MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51: Difference between revisions
m (Adding date withdrawn as well) |
(Archiving) |
||
Line 355: | Line 355: | ||
::Probably I jumped the gun with this one. Maybe we should see how the pages look first, since I don't want to cause consistency issues with this proposal. I wonder if I can withdraw it for now. [[User:Shiny K-Troopa|<span style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12px; color:#302b7a;">Shiny K-Troopa</span>]] [[User talk: Shiny K-Troopa|<span style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:10px; color:#496dd1;">Talk</span>]] 19:09, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | ::Probably I jumped the gun with this one. Maybe we should see how the pages look first, since I don't want to cause consistency issues with this proposal. I wonder if I can withdraw it for now. [[User:Shiny K-Troopa|<span style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12px; color:#302b7a;">Shiny K-Troopa</span>]] [[User talk: Shiny K-Troopa|<span style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:10px; color:#496dd1;">Talk</span>]] 19:09, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | ||
:::You are able to remove your proposal so long as it's within three days of its creation (and you must also properly archive it). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:54, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | :::You are able to remove your proposal so long as it's within three days of its creation (and you must also properly archive it). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:54, 2 April 2018 (EDT) | ||
===Add a section to [[MarioWiki:Naming]] regarding technical restrictions=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-1|add section}} | |||
I'm surprised no one has talked in depth about this yet. Sure, we don't have '''''that''''' many technically restricted names, but we still have some, so I think we should set in stone a policy for these titles. Take the castle levels from ''Super Mario World'' as an example. "#1 Iggy's Castle" is located at "Iggy's Castle" rather than "1 Iggy's Castle"; while the former title is fine, it might still cause some initial confusion for the newer readers. Basically, what I'm proposing is that we start officially use closely-matched titles for subjects if the correct title is technically restricted. | |||
A draft of the proposed text can be found [[User:Toadette the Achiever/Technical restrictions|here]]. | |||
Also, if you're wondering, Porplemontage green-lighted this proposal. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Toadette the Achiever}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' April 5, 2018, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} Sounds good to me! Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Considering that we can't use the actual name, the closest match surely makes sense. | |||
#{{User|BBQ Turtle}} Per all, this just seems like the sensible thing to do anyway. | |||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per all. | |||
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} The proposal is about allowing as many characters in the original title as possible, if the suggested title has technical issues. When such a case occurs, use the <code><nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki></code> [[mediawiki.org:Help:Magic words|MediaWiki Magic Word]] to correct the title. <code>#</code> in URLs are used for linking to headers in a page name, like [[Iggy's Castle#Overview|this example]]. Even forcing URL encoding brings up an error. [https://www.mariowiki.com/%231_Iggy%27s_Castle] I couldn't get MediaWiki to parse this normally, so a forced URL is used to demonstrate. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{user|Reboot}} I'm not 100% sure this has been thought through fully. Using <code><nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki></code> to add characters to the visible title that aren't in the URL (as opposed to, say, italicising a game title in a (disambig tag) seems ill-advised all by itself, and the example given of "#1 Iggy's Castle" doesn't reassure, since it ignores that the # is pronounced as 'number' - i.e., "Number One, Iggy's Castle". "1 Iggy's Castle" is the same as "one pizza", "#1 Iggy's Castle" is the same as "Action Comics #1000". | |||
====Comments==== | |||
So if this succeeds, what will happen to the Iggy's Castle article? (Also, remind me for when I start my own franchise, to name a character <nowiki>"<[[#klunk]]>''</nowiki>," symbols included, just to mess with the ensuing wiki.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:04, 29 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
:It'll be moved to "1 Iggy's Castle", with the display title unchanged so it still shows the proper title. MediaWiki doesn't like certain symbols in page titles, so have fun with that hypothetical wiki if it comes ;) {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:09, 29 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
Just thought about it but how about a [[:Category:Notice templates|notice template]] for such pages? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 17:00, 29 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
:That's not needed unless even {{tem|DISPLAYTITLE}} cannot display the correct title. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 10:56, 31 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
@Reboot: It's not on the "assumption" that "#1" is parsed "Number One", it's about whether or not to use close matches for otherwise technically restricted titles. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 16:47, 3 April 2018 (EDT) | |||
===Give the seven boss Tikis from DKCR their own articles=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-4|don't create articles}} | |||
Because the rest of their official names have just been discovered in a datamine of the original game. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|BooDestroyer}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': April 5, 2018, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|BooDestroyer}} Need I say more? | |||
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} These guys are like the Seven Notorious Koopalings. Each one not only has a name, but is also a character and a boss. It’s not quite like Gary or Johnson (whose articles SHOULD be deleted) or even the Sammer Guys. The Tikis are characters—major boss characters at that, and not just minor NPCs. One of them, Kalimba, even has a Smash 4 trophy. And the fact that the Tikis only appear in a single DK game should not stop us from giving them articles. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Time Turner}} A name, in and of itself, is not enough to substantiate having separate articles (see: [[List of Sammer Guys]]). Is there another reason they should have articles? | |||
#{{User|Alex95}} - Per Time Turner. They may all have a name, but they aren't diverse enough (they all do the exact same thing) to justify individual articles. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Time Turner. | |||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per all. Plus, they're not even fought normally at all, which that case would guarantee articles. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
I forgot to mention, but in order, they're called: Kalimba, Maraca Gang, Gong-Oh, Banjo Bottom, Wacky Pipes, Xylobone, and Cordian. [[User:BooDestroyer|BooDestroyer]] ([[User talk:BooDestroyer|talk]]) 18:07, 29 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
@YoshiFlutterJump They are different from the Koopalings in that the Koopalings are: | |||
*A: Bosses themselves | |||
*B: Characters with actual personality | |||
also, why should Gary or Johnson not have articles? They deserve articles as much as [[Otto]] or [[Heronicus]]. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:05, 30 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
:Let me tell you one thing. The Seven Notorious Koopalings (that’s what Minion Quest calls them) hardly had personalities before Paper Jam (to the extent of having NO dialogue), and we had articles for them long before then. While the Tikis are not bosses, they possess bosses and are '''key to the story'''. As for your second point...minor NPCs shouldn’t get articles just because they have names. The Tikis are not minor, though. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 23:18, 30 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Even just regarding ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', the Koopalings had enough diversity to justify their own articles if the wiki was around then. They each had the same role, but different names and abilities. Regarding the ''SMB3'' cartoon as well, they also had different personalities. The same cannot be said for these Tikis. | |||
::Gary and Johnson, according to [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs]], their articles are valid. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 23:23, 30 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Saying the Koopalings didn't have personalities before ''Paper Jam'' is outright ''wrong'', remember their individual speech balloons in the SMB3 manual? The depictions in the cartoons and comics? Their pre-battle behavior in NSMBW? The Tikis all act exactly the same, and are only ever on screen for like 5 seconds each, '''and''' have no dialog. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:27, 30 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
I fail to see how character personalities is any sort of viable argument against article creation. I can get on board with their extremely minor role and their appearance, but not their personality. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:54, 31 March 2018 (EDT) | |||
I should point out one thing: we don’t even have an article for them as a group. [[Tiki Tak Tribe]] just covers every enemy in the game, and is not devoted to the boss Tikis. At the very least, we need an article for them as a group. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 13:19, 31 March 2018 (EDT) |
Revision as of 00:27, April 6, 2018
Create a template for FA archivesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Baby Luigi's proposed system has been a success so far. However, since we use a template for most archives, why not this one? The table columns are long and repetitive enough to get cumbersome to archive, anyways, so I propose we use a template for archiving featuring (as well as unfeaturing) nominations. I have two drafts, which you can view here and here. Let me know in the comments if there are any issues or possible fixes you have in mind with the templates. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
OpposeComments@YoshiFlutterJump: This was Baby Luigi's intended layout, and I don't see how structuring it the way you suggested is entirely possible anyways. (T|C) 20:15, 11 February 2018 (EST) I suggest putting a few rows as example next time so we can see how the template looks when used properly.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2018 (EST) Add a small link to MarioWiki:Appeals in the reminder/warning/last warning templatesTemplate:ProposalOutcome We have an appeal system that is not used a whole lot, and one of the reasons it's not used is simply because it's not that visible; it requires digging around our maintenance and policy pages to find it, so many users may not even know that such a system exists. Some of us do manually link to there when we occasionally hand out the templates, but why not make the process automatic? After all, this system is directly linked to those templates, and I don't see any reason to segregate the two processes entirely. Here's an example of what I want these to look like
Any changes to wording or comments, please note. Proposer: Baby Luigi (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsRegarding a rule in MarioWiki: Appeals, (1#: Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator cannot be appealed.), I had challenged it on Discord and I want to see that rule removed, hence why I haven't added an extra line saying that "Keep in mind that X given out by a member of staff cannot be appealed). But I don't know what the staff's official final say on that rule is, so I will edit that line accordingly once I get official confirmation. Ray Trace(T|C) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (EST)
For reference, here’s what the old userspace reminder said:
Delete the articles for Galaxy and Galaxy 2's conjecturally-named "minigames"Template:ProposalOutcome We currently have articles on four "minigames" from Super Mario Galaxy, namely ray surfing, Bob-omb Blasting, Bubble Blowing, and Star Ball Rolling, as well as two more from Galaxy 2, Crate Burning and Fluzzard Gliding. However, out of all of these, only ray surfing is officially called that in-game. I slapped {{ref needed}} templates on the other Galaxy "minigames'" articles, but I'm pretty sure they're outright conjecture. The ones from SMG2, Crate Burning and Fluzzard Gliding, actually have {{conjecture}} templates. Even worse, "Star Ball Rolling" and "Bubble Blowing" aren't even minigames. The Star Ball and Bubble are just game mechanics that change how Mario or Luigi move through a level, and these "minigames" only exist in this wiki's imagination. The Star Ball Rolling article is completely redundant with the Star Ball article. Galaxy's bubbles don't have their own article, but even if they do deserve a separate article, the correct answer would be to simply split them off, not create an article for a nonexistent minigame. Which is why when I brought this up on Galaxy's talk page a couple months ago, my thoughts were that these two specifically were the ones that needed to be put down. After all, Bob-omb Blasting, Crate Burning, and Fluzzard Gliding are conjecturally-named too, but at least they're actual minigames, right? But now that I've thought about it, those don't deserve articles either. There exist plenty of nameless minigames, such as the Hoohoo Spirit collecting and Guffawha Ruins platform jumping games from Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, numerous bonus games from the Donkey Kong Country series, and several racing games from Donkey Kong 64, which don't have articles, and I can't think of any that do. In other words, there's no precedent for the existence of articles on nameless minigames. Stuff like "Bob-omb Blasting" and "Crate Burning" can simply be described in the articles for the missions that feature these "minigames", which is how stuff like this is handled for other games (like the Blooper surfing missions or Roller Coaster Balloons from Sunshine), so why should Galaxy and Galaxy 2 be any different? So let's solve this inconsistency. Here are our options:
Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Delete all of the conjecturally-named minigames
Delete Star Ball Rolling and Bubble Blowing only
Do nothingCommentsChange the link in the Category barTemplate:ProposalOutcome In the category bar at the bottom of most pages whenever a category is included on the page is a link that leads to Special:Categories. This helps absolutely no one. Special:Categories is simply an alphabetical list of every category used on the wiki, but gives no information on how editors, both present and future, should set them up. MarioWiki:Categories on the other hand gives a comprehensive explanation on how categories should be used, from category trees to the order and specifics of the categories. This proposal is simply meant to see who agrees with changing the link in MediaWiki:Pagecategorieslink from Special:Categories to MarioWiki:Categories. Here's an example of how this can be helpful. A reader who wants to get into editing is looking over a page as an example, say Goomba's. There's an infobox, article structure, images, etc. At the bottom is a bar with a list of categories. Wanting to know more about how these categories are structured, they may expect the "Categories" link to lead somewhere useful. It doesn't, and now this reader has to search through pages or ask for help on where to go. Even long-time editors, such as myself, would like an quick and easy way to get to the page they're looking for. Rather than go through those steps, the category link should just lead to the page with an explanation. Special:Categories gives a list of what categories are in use, but MarioWiki:Categories actually tells you how to use them. Proposer: Alex95 (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI do support the proposal, but your options are rather... biased. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:08, 25 February 2018 (EST)
The link is really there for the reader (99% of wiki visitors), not the editors. Your scenario imagines a reader who wants to get into editing, but that is a very low percentage case. The vast majority of our traffic only reads. If they want to get into editing, they will be introduced to our help pages and {{Wikipolicy}} at some point and see the categories link. The target audience of MarioWiki:Categories is the editor and isn't as useful as Special:Categories if your only goal is exploring the site. A reader can use the search box on Special:Categories to check out different categories we have, for example. The info on MarioWiki:Categories about our category structure and where to put categories probably isn't the reading that visitors came to the site for (deep Mario lore). Editors and would-be editors seeking category help will find MarioWiki:Categories through our help pages, where as visitors are not going to know that Special:Categories exists without the link since they're not roaming through Special:SpecialPages. That Categories link appears across the wiki, on every namespace, and it takes you to a page that let's you explore all the wiki's categories (makes sense). Not sure it should take you to a policy page instead! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Template:ProposalOutcome I was browsing the wiki for the first time for a while and I sawdust Proposals is currently llisted under community alongside the 'Shroom, the chat and Mario Boards. The thing is though those other three things all fall under the social part of this site and less so the wiki part of the site Whilst proposals is less so part of the social aspect and more related into improving the wiki. The Navigation area the other hand has links that is all related to the wiki it's self and many of the links inside it are related to helping improve the wiki. I just think it would make far more sense Proposals was under navigation rather than community. Proposer: NSY (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsDo have any idea how visually unappealing that would look? Yikes! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
You know, you *could* argue that "Featured Articles" are just as "community"-based like proposals are and thus would argue to put that under "community". Ray Trace(T|C) 18:11, 28 February 2018 (EST)
Make an exception for the Super Smash Bros. series in our coverage policyTemplate:ProposalOutcome This proposal stems largely from a discussion thread started by Blocky, and it's recommended to read that first. If we wanted to change our current coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, our current coverage policy offers two logical options: the series is either a guest appearance or a crossover. Calling it a guest appearance is not that good: there are a notable amount of characters, locations, items, and other elements pulled directly from the Mario franchise, and it figures heavily into the Smash series' promotion, so it doesn't seem particularly right to say that the Mario content is on the same level as Captain Rainbow or SSX on Tour. At the same time, however, calling it a crossover (which is the option that the wiki currently uses) isn't satisfying either: as much as the Mario content factors into the series, it doesn't take up a majority in the slightest, so it's disingenuous to treat it as if its content is equal in stature to Mario & Sonic or Fortune Street. Keep in mind that, as a crossover, every single subject within the series should get an individual page, and there's a certain point where covering every single special move and Smash Run enemy feels like it oversteps a boundary (which is to say nothing of smashwiki:the SmashWiki that already covers these subjects better than we ever could). The wiki already has made judgements about what content shouldn't be given individual pages, mainly with various stage elements, but that completely contradicts our existing policy. If neither option available to us is acceptable, then what should we do? Simple: make a third option. This proposal aims to add an exception to our coverage policy, essentially saying that the Smash series is neither a crossover nor a guest appearance, but something unique unto itself. If it is excluded from the other sections, then it would be entirely possible to come up with systematic changes that wouldn't involve broadly changing how every series is covered. Note that this proposal doesn't say what will change; it merely leaves the door open for changes in the first place. Discussions and proposals about the particulars can take place afterwards. A draft of the proposed section can be found at this link. Proposer: Time Turner (talk) (with input from Superchao (talk)) Support
OpposeCommentsPer what I said in the thread. I see no issue with how we are presently doing things, but I'm also open to a change. Due to that, I can neither support nor oppose, but I'll agree with whatever option goes throughI kinda have to anyway :) 19:43, 23 February 2018 (EST)
Sort of a nebulous proposal. Can't pass this and then make major changes because there's no detail of changes to be made here (other than make Smash its own thing, but we don't know what that really means yet). So then you'd need a new proposal of the changes you'd like to make, but you could have just made that proposal without this one. Anyway, it's a start! --Steve (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Pie for Everyone. Pie for EVERYONE. Pie. For. ALL.I know what you're expecting. It's the first of April, I know many of you hope for one of Ghost Jam's little pie stories. I'm sorry to tell you this, but...this isn't going to be one. Or at least not precisely. If you've jumped straight to this paragraph and didn't look at the proposal title, I'd suggest maybe scrolling down to something else that needs voting on. This is your last chance. Don't look up, don't read on, don't vote. Just either scroll on quickly or close your browser tab.
Anomaly #0103-Wiki This...effect, I guess would be the way to think of it, is a meme of sorts that effects users who take on the title of editor, either granted by others or taken by personal choice, and encourages them to add or otherwise embellish false information articles in a given Wiki's database. In the first stages, this is nearly indistinguishable from standard 'new editor' behavior. As the meme takes hold, however, this escalates into anger and destructive behavior. In several cases I've observed, effected users will continue to add false information and argue the point well past a reasonable point. Eventually, and I don't believe this part is an effect of the meme, rather a result of general human frustration, users will begin to not engage effected users and allow the changes they have forced to stay. The transition between these two states seems to happen fairly quickly and is highly contagious. You see, the third stage starts as soon as the changes made by effected users is no longer disputed. At this point, the article becomes an instance of the meme and is capable to spreading it to others. Infection happens instantaneously to anyone who reads the article. User infected with the meme in this way jump directly to the second stage of infection. Really, the contagious part is what makes this thing so scary. I've seen it jump across a few users all ready, but it seems to be...growing, if that makes sense, with each person. I fear that if this isn't gotten under control soon, it could grow large enough to engulf entire userbases in a matter of minutes. I'll see what I can come up with. Notes - October 2007 Notes - November 2007 Note - April 2014 Note - April 2015 Notes - The Age of Pies Pie help you all. So there you have it. I can already feel the urge to spread this to other places tapering off...but it's still there. Try to resist, that's my only advice. For the love of Pie, you have to. PIE. Proposer: Ghost Jam (talk) Support
SUPPORT
S.U.P.P.O.R.T
Praises for the Word of Pie
Do not create Super Mario Odyssey sublocation pagesTemplate:ProposalOutcome The current Super Mario Odyssey Kingdom nav-template has (mostly red) links for all the named locations within every kingdom in the game. I think each one of these locations getting an article is a bad idea. While some of these locations are pretty big and unique, like the Deep Woods and Snowline Circuit, most of them are simply extentions of the main world or too small and not so relevant by themselves, and presenting them disconnected from each other would make these pages feel short on content. Island in the Sky (Bowser's Castle), Rocky Mountain Summit (Forgotten Isle), Heliport (New Donk City), Glass Palace (Bubblaine) and Salt-Pile Isle (Mount Volbono) are some examples of locations which are, at most, glorified platforms with a Checkpoint Flag on/near them. There are also three Tostarena Ruins locations, three Water Plaza locations, two Iron Path locations; having an article for each one is unnecessary as they are part of a whole rather than defined places (which is also the case of things like the Waterfall Basin and Stone Bridge in Fossil Falls and the Tostarena Northwest Reaches). I believe there is enough space for information about these areas in the actual kingdom articles. An overview (what it is, where it is on the map, general layout, what enemies and characters are there) can be written in five lines or so. We do not have articles for Super Mario Galaxy planets, not even for the giant, named ones like the Haunted Mansion in Ghostly Galaxy. Even if (unlike the planets) the SMO locations are named in-game, they are as relevant to their game as planets are to SMG. So, I propose:
Proposer: Shiny K-Troopa (talk) Do not create any Odyssey sublocation article
Create separate articles for notable sublocations only
Leave everything as it is
Comments@TimeTurner, I see where you're going, actually. My problem is with locations that really do not have anything significant happening in them and those that blend in with the kingdom overworld. I was thinking more about how the Super Mario 64 world pages include sub-areas like the Lethal Lava Land volcano and the Snowman's Land igloo. In my perception the Courtyard in the Lake Kingdom is as important as the starting location in Tiny-Huge Island, for example, but I fully understand that the name can make a difference and that people might oppose because of it. About the selection, it might not be 100% complete, I confess. Shiny K-Troopa Talk 19:09, 2 April 2018 (EDT)
Add a section to MarioWiki:Naming regarding technical restrictionsTemplate:ProposalOutcome I'm surprised no one has talked in depth about this yet. Sure, we don't have that many technically restricted names, but we still have some, so I think we should set in stone a policy for these titles. Take the castle levels from Super Mario World as an example. "#1 Iggy's Castle" is located at "Iggy's Castle" rather than "1 Iggy's Castle"; while the former title is fine, it might still cause some initial confusion for the newer readers. Basically, what I'm proposing is that we start officially use closely-matched titles for subjects if the correct title is technically restricted. A draft of the proposed text can be found here. Also, if you're wondering, Porplemontage green-lighted this proposal. Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo if this succeeds, what will happen to the Iggy's Castle article? (Also, remind me for when I start my own franchise, to name a character "<[[#klunk]]>''," symbols included, just to mess with the ensuing wiki.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
Just thought about it but how about a notice template for such pages? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 17:00, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
@Reboot: It's not on the "assumption" that "#1" is parsed "Number One", it's about whether or not to use close matches for otherwise technically restricted titles. (T|C) 16:47, 3 April 2018 (EDT) Give the seven boss Tikis from DKCR their own articlesTemplate:ProposalOutcome Because the rest of their official names have just been discovered in a datamine of the original game. Proposer: BooDestroyer (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI forgot to mention, but in order, they're called: Kalimba, Maraca Gang, Gong-Oh, Banjo Bottom, Wacky Pipes, Xylobone, and Cordian. BooDestroyer (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2018 (EDT) @YoshiFlutterJump They are different from the Koopalings in that the Koopalings are:
also, why should Gary or Johnson not have articles? They deserve articles as much as Otto or Heronicus. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2018 (EDT)
I fail to see how character personalities is any sort of viable argument against article creation. I can get on board with their extremely minor role and their appearance, but not their personality. Ray Trace(T|C) 00:54, 31 March 2018 (EDT) I should point out one thing: we don’t even have an article for them as a group. Tiki Tak Tribe just covers every enemy in the game, and is not devoted to the boss Tikis. At the very least, we need an article for them as a group. -YFJ (talk · edits) 13:19, 31 March 2018 (EDT) |