MarioWiki:Main Page talk archive 19

Individual Pages

Hmmmm.... Question: Is there anything saying we can't make individual pages for Subspace Army ememies? Because we only have one. Not counting Primid. BLOC PARTIER.

Only that old importance policy might, but no one's paying attention to that anyway, so nothing's stopping you. Stumpers! 01:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Cool. Thanks. :D BLOC PARTIER.

Also... Are wiki articles supposed to be in past or present tense? BLOC PARTIER.

It varies. When talking about events, either in game or in terms of actual series history, you want to use the past tense. When talking about gameplay, like "the player can make Mario jump with A" you want to use present. Does that clarify what you were thinking of? Stumpers! 21:11, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, thanks. I'd seen it both ways, so this is perfect. :D BLOC PARTIER.

Wii Wheel

Hem hem, when it says Mario Kart Wii has been released in Japan and Europe under the "Nintendo News" category, it says it was released with the introduction of the Wii Wheel. That is not true, it had been packaged with the Grand Turismo game a year earlier. Glitchman (talk · contribs)

Fixed that, thanks for noticing. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Was not made by Nintendo. [1] is not the same as Nintendo's [2] -Girrrtacos

Check "Iwata Asks," -- There's a special NINTENDO team that worked on the Wii Wheel, not the Wii Steering Wheel. Stumpers! 22:49, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Still, the old wording made it sound like that because there is now a Wii Wheel, Mario Kart Wii was released, while it was the other way round. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Sockpuppeter

looks like we have a new one: smoke.

Smoke on Jets (talk) Smoke on Wario (talk) Smoke on Yoshi (talk)

...and lots more. Jdrowlands (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Categories

It appears to be an unwritten law that if a category is a sub-category of another category, every article of the sub-category must automatically fit into the super-category. Example: 1-vs-3 mini-games is a sub-category of Mini-games, because naturally any 1-vs-3 mini-game is automatically also a mini-game. But then, there are categories like Aliens, which are included in both the categories Species and Characters, although they can either be a species or a character, not both. This contradicts the unwritten law (which I support), so I think we should remove the two "super-categories" from Aliens (and some other examples), because not every alien is a species, and not every alien is a character. I hope this makes sense :P Opinions? Time Questions 05:46, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I looked through some more categories, and there are some such as Arachnids, which are categorized as Species. Tarantox however, which is categorized as an "Arachnid", is not a species, but a character. But actually it would be useful to categorize examples like "Aliens" and "Arachnids" as something. So, uh, we could make a category "Species & Characters" (dumb name, only an example) which we could use as a super-category for e.g. "Aliens" and "Arachnids". It would of course also contain the categories "Species" and "Characters". Time Questions 06:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you can really make a difference between species and character for people like Toad. Characters are of a species. But the species itself isn't a character. The job would be done by removing the Characters category from Aliens etc. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Well yeah, they are of a species, but they aren't a species themselves... Toad is clearly a character, not a species, though he is of a species. So, basically, it depends on how we define the relation between the category and the categorized element (i.e. what does it mean when an article is categorized as a "Species"?). Probably I'm just nit-picking, but still :P Time Questions 09:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Thinking of it...should an article have a first category and a second category, while the second category is a subcategoy of the first? Looks kind of superfluous for me. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You mean something like "Enemies" as a first category and "Non-Game Enemies" as a second? I agree this is superfluous. Time Questions 09:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that's how I meant it. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

"Low-Resolution Images"

I've noticed that part of our free use policy for artwork and screenshots states that images are to be low resolution, bolding added by me:

"This image is an illustration of a character in a video game, comic book, or animated television program or film. The copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher/producer and/or artist(s) producing the work in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of character artwork for commentary on the character in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information."

"This is a screenshot of a copyrighted computer or video game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to turn a profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Copyrights and fair use rationale."

I think we need to set some boundaries as to what images are considered low/web resolution. Just to clarify, I'm talking about really, really big images, like ones that don't even fit on a 1600x1400 monitor, like Image:MPDSMario.jpg. Stumpers! 01:40, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

This low-resolution rule is mainly intended for making companies unable to completely ban you from reporting about their stuff. Nintendo is however much more lax about showing their images around the web. It only has a set number of purposes you may not use them for:

All content on this website, including articles, artwork, screen shots, graphics, logos, digital downloads and other files, may not be used on any other web site, in any publications, in public performances, in connection with any product or service that is not Nintendo's, in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, in any manner that disparages or discredits Nintendo, or in any manner that is otherwise exploitative for any commercial purpose or that otherwise infringes Nintendo's intellectual property rights.

(From Smash Bros. Dojo). A different question is whether we really need images as big as the Mario one you showed there. That's a scale that is no longer useful for our articles. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:52, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Good call. I'm pretty sure that the 15 or so images I've seen that are rediculously large are all artwork copywritten by Nintendo, so we're safe. Stumpers! 20:15, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Poisonous is spelled wrong :| Glitchman (talk · contribs)

"Sub-species"

I think the wiki is way too lenient on giving out the status of a "sub-species" to almost everything. Sure, a Paragoomba is a sub-species of Goomba, because it has evolved wings. But why should a Sad Dry Bones be a sub-species of a Dry Bones? They are exactly the same, simply in a different mood. Also, concerning Super Mario RPG enemies, Gorgon is considered a sub-species of Enigma. Why? Because the Enigma is the first to appear in the game? They are similar, without doubt, but that doesn't qualifiy for being sub-species of each other. On terms of Subspecies, all have to be treated equally as well. So "regular Goomba without anything" is itself a subspecies of "Goomba".
I don't think the whole concept of sub-species really fits into Mario games. Paragoombas lose their wings when jumped upon. That doesn't change them in any zoological way. The term "species" shouldn't be used in that case at all. What about "variety"? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree. For instance, variety should be better. Green Guy Talk!^E