General Discussion

I wouldn't mind. Either way works for me. I think it would be better to add a reason parameter for consistency's sake though.
 
As a general comment, the brief reasoning to be potentially included in the template is not to be a replacement of the explanation that usually follows a Last Warning. Even if the reasoning is listed on the template, users should aim to be more detailed on the offenses that led to the LW.
 
Yet all the other warning templates follow the exact same rule that you should probably give a more in-depth reason accompanying it. I don't see why Last Warning should be an exception to it.
 
so you mean pretty much the same thing that's done with regular warnings currently?
 
If the admins approve of it, can that part be added to the template?
 
http://www.mariowiki.com/Template_talk:Not-unused#Useless_template.3F
 
Another thing.

is it possible to update this image?

Mario-group.JPG


The quality could be higher and im asking because i dont think its even official (i recall there was one without Rosalina in it)

so if it could be updated to have a better looking image , i could help with that.
 
Is there a better way to format the tables in "World X-X (Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Bros. Edition)" articles? They used to be collapsed, but that doesn't magically make the issue of the tables leaving behind a ton of empty space disappear.
 
Swiftie_Luma said:
Another thing.

is it possible to update this image?

Mario-group.JPG


The quality could be higher and im asking because i dont think its even official (i recall there was one without Rosalina in it)

so if it could be updated to have a better looking image , i could help with that.
Click to expand...
Since I upload the image above, there is a HQ image although it has a blue filter. Size: 2500 x 1350. Source: Nintendo Kids Club
DdFdsdS.jpg
 
So I was listening to Sirius CM channel 8, when I heard this "Growing Up 80s Moment #875." It reads like this:

"You know that the Mario brothers aren't even real? For three years I thought they were the boys living across the street."

I would think that this would go on a references page, but which one, if any?
 
Is the Mario content in Alleyway and Tetris DS Mario content considered a guest appearance or a cameo? There was a proposal (MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_37#Remove_coverage_of_"cameo"_puzzle_games) that wanted to merge these pages to the List of Mario references in video games page (alongside Art Style: PiCTOBiTS and Pushmo), but Alleyway has still been left unaffected and Tetris DS only has one of those merge suggestion tags. Honestly, I wouldn't mind keeping Tetris DS due to its wealth of Mario content, and Alleyway technically features Mario as the playable character. However, that doesn't overthrow the proposal's results, unless there was a discussion somewhere else that agreed to keep them. In any case, since MarioWiki:Coverage offhandedly mentions Tetris DS as a crossover without elaborating and doesn't mention Alleyway at all, are the articles staying or going?
 
The Alleyway stuff is a tricky question since Mario not only appears in the boxart, he's also in the title screen, and there is a good amount of Mario objects. Though it's not a Mario game, it has enough Mario content, in my opinion, to have its own article. On the other hand, the Mario stuff doesn't seem extremely prominent, and the Mario content are mainly in the bonus rounds so you can make a counter argument, that the information in Alleyway article can be just mentioned in List of Mario references in video games. I think relatively speaking, Alleyway has more Mario than Pushmo, though I don't know for sure. There are more than just a few puzzles in Pushmo to me.

Tetris DS can probably stay, and you can cite NES Remix and its sequels and Nintendo Land as examples of how we cover games that are really a mash-up of Nintendo games. They're not terribly in-depth, and the article still has a lot of content to cover pretty much everything it needs. I'm fine with Tetris DS staying. And so, I question how Art Style: PiCTOBiTS became a redirect as a result.

Anyway, if we're going to remove Alleyway since it doesn't have a lot of Mario content, this brings the question to articles including Golf, which arguably has even less Mario content than Alleyway and the character's identity in the game is muddled on whenever this person really is Mario, and Pinball (game), where Mario's identity is definite, but still does not have a lot of Mario content in it. And then, you have the Famicom Grand Prix games, both are also ambiguous on Mario content being a guest or a cameo since neither are considered Mario games or at least part of the Mario series. This was brought up by the lone dissenter, but the argument wasn't addressed. The proposal, on the hindsight, probably wasn't a good idea since it does bring up questions on those games I mentioned.

Bob Eubanks said:
So I was listening to Sirius CM channel 8, when I heard this "Growing Up 80s Moment #875." It reads like this:

"You know that the Mario brothers aren't even real? For three years I thought they were the boys living across the street."

I would think that this would go on a references page, but which one, if any?
Click to expand...
I don't know, is this a radio reference? If possible, can you provide a transcript?
 
That actually was the transcript, if I know what you're looking for.
 
i didn't merge them out of laziness, and also because I had second thoughts about alleyway

just ignore it.
 
I already spent more time than enough debunking the claim that the Mario Party Star Rush box is derived from a Spaghetti-O's can. Now, can we change/remove/comment on those Tweets? Any objections?
 
It's because it's wrong/bad information. The tweet is perpetrating a myth that doesn't need to be spread any further.

If deletion isn't a proper choice, we should at least acknowledge that we made a mistake.
 
If you take a look at our Twitter account, it's not an all-serious-business account; the whole deal with the can image is funny, actually. And to be honest, an old tweet is not something to get worked up about since people won't even see it.
 
It isn't all serious, true, but the way we present the information also has roots in factual information. This is clear misinformation, and I think it would do good to say that the boxart didn't come from a can at all, but generic stock image of the Mario characters.

I don't think it's a good idea to leave false information hanging there simply because it's an old tweet. People can browse through our feed at any duration they like, especially since our tweets are fact-related and has interesting trivia in them; the tweet isn't even that old anyway, and it won't take long for people browsing through the feed to notice it. I feel it's better to acknowledge that this is an error rather than not do anything about it.
 
Yeah, our tweets are supposed to be fact-bites as well. It wouldn't help to tweet about a cute, but largely incorrect referral to a Spaghetti-O's can, seeing that people need to be presented with accuracy, not trying to be funny at the expense of accuracy. It's like tweeting a quip on Toad's gender or Gunpei Yokoi being Wario's creator or Ashley's age (unless its a quip on the misconception).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back