| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 106: |
Line 106: |
| == Capcom Puzzle World(PSP) == | | == Capcom Puzzle World(PSP) == |
|
| |
|
| O.K. I just found this while flipping through my cheat code book, anyway I have never played the game but one of the codes is called Super Buster Bros. If anyone has the game it says "At the main menu, highlight Tour Mode, hold the Down button and press X. So anyone with the game, please try it out, but just from the name I can tell it's a reference.--[[User:Mr. 8-bit|Mr. 8-bit]][[Image:SMB Hammer Bro Throwing Hammer Sprite.gif|30px]] | | O.K. I just found this while flipping through my cheat code book, anyway I have never played the game but one of the codes is called Super Buster Bros. If anyone has the game it says "At the main menu, highlight Tour Mode, hold the Down button and press X. So anyone with the game, please try it out, but just from the name I can tell it's a reference.--[[User:Mr. 8-bit|Mr. 8-bit]][[Image:Hammerbrolol.gif|30px]] |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Line 118: |
Line 118: |
|
| |
|
| ==Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references== | | ==Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references== |
| {{Settled TPP}} | | {{SettledTPP}} |
| {{Proposal outcome|passed|11-0|split}} | | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0|split}} |
| [[Captain Rainbow]], [[Alleyway]], [[Pinball (game)|Pinball]], [[Art Style: PiCTOBiTS]], [[Tetris DS]]. We have articles on these games simply because characters from the Mario series have major roles in those games. So why not Densetsu no Stafy 3 (for some reason translated on the wiki as The Legend of Stafy 3, even though the game never had an official english translation)? From what I can understand (which honestly is not much since I never actually played the game and there's only one video of Wario in DnS3), [[Wario]] talks with Stafy, travels with Stafy for a while, and appears in a few levels with Stafy. Hey, if Captain Rainbow has an article because of [[Birdo]]'s appearance in the game, then I don't see why this game shouldn't have article because of [[Wario]]'s appearance. | | [[Captain Rainbow]], [[Alleyway]], [[Pinball (game)|Pinball]], [[Art Style: PiCTOBiTS]], [[Tetris DS]]. We have articles on these games simply because characters from the Mario series have major roles in those games. So why not Densetsu no Stafy 3 (for some reason translated on the wiki as The Legend of Stafy 3, even though the game never had an official english translation)? From what I can understand (which honestly is not much since I never actually played the game and there's only one video of Wario in DnS3), [[Wario]] talks with Stafy, travels with Stafy for a while, and appears in a few levels with Stafy. Hey, if Captain Rainbow has an article because of [[Birdo]]'s appearance in the game, then I don't see why this game shouldn't have article because of [[Wario]]'s appearance. |
|
| |
|
| Line 189: |
Line 189: |
| == Densetsu no Stafy 3 == | | == Densetsu no Stafy 3 == |
|
| |
|
| A [[Talk:List of references in video games#Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references|previous TPP]] proposed to split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from this article. The edits haven't been done, so I open this section to <s>get "attention"</s> raise awareness. {{User:Banon/sig}} 16:50, 19 May 2013 (EDT) | | A [[Talk:List of Mario references in video games#Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references|previous TPP]] proposed to split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from this article. The edits haven't been done, so I open this section to <s>get "attention"</s> raise awareness. {{User:Banon/sig}} 16:50, 19 May 2013 (EDT) |
| :We should put it in the main proposals page. {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 00:50, 28 May 2013 (EDT) | | :We should put it in the main proposals page. {{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 00:50, 28 May 2013 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Line 228: |
Line 228: |
|
| |
|
| == Split Article == | | == Split Article == |
| {{Settled TPP}} | | {{TPP}} |
| {{Proposal outcome|passed|2-3-12-1-0|Nintendo and third-party developers}}
| |
| [[{{PAGENAME}}]] is unruly and excessive with ~200 sections! My talk pages don't exceed 100! I think this page needs to be split into more manageable articles. This is something that [[MarioWiki:Article size|policy]] would definitely support, but how to organize. I'm thinking by system. For systems like PC, PS4, etc., that can be its own article. This division could use tweaks or refinements if there is still large cluster(s) remaining. [[Gallery:Mario]] had this done via proposal. I think this article should be too. There's room for discussion for further ways to divide besides system. I'm not opposed to the idea. | | [[{{PAGENAME}}]] is unruly and excessive with ~200 sections! My talk pages don't exceed 100! I think this page needs to be split into more manageable articles. This is something that [[MarioWiki:Article size|policy]] would definitely support, but how to organize. I'm thinking by system. For systems like PC, PS4, etc., that can be its own article. This division could use tweaks or refinements if there is still large cluster(s) remaining. [[Gallery:Mario]] had this done via proposal. I think this article should be too. There's room for discussion for further ways to divide besides system. I'm not opposed to the idea. |
|
| |
|
| Line 243: |
Line 242: |
| ===Split by ABC Order=== | | ===Split by ABC Order=== |
| #{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} Per Proposal. | | #{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} Per Proposal. |
| #{{User|The Koopa Bro.}} Splitting it into groups of letters in four groups: A-D, E-M, N-S & T-Z would work better to me. For example: if somebody was looking for a [[Mario (franchise)|''Mario'']] reference in the [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2017/Crash Bandicoot (franchise)|''Crash Bandicoot'' franchise]], they would go to {{fake link|List of Mario references in video games/A-D}}, or if they were looking for a Mario reference in the [[Pikipedia:Pikmin series|''Pikmin'' series]], they would go to {{fake link|List of Mario references in video games/N-S}}. [[List of Mario references in video games]] would be re-purposed into a page similar to [[Gallery:Mario]] & [[Gallery:Super Mario Maker]], with it listing each of the individual pages that it was split up into (and possibly a section from each page, I don't think that's necessary). | | #{{User|The Koopa Bro.}} Splitting it into groups of letters in four groups: A-D, E-M, N-S & T-Z would work better to me. For example: if somebody was looking for a [[Mario (franchise)|''Mario'']] reference in the [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2017/Crash Bandicoot (franchise)|''Crash Bandicoot'' franchise]], they would go to {{fakelink|List of Mario references in video games/A-D}}, or if they were looking for a Mario reference in the [[Pikipedia:Pikmin series|''Pikmin'' series]], they would go to {{fakelink|List of Mario references in video games/N-S}}. [[List of Mario references in video games]] would be re-purposed into a page similar to [[Gallery:Mario]] & [[Gallery:Super Mario Maker]], with it listing each of the individual pages that it was split up into (and possibly a section from each page, I don't think that's necessary). |
| #{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Splitting by first and third party just seems too vague; besides, some video games could be developed by both a first '''''and''''' third party developer, and splitting both pages would lead to a conflict as to which sections go on what page. By browsing alphabetically, users can easily jump to a section on a particular page ''and'' not have to know whether a game is Nintendo-made or third party or both.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Split by 1st and 3rd Party=== | | ===Split by 1st and 3rd Party=== |
| Line 254: |
Line 252: |
| #{{User|Yoshi the Space Station Manager}} per all. | | #{{User|Yoshi the Space Station Manager}} per all. |
| #{{User|Tails777}} Yeah, the article is pretty crowded. Per all. | | #{{User|Tails777}} Yeah, the article is pretty crowded. Per all. |
| #{{User|Magikrazy}} This one seems to make the most sense based on the topic at hand. Per all.
| |
| #{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Luigi 64DD}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} I was originally going to vote for the Split by System one, but Wildgooespeeder's comment below, about multi-platform games, convinced me to go with this one. But one of the resulting articles will probably still be pretty long. We may have to find a way to split that too.
| |
| #{{User|Marioguy}} Per all, especially what Ultimate Mr. L said about another split.
| |
|
| |
| ===Split by Some Other Method=== | | ===Split by Some Other Method=== |
| #{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} Per Proposal. | | #{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} Per Proposal. |
| Line 274: |
Line 266: |
| :*PC/Sony/Microsoft/SEGA | | :*PC/Sony/Microsoft/SEGA |
| :--{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) | | :--{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) |
| How about splitting by '''Nintendo''' and '''non-Nintendo'''-published titles (i.e. {{fake link|List of Mario references in Nintendo video games}}, {{fake link|List of Mario references in non-Nintendo video games}} (or "third-party games"))? I counted and there's about 40 sections that are Nintendo games/series, comprising nearly half of the page, especially since some of them (e.g. the Zelda and Animal Crossing series) have split off into more subsections, taking up more room. There are a lot of games that are multiplatform, which would create potential redundancy of information if we were to split by console. So would a Nintendo/third-party split be a good idea? Or would they still be too long? {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 05:03, 31 March 2017 (EDT) | | How about splitting by '''Nintendo''' and '''non-Nintendo'''-published titles (i.e. {{fakelink|List of Mario references in Nintendo video games}}, {{fakelink|List of Mario references in non-Nintendo video games}} (or "third-party games"))? I counted and there's about 40 sections that are Nintendo games/series, comprising nearly half of the page, especially since some of them (e.g. the Zelda and Animal Crossing series) have split off into more subsections, taking up more room. There are a lot of games that are multiplatform, which would create potential redundancy of information if we were to split by console. So would a Nintendo/third-party split be a good idea? Or would they still be too long? {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 05:03, 31 March 2017 (EDT) |
| :I think a Nintendo/third-party split is the most reasonable. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 06:05, 31 March 2017 (EDT) | | :I think a Nintendo/third-party split is the most reasonable. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 06:05, 31 March 2017 (EDT) |
| ::That's a pretty good option. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) | | ::That's a pretty good option. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) |
| Line 284: |
Line 276: |
| ::::I also thought of a fault with splitting ~200 sections into two. We would still have ~100 each article (ideally). What if the balance turns out to be 75:125 or 50:150? Then we still have a problem that we made slightly better. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 16:58, 2 April 2017 (EDT) | | ::::I also thought of a fault with splitting ~200 sections into two. We would still have ~100 each article (ideally). What if the balance turns out to be 75:125 or 50:150? Then we still have a problem that we made slightly better. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 16:58, 2 April 2017 (EDT) |
| I actually thought of a fault for "by system". What if the game is multi-platform? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) | | I actually thought of a fault for "by system". What if the game is multi-platform? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) |
|
| |
| ==Override Previous Proposal Outcome for [[List of Mario references in video games]] Split==
| |
| {{Settled TPP}}
| |
| {{Proposal outcome|failed|4-7|stick with original outcome}}
| |
| Through sysop approval, they agreed to override the decision of the previous outcome despite rule #7. See [[User_talk:Alex95/Archive_2#Proposal_Archive]].
| |
|
| |
| Split by 1st and 3rd Party was the agreed upon outcome, but there are a few unforeseen challenges that await from making this an easy transition, that I addressed, but were never replied to. I don't think that people were informed enough about the potential ramifications of doing such a split. Ideally, splitting an article that is 100,000+ characters long with MediaWiki markup into 2 50,000+ character articles sounds good in theory, but it might not work out that way in practice. Here's the rundown why I think this will cause unnecessary maintenance:
| |
| #Manual sorting what is 1st and 3rd party since all the titles are mixed.
| |
| #Because this page will be split into two, there is still a chance the split still results in an article that is over 100,000 characters long or is still unreasonably high. This would go against [[MarioWiki:Article size|policy]] as we ended up not getting very far. This also applies to [[mw:Help:Formatting#Level 2|header counts]] and rendered page length, possibly creating an unbalanced ratio, like a page with 50 headers in one page and 150 headers in another.
| |
| #Because of reason #2, this could make maintenance harder to transition to a different splitting method if the winning split method fails to keep pages reasonably sized.
| |
| #If one page ends up being too long anyways, splitting further could make overall organization of the splits very hard to navigate and understand.
| |
| Something that came up during the voting period and that was to split by ABC order. I really liked this overlooked option because it has several advantages:
| |
| #The list is already sorted by ABC order. Splitting is easy.
| |
| #Because more than two page splits are occuring, this means the chance of an article being too long are much less.
| |
| #If splitting games into 26 articles is too many splits, we can just split pages by grouping letters into one page, like {{fake link|ABC}}, {{fake link|DEF}}, {{fake link|GHI}}, etc..
| |
| #If one group of letters for a subpage is too long compared to another, moving individual letters to a different page is easy. Structured organization isn't compromised and doesn't suffer.
| |
| I think this will be a better way to approach splitting a list like this. This proposal is about confirming if we really want to go through with the extra effort at this time or not.
| |
|
| |
| '''Proposer''': {{User|Wildgoosespeeder}}<br>
| |
| '''Deadline''': May 29, 2017, 23:59:59 GMT
| |
|
| |
| ===Override Previous Decision with ABC Order Split===
| |
| #{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} - Per proposal
| |
| #{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per the reasons why I stuck with this decision in the first place. By sorting alphabetically, the page would provide a more newbie-friendly disambiguation. Furthermore, some games have '''''both''''' first and third-party developers (considering that, while Nintendo did most of the work on ''[[Mario Kart 7]]'', Retro Studios also helped with the development process). '''PS:''' Perhaps having '''thirteen''' pages (AB, CD, EF, GH, etc.) seems most reasonable.
| |
| #{{User|The Koopa Bro.}} Per TtA.
| |
| #{{User|BBQ Turtle}} Per all, I think this is the most sensible and simple idea.
| |
|
| |
| ===Proceed with Original Proposal Outcome===
| |
| #{{User|Alex95}} - This is the option I voted for last time. Regardless of how this proposal turns out, the pages will still be long, and an uneven ratio will happen between them anyway.
| |
| #{{User|3D Player 2010}} - Alphabetical Order is an extremely messy way to organize basically anything. Much neater to use actual categories that have an actual definition.
| |
| #{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per 3D Player 2010. Splitting by alphabet is confusing for people who are not MarioWiki experts and are browsing the site looking for information, but splitting by first/third party would make a lot of sense for them. Splitting by alphabet is very difficult to mantain.
| |
| #{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. While the original outcome would create long pages, it would still be better than what we have now. I feel that it would also be messier to separate them by alphabetical order, as there would be many more pages created, and they would be very uneven and difficult to navigate, especially if one of the letters ends up being split into its own page.
| |
| #{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per all. I going to stick with my original decision.
| |
| #{{user|Tucayo}} - Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
| |
|
| |
| ===Comments===
| |
| Before I vote one way or another, can you show exactly how the articles will be split (in regards to which letters will be grouped)? As Alex pointed out, if the letters aren't split evenly, then the end result may still have unreasonably high character counts. At the very least, it could result in a lot of short articles that makes things annoying for navigation. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 12:56, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :Imagine if {{fake link|{{PAGENAME}}/PQRS}} has too many S's. We change that to {{fake link|{{PAGENAME}}/PQR}} and either create {{fake link|{{PAGENAME}}/S}} or move the S's to {{fake link|{{PAGENAME}}/TUV}} (likely the former option). This is what I mean by #4. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:17, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::I understand that, but at the same time, I'd prefer if all of that was settled before the proposal actually goes into effect, just so we don't run into more unforeseen issues. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 15:19, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::That's what makes the ABC option so flexible. I can even foresee only S's reaching a point of needing to be split as well. I have seen organization go Sa-Sm ({{fake link|{{PAGENAME}}/S/Sa-Sm}}) and Sn-Sz ({{fake link|{{PAGENAME}}/S/Sn-Sz}}). It doesn't exactly have to have a subpage from a subpage. We can do ({{fake link|{{PAGENAME}}/Sa-Sm}}) and Sn-Sz ({{fake link|{{PAGENAME}}/Sn-Sz}}). --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:27, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| Where will the "Miscellaneous Apps" section go if this passes? --{{User:TheFlameChomp/sig}} 15:43, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :I think that will remain on [[{{PAGENAME}}]]. I don't see that fitting anywhere else. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:46, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| To be honest, I think that alphabetical order should only ever used as a last resort for ordering purposed; after literally all other possibilities are exhausted. There are tons of possibilities to sort these games; developing company, console system; game genre; etc, and even past that, if all categories are identical for multiple games, the 1st tiebreaker should be release date, and if a tie remains; sales should be used as a 2nd tiebreaker. 2 games selling the exact same amount is extremely unlikely in general, but if a tie still somehow remains, then it should be dealt with by having someone use a random number website, and not alphabetical order. {{User:3D Player 2010/sig}} 19:36, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :There's a lot of work resorting 200+ headers. I was looking to quickly transition to reducing page size. I wasn't anticipating putting in a lot of effort fixing the main article. I was looking to take the route of least resistance. If you are willing to put in the work to do that, I'll hand over the project to you since I created the two proposals about splitting, but first, since we already have two proposals about splitting, let's wait until the this proposal concludes before we do anything. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 19:40, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| @Toadette the Achiever Retro Studios is a first-party developer. Also, even if a game had both first- (Nintendo) and third-party developers involved, like Capcom for the Oracle series, it's still considered a Nintendo game. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 07:54, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :I think [[Retro Studios]] (along with [[Rare Ltd.]]), fall under the category of 2nd party because neither 1st or 3rd seem fitting. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:38, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::But the original decision was to split by ''Nintendo'' and third-party, was it not? At least that's what was originally [[#Comments 2|suggested]]; the section, however, was named "[[#Split by 1st and 3rd Party|Split by 1st and 3rd Party]]", which I've now realised isn't always the same as "Nintendo and 3rd Party" (HAL Laboratory and the Kirby series, for example). And I always thought "first-party developer" referred to either Nintendo themselves, or a developer 100% owned by Nintendo, like Retro. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 22:17, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::Yes, but I thought there were some flaws that weren't considered and splitting by ABC order was overlooked. I find this particular split a mess (not the 1st vs. 3rd party split but how members want to split the main article). I'm seeing a lot of back and forth with voting going on. I think I bit off more than I could chew. I think I opened a can of worms I wasn't prepared for. The good news is that {{user|3D Player 2010}} is willing to take on the project. Based on his comments, I think he knows what he is doing compared to the rest of us. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:22, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| Keep in mind if the ABC option wins, we can still do the original option that won, easily, after waiting 28 days. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:33, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| I assume that if the first/third party split happens, it will still be grouped alphabetically within itself, correct? Or is there a different sorting method you have in mind? {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:41, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :Technically so. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 20:17, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :Depends on who takes the responsibility of doing the split. If I am the one doing such, as I think it is probable that I would be the one doing so based on discussion in my talk page, games will be sub-sorted based on release date and not alphabetically. {{User:3D Player 2010/sig}} 19:57, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::Alphabetical would probably be easier. If people are looking for a specific game, they're more likely to remember its name than when it was released. {{User|Yoshi876}}
| |
| :::I realize you have a sort of aversion for doing things alphabetically, 3D Player, and that's totally fine. Thing is is that that's really the best way to categorize something, as it makes things easier for readers to find. ...Though not in the way Wildgoosespeeder is proposing, I don't think. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 21:47, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::I am proposing absolute ABC of everything for the first 28 days or we do the outcome of the original proposal. Seeing how Nintendo franchises might have been outsourced compared to the main in-house development (see {{tem|companies}}, although organization is a bit to be desired), 2nd party might need to be split from 1st party. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:59, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Cuphead ==
| |
|
| |
| I'm not 100% on this but doesn't ''Cuphead'' belong in third-party games? Or am I making a fool of myself? [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 20:44, 2 November 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :Yes, it should. There was a proposal to split the games into Nintendo and non-Nintendo games, but they all haven't been fully sorted yet. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 21:06, 2 November 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Removed LEGO references ==
| |
|
| |
| Who the heck's responsible for removing the ''Mario'' references in LEGO City Undercover and LEGO Marvel Super Heroes? [[User:SmashFan48|SmashFan48]] ([[User talk:SmashFan48|talk]]) 20:16, 4 November 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :Those can be found on [[List of Mario references in third-party video games]], per [[#Split Article|this proposal]]. --{{User:TheFlameChomp/sig}} 20:17, 4 November 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Ducktales Remastered ==
| |
|
| |
| "I thought that was supposed to be a anti-aging culture, not a instant growth fungus" -Scrooge Mcduck
| |
|
| |
| add this somebody? pls? [[Special:Contributions/75.89.31.210|75.89.31.210]] 10:15, 28 December 2017 (EST)
| |
