User talk:Super Mario RPG

Archives
Archive 1

Special:Diff/4408567

Already implementing that proposal I see. Keep it up, trooper. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:45, October 23, 2024 (EDT)

Thanks. That page looked really dated in parts (I think you removed some bad trivia, which was already a sign), so I took a look over the whole thing. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:49, October 23, 2024 (EDT)

Is it weird that why did you use the "Video game in non-Latin language (Romanization) instruction booklet", instead of the "Video game (language) instruction booklet"?

When I was browsing the articles of video game things, I heard of the phrase "Video game (language) instruction booklet" for games with multiple language manuals. For games with one manual, it is "Video game instruction booklet" But in mid-2024, why did you change into "Video game in non-Latin language (Romanization) instruction booklet" for instruction booklets with non-Latin languages? Here is the example. --User:YuRi YuZi 9:04, December 26, 2024 GMT

@YuRi YuZi I wanted the title to be more consistent with the source material. Super Mario RPG (talk) 05:51, December 27, 2024 (EST)

New {{a}} Templates?

Heya, Happy New Year! I noticed your edits on the King Boo page to implement this new template for links and things. I was wondering if you could link me to the discussion about it so I could understand it better, thanks! MarioComix (talk) 22:16, January 1, 2025 (EST)

@MarioComix Unlike some of the other templates I've done, this one was created by someone else in response to a proposal that I've created. This was the proposal in question by the way. It's not required to use, such as in cases where Nintendo101 prefers not to use them while working on articles, but the consensus is that they're useful to have. While revising, moving things around, and adding citations, it's much more manageable than typing out the full game titles. Super Mario RPG (talk) 23:22, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Thanks for sharing! I'll see if there's still room to offer my 2 cents on the subject. MarioComix (talk) 05:34, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Super Mario RPG, you should know I have seen frustration from some users on how widely this template has been integrated, including in older articles that did not have any embedded link issues. An example of the comments I have seen are:

i thought it was just going to be like, "i'll use this if i don't feel like typing out a long game title". it's not so hard to type out Super Mario Bros. that you need a template for it

I really think you should critically consider that, while a tool like this can be useful to some if they choose to use it, especially for long game names like Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, a lot of users would prefer the text they type match what is displayed. It is just a lot more intuitive, and it makes it easier to edit down the road and for a wider net of people to understand. In my view, if a new user is coming to this site and wants to contribute, they should not feel like they need to be a savant in HTML coding, templates, or site policy. They should just need baseline reading comprehension and writing skills. I worry the widespread integration of this template into articles that do not necessarily need them, or for brief game titles, is more so discouraging than helpful. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:36, January 2, 2025 (EST)

@Nintendo101 Would you like for me to stop using it, then? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:31, January 2, 2025 (EST)

You shouldn't get rid of it since it is part of a proposal that passed democratically, but please avoid replacing preexisting links. I know you struggle not having everything on the site homogenized, and I do understand that to some degree. But this is also a communal craft, and folks should have some wiggle room with what tools they choose to use. I think one should be comfortable with the idea that not all articles have to use the same templates, and they don't even all have to use them to the same degree or the same way. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:07, January 2, 2025 (EST)

@Nintendo101 So you're saying that from now on, I should only use it outside of articles unless it's new material being added? I've been fixing some of the pre-existing links and I'll try and minimize the use of the template from now on, even though it could be hard since it has proven to be convenient at times. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:11, January 2, 2025 (EST)

On the recent, big proposal...

You got a Star for your hard work at editing!

Glad to see the proposal to add a to-do to the Main Page passed with flying colors! It really was a great idea that will propel people toward helping the Wiki out with even basic maintenance, even if there may be adjustments needed to it in the future. OmegaRuby [ Talk / Contribs ] 13:42, January 2, 2025 (EST)

@OmegaRuby There's a lot of deprecated templates that hadn't worked out for the community, and this will help make coordination easier in cases where a feature or a template from someone doesn't work out. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:25, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Re:Game citations

For subjects whose name are found in an in-game quote, I personally put the quote in Template:Quote and place it before the first paragraph (e.g. Purity Heart). It's also fine if you quote it in a citation. - RHG1951 (talk) 21:18, March 5, 2025 (EST)

@RHG1951 I think the {{ref timestamp}} could be efficient for citing the same video. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:05, March 14, 2025 (EDT)

Re: recent edits

i noticed a lot of your recent edits trimming down pages end up removing bits of information (such as Artist on the Court not unlocking stages, or being less clear on the mechanics behind coloring). is this deliberate? — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 17:32, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

@EvieMaybe Hi, thanks for asking. It's definitely not deliberate. I found it uncomfortable that the pages were being padded out, like very small "Levels" sections, and the original revisions weren't that clear on some of the mechanics to begin with. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:12, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

Recent Rewrites

Hi there.

It's been noticed lately that a lot of your rewrites on various minigame articles are a bit larger scale and seems to remove or compress information a bit more than necessary. As such, it was a staff discussion and choice to apply this short block. Some of these rewrites remove more information and some compress the info that makes the articles look or feel a bit more bare boned, as well as some of them being significantly larger and being marked as a minor edit. I personally appreciate the desire to contribute, but I've also heard this has been a problem in the past. I feel you should take some time to reconsider your style of edits and not press them further on these types of articles. As a small bit of advice, perhaps contribute to adding missing information for articles in the future rather than rewriting or restructuring other articles. Tails777 Talk to me!

@Tails777 I was trying to enact the Mario Party minigame proposal, and I have a habit of rewriting text that I come across. Note that some pages do have flowery writing. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:52, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

Understandable, yes, and that is something I myself have noticed. But I do think a notable example of an article that did not need as much reconstructing as you offered initially was the Artist on the Court game. Aside from it being a bit beyond the scope of the original Mario Party minigame proposal, the initial attempt left the article feeling a bit more on the bare side and I personally felt like it was compressed and reconstructed a bit too much. Yes, that is largely personal preference to a degree and I will agree that your second attempt was far better in my eyes, but all that still stands in the sense that some articles can be just fine with a few extra paragraphs explaining certain details in a more fleshed out way. Tails777 Talk to me!

I think it would be nice if there was more lenience toward "Overview" sections in general since I think it's a great way to organize the information. Super Mario RPG (talk) 22:18, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

To elaborate on Tail's message, a concern the staff have is that your focus on mass-rewriting articles that don't urgently need it is, perhaps, misguided. In a previous edit summary, I stated I would mass-revert your rewrites (after all, it makes no sense to block you for doing this and then letting it stay up anyway). However, as I kept looking, I left some of your revisions alone as they are fair improvements, or at least inoffensive. However, I still had to keep looking because other rewrites of yours are bad, either removing valid information or inserting false information. In many cases, it seems you are rewriting subjects you have no knowledge off, and because of this lack of knowledge, you lack the ability to identify relevant information and not cut it while compressing the articles, or leads you to making false interpretation of the existing writing. See this edit, where your rewrite makes a false claim that wasn't in the old version.

We know you mean well, but these mass rewrites make it difficult for staff and your fellow users to review and determine what's worth keeping and what's worth reverting. Your energy would be much better spent fixing articles that have improvements tags or are missing information, instead of "fixing" what's not broken. --Glowsquid (talk) 11:01, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

Would it help if I do edit summaries explaining my reasons? The Artist on the Court page (the second attempt) was better received. For example, if I wanted to get rid of flowery writing, I'd explain it as such. Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:06, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

The point of our inquiry is not that we don't know why you're doing these. The point is that we think you should reconsider why you're doing these, and focus your editing on areas that require more urgent attention and where you are less likely to break things. At the very least, please hold off making mass rewrites on subjects until you are confident you won't remove valid information and insert false one. Many would opine what you call "removing flowerly writing" is more like "simplifying to a fault". --Glowsquid (talk) 11:28, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

The last sentence could have been what had gone wrong. I was also very stressed yesterday and rushed, which I should have not done, because it's caused a mess. Also, while I know there's no standard for this, the Wall Ball article, for example, I tried to organize everything into an overview section because the current version looked too crunched up, and an Overview section can help with not making opening sections overly long, something that I hope will be acknowledged by a future proposal at some point. Now, as for why I've consolidated sections before, it's because I think too much by "opening, gameplay, conclusion," as an example of the minigames, and Nintendo101 did say I struggle with not everything being homogenized, which is true. I like consistency. Super Mario RPG (talk) 12:02, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

Hi, Super Mario RPG. "Consistency" does not always mean "better," but regardless I think you are missing the forest for the trees. These extensive rewrite you have been making are the same type of revisions that contributed to your previous long-term block, some of which have been marked as "minor" edits despite significant parts of the article being rewritten or removed. That is not appropriate. Your fellow users, real-life human beings who volunteer their time and energy to help maintain this wiki, have difficulty combing through your revisions because they are so big and because you have done so many of them in rapid succession. Staff and other users feel inclined to review these edits from you because, while portions of them are legitimate improvements that are appreciated, they are interlaced with the removal of large chunks of correct information, the integration of clunky sentences, the changing of grammar that was fine to begin with, and the revision of sentences that now are just incorrect. I understand you just want to help out, but this is not how to go about it and this is not a negotiation. Please stop doing these frequent large-scale revisions. Do not make any substantial changes to any article and mark it as "minor." When you come back, I encourage you to contribute to pages that are missing information, rather than do extensive rewrites on what is already there and structurally sound. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:06, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

@Nintendo101 Did I tick the minor edit box? If so, I don't know how that happened. I probably meant to click "Save" . Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:00, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

Am I forbidden from doing rewrites entirely (including articles that do need it) or is there an unspoken quota of only a few a day? Writing is my passion, but it looks like I got carried away from trying to accomplish too much too fast, since the minigame proposal is overwhelmingly large combined with the habit I mentioned earlier of rewriting what I come across. It would be unfortunate if I am not allowed to do any more rewrites at all, even in moderation. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:14, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

Almost everyone who contributes to this site enjoys writing.

You are not "forbidden" from editing articles. Do not do these extensive rewrites of articles. If you want to contribute, focus on articles that are or seem undercooked. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:35, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

Does adding Overview sections count as extensive rewrite? For example, to the Artist on the Court page? (see above) Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:38, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

Yes, that was too extensive to have carried out and folks believe it worsened the article. It was not even part of the Mario Party minigame proposal that passed, because this is nothing to do with any Mario Party game. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:44, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

EvieMaybe

If I may, I'd like to congratulate @EvieMaybe on the recent promotion. From what I recall, we had some good discussions in some of the proposals before. EvieMaybe, I look forward to working with you. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:59, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

thank you very much! i appreciate it, and likewise — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 15:21, March 23, 2025 (EDT)