Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 40: |
Line 40: |
| :::::::::Why? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:15, 31 October 2017 (EDT) | | :::::::::Why? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:15, 31 October 2017 (EDT) |
| ::::::::::Because they're specific and '''there's too many for one article. Some have too many steps.''' [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:16, 31 October 2017 (EDT) | | ::::::::::Because they're specific and '''there's too many for one article. Some have too many steps.''' [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:16, 31 October 2017 (EDT) |
| | EDT) |
| :::::::::::You know, the trophies seem to be doing fine, with all of those entries on one page... {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:18, 31 October 2017 (EDT) | | :::::::::::You know, the trophies seem to be doing fine, with all of those entries on one page... {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:18, 31 October 2017 (EDT) |
| ::::::::::::That's a transclusion list. Which often crashes computers I use. And are ''formulaic''. These aren't so ''formulaic''. Many of these are completely ''unique''. Either way, you're committing a fallacy of comparing ''collectibles'' with ''goals''. ''Goals'' deserve articles in games like this, and that is a ''fact''. That's why we do it for ''Super Mario 64'' and ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:21, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::::The few articles that ''have'' been created don't really give me that impression. How many articles are truly unique and truly warrant the extra time and space given to them with a dedicated article, and how many of them can be fully written about in two sentences? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:23, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::::::Well they've just started. Either way, we've got a lot per Kingdom. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:24, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::::::I'd argue that the individual mission articles are about as formulaic as the trophy lists, if not, even more so. They're just composed of "go here, avoid these assholes then go there" type sentences. At least the trophy articles have an excuse to be "formulaic". I'd also argue that goals are just another type of collectible but I ran out of time so don't expect a response from me today. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 01:26, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::::::::All our Power star missions have articles, including the red coin ones, with the exception of the miniature areas that really only have that going for them. They're about the exact same thing as you mentioned. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:28, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::::::The fact that they've only started being created is irrelevant when the ones that we do have are already so uncomfortably short. And I can only think of a small handful of Power Stars that are exactly like what you've described. At best, they're the exception and not the rule, which certainly doesn't apply to the Power Moons. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:32, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::::::::They're still just as much missions as the Trouble Center missions. A specific task needs completed. Ergo, a mission. They are '''not''' an exception. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:34, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::::::::The point really isn't that they don't involve specific tasks, it's that spreading out this information doesn't benefit anyone in the slightest, not the readers, not the editors, and not even the pages themselves, and it just makes the entire process asinine. The occasional Power Star or Shine Sprite can scoot by because the majority of them are lengthy and involved, but that means nothing when the ultimately brief pages are the rule and not the exception. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:39, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| When people say there's too much articles, they mean that the navigation and organization will be utterly horrendous for our readers in MarioWiki, especially for very little information each of those Power Moons will convey. How many articles do they have to sort through to find the Power Moon that they want? What if they don't remember the name of the extremely specific mission, which, mind you, is one out of 100 of them? What advantages will each individual article serve compared to making a list of Power Moons by Kingdom article (which I strongly believe will be far more useful than multiple small articles that aren't much different to each other and will be a pain in the ass to sort through) and redirecting and anchoring all of the names to there? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 01:19, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :A suggestion on the Discord was to only create articles for Power Moons required for progression (with the more elaborate animation and the moon panel below it on the ground), as well as all multi-moons.
| |
|
| |
| :{{User:Shokora/sig}} 01:20, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| Then we can work from there? I just don't see a compromise that anyone can agree on at all. Also, as I have pointed out, the proprietor does not yet wish to make any Power Moons an exception to the "all missions get articles" clause of the New Articles policy. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 01:28, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :Did we not read the same conversation, or are you missing the part where he said to make a table first? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:34, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| '''''I decree''''': '''Tables on the kingdom pages must be created first''' containing Moon #, name, image, and description (one table for each kingdom with the multi moons in there too, same order as in the in-game list). When those are complete, we will revisit the idea of individual articles (which I'm sure will be just as fun as this) possibly doing them all, creating some criteria like Shokora is saying, or not doing them. Baby steps - thank you! --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 01:35, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :Thank ''you''! (Just keep in mind that we '''''have had''''' some precedents in the past, like PMTTYD troubles.) {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 01:39, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::God, a comprise was already reached. Stop trying to pick a fight. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 01:41, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::That should go for both of you, actually. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:43, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| ::::'''Just one more note before I begin:''' I will also work on whether to do the same to ''Donkey Kong 64'''s Golden Bananas, per Baby Luigi's comment, and considering that yes, they work similarly to Power Moons. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 16:22, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::One thing at a time. Please. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 16:36, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| (Am I butting in? I wasn't here for this debate.) I'm not sure where this topic is but my two cents is that we should split up the power Moons between kingdoms (for example Mushroom Kingdom Power Moons). I'm not saying that power moins are not to have their own articles cause there is so many, but because some of them are as simple as breaking a box. (Although something was already agreed upon.) [[User:Chat Man|Chat Man]] ([[User talk:Chat Man|talk]]) 22:00, 31 October 2017 (EDT)
| |