DS: No overarching world or hub area is mentioned at any point.

Mario Party 9: No overarching world or hub area is mentioned at any point.

Mario Party DS: The game takes place at the Party Islands, far away from other locations, and doesn't mention a "Party World" anyways.

Mario Party 10: ha

From what I've seen, people extrapolated a one-off line to refer to something bigger than it really is, in the same vein as Mushroom Universe (Talk:Mushroom Universe). I'd be fine with scrapping it entirely.

edit: proper formatting? what's that?
 
Finally, where in the world is "Partycosmo" taken from? Orange seems to have added it; I guess we'll ask, but I guess it's most likely from Party 6.
 
There's also the fact that the MP6 prologue says "[they] like to whoop it up on Mario Party world" - and the credits roll seems to depict it as an actual planet that Brighton and Twilight are circling around (although obviously artistic license was taken with the scale and whatnot), which kinda makes the MP6 world =/= the MPA world, as if the name difference alone wasn't enough.

Anyway, the MPA stuff should definitely be split to a plain "Party World" article; in addition to that, keeping a small "Mario Party world" article just stating the facts is an option, but I'm leaning towards just merging that stuff into the MP6 article given how little solid info we have.
 
I want to address games rereleased on Virtual Console being taken into consideration when it comes to moving articles. Off the top of my head, I can think of only a couple of examples, including the SMB3 Lands (Talk:Dark_Land#Revert_the_SMB3_worlds_to_their_.22Land.22_names), but I recall there being several more. For now, let me use [[Spiked Gloomba]] as an example. "Spiked Gloomba" was the name of the enemy in ''[[Paper Mario]]'', but in ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'', the enemy was renamed to "Spik''y'' Gloomba". Though TTYD is the more recent game, the name was changed due to PM being released on the Virtual Console. I don't really get the logic behind it, though: if the VC releases are to be considered as the most recent installment, there are more than the names that will be affected, such as the latest appearances of stuff or the order of games on pages. Seems odd to consider a game to be rereleased but only take that into consideration for the names. Maybe I'm overcomplicating it, but this has been rattling around in my head for a while and I can't settle it myself.
 
It's a bit tricky since there's also that case of SML enemy names (Bullet Biff, Goombo, Bombshell Koopa) getting updated to totally new names when it was released on VC, so simply saying "VC doesn't count" would be a bit too broad. Plus there's other types of re-releases - so would we ignore VC but put stock in the names present in SMA or SMAS?

My knee-jerk reaction is that having outdated names just because an old spelling was preserved for authenticity in any sort of re-release (virtual or otherwise) seems a bit silly. Plus, it could leave us with situations where articles just get moved back and forth as the first game, and then later the second game, get re-released on VC. And as you mentioned, it'd be more consistent with other aspects of the articles - I also don't think infoboxes should be updated to say that "latest appearances" are re-releases (not even for non-virtual things like SMASLE), especially now that eventual re-releases are becoming almost a given for most games. It's just clutter really, not to mention it's a bit dishonest, since Nintendo's not actively reusing the subject, they're just along for the ride as the overall game gets recycled. Similarly, they're not actively embracing the old spelling - they just didn't bother proofreading, except in rare cases like SML, since that was an active name change that happened when it came to the VC, and so, it was fair to rename our things accordingly.
 
That seems fair enough. I'm a bit iffy on completely dismissing SMA-type games, but it'd probably be better to set up firm boundaries instead of analyzing what games are "enough" to merit changes. I suppose this means some sort of proposal should be set up, at the very least to counteract the SMB3 lands proposal. Would you happen to know any other examples of moves taking place due to this?
 
Well, SMA and even SMAS made plenty of deliberate changes from the originals, including names, features and entire levels, like how the VC SML changed the names. I feel like if a re-release is different from the original game, that's something that we should reflect, whereas if the differences from current names derived from subsequent games are only because the re-release is being authentic to the original, that's the sort of thing we shouldn't rename things based on, whether the re-release is virtual or not. So, for the most part, SMA wouldn't be dismissed.

And yeah, a proposal would be the way to go (and not a TPP), both to reverse the Lands and any other moves (of which I don't know any examples off the top of my head, I'm afraid), and set a precedent in general to refer back to.
 
I've picked up the BradyGames guide for Super Mario Sunshine, and it has a handy list of (most of) the enemies. Unfortunately, a lot of them are just romanizations of the Japanese names, except not really. I'll assume that the names are the wiki are 100% accurate, in which case a lot of the names are really close but are off by a couple of syllables or even letters. Smolderin' Stu's name is "Moe Kurin" (モエクリン) on the wiki, but "Moe Kuri" in the guide. Jumping Blooper is "Kuragessō" (クラゲッソー) on the wiki, but "Mamae Gesso" in the guide. Cataquack: "Poihana" (ポイハナ) on the wiki, "Paihana" in the guide, and so on. But then there are others that don't match to the same extent, like Piranhabon ("Gorogoro Pakkun" vs. "Goro"), Snooze-A-Koopa ("Tamago nokonoko" vs. "Tamanoko"), Seedy Pod ("Tanemaki Sanbo" vs. "Yunbo"), Gooble ("Puchipuchi" vs. "Name Kuri"), and so on. I don't know enough about Japanese to explain the differences, so I was hoping someone else could teach me a bit about what's up with the differences. Is it just artistic liberty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back