Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Mario series characters/archive1

List of Mario series characters
There is a disagreement whether or not this list, which is one of my favorite lists, should contain all Mario characters and species, or just distinct characters with proper names. (AKA, Goombella from Paper Mario 2, but not a Goomba.) For the longest time it's been the former, but someone insists it be the other way. I thought that was a pretty silly idea, because then that removed about half the list and didn't seem to do anything other than remove anything. As of right now I've just seen this one person who thinks this way, but there is still a disagreement. I wanted to bring this up.

The possible things we could do are

-Keep the full list and call it List of Mario series Characters and Species

-Keep the distinct proper names for this list and start a new list, List of Mario series species

I'd love to have this resolved. Any input? Toastypk 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While grammatical purity might require that a list of "characters" contain only distinguishable individuals and not collectives, it seems obvious that the list itself is much more useful with species included. I'd be really surprised to see such a list and not find "Goomba", for example. The distinct-characters suggestion also introduces ambiguity in cases like "Bigger Boo" where there are multiple such characters, but the name denotes a single boss. Opabinia regalis 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bigger Boo is a different entity from Big Boo, King Boo and Atomic Boo.
 * And that's irrelevant. A Goomba is not a character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As much a character as Goombella, Koopa Troopa, Blooper, Bob-omb, etc. Just because it says "List of Mario Characters" doesn't mean you cant just exclude basic enemies. They're characters too. So far, it still looks like you're the only one who thinks otherwise... Toastypk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Goomba is as much of a character as Koopa Troopa, Blooper and Bob-omb - ie, not at all. Goombella is infinitely more so a character than the Goomba species. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Opabinia regalis completely. A character, eve as insignificant as "henchman", is a character.  Especially since some of these 'insignificant' species-characters are standards and even have wiki pages of their own (like the Goomba).  Each entity in the Mario world would be a character you'd encounter.  I say keep them all.  --BakerQ 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At what point does having an article make you a character? The Goomba page is for the species. They don't refer to the Goomba as a single entity, they refer to a Goomba as any entity, regardless of random Goombas or characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Never said it did. The fact remains, however, that I feel that Goombas are characters in the game, even if there are an infinite supply of them.  They may not be as notable of a character as Bowser, but a character nonetheless, and I'd be surprised not to find them in a list of Mario characters.  --BakerQ 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A Goomba is a group of Goombas who may or may not be characters. If the Goomba were the most popular thing ever, it would still not be a character. Do we consider Humans to be a character in Mario games? Do we consider Hylians in the Zelda games to be a character? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If all the humans looked exactly the same and were nearly clones of each other, yes. Just for example's sake, in a similar Zelda II list there would be (if I can recall) about 10 human characters: fat man, thin woman in red, old woman in orange, swordsman, etc, etc.  It seems to me that a key difference here is that in the instruction manuals they were referred to as Goombas, not goombas.  In my mind, that helps (not necessarily proves, but helps) establish them as characters. --BakerQ 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an absurd stretch. A species containing random beings counts as a character because the name is capitalized? Well, I say the Lens of Truth is a character because it's capitalized. Just because it's more extreme than yours does not mean that yours is not an extreme stretch. A species is never considered a character. Additionally, they do not look the same - Para-goombas, mini goombas, mega goombas, King Goomba, Red Goomba, Blue Goomba, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I didn't say it confirms, I said that it helps, not proves. The fact remains that you are so far the only one who feels the entries should be removed, while others feel strongly that they should remain.  If you still feel that they're given too much or too little credit, I'd suggest editing the list to denote Major and Minor characters, or noting the Goombas (et al) as a Species.  A parenthetical designation between the name and description, I think, should sufficiently resolve the conflict:
 * Goomba (or Chibibo) — [Species] - the very first enemy that appears in Super Mario Bros. and has appeared in most of Mario's games since.
 * Would you still have an objection to this? --BakerQ 12:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! This is not about Mario species, and I have constantly gotten arguments that they are "surprised to not see Goomba", as if because people expect him to be there, that he should be there. A comprehensive list is not necessarily long. Putting species in a character article makes as much sense as putting characters in an item article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And would you argue consensus if it was you against ten people who wanted to say Stephen Colbert was a transvestite? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * People expect to see it there because most people consider it a character. The consensus swings both ways: if you were the only person stating that he was a transvestite and everyone else says otherwise, why should your opinion be taken fact?  You are the only person who feels that they should not show up on the list.  We (in so far as this debate has shown includes everyone else in the world) believe that a Mario Character includes every creature in the game series.--BakerQ 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Goomba = character is no more true than Stephen Colbert = transvestite.
 * You have failed to give me a single legitimate reason why a Goomba is a character, while a human is not. And the dictionary gives me one ultimate reason: "A person portrayed in an artistic piece, such as a drama or novel." A person, not people. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm betraying my geekery here, but in the original Transformers series there were a group of Decepticons called the Insecticons. There were three of them, Bombshell, Kickback and Shapnel.  Beyond that, there were other Transformers such as Wreckgar (a Junkion), Scourge, Quintessons, Sharkticons.  In the fiction around these characters, there were thousands of them, nearly identical clones of each other, yet they were all called by that same first name.  By your logic, they're not characters in the Transformers world?
 * I'm at an impasse here. You have also failed to show me (or anyone else) a single valid reason why all those list entries should be removed.  I say we leave them there, recognize your dissention on the talk page and drop it. --BakerQ 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that these are not clones. They are a species. There is not a species of Wreckgars, there are "nearly identical clones of eachother". Goombas are a collection of characters and non-characters, while Wreckgars are not a species of characters and non-characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I knew moments after posting that that that would be the angle you'd attack from because Wreckgar was the weakest part of my argument. How about Sharkticon?  Or Bombshell, Kickback and Shrapnel?  Are they not characters?
 * Look, I'm really done trying to find a happy medium here, you're not accepting any compromises offered here and the only reason you're dragging this out is that you know that if it came down to a vote right now the results would be one to many. It remains that you are the only one who feels this way.  --BakerQ 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A compromise? How is "do all of what we want and nothing of what you want" any sort of a compromise? I wouldn't agree to leave species in an article that isn't about species any more than I would agree to putting the Super Mushroom on that list. It has syes, so why not? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Two compomises have been issued: rename the list to Mario series Characters and Species, or include a note beside each relevant entry denoting it as a species. Those are compromises because you want to make changes to the list and no one else does.  You have yet to yield in any way to anything besides outright removal of the entries.  In light of the circumstances, request denied. --BakerQ 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote KEEP all entries and not modifying the list by consideration of species. --BakerQ 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or we could just make TWO articles. You know, instead of cluttering up one list for the sake of making it long and for no other reason than to make it long, we could have TWO lists and include a note on the characters page acknowledging it. Strong object to calling a species a character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this on my watch page, but I've got doubts that the vote's going to change much. So far we're at 3 to 1. --BakerQ 17:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally keep as is. Sorry Link, you're the only one. Toastypk 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I seem to have forgotten that species should be called a character solely because they're notable and people expect them to be on the list. Does that mean that we should take off all unpopular enemies? Because if you accept Goomba, logically, you have to accept every single variant of the Goomba. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Wikipedia encourages users to keep lists small if possible. The best thing for Wikipedia is to make two separate lists. Currently, the list is at 99kb, and I have no doubts that it couldn't break 150k. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit offtopic: a short introduction and a link to the (or a) mario article would be nice for those not so familiar with mario. --WS 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of splitting the article from a 124kb article to one 69kb species article and a 53kb characters article.

As being long does not make an article comprehensive, I will not revert it back without a very good reason. Having two articles accomplishes the same as having one extremely long article, but is more convenient for people. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the split given the history of this discussion. If any other user agrees with A Link to the Past about the split, I won't revert them. Yowee 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I said a good reason. People wanting an article to be of poor quality is a pretty poor reason. It is a styling guideline that it should NOT be that much more than 60kb, let alone 124kb. You can revert it to make it long, and if it stays reverted, this article has literally no chance of being featured. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do as you wish. Rather than let another user revert the changes for you, which demonstrates support of your reason, you are free to revert it yourself. Yowee 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are lists eligible for featured status? Korcas 05:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As a featured list, yes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the requests for peer review have been satisified as pertaining to the original conflict. I move that the peer review request be removed and this dialogue be archived as there are now two places to discuss this page. --BakerQ 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I went and asked a couple friends their opinion on the matter (Zscout and Andrevan), they seem to agree that it's completely pointless to make the list as long as it is when there is a very simple way to make it shorter and have as much content as it would as one list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By that statement, are we to assume that you now speak for three? Should I include the people in my household as my votes as well?  You're still the only one voting for the removal of the entries and have, despite votes and reverts, continued to alter the page as you and only you see fit.  --BakerQ 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course. Except - THIS ISN'T A VOTE. This is a PEER REVIEW. The difference between my friends and your pets are that they have an opinion on the matter and they are Wikipedians (admins no less). And will you stop calling them freaking removals? I AM NOT REMOVING THEM. How is moving them REMOVING? Christ, stop making it seem like I'm doing damage to an article by reducing its size! And wait, are you honestly saying that I am doing this as I see fit?! For the love of Christ, did you ever notice how I constantly repeated "style guidelines" and how I adhere to them? They specifically state that an article should not be THIS LONG! While you have yourself (Toasty has stated that he could go with a split) flat out refusing to give a reason why you prefer the article to be of poor quality, I have Wikipedia on my side, and I will continue to revert until you stop continuously ignoring what you don't want to exist. Did you know that when somebody asks you to prove your point, you cannot will it out of existence just so you don't have to strain yourself coming up with a reason why one bad article is better than two decent articles? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm just wondering how much more enraged and aggitated you're going to get. Take note: every single ocmment you make that includes an insult has been and will continue to be flatly ignored.  Communicate with civility and maturity and you'll find that I'm much more receptive.
 * That said, your intentions to remove entries are transparent. Yes, remove, as in "no longer here".  (It is possible for things to be removed to another location.)  I'll continue this debate on the articles talk page where it belongs.  --BakerQ 17:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO, splitting the article was the best thing to do. Even if there is nothing that prevents us from writing long lists, it is best to split it down in sub-lists when it becomes too large. Having an article with a size of over 100 kB is not very convenient, so splitting this into characters and species is a good alternative, and I think it should be kept that way. – Elisson • Talk 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)