|
|
| Line 35: |
Line 35: |
|
| |
|
| ==New Features== | | ==New Features== |
| ''None at the moment.'' | | ''None at the moment. |
|
| |
|
| ==Removals== | | ==Removals== |
| ===Remove Automatons, Machinations, Ghosts, Ghouls, and Specters from the "Species" Category===
| | ''None at the moment. |
| It is true that a species is a group of of living things. It is also true, that undead things, and robotic things, are not ''living'' things, and do not constitute a species. Since common sense often fails, I'll included dictionary definitions of a species in my comments below.
| |
| Now, many of you who are reading this will think I'm just getting bogged down by semantics, but any errors in the wiki reflect on the wiki (and us, the users) and I think an error as large as this one greatly detracts from the credibility of this wiki.
| |
| | |
| '''Proposer''': [[User:Goomb-omb|Goomb-omb]]
| |
| | |
| '''Deadline''': June 27, 2008, 20:00
| |
| | |
| ====Support====
| |
| #[[User:Goomb-omb|Goomb-omb]] per my reasoning above and below
| |
| #{{User|Soler}} —Accuracy is key, and "Character Type" (see comment by Goomb-omb below) seems to be an adequate term.
| |
| ====Oppose====
| |
| #{{User|Stumpers}} I'm afraid this is nitpicking, but I'm usually all for that. What I'm thinking of is a page like [[Bow]] or another notable Boo. What should we put in the species section of the character infobox? If you have another word we should use instead of species, that would help.
| |
| #[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] Per Stumpers. Also, Boos are a species. Thirdly, if we change 'species' on any robot family and the like, we should change it to something like 'series'.
| |
| #{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per Stumpers. This seems a bit... Particular... about what we should add to our articles. Also, the Mario Bros. series is not the most scientific series (Being able to float in space? :O), so I think that this would not be necessary.
| |
| #{{User|Pikax}} - "Species" is simple enough to understand and, like Stumpers said, this is nitpicking.
| |
| #{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Pikax and IS. Mario isn't exactly the most scientifically-correct out there.
| |
| #{{user|Toadette 4evur}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
| |
| #{{User|The.Real.Izkat}}-A boo is a speices though. and i mean its really simple anyways. Per Blitzwing about the scientific thing.
| |
| #{{User|reecer6}} - Why would you take them out? they are a kind of species! all species, NO MATTER WHAT, goes in the species section.
| |
| #{{User|Tykyle}} - Per all above, and a complete lack of evidence for them not being species. A dictionary is not enough when discussing a work of fiction.
| |
| #{{User|Uniju :D}} - Although you might be correct that robots and such are not ACTUALLY a species by our standards in real life, I believe that any sentient beings should be treated equally(by that, I mean that the term "species" should be used to refer to living things, and you can't quite be sentient without being alive), and as you can clearly see just by playing a Mario game, '''EVERYTHING''' is sentient in Mario games. And not to start going even more off-topic, but sometime in the future human beings will most likely become beings of data that roam the intahrwebz and such, but I don't think we will stop being considered a species.
| |
| | |
| ====Comments====
| |
| Definitions of species according to two credible dictionaries:According to ''Encarta World English Dictionary'' a species is <nowiki>''a subdivision of a genus. . .containing individuals that resemble one another and that may interbreed''</nowiki>
| |
| And in ''Websters New Revised Dictionary of the English Language'' species is defined as <nowiki>''A category of animals or plants. . .with the capacity of interbreeding only among themselves.''</nowiki>
| |
| I don't think [[MeowMaid|MeowMaids]] fit any of that criteria.
| |
| {{user|Goomb-omb}}
| |
| :Stumpers, I think something along the lines of "Character Type" would be sufficient.{{user|Goomb-omb}}
| |
| ::Sorry I didn't respond to your comment sooner! That would be cool... I think there's a pretty clear concensus already, though... :( {{User|Stumpers}}
| |
| | |
| Ninjayoshi, the 12:02, 13 June 2008 (EDT) revision of the [[Boo]] article quotes [[Goombario|Goombario's]] tattle for [[Igor]] thus: " ‘''He probably was a merchant before he became a Boo,''’ " and goes on to speculate that "Boos may be a species of ghosts [''sic''—ghosts cannot belong to a species] who were once living." It is therefore possible that Boos are ghosts, and so do not belong to a species. —{{User|Soler}}
| |
| :Should have checked my sources, my bad.-[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
| |
| Actually, Soler's quote proves this proposal's wrong: clearly there ''can'' be species of ghosts in the ''Marioverse'', or they (the writers) wouldn't've made that tattle. Besides, "Character Type" sounds more like when you say whether or not a player's a Power Character or a Technique Character, etc. in sports/kart racing titles. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| :Er... no, sorry, the quote does nothing of the kind. A ''ghost'', in this context, is "the disembodied spirit of a dead person, supposed to haunt the living as a pale or shadowy vision; phantom." (''Collins English Dictionary'', third edition). ''Spirit'', for the record, in this context means "the force or principle of life that animates the body of living things". As far as I know, '''''<u>"life forces/principles" can't breed</u>''''', and according to BOTH of Goomb-omb's dictionaries, members of a species may interbreed. The ''article'', not the tattle, used the word ''species'', and thus contradicted itself: that's why I used "''sic''" (There is, however, still the possibility that Boos are not ghosts, but a ghost-like species that one can transform into in place of dying; however, in SM64DS, the message "Ghosts don't DIE!" sometimes appears after defeating a Boo, which would seemingly refute this argument.) Perhaps my first comment was ambiguous: I should've probably used single ''and'' double quotes on the first quotation, to show a "double quotation", and only used double on the second quote. I'll fix that now. —{{User|Soler}}.
| |
| ::And about Mario not being scientific, that is completely irrelevant--this wiki should still strive be scientific. Isn't the goal to make an encyclopedic catalog of everything Mario? You can't accomplish that without being scientific, errors like this just make it look like the people who work on the wiki don't actually care enough to make sure that everything is correct (no offense to any one of course!!). {{User|Goomb-omb}}
| |
| :::Hear hear. —{{User|Soler}}.
| |
| ::::I object. Since when was a mushroom making Mario grow to double his size (or sometimes even bigger) scientific? Since when was a turtle flying in a cloud, holding a fishing rod and dropping spiked eggs scientific? Since when was racing on a giant pinball table scientific? The Mario Wiki already has plenty of material that isn't scientific, so changing "Species" to something like "Character Type" is going to make hardly any difference at all. {{User|Pikax}}
| |
| ::::If you read what I wrote, I just said Mario not being scientific is irrelevant. As in, Mario isn't scientific. The goal of a wiki is provide a encyclopedic database, and to be encyclopedic one must scientific cataloging, such as dividing articles into categories, (which we do) and to use proper terminology (which we do not) {{User|Goomb-omb}}
| |
| :::::Wait, you're saying that we should be scientific about something that isn't scientific? That's like saying we should make a rock solid flannel. {{User|Pikax}}
| |
| ::::::'''''No, it isn't.''''' "''Scientific''" here refers to a type of ''accuracy'', and inaccuracy '''borders on giving misinformation'''. —{{User|Soler}}
| |
| :::::::About the Boo thing, [[Boo|there]] [[Portrait Ghost|is]] [[Eerie|multiple]] kind of Ghost. In a way, the Boos are a "species" of Ghost, uh. {{user|Blitzwing}}
| |
| ::::::::The Boos would be a '''type/form/kind''' of ghost, rather than a ''species'', unless the Marioverse had the (somewhat disturbing) distinction of allowing its ghosts to breed... —{{User|Soler}}.
| |
| | |
| If this were a wiki about, oh say, Dora the Explorer, would we write about how Swiper the Fox is a kleptomaniac? I think you're looking at it a bit too hard..... - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
| |
| :If Swiper ''is'' a kleptomaniac, why not? —{{User|Soler}}
| |
| You said scientific meant a type of accuracy? Why not just use the word accurate to describe the situation in the first place? {{User|Pikax}}
| |
| ::I did. See my vote. Other people started using the word ''scientific''. —{{User|Soler}}.
| |
| | |
| O.K., lets look at in another way. The mario series exists in a different reality then the one we exist in. Who says the idea of a species in this ''fictional'' reality is the same as ours? A lot of fiction represent robots as a type of species: ghost's too, now that I think about it (anyone here read Bruce Coville?). One of OUR dictionaries does'nt have much impact: so the question is, have Boos/Machine-Mades/Meow-Maids ever been reffered to as a species in the Mario series? - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
| |
| :As of yet, no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a species in the Marioverse is any different to ours. Therefore I am assuming that the word "species" means the same thing in the Marioverse as it does on Earth. —{{User|Soler}}
| |
| ::As of yet no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a species in the Marioverse is the same as ours.
| |
| --[[User:Tykyle|Tykyle]] 17:13, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
| |
| :::One could just as easily say, "As of yet no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a mince pie in the Marioverse is the same as ours. Thererefore I propose that all the recipes in the Paper Mario series be classified as mince pies." —{{User|Soler}}.
| |
| ...Right... Anyway, just to clarify my earlier post, I thought the second quote was taken from the tattle, but your edited comment is much clearer and I now see that I was mistaken. - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
| :::Well, the whole point of this was to increase accuracy and precision, which no one seems to care about excepting Soler and myself. I'm not going to start debating whether or not Mechakoopas are sapient beings, or whether or not Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species exists in marioverse, because these are things we'll never know. I just wanted to make the terminology correct, but I guess I didn't realize that people felt so passionately about keeping such an insignificant thing the same.{{User|Goomb-omb}} Again, no offense and no hard feelings to anyone. :)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Splits & Merges== | | ==Splits & Merges== |
| Line 176: |
Line 120: |
|
| |
|
| ==Miscellaneous== | | ==Miscellaneous== |
| ===Write Articles in the Same Tense===
| |
|
| |
| Here I go: I mean tense as in ''past, present, future.'' Now, I've been looking at quite a few character articles, but this also applies to game articles, in the Story sections. I've noticed that the older games and characters' articles seem to be written in past tense, as in "Mario then defeated Bowser and then went psycho" - but more recent games/characters (e.g. Rosalina, Super Mario Galaxy...) are in present tense, like "Mario defeats Bowser and returns peace to the kingdom." So, I think it makes sense to have them all in present tense, no matter how old the character/game is. It's all about consistency, if you ask me. This is my first proposal, so I've probably done it wrong and it might get deleted...oh well, I tried.
| |
|
| |
| '''UPDATE:''' OK, I'll admit I kind of confused myself with what I wrote at first. OK, after reading the Comments and Oppositions...here's my change:
| |
|
| |
| There should be a rule that determines how to write an article...such as a rule about how old the game/event/whatever is. Or the rule could be that certain Sections, such as Story or History, are always consistent for any article, but that same article may have the more appropriate tense in other sections. Does that make sense?
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| '''Proposer''':[[User:Dom|Dom]]
| |
|
| |
| '''Deadline''': June 27th 20:00 PM.
| |
|
| |
| ====Support====
| |
| #{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Dom.
| |
| #{{User|MegaMario9910}} - Per Dom. It would cause confusion if an early game article had the past tense, while the new ones would have the present tense.
| |
| #{{User|Cobold}} - all sections should be in the same time. But for flashbacks within a section, the past tense still should be used. (like explaining the preface of PM:TTYD in Peach's article)
| |
|
| |
| ====Oppose====
| |
| #[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - No. Mario '''does''' have a timelime. In some games, they even reference back in the timeline.
| |
| #{{User|Stumpers}} - Past tense always sounds better for a history section in an encyclopedia. Also, enforcing this will be very difficult if it is passed -- you've got about 800 pages that will need to be changed.
| |
| #{{user|InfectedShroom}} Yeah, sorry for the vote change. Anyway, Past tense makes things flow more easily. IMO, we should do the lead in Present and the body in Past.
| |
| #Per all. {{user|Toadette 4evur}}
| |
| #Per all {{user|RedFire Mario}}
| |
| #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per IS.
| |
|
| |
| ====Comments====
| |
| 'Wouldn't this cause confusion' if Super Mario World and Super Mario World 2 were written as if they were happening at the same time?[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
| |
| :Should this really be generalised for all? For the character bios I wrote, I wrote about story-relevant events in past tense, independent of how new the game is, since these events already passed. I have to agree with Ninjayoshi's demur. --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 12:11, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
| |
| ::Ninjayoshi: if you write both sections in the past tense, no, it won't. {{User|Stumpers}}
| |
|
| |
| Hey, I forgot to say stuff about articles to do with future games or characters...maybe that should also be discussed? {{User|Dom}}
| |
|
| |
| I'm confused about this proposal. Stumpers wrote in his support vote that past tense should be used for passed events, and I think the same. However, this proposal is about present tense in every case, isn't it? I'm for consistency, but not for present tense everytime. What is it all about now, really?? --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 07:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
| |
| :That was my fault. I misread the proposal and though this was to make all tenses be consistent in each sub-section. Sorry about that. You're going to want to oppose if you want to be allowed to write in the past tense still. {{User|Stumpers}}
| |
| ::By the way, I'm really not sure how one would enforce this rule, even after you spend countless hours fixing each tense. I've done some tense fixing before, and let me tell you: its like rewriting the entire thing. It will probably take you one half the time that it took the contributor to write the original text. Let's think about this then: on the first part of the history section for Mario up to Super Mario Bros. 2 USA, it took me probably a total of five hours to write. That means that for one third of one third of one article, (one ninth of an article), you're gonna need roughly 2 hours. As the proposer, you and the other supporters are going to have to put this into effect. Do you really want to be in charge of changing all the past tenses into present and then changing every new edit by a user who doesn't know about this proposal? {{User|Stumpers}} 10:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| '''Make sure you read my UPDATE before any more comments.''' {{User|Dom}}
| |
| :I meant that if they were both written in present tense, because I support writing in past tense.-[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
| |
|
| |
| It doesn't take a long time to fix tenses with the ctrl+f function (find). Just type in ed, ing, etc. in the find window. {{user|Clay Mario}}
| |
| :If only English were that simple! Take "is," one of the most common verbs. It's past tense is "was." Don't forget about "are" and "were," too. There are other verbs like that, too. "Run" vs. "ran," for example. The only way to do it right would be to go through line by line and fix it, although yours would work for an initial fix, I have to admit. {{User|Stumpers}}
| |
| ::Yo, CM, one more thing. My computer is limited just to finding things ''outside'' of the edit box. Which conveniently takes away that option for me and other Mac users. ;) {{user|InfectedShroom}}
| |
| :::You'd have to copy it into a word processor and use the find fuction, then, right? {{User|Stumpers}} 02:43, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| I'm a Mac user and I made the Proposal...but I never thought of issues related to finding words to change. {{User|Dom}}
| |
| :Just copy and paste the text from the edit box to Word and find it there. That's what I do whenever I have to find something on my cruddy 10-year-old Mac. (Convoluted workarounds/"shortcuts" are my specialty these days.) - {{User|Walkazo}}
| |
|
| |
| ===Allow cameo '''appearences''' to be documented in character articles=== | | ===Allow cameo '''appearences''' to be documented in character articles=== |
|
| |
|
