User talk:99.227.180.3

Re:Small Mario

I've gotten rid of instances that mention the three games in the Super Mario Run section, and frankly we don't need to mention every single inconsistency comparing this game to three unrelated games pertaining to what occurs in the power-up, as it bloats the page and makes reading harder. I've noticed you added this back without any reason. If you need to clarify why you disagree with my edits, please do so. Ray Trace^(T|C) 22:05, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

When talking about gameplay, we always use present tense for verbs. Only in nonfictional scenarios is where past or future tense is used. Additionally, I feel the extra verbiage in the article is unnecessary. Readers can gain from the "they are defeated in one hit" line from a section as being the weakest form without further explaining that this form is their weakest form. I also think we don't need to compare their past appearances this much in the article, which again, readers can learn from reading the sentence and already drawing out their own inferences. Ray Trace^(T|C) 23:40, 22 May 2018 (EDT)

Technically, many games would fall under that criteria of no longer being officially supported so to speak, such as the BS Satellaview games that is extremely difficult to obtain due to its rarity and limited distribution and method of playing the media, yet they would still use present tense when describing gameplay. And very technically speaking, it is still very possible to downgrade playing to an earlier version of the game, or play a version of the game that you haven't updated to, still making the present tense applicable to there. The general rule of thumb is, here at MarioWiki, fictional descriptors are given the present tense treatment while nonfictional events such as E3 announcements or what goes in development can use past tense depending on the context. Also, while it is notable to note past inconsistencies, I still don't think it's a good idea to compare them across unrelated games that have different purposes, especially in Captain Toad: Treasure Trackers case. Too many analogies may bog down the article and make it more difficult to read, as I had when I was reading the Super Mario Run section. I'd rather sacrifice some specific clarification if it means the paragraph is easier to understand. Ray Trace^(T|C) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (EDT)

You're still adding the same old unnecessary tidbits on the same page again and again and again. If you keep this edit war up, you could get blocked temporarily. Next time, discuss with an administrator before undoing this edit so that you can come to an agreement. – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

RE:Small Mario

Sure, but even this revision and the current revision was perfectly acceptable and explained some of the stuff you talked about on my talk page. No need to add redundant information or go overboard on how the information is presented. Sometimes, simple is often times better. In this case, it's better if that information was presented in a simple and easy-to-read manner, not a full-blown, hard to understand one. – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

RE:Peach/Toadstool on Super Mario Advance.

Regarding full title, not really. Even if we did, "Princess Peach Toadstool" would be her full title. We don't have "Princess Peach" actually written on the Super Mario Advance article, so there's no problems there. "Princess Toadstool" is, as you said yourself, her older name from the NES and SNES era, not the GBA one in question. Again as you said so yourself, "Peach" is used in game and in the manual, and only "Peach" is being used on the article aside from the name change listed later.
I see no issues here. 20:56, 26 June 2018 (EDT)