Editing Talk:List of references in video games
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Expect me to add many more sightings to this page soon. --[[User:Sml007.5|Sml007.5]] 21:09, 3 October 2006 (EDT) | Expect me to add many more sightings to this page soon. --[[User:Sml007.5|Sml007.5]] 21:09, 3 October 2006 (EDT) | ||
| Line 107: | 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: | 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 119: | Line 118: | ||
==Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references== | ==Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references== | ||
{{ | {{SettledTPP}} | ||
{{ | {{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 190: | 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 229: | Line 228: | ||
== Split Article == | == Split Article == | ||
{{ | {{SettledTPP}} | ||
{{ | {{ProposalOutcome|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 244: | Line 243: | ||
===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 {{ | #{{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. | #{{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. | ||
| Line 275: | Line 274: | ||
:*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. {{ | 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 287: | Line 286: | ||
==Override Previous Proposal Outcome for [[List of Mario references in video games]] Split== | ==Override Previous Proposal Outcome for [[List of Mario references in video games]] Split== | ||
{{ | {{TPP}} | ||
Through sysop approval, they agreed to override the decision of the previous outcome despite rule #7. See [[User talk:Alex95#Proposal Archive]]. | |||
Through sysop approval, they agreed to override the decision of the previous outcome despite rule #7. See [[ | |||
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: | 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. | #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 [[ | #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 [[mediawiki.org: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. | #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. | #If one page ends up being too long anyways, splitting further could make overall organization of the splits very hard to navigate and understand. | ||
| Line 299: | Line 297: | ||
#The list is already sorted by ABC order. Splitting is easy. | #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. | #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 {{ | #If splitting games into 26 articles is too many splits, we can just split pages by grouping letters into one page, like {{fakelink|ABC}}, {{fakelink|DEF}}, {{fakelink|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. | #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. | 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. | ||
| Line 323: | Line 321: | ||
===Comments=== | ===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) | 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 {{ | :Imagine if {{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/PQRS}} has too many S's. We change that to {{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/PQR}} and either create {{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/S}} or move the S's to {{fakelink|{{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) | ::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 ({{ | :::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 ({{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/S/Sa-Sm}}) and Sn-Sz ({{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/S/Sn-Sz}}). It doesn't exactly have to have a subpage from a subpage. We can do ({{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/Sa-Sm}}) and Sn-Sz ({{fakelink|{{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) | 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) | :I think that will remain on [[{{PAGENAME}}]]. I don't see that fitting anywhere else. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:46, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | ||
| Line 333: | Line 331: | ||
: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) | :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) | ::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) | ||
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) | 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) | ||
