Talk:Main Page/Archive 20: Difference between revisions
(rv) |
(Messed Up Templates) |
||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
Sorry if I'm going nuts over here, but it seems like that's the only conclusion I'm coming across here. --[[User:MeritC|M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast!]] | Sorry if I'm going nuts over here, but it seems like that's the only conclusion I'm coming across here. --[[User:MeritC|M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast!]] | ||
== Messed Up Templates == | |||
I noticed that various templates look messed up now in the articles. That includes [[Template:Character-infobox|Character-infobox]] (e.g. in [[Bowser]]), [[Template:Foreignname|Foreignname]] (e.g. in [[Shake King]]) and [[Template:Aboutfile|Aboutfile]] (e.g. in [[:Image:BrawlLuigi.jpg]]). What happened? --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 10:27, 14 July 2008 (EDT) |
Revision as of 09:27, July 14, 2008
H4X0R
A Warning from KP Blue: H4X0R is in town, we must knock him out, kick him in the balls 25 times, and finally, shoot him in the balls-KP Blue
- Unless we can alternate between kicking and shooting, I don't care. -- Chris 23:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
- We can alternate.-KP Blue
Featured articles
Featured articles have a major problem - many of them seem to have been identified as such only because of mass voting, but not because they were actually good enough. For example, the Luigi's Mansion isn't even done, and the incomplete Plot section is nine paragraphs about the first ten minutes of the game. That would mean that the plot, if the whole thing follows suit, would be more than 100 paragraphs long. On top of this, featuring articles on Wikipedia often leads to the articles decaying because of lack of interest (as a result of the editors deciding that once they've reached the highest rank the article can receive, there's not much left for the article). Imagine what happens to FAs here - they're nominated quickly, promoted quickly, and abandoned quickly.
Another problem is the images. A Wiki should be usable by anyone - including 56k users. Any images at all would be a problem for some, but at this point, me being a broadband user notices the insane load times for many of the articles because of images.
And the lack of sourcing creates a poor situation for an article. From what can be seen, lack of references only leads to articles being featured, it doesn't lead to them being of featured quality, and in fact allows people to sneak false content in, knowing that sources are not necessary. - A Link to the Past 02:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- First of all let me say welcome back! I can actually answer several of those questions for you. I hope Luigi's Mansion is causing you the biggest trouble, because there's a story behind that. I noticed it was featured but felt it wasn't ready, so I began working on the story section, which was currently a one paragraph overview. It's on my massive to-do list (see my user page) to cut down on the heavy detail and finish the rest of the story. Unfortunately, the article went on to being featured with that not-even-half-done story section because no one opposed it. The rest of the articles are of much higher calibur, although there are still many problems with several, yes, but LM is the biggest problem. As to interest in the articles waning, Princess Daisy and others are still must active pages on the Wiki. You don't so much see the quick nomination and acceptance problem here. Like I said, LM was a weird case that wasn't debated at all -- while others such as Mario work better. That article has been nominated twice in recent memory and each time it has been fought over and ultimately scraped. None of this is to say that there isn't a problem, because there definately is. As you know, the smaller a Wiki is the lesser the quality of its featured articles are on average. The same thing is happening here, although it is improving.
- Images are a big problem, yes. According to a proposal a while back, images should all be categorized by game, character, etc. to remove the need for extensive bandwidth-killing galleries. However, they are still included on the pages because we encountered a problem where the images showed up as unused when they were only in categories. This could be solved by separate image pages, but if I remember right a proposal turned that down.
- You may have noticed that sourcing is present to a certain extent on the Wiki. It was mainly used for "controversial facts" and new information such as a game's release date or Princess Peach being Daisy's cousin (it appeared in an official guide). The decision to limit the requirement of sources was made so that users would be more accepting of source citations, but I really couldn't agree more that we need references. False content usually isn't that big of a problem with the more major articles or the featured ones -- it usually gets weeded out quickly (I remember a dispute over whether Mario was Italian - the point was removed until someone quoted Chales Martinet saying that Nintendo's representative asked him to voice an "Italian plumber from Brooklyn") I think right now what should be done is that we should make citing sources encouraged and make a rule that citations should not be removed even when information becomes commonplace (such as an announcement of a new game, eventually it gets released and then someone removes the citation). Anywho, good luck and see you soon! Stumpers! 02:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- I think we do have a problem with featured articles. They are seen as an award or something. You can see the problem at the nomination of Alien (Club Nintendo), which is a very minor subject, yet the creator fights for it to be featured. I guess it is his opinion that the article is worth less when it can't get featured like the big ones. But going to the Main Page isn't a right given out to every tiny article. They should represent what the Wiki has to offer, a bit like advertising to those who view the page for the first time. Luigi's Mansion also didn't really work. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- If our community ever matures enough and enough of the userbase becomes not obsessed with Userpedia and actually works on the articles, I'd shoot myself. That's how certain I am that this is infixable. Wa TC@Y 18:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- ignores Wayo's comment* I agree with what ALTTP said. The FA system is mostly a joke. --Blitzwing 18:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- If our community ever matures enough and enough of the userbase becomes not obsessed with Userpedia and actually works on the articles, I'd shoot myself. That's how certain I am that this is infixable. Wa TC@Y 18:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- I think we do have a problem with featured articles. They are seen as an award or something. You can see the problem at the nomination of Alien (Club Nintendo), which is a very minor subject, yet the creator fights for it to be featured. I guess it is his opinion that the article is worth less when it can't get featured like the big ones. But going to the Main Page isn't a right given out to every tiny article. They should represent what the Wiki has to offer, a bit like advertising to those who view the page for the first time. Luigi's Mansion also didn't really work. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:17, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
I can't remember how many times I've said this since FA's were first suggested, but they are a stupid idea. For an encyclopedia the size of Wikipedia, sure, they work out great. Here on a smaller wiki were we really only have a handful of active competent users, it process breaks down rather quickly.
While I can't say much about images (someone please link me to one of these problem articles), some of the pressure will be taken off the server once Wayoshi teaches us how t use the Mass Delete function.
And on the point of sources, I seem to remember that we were using them. Did that break down too? -- Chris 20:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
New on the Mario Wiki scene, but with one question
Hi all, the name's M. C., and I'm on a mission to help the Mario Wiki the best that I can (created my account yesterday)! However, there's one small prob -- I was hoping to see about editing the Mario Super Sluggers article page to add in materials, but I found that the page is semi-protected. Any reason as to why this is so? All right; take care, everyone -- and thanks. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 12:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- As with all of the popular Upcoming/Recently released games article, that page got frequently vandalized, I think. --Blitzwing 12:45, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- Huh? This Wiki too? You've gotta be kidding me! I only know about the "main" Wikipedia being vandalized with false info, and it was constant too. Sheesh... --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 13:50, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Okay, just noticed I've got editing privelges for the Mario Super Sluggers page now (aw yeah!). But I'm still curious though -- what is the criteria to meet to edit a semi-protected page anyway? I know that being logged in is the main requirement, obviously. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 21:57, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Character Debut Insanity!
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait -- let me get this straight -- in the regards to my recent edits, it's been driving me crazy! So am I led to the conclusion that the debut of certain characters in the Mario series are mainly targeted to where they debuted, regardless of it's a game installment or anything else in relation to the Mario series as a whole (including outside of the games)?
Example - the majority want to keep information of the character's REAL debut info to the Mario series as a whole (Baby Peach = Super Mario Bros. cartoon; Baby Daisy = Super Mario Bros. live action movie).
I SO gotta put this nagging question to rest. HELP!!! --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 21:28, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
- Here's the deal: the first time a character appears historically should be listed as the first appearance, regardless of whether its a video game or a cartoon show or a movie. For example: Baby Mario appeared in both the Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 and the Nintendo Comics System prior to the release of Yoshi's Island. Therefore, we'd list his first appearance as Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. Since Baby Daisy appeared in the film in 1991 before she appeared in Mario Kart Wii in 2008, we list that as the first appearance. We only list one appearance as the first appearance. Stumpers! 00:37, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Quote of the Day
“OK big brother! I'll be waiting.That's Punio's sister, Petuni. She really cares about her brother. I mean, you can just FEEL her love for him! I feel totally awful that's she's all trapped in here. Let's hurry up and help her and the rest of them, OK?That's Petuni, Punio's sister. She really trusts her brother. Let's hurry up and get her out of here. Oh and all of the others too.”
—PetuniGoombellaGoombella, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year DoorPaper Mario: The Thousand-Year DoorPaper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
Copied and paste'D again. Someone please fix. - Girrrtacos
This problem is resolved. ;) MegaMario9910 (talk) tried to make the edits from that section as I checked. RAP... That method the user was making reminds me of the Wario article, ;_; I might revert it back...
- (For the future) This is caused by multiple uses of {{quote}} on the same page. Other quotes must be substituted in to avoid it. Wa TC@Y 20:02, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Notice regarding passed proposal
As people involved in the merging of the Recipes articles may not necessarily view the Recipes talk page, I thought I had better post the notice I posted there here as well, in order to help ensure that it is not overlooked. I see no reason why this shouldn't be here, but if it shoudn't, please remove it. It is displayed below as it appears on the Recipes talk page. —Soler (talk · edits · edit count) 16:29, 30 June 2008 (EDT).
N.B.: Due to the success of this proposal (if the link does not work any longer, click here), if the Recipes pages are eventually merged into this page, all possible recipe combinations and all pieces of important trivia must remain somewhere easily accessible on the wiki. —Soler (talk · edits · edit count) 15:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT).
Chatroom
Not sure where to bring this up, but here seems OK.
I was demoted because Ops thought I wasn't active enough, because I mostly only come when there are none. The Ops thought it was just an excuse, a lie. I've been in the chatroom for two weeks and every time there's been no ops. Here's proof. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Doesn't the chatroom need ops when there are none? Example- look at the fourth picture.
So there's my case to be re-promoted, and my proof. Girrrtacos
- We really need to get the chat under control. -- Chris 23:40, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
- Girrrtacos: This doesn't excuse the fact that during your stay as op, you broke several rules such as swearing in another language and making several inappropriate posts. And yes, we all agreed on this: You never did anything.
Ghost Jam: Easier said than done -_-. --Blitzwing 06:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Talking in a language you don't know isn't swearing. (I don't even remember, the only other language I ever remember speaking in is Hawaiian) Yes, and as for the You never did anything, your only asking ops right? Well lookey at my first post. The time zone that I'm currently in and my schedule makes it so I'm in the chatroom at the time when there are no ops. I didn't have proof at the time I was getting demoted, but now I do. Girrrtacos
- 1: I didn't say that speaking in another language is swearing, I said that you swore in another language.
2:By "not doing anything", I meant that, as an op, you practically never did the administrative work (Kicking users, banning, tells everyone to calm down). OK, you may be more active when no other ops are around, but how can I be witness of that :P? --Blitzwing 12:33, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
1. I don't remember swearing in another language. If I did do it, it most have been months ago.
2. I kicked and banned people when I was there. So what your saying is, don't have any ops in that timezone because we can't monitor them? Than what's the point of having these ops in the first place? Girrrtacos
I'd like to stop the discussion right here and point out this is all community related crap, so let's move this discussion to the forums. Thanks. -- Chris 23:29, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Game Guide Insanity
Now it's my dealing with MORE edit wars in regards to stuff from Mario series' game guides. So, let me get this straight - ANY piece of info from any Mario series' installment -- whether it's from a guide done by Nintendo themselves, or a third-party "official" guide that's licensed by Nintendo should be accepted as fact to be posted here?!?! Now this part is driving me NUTS! o_O MeritC
- I find it a very silly thing to do. Obviously, a source that makes claims as to Peach and Daisy being cousins, and then mistakenly says that both Mario and Luigi saved Daisy from Tatanga is obviously not a reliable source. Stumpers! 02:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- Wait, hold up -- are you talking about a previous so-called official guide from Prima themselves? And that they said that?!?!?! I'm still wondering where they have gotten the info about Peach/Daisy being cousins, for that's the heated debate for that Princess Daisy article (and the Princess Peach article too!) Folks are saying that whatever is in an "official" guide, regardless or not it was published by Nintendo, should be considered as fact. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 15:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- With everyone seeing it either black or white and not accepting compromises, we get nowhere on a community wiki. When it is disputed, then we should take note of that and say that the information is from the guide only and not from the games, thus less reliable. We shouldn't say it without the notice, but not get rid of it either. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- Well, we could note that a guide/instruction manual/whatever said something, but we should also notes that said guide have errors/inconsistencies and thus, shouldn't be taken as a valid source. --Blitzwing 06:47, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- Wait, hold up -- are you talking about a previous so-called official guide from Prima themselves? And that they said that?!?!?! I'm still wondering where they have gotten the info about Peach/Daisy being cousins, for that's the heated debate for that Princess Daisy article (and the Princess Peach article too!) Folks are saying that whatever is in an "official" guide, regardless or not it was published by Nintendo, should be considered as fact. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 15:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- Wait a sec, not all official guides are accepted as valid article sources. Prima's guides only count if they were made in 2007 or beyond; see MarioWiki:Citation Policy. But per Blitz for anything with contradictions that falls within those lines, unless they need be altered or something. YELLOWYOSHI398
Character info "connections"
Okay, I think I'm reaching the conclusion in terms of biographical info on characters, but I'm still pulling my hair out (no wonder there are "edit wars" on certain articles!!!) So let me get this straight -- am I led to conclude that we are to attempt making "connections" of a certain character by combining the various soures in relation to the entire Mario series, be it games themselves, related guides, movie, Japanese guides, etc.? Becauase I'm let to conclude and others are telling me like for example the Princess Daisy/Baby Daisy articles -- we are to "connect" the "evolved dinosaur" info from the Super Mario Bros. Movie to the main articles themselves here on this wiki?!?!
Sorry if I'm going nuts over here, but it seems like that's the only conclusion I'm coming across here. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast!
Messed Up Templates
I noticed that various templates look messed up now in the articles. That includes Character-infobox (e.g. in Bowser), Foreignname (e.g. in Shake King) and Aboutfile (e.g. in Image:BrawlLuigi.jpg). What happened? --Grandy02 10:27, 14 July 2008 (EDT)