| ||Archives: #1, #2, #3|
Hello mate, can you delete the Epic Mario page, which's quite obviously a fake fan fiction, and block the user AlexanderMoore. He has created the page again after the original copy was deleted, and has been very crafty as well - he seemingly has full knowledge of the wiki's main templates like the head, infobox and categories, and has included them to make the page look believable. This was probably intentionally done to spread false information on the wiki for all to see.
Epic Mario Again
Hey Astro. The guy that created the fake Epic Mario page is back with Nintendo Epic Mario. Could you delete it and ban Catdog176? Thanks in advance. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 01:43, August 18, 2019 (UTC)
Hey Astro, the Nintendo Epic Mario page is still there. The creator - who has now made three different accounts - is hell-bent on putting up this fake fanon for whatever reason, but can you delete it ASAP.
I did it. Also I protected the page so that you need to be an admin to actually edit it. Since it's not a real page it should not be a problem to any user and prevent new accounts from recreating the page. --Ghirahim le fabuleux (talk) 00:39, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
Mobile Game Boy Adapater icon
I want to try implementing a Mobile Game Boy Adapater icon for Template:Infobox CVG, however I am not sure whether to treat it as a classification or accessory. Some games in Japan for the GBC and GBA had online connectivity, however you could only achieve this with the use of a Mobile Game Boy Adapter. Thoughts? --Heyalls (talk) 07:57, August 24, 2019 (UTC)
Recently, User:KevinSquidy has been making edits on several Mario Kart related articles that are not helpful to the wiki (most notably on Luigi Circuit and Thunder Cup). That user is making edits that change names from things that would be said on an English wiki (like Mario Kart: Super Circuit) to English versions of those names in other regions (like Mario Kart Advance). I am not an administrator, so I have no power to do anything. Tgr6234 (talk) 14:08, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Soul Blazer/credits
First of all, there are credits pages for games that weren't published by Nintendo. Chrono Trigger was published by Square Enix (or Square pre-merger), but its credits page is found here. There are two Konami published Castlevania games that have credits pages (here and here). These pages have videos and gallery as well, and none of them were developed or published by Nintendo. The only reason they are on this wiki at all is because they are on a Nintendo console.
Second of all, Soul Blazer was developed by Quintet, who made a ton of SNES RPGs, including ActRaiser. Enix, its publisher, also published countless NES, SNES, and Game Boy games. Both companies have worked closely with Nintendo in the past. Masaya Hashimoto has directed ActRaiser, its sequel, Illusion of Gaia, and Soul Blazer (among other Nintendo console exclusives).
I believe that Soul Blazer deserves to have a credits page. Other third party titles have credits pages, and the Quintet staff has made enough games for Nintendo consoles to qualify for their own page.
The problem is that Quintet is a rather small developer in the long run with I believe no developers that worked on Nintendo published games (besides Illusion of Gaia). Chrono Trigger is a rather influential game and had staff that later worked on quite a few Nintendo games. Those other credit pages I forgot about since I realized that non-Nintendo credits don't really help this wiki as it just adds more links rather. This is also why I don't link every person from third party developers in credits anymore.
Astrogamer (talk) 15:23, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that's a fair point. Could I make a gallery, cheats, or videos page for Soul Blazer?
For the gallery, the only requirements are that there should be some official art in there and screenshots should be in native res. The videos also can't be offscreen if it isn't pre-release footage.
Astrogamer (talk) 00:55, September 3, 2019 (UTC)
Super Paper Mario infobox
I already asked Ghirahim le fabuleux but I didn't recieve a response so I'll ask you. (this is a Copy and Paste of the message I sent him)
So I'm adding many of the Super Paper Mario articles that are missing from this wiki, and I request that we add an infobox for Super Paper Mario characters since many of the information on certain articles would fit better in an Infobox, such as Card Rarity, Card Number, Flopside or Flipside counterpart. etc. I would be open to make it but if you don't trust me in making Infoboxes for the wiki that's fine, if your not the right person to ask, please redirect me to whom I should ask and if you don't think there should be an infobox for it, that's fine too.
Since Super Paper Mario is so distinct, that sounds relatively fine. Probably shouldn't be any major issues, but, if you need help I can fix it up once you finish. I think it would be helpful to make a List of Super Paper Mario Characters / Cards page.
Astrogamer (talk) 00:12, September 4, 2019 (UTC)
Alright sounds good, the list of card/characters article sounds like a good idea and a big project considering there are 256 (from memory) cards alone in Super Paper Mario and that's not counting all the "pointless" NPCs in the games that we have names for thanks to Tippi and Tiptron, I may start the page later today with the main characters as I'm assuming we should have a little overview of each character like "Walter is an old man who lives on the second floor of Flipside".
Ok I finished the infobox, I would request that you would review it as I'm not to strong on Infoboxes or Templates.
Following your message, I would be honoured to become an admin on this wiki.
However, just beware that I will be rather less active throughout September on this wiki due to college study and other priorities, although i will try to be working on weekends and holiday terms. Thanks very much for your offer though, I will accept it. Mahdi81 (talk) 15:16, September 3, 2019 (UTC)
Characters from licensed games
This is actually a very good question. I have always assumed that any character from any game can have their own article on this wiki, but a quick scroll through the character category shows that almost all of them are characters from Nintendo-published games (Sonic series being an important exception).
There are several One Piece games released on a Nintendo console so keeping those articles could be justified, but ultimately that is at Astrogamer's discretion on this matter, we'll have to see. Mahdi81 (talk) 21:55, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
Licensed characters are allowed assuming they are a part of the core cast and they appear in more than 1 game. This also applies to third party characters who don't have their whole series on Nintendo yet. The thing is that they should be written more from a Nintendo perspective so, the actual history and character arcs from the original medium should only be enough to establish who they are with a larger focus on what games they appeared in on a Nintendo system. i.e. if you make a Dante page, Devil May Cry 3-5 should only get a passing mention but there should be a section on Project X Zone. Astrogamer (talk) 23:40, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
New Wiki Manager introduction
Hi there, I'm Bluerock, and I'm the new Wiki Manager, taking over from PsiSeveredHead. Feel free to drop me a message if you have any questions or need any help editing the Wiki! --Bluerock (talk) 15:10, September 18, 2019 (UTC)
About the One Piece Characters
Look, all I know is that these characters supporting, antagonists, anti-heroes, and so forth have all been in the Nintendo series too. It's is just really hard to come up or figure out other information about them, yet they deserve to be put of on this wiki too. Please it is not even right to just go and even delete the work that had to been done. It does not matter if they are playable, non-playable, or whatever, If they are part of a Nintendo game American or foregin: Then it should be right to let them of pages of their own while asking help from other folks to improve their character pages! --Sonic2479 (talk) 6:22, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that they are not important to Nintendo (Nintendo has never published a One Piece game) so, it's not good to keep to a clutter of unnecessary dead-end pages. The wiki is big enough as it is so, we don't need tertiary characters that nobody is going to look up on a Nintendo wiki. That said, I have no issue if you want to make game pages if you include the essentials (formatting, core idea of what the game is and most of the infobox filled out) as you can see if you look like a week back when someone made pages for all the Barbie games.
Astrogamer (talk) 22:43, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
Look about what I had put there. That was just some thing I wanted to get out of my head. I was planning to make the Dragon Ball Z version of Broly later after I would get other business done first. When I do, I would prefer to put the Broly soon to as "Broly (DBZ)", I wanted the page a created before to be more canon-like as Akira would intended. So please, I would recommend for you to revert certain parts of the page (If not all of them) back to they were before, I promise I will create the "Broly (DBZ)" page when I am done with other stuff
He's not really important enough to get two pages (especially when you account for Heroes which probably blurs the lines). Again, this is a Nintendo wiki, not a manga or anime wiki. The games are source material here. Since the Super version has appeared in Xenoverse 2, is coming to FighterZ and I presume is in Dragon Ball Heroes World Mission, I allowed it to mention the Super version. Just add a subsection of the history that abridges the movies plus the what-if side stories from games like Supersonic Warriors 2.
Astrogamer (talk) 03:54, September 22, 2019 (UTC)
- User:Sonic2479 continues to re-add artwork of Broly which aren't from the games, which I have to keep removing, and removes screenshots of Broly from Nintendo games that I've added. I've warned him multiple times but he appears to ignore me. Please give him a temporary ban if he continues to persist. --Heyalls (talk) 02:56, September 23, 2019 (UTC)
Quintet Wiki Affiliation
Hello, I am an admin on Quintet Wiki. I was wondering if you were interested in affiliating with us.
Astrogamer (talk) 01:07, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
All I have is the workmark right now, but I can make a square logo for you later. What size should the square one be (in pixels)?
It just needs to be of at least a decent size that it doesn't look too bad. At least 100 should be good enough.
Astrogamer (talk) 12:50, October 6, 2019 (UTC)
Okay, here is the square one.
Hi Astrogamer, Fandom Wiki Manager Bluerock here.
I'd just like to offer some feedback regarding the current top navigation menu, and propose a couple of changes that would help improve it, given that the overwhelming majority of visitors to the wiki are exclusively readers, rather than editors.
The top navigation menu is used by readers quite a lot, whereas the one here is a bit editor-centric. With your permission, I'd like to redo this, so that the “Community” tab with the editor-centric links is displayed farther to the right, and remove some of the links that are already included on the Special:Community page (top contributors, admins, etc.). I also think that it would be a good idea to replace the generic labels and the automatically generated lists in the nav menu, and streamline the organization (e.g. repeating "Nintendo" in labels).
Regarding the main page, I was thinking that that the tabbers could be removed, since any important content should ideally be displayed upfront. My idea was to display all this content in the right column, making room by removing the news/updates and editor-centric navigation boxes that are disused or not that useful to most visitors, respectively. I also think the featured article, and poll would fit suitably in the right column, while the Blog feed could be moved to the bigger left/main column, as it doesn't display very well in the narrower column due to the large font size of headers and avatars.
Do you think these suggestions would work for the Wiki? If so, I'd be happy to go ahead make all the changes for you.
Sorry for if this message was a bit long, but thanks for your consideration!
From my opinion I would support the proposals to improve the appearance of the wiki website. You make a good point about the top navigation menu about how the 'community' tab should be moved to the right for the editors' use, as it's not useful to the readers who form the vast majority of the visitors on the website. For the web page, yes I was thinking for some time that the column on the right was looking a bit cruddy and could do with neatening, and the news/updates section could be removed as it's rarely filled in and hasn't been for years.
I'm afraid I'm running late so can't make any suggestions myself right now :/
The changes for the navigation bar sound pretty good.
For the main page, I already removed the tabber since it seemed pretty useless. I agree on most of the ideas but, I think the navigation box could be reworked to something more useful and the Featured Article would somewhat suffer from the same issue as the Blog feed so, it should stay in the main column though maybe adjacent to the Blog feed.
Astrogamer (talk) 02:23, October 9, 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the responses. My reasoning for the removal of the navigation box is that the revised top menu would make it obsolete and so wouldn't really be needed anymore. The menu also has the "Create an article/Add new page" button on the right by default. Regarding the Featured Article, I previewed how it would look after moving it to the right column, and it doesn't actually look too bad, as it doesn't display large text in a small area like the blog feed does. But we can keep it in the main column if you feel it's best placed there.
- Another idea I had was to remove the recent releases box, as it tends to repeat subjects from the image slider and sits a bit awkward alongside the product icons. I think a little enlarging of the icons for the products and portals menus would also help them look a little better, as this will allow the text underneath each icon to display on a single line, will help space them out evenly.
- Let me know if this all sounds good (or what is ok to leave as is), and with your approval, I will go ahead and make a start on this.
I can agree on removing the navigation box and reworking it with different info, or just scrap it altogether. I presume we could remove the recent releases table as well and widen the slideshow a little more to enable more slides to be added in there of recent games, consoles or Nintendo news etc., and spread out the products table. I have already removed the news/updates box as that's practically dead and also cumbersome, taking up a lot of space and filled with info readers don't care about. Overall, sounds like decent proposals to me.
- Ok, I've updated the top nav menu now, hopefully this works for you guys. I'll make a few tweaks to the main page itself soon. --Bluerock (talk) 20:37, October 9, 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can see that the navigation box isn't really all that useful so, it's okay to get rid of. I'd prefer the Featured Article to stay somewhere in the main section because curated content doesn't really fit the sidebar.
The recent releases should be somewhere on the main page since the sliders are for big news, not just the games. It's more clear when it comes to E3 (where some of the sliders are changed to just announced games instead of recent releases) but, there are many times when the game's releasing are not really needing a slider but, should still be noted. Like I plan on changing the sliders so, we have one for Ring Fit Adventure, Luigi's Mansion 3 and Pokemon but, that missing other notable releases like The Witcher 3, Mario & Sonic and Brain Age. Just adding more slider tabs would make the slider gallery to cluttered. I think we could redesign the recent releases so it fits on the sidebar.
- Astrogamer (talk) 08:01, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
Good points regarding the slider. The recent releases box is actually already small enough to fit in the right column, so this could definitely be moved there. I previously abbreviated some of the titles beneath the icons used on that template, so that they could fit on 2 lines and avoid the spacing between the rows looking awkward. I've now made the changes along with your recommendations to the main page. To even out the lengths of the two colums, I moved the poll to the right column, as it seems to fit nicely there. Let me know if it all looks OK on your end. --Bluerock (talk) 17:56, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
Categories and third party stuff
I added those categories because:
- I felt that the region brackets were important since Nintendo didn't always publish in every territory.
- I felt that the original "Games published by Nintendo" category was getting too large and that the broadness of the category justified me adding the other three categories. I also felt the same for the "Nintendo games" category.
Even so, I won't mind if you remove them anyway. That being said, there are some things I wanted your thoughts on:
- Should the portals for the Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy franchises even exist? Unlike the other franchises with portals on the home page, Nintendo isn't very involved with DQ and FF outside of localizing a few games and doing some crossover titles.
- I have noticed that there is box art and arcade flyers for games made for non-Nintendo systems that Nintendo itself had no involvement in and their inclusion seems a bit beyond the scope of Nintendo relatability. Outside of non-Nintendo releases, I know some of them were only available through Nintendo's digital services (like the Virtual Console) and the closest thing to box art would be icons like the menu/eshop icons. Would putting those icons in place of the box art be an issue?
- The inclusion of pages about the in-universe content (characters, locations, etc.) of games without Nintendo's involvement (i.e. Garfield the cat). PacintoshX (talk) 06:30, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion I think we should continue to just stick with simple, broad categories like 'Nintendo games', rather than going over-specific which was the case with the old Virtual Console categories that we had to remove a few months back. There should just be single categories of the developer, publisher, year released, game platform released and so on without combining them together. Otherwise the category box becomes overcrowded with so many categories of the same thing which would be over-complicated for the readers.
I can see your second point though and was actually wondering this myself. I was thinking that for example, the 1991 Sonic the Hedgehog video game released on Sega Genesis should have its Virtual Console logo instead of the Genesis box art. Like, you wouldn't have the Dreamcast box art for the Sonic Adventure articles on this wiki so putting Genesis box arts equally doesn't make sense.
For the last point, content of levels and characters in third-party games is allowed as long as they're written from a neutral perspective with their game as the source material, simply to expand content from their main game article. You'll find that there are not many of such articles on this wiki as we naturally prioritise Nintendo content, but examples include some Dragon Ball, Rayman and Star Wars characters. (Sonic series is technically third-party, but they're fairly important on this wiki due to the Mario & Sonic crossover, and Nintendo + Sega's historical relationship and rivalry).
This is my opinion of course, and we'll await Astrogamer's judgement.
Just to be clear, sentence-long categories are generally not good. The category getting too large isn't really an issue especially since that marking by region doesn't make a significantly smaller category. I think it would be fine to make the Nintendo games category a supercategory though. Each page would have the Games published by Nintendo category but, the developed category could be streamlined now that we know the 10 EPD groups.
For the portals, it doesn't really hurt. Like Nintendo has published pretty much every Dragon Quest that came out over here too. If there is portal pages that are for more relevant Nintendo franchises, they can be replaced but, the Portals are a decent method to organize sprawling franchises.
For the box art for games not on Nintendo systems, I think it's fine either way. The box art or arcade flyers just have the benefit of looking nicer than the tiny Wii Shop icons or the eShop icons that are just the game logo on a plain white background.
For the third party content, it really should be restricted to recurring content for game series that have some notable significance with Nintendo. The idea is that it is info Nintendo fans would also be searching for but the pages are structured around their context with Nintendo. Astrogamer (talk) 21:36, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
Animal Crossing Villagers
Just a quick question. Should we have individual pages for each Animal Crossing villager or have larger pages with several like we currently sort of have. Captainfishlip (talk) 07:13, November 14, 2019 (UTC)
It should be a larger page for each of the species with redirects of their names to the section for that villager Astrogamer (talk) 00:32, November 15, 2019 (UTC)