General Discussion

WqD7wPc.png
 
thanks, you've done it in a way only you guys could
 
I haven't been contributing to the wiki in awhile aside from a few minor edits, so I thought I'd ask if we've looked at all to SourceGaming for some credible information, particularly about Smash Bros. They've dug up and accurately translated several articles from Sakurai that provide a lot of cool and previously unknown information, as well as dispel a lot of old rumors that people accepted as true, such as the rumor about planned characters in Melee that came from NeoGaf.
 
GalacticPetey said:
I haven't been contributing to the wiki in awhile aside from a few minor edits, so I thought I'd ask if we've looked at all to SourceGaming for some credible information, particularly about Smash Bros. They've dug up and accurately translated several articles from Sakurai that provide a lot of cool and previously unknown information, as well as dispel a lot of old rumors that people accepted as true, such as the rumor about planned characters in Melee that came from NeoGaf.
Click to expand...

In adding to and making revisions to the Super Smash Bros. pre-release articles, I've used Source as a source quite a few times, mostly on the Smash for 3DS / Wii U article (List of Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U pre-release and unused content), though I also have a revision of Melee's pre-release article in the works that uses Source for references which really should be finished.
 
I remember editing the Smash 64 pre-release page after Source Gaming posted that article about which characters were actually said to be planned for the game.
 
The name for Pecan is derived from the official Japanese name, ピーカン , romanized as Pīkan . This name is also the name for the real life pecan nuts, so the wiki decided that the bird enemy was named after a nut... except hold on, the name is clearly a pun on pelican, or ペリカン, romanized as Perikan. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the enemy's name is just a transliteration, mostly because the enemy has nothing to do with nuts. Would it be fair to move the article to its romanization instead?
 
Just noticed a disclaimer on a Prima guide:
Important:
Prima Games has made every effort to determine that the information contained in this book is accurate. However, the publisher makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, effectiveness, or completeness of the material in this book; nor does the publisher assume liability for damages, either incidental or consequential, that may result from using the information in this book.
Click to expand...

what good is an official guide if it doesn't want to be official
 
I think they're just covering their arse in case they print an error (such as incorrect information which would make the guide useless in parts), they don't want to serve a legally-enforcable obligation to consumers to get them from A to B in a game.

In no way does it affect how official the guide itself is, as we cover content from third-party organisations which are released under-contract by Nintendo. Any errors, such as in naming enemies, are still acknowledged. If it's a major error (such as confusing Goombas with Super Mushrooms, as a far-fetched example), then we wouldn't treat that information as the Gospel Truth obviously, just because Prima said it. But if Prima mispelled an enemy's name in most or all instances within the guide, then we would consider it an official title as well as the correct spelling.
 
my take on things is that Prima can (read: is often) wrong about the mechanics of the game itself and the name of established characters, but it can't be "wrong" about things like the name of Sir Domino because there's nothing to contradict it
 
Glowsquid said:
wait what
Click to expand...
Woah, now that's unusual. The IP address' edits go back to late 2014, and his only contributions have seemed to be adding and re-adding the name to the Ludwig article, as well as making changes to related voice actor pages and articles. Using Checkuser on the IP address gave me an account called Joe, who's only contribution was removing a potentially derogatory part of the same talk page comment in late 2015. Today it appears that he noticed that the comment was restored, and he decided to remove all of it.

Time Turner said:
should we just revert the edit?
Click to expand...
I would advise not to. Especially since he would likely add it back eventually (as he's returned on several occasions to restore the removed information from articles). I believe that it would be best to approach him, most likely through his IP address talk page (as he has been consistent with his IP for over one and a half years, and the Joe account had only made one edit and it wasn't too recent). We could ask him to reach out to us using the wiki staff email address for us to understand which concerns he has about the talk page comment.

I don't know, they didn't prepare us for something like this in admin school...
 
YoshiKong said:
I believe that it would be best to approach him, most likely through his IP address talk page (as he has been consistent with his IP for over one and a half years, and the Joe account had only made one edit and it wasn't too recent). We could ask him to reach out to us using the wiki staff email address for us to understand which concerns he has about the talk page comment.
Click to expand...
Per this.
 
I have a question, is it a good idea to release some articles of protection because they're long released? I know that articles like New Super Mario Bros. Wii were protected against IPs who would add misleading information to the article, but now it's here for quite some time, anonymous editors can help with fixing some minor problems in the article.
 
Sure, which specific articles did you have in mind?

EDIT: It should be noted, some of those pages (MKWii, Galaxy 2) are protected since they are (were?) high-traffic pages. I've unprotected other games which don't attract as much traffic.
 
I don't know the threshold for removing protection for games. I know, as Mario Kart Wii or Galaxy 2, there are some exceptions, but I guess it's up to you guys if the article has too much traffic or not. As for now, I guess you can take a gander at the Category:2011 games and older and see what needs to be unprotected, especially games that don't have as much traffic.
 
Also, I've noticed this immediately and I think it needs to be addressed before I forget, so sorry for the double post:

Plummers Academy

I'm fairly sure the title card a typo, and according to Netflix, the more recent source, it corrected the name. Shouldn't the article be moved to the Netflix name? Does anyone have the DVD of this release?
 
Baby Luigi said:
I don't know the threshold for removing protection for games. I know, as Mario Kart Wii or Galaxy 2, there are some exceptions, but I guess it's up to you guys if the article has too much traffic or not. As for now, I guess you can take a gander at the Category:2011 games and older and see what needs to be unprotected, especially games that don't have as much traffic.
Click to expand...
I would support removing protection from such older games. I think we protect them in the first place to avoid floods of unsourced information and speculation, from new and anonymous users who aren't familiar with our writing standards and citation policy. But when the new-article traffic dies down after a while, we are generally left with a page which remains protected indefinitely. Nowadays, I'm seeing plenty of IPs who carry out essential maintenance and correct obvious mistakes in grammar.

Baby Luigi said:
sorry for the double post
Click to expand...
No worries, it seems to be an unwritten rule of this thread to double post when the subject changes.

Baby Luigi said:
Plummers Academy

I'm fairly sure the title card a typo, and according to Netflix, the more recent source, it corrected the name. Shouldn't the article be moved to the Netflix name? Does anyone have the DVD of this release?
Click to expand...
I've had a good search on eBay, not to make a purchase, but to look for photos of the DVD's episode listings to see which spelling is used there. I didn't find the Academy episode written anywhere, though.

I have doubts about moving to the Netflix title if that was the only source of the alternate name: the episode's titlecard would be a very definitive source otherwise. I see how it could be a typo, but it could also be intentional, too.
 
On Rosalina's page:

Merchandise
Plushies based on Rosalina are manufactured by San-ei. Currently there are two versions: Rosalina in default appearance and another as Cat Rosalina. There are also mini figurines of Rosalina developed by Furuta. Rosalina and Luma have an amiibo of them, which was released February 2015. The figure was originally available at Target, but is no longer available to purchase at any retail stores.
Click to expand...

Is this ever going to get updated? Not only it's not true (Rosalina's Smash amiibo can be found in retail stores now), but she also has a new amiibo from the Super Mario series.
 
It should. It's just that no one has gotten around to editing that page.
 
Just a small announcement to make,

The current GMT time will now appear on the top of the Proposals page, as well as below the Talk Page Proposal template wherever it is used. This will effectively inform users exactly when a proposal ends, and will help prevent users accidentally archiving a proposal early, due to confusions between timezones.
 
What's the current reasoning on the guideline on which form of English to use? From my knowledge the wiki allows both forms, and I've been thinking, if the wiki uses the American names of games as standard, why not normal sentences? While some users will out of habit write the Brittish version of English(myself included), having American English as a standard will keep consistency throughout the wiki, I've seen articles say "color" in one sentence and "colour" in the next, and it looks unprofessional. Is this too much of a minor issue to bother changing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back