MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68

All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page. Previous proposals Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Remove Zelda-Exclusive Pages canceled by proposer There are several pages in Category:The_Legend_of_Zelda_series that I believe should be deleted from the wiki. There are many pages in the category that should clearly remain on the wiki, like Ancient Tires, Hyrule Castle and Deku Baba, which appear in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe; 8-Bit Hero, a microgame in WarioWare: Touched!; Recorder, an item that has appeared in both series; or Link and Master Sword, which have appeared in multiple Mario games. Then there are pages that have no connection to the Mario series at all. We have the List of references in Nintendo video games to cover topics such as these. I fail to see why they need their own pages. Even some of the links for these articles on the references page link to their equivalent articles on Zelda Wiki, our NIWA affiliate, because editors on our own wiki likely assume we don't have pages for Zelda-exclusive content. For example, why is Stone Elevator covered as a separate page but we don’t have a page for Gulliver, who references Toad Town and the Overthere in Animal Crossing, giving Gulliver, who has apparently visited places in the Mario series, a more direct connection than Stone Elevator, which just shares visual similarities to Thwomps? To be clear, I don’t think we should have a page for Gulliver for the reason that he does not appear in a Mario series game. Perhaps a more potent example is Togezo from Kirby’s Adventure, which is clearly a Kirbified version of a Spiny and even shares the same Japanese name. Why is there a page for Manhandla from Zelda, a variant of Piranha Plant, but not Togezo? There just doesn’t seem to be consistency. For some reason, these pages seem to be disproportionally related to The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening compared to other Zelda games. Perhaps that is because there’s more profound references in Link’s Awakening, but as someone not familiar with the Zelda series, it strikes me as very odd that there’s favoritism for references in that game but there aren't independent pages any other Zelda-exclusive references on the page. This proposal from 2022 permits the creation of non-Mario series pages, but they seem out of place on Mario Wiki, so I think we should explore undoing the consequences of this proposal. Furthermore, pages like Keese only cover the enemies’ appearance in Mario games, whereas Manhandla covers the extensive history of Mandhala throughout the Zelda series. Again, notably, Manhandla doesn’t have any appearances in Mario games, so I suppose it has to cover everything it does in Zelda since otherwise the page would be blank. If Yoshi doll exists as an independent page, then shouldn’t every Animal Crossing furniture series and clothing from the Animal Crossing series like the Big Bro's Hat that references the Mario series also be given its own page? I just fail to see the difference. It’s more of the disproportionate coverage of Link’s Awakening. Perhaps the worst offender is Bombite, which has no confirmed connection to the Mario series whatsoever. Per the page, “They appear to be based on Bob-ombs.” That alone is sufficient to be given a page on the wiki? To be fair, there is developer commentary about some of the Mario-inspired features in Zelda games affirming they were, indeed, inspired by Mario equivalents (not including Bombite), but is our threshold going to become developer confirmation for significance enough to the Mario series to have an independent page? I'm sure that similar commentary could be found for much listed on List of references in Nintendo video games. If that's our threshold, then shouldn't we create pages for everything confirmed to be inspired by anything to do with the Mario series? That would be a tidal wave of new pages. If not, why is Link's Awakening being treated differently from everything else? Something of a middle-ground solution is to create a page on our wiki for Link's Awakening. Though I do not favor this idea, there is precedence for the creation of pages for games that pay significant homage to the Mario series but aren't in the series themselves, including but not limited to Captain Rainbow, Fortune Street, and, of course, the entire Super Smash Bros. (series). I don't favor this option given the roles of Mario characters in Link's Awakening are much more minor compared to something like Birdo having a mildly significant role in Captain Rainbow, but there seems to be a lot of love for Link's Awakening on this wiki, so maybe this could be a middle ground solution. This page would house the information for Bombite, Mega Thowmp, Spiked Thowmp, Stone Elevator, and Yoshi doll, but it would remove the independent pages for Manhandla (The Legend of Zelda) and Head Thwomp (Oracle of Ages) and just confine them to the references page. Pages that would be deleted: Bombite - no connection to Mario series whatsoever other than looking like Bob-ombs Head Thwomp - never appeared in a Mario game but is related to Thwomp Mega Thwomp - same as above Spiked Thwomp - same as above Stone Elevator - same as above Yoshi doll - just a reference to Yoshi in Link’s Awakening Options breakdown I’ve drafted nine options to address the inconsistencies or excess coverage. Option 1 deletes the pages I’ve highlights and incorporates relevant parts of the information on those pages elsewhere. In the case of the Thwomps, there is already a section referencing them on Thwomp. Option 2 takes the converse approach and adds exhaustive information about Zelda series pages on the wiki to bridge the gap between Manhandla and Keese and similar pages. ^ Note that no equivalent option for Option 2 exists that would simply remove the bulk of the information from the highlighted pages as there would be nothing to put on the pages other than "X is a variant of X", e.g. "Manhandla is a variant of Piranha Plant that appears in The Legend of Zelda series", since these enemies have no relation to the Mario series other than being inspired by enemies in the series. Option 3 implements Option 2 but also creates new pages for obvious inspirations from the Mario series like Togezo, Animal Crossing furniture and clothing, and similar examples. Option 4 keeps the Thwomp-related pages since they have a more potent connection to the Mario series, though I believe that if we do this we should create a page on the wiki for Togezo and every other enemy from a different franchise that is based on something from the Mario series, which I don’t think is necessary but becomes appropriate if we have pages for the Thwomp-relations and Manhandla. Yoshi doll is also kept in this option if people want that for whatever reason, but I again suggest that if we have a page for Yoshi doll, then we should have a page for all the similar furniture items from the Animal Crossing series and other series. I strongly believe all this information is best confined to List of references in Nintendo video games instead. If we're taking this option but not Option 3, I just see it as giving a lot of preferential coverage to Link's Awakening. Option 5 keeps Yoshi doll but deletes the Thwomp-related pages and Bombite. See argument against this in Option 4's description. Option 6 keeps all other pages but deletes Bombite since it is the least related to the Mario series and would suggest we should have pages for any enemy from any Nintendo game that resembles a Bob-omb, which, given their design, would be basically any sapient bomb enemy. Option 7 creates a page for Link's Awakening and deletes the highlighted pages. This gives a place for all the highlighted pages on the wiki to exist outside of the references list, minus Manhandla and Head Thwomp. Option 8 creates a page for Link's Awakening but keeps Manhandla and Head Thwomp as independent pages. Option 9, the do nothing option, would consider all of this as a non-issue and leave things as they are now. Proposer: DrBaskerville (talk) Deadline: July 08, 2024, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: July 01, 2024 Option 1: Remove the highlighted pages as independent pages, add information about them to Trivia on other pages where applicable, and ensure they are referenced on List of references in Nintendo video games DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer. It's a good way of acknowledging these entities exist while not treating them as having the same amount of integration within the Super Mario franchise as Thwimps, for example. Option 2: Keep all pages and add exhaustive information from the Zelda series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, e.g. Keese, Deku Baba, Master Sword, etc. Option 3: Keep all pages, add exhaustive information from the Zeldra series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, and create pages for Mario-inspired content, like Togezo and Animal Crossing references Option 4: Keep Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Yoshi doll, but remove Bombite DrBaskerville (talk) Second choice. Option 5: Keep Yoshi doll, but remove Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Bombite DrBaskerville (talk) Third choice. Option 6: Keep all other pages, but remove Bombite DrBaskerville (talk) Fourth choice. Option 7: Create page for Link's Awakening and remove highlighted independent pages DrBaskerville (talk) Fifth choice. Option 8: Create page for Link's Awakening and keep Manhandla and Head Thwomp pages Option 9: Do nothing Axis (talk) The proposal fails to understand why these pages have been created in the first place. The Legend of Zelda series is considered a guest appearance, meaning anything Mario themed or derived from the Mario franchise gets a page. While Bombite and Stone Elevator have no direct connection to the Mario series (someone should dig up Player's Guide and Nintendo Power for these), other entries clearly do, and therefore should stay as independent pages (MarioWiki:Coverage). I believe Bombite and Stone Elevator should be handled seperately on their own respective talk pages (there is an ongoing discussion on Stone Elevator's talk page). The reason items from Animal Crossing don't get their own pages is because noone made a proposal to classify the series as guest appearance yet (unlike the Zelda series, the items in Animal Crossing are purely decorational. I doubt anyone would make a proposal). Pseudo (talk) Per Axis. It seems to me that this proposal underestimates just how much of a guest appearance Link’s Awakening is for the Mario series—there really are a lot of crossover enemies. Hewer (talk) Leaning towards this for now, partly because the proposer seems to have been unaware that Link's Awakening is already classified as a guest appearance with its own page, but mostly because this seems a bit too much for a single proposal. If there are issues with our current handling of this, it'd be better to solve them individually than in a giant, sweeping proposal. Arend (talk) The fact that Options 7 and 8 involves creating an article for Link's Awakening when we already have an article for such a thing makes it apparent that the proposer has not done enough research before setting up this proposal - and thus is in need for some retooling. It reminds me of this one proposal in which the proposer wanted to add a Composers subsection to the Recurring themes nav template (which would be rather unfitting) and was pitching an idea about dedicated articles for composers as if we did not have those yet (even though we already have several of those, and all of them, plus the ones we don't have yet, are already included in the Composers subsection of the People nav template, rendering the whole point of the proposal redundant). Comments I apologize for the length of this proposal and the number of options, but I wanted to ensure as many approaches as possible were offered. Dr. Baskerville 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT) It's possible that there are other pages exclusively related to other series on the wiki as well outside of the Zelda pages that I've highlighted. Their exclusion from this proposal is not due to me believing they should remain but instead being ignorant of their existence. If similar pages exist from other franchises, please feel free to note them in reply to this comment and, if this proposal passes, I'll explore deletion proposals for them as well depending on the strength of their relationship to the Mario series. Dr. Baskerville 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT) Uh, there is a Link's Awakening page. It was classified as a guest appearance (i.e. page-worthy) by that 2022 proposal you linked to, and MarioWiki:Coverage tells us that "if a subject is unique to [a guest appearance] while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise, they can receive individual articles", so all the Link's Awakening Mario-inspired enemies are therefore eligible to get articles. Admittedly though, I'm not sure about pages for the Mario-inspired enemies from other games that we don't consider guest appearances, as while it was technically decided by that 2022 proposal, it was only clarified in a comment that it would extend to all Zelda games rather than just Link's Awakening, and it's less supported by policy. And yeah, some of them (like Bombite) do kinda seem to be stretches, but that's probably better handled on its own rather than in a giant proposal like this. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:19, July 1, 2024 (EDT) Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary Do not include 3-6 An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new? I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.) My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page. I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like. This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable. Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk) Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I agree with this proposal. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea. Oppose Nintendo101 (talk) I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game. DrBaskerville (talk) Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Scrooge200 (talk) I don't think WiKirby is a good example -- of anything. I would be interested in something else to improve the remake pages though. Arend (talk) I get the concern of this proposal, but I'm not sure if repeating much of the same information over and over is the ideal solution. Jazama (talk) Per all Comments This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. Dr. Baskerville 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT) Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT) It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Dr. Baskerville 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT) Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. Ray Trace(T|C) 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT) I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in Super Mario 3D All-Stars would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for three games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT) In my eyes, the change list for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. DandelionSprout (talk) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT) Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in Mario Sports Superstars article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). Ray Trace(T|C) 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT) Just for reference, the current size of the TTYD remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). Scrooge200 (talk) 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT) Split Wario Land: Shake It! bosses into boss levels split 5-1 This proposal is similar to the one that passed. As you see, we have Motley Bossblob and Hisstocrat boss levels from Super Mario 3D World, the boss levels from the Donkey Kong Country series, even boss levels Yoshi's Crafted World where each boss guards a Dream Gem. Right now, you might be wondering how we can create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels. According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split: Rollanratl → Rollanratl Battle Hot Roderick → Hot Roderick Race Chortlebot → Chortlebot Challenge Bloomsday → Bloomsday Blowout Large Fry → Large Fry Cook-Off Shake King → VS the Shake King Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels. Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk) (banned) Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support Hewer (talk) I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see Bowser's Sourpuss Bread, which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.) Arend (talk) I suppose that makes sense. Per all. Jazama (talk) Per all #GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal Oppose DrBaskerville (talk) While there is precedence, I just don't see this as necessary given the information is currently detailed on the existing pages without overcrowding them. Comments Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? Dr. Baskerville 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT) Looking at "Short Pages, when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or Mario Kart Arcade GP items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split Speed Mario Bros.. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when Pesky Billboard is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT) Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT) Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles standardize 11-0-2-0 I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the Super Mario series on and off for the past few years. I think presenting information in a shared, unified way is beneficial for readers and passively communicates that these games are part of a shared series, something I think is helpful for a franchise covering so many genres and series. Game articles in the Yoshi's Island and Donkey Kong Country series are similarly organized to one another. It is easy to jump from one article to another, information is where I'd expect it to be, and they look nice. Good stuff. At present, some Super Mario game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins to New Super Mario Bros. U and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents. The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is: Characters: living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm Playable characters: characters controlled Non-playable characters: characters that aren’t controlled Enemies and obstacles: subjects that damage or inhibit the player character Enemies: living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment Obstacles: abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement Bosses: subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression Items and objects: beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic Items: subjects that are absorbable/collectible, holdable, or health-restoring Power-ups: items that transform the player character’s appearance and grant unique abilities Objects: interactable subjects in the environment that are not items This sectioning arrangement has been integrated on the Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, Super Mario Land, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario 3D Land, Super Mario 3D World, and Super Mario Odyssey articles. Because of the tactile nature of platformers, I like organizing subjects based on their mechanical relationship to the player character, so I keep bosses organized with enemies and obstacles because they all hurt the player. It is also thematically appropriate, because at least some bosses are usually rulers of an enemy species in the same section. I do not like using terms that have strong connotations outside of gaming like "cast" or "antagonist". (I particularly do not like using "antagonist" here because these platformers are not chiefly driven by narrative, so the fact that some bosses also serve antagonistic narrative roles is of lesser importance to their tactile roles as bosses.) "Characters" is more neutral, I think. I also do not separate "returning enemies" from "new ones". I'd rather delineate that information in one shared table, like so. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new. I don't envision this sectioning being applied rigidly, and this is apparent in some of the articles I linked to above. There aren't really enough items in Super Mario Land for them to be severed from power-ups, so I lumped them together in one table there. Both Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy 2 include a "rideable characters" section, and there is a "clothing" section between "Items" and "objects" in Super Mario Odyssey. Rather, I would like this sectioning to be a jumping off point, from which users can manipulate and change things as needed. No two games are exactly the same, after all. I offer four options. Support: I like this! Let's do it (if this passes, this sectioning arrangement will be integrated into the remaining Super Mario game articles) Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently (if this one passes, a second proposal would be raised by the voters that outline their preferred organizational scheme) Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy (this option is basically the "do nothing" option) Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk) Deadline: July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support: I like this! Let's do it Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. Super Mario RPG (talk) Consistency is never a bad thing. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal. Hewer (talk) I guess if this ought to be a proposal, then sure, per proposal. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal Big Super Mario Fan (talk) Per proposal. DrBaskerville (talk) Per all. Consistency is good. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all. Jazama (talk) Per all Scrooge200 (talk) Per all, makes it much easier when reading between game pages. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. I'm a sucker for consistency. Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I see page layouts as an organically changing thing, it's best to not create guidelines where they needn't exist. I'm fine with the pages being changed to follow this pattern, but it shouldn't require an additional proposal to change further. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick. Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed Comments on standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles These sound like good ideas, but do they need a proposal? Proposal rule 15: "Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:39, June 26, 2024 (EDT) I originally did not plan on doing so, but EvieMaybe (talk) recommended I raise one. I supposed it was a good way to assess how other folks think game articles should be organized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:45, June 26, 2024 (EDT) Allow colorful tables again allow 16-0 Recently, there's been an update to follow Help:Table that standardizes all the colorful tables into boring, white-and-gray ones. I personally don't like this: not only is it removing a bit of charm from the site, the colored boxes are legitimately helpful at a glance and make it easier to distinguish individual sections in these large chunks of data. Take Rock-Candy Mines, a world from New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U. Here are two versions of the level lists: Level Number Level Name Description Rock-Candy Mines-1 Fuzzy Clifftop This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies. Rock-Candy Mines-2 Porcupuffer Falls Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too. Rock-Candy Mines-Tower Grinding-Stone Tower The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols. Rock-Candy Mines-3 Waddlewing's Nest This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands. Level Number Level Name Description Rock-Candy Mines-1 Mount Fuzzy An overworld level with some Fuzzies. Rock-Candy Mines-2 Porcupuffer Cavern An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer. Rock-Candy Mines-Tower Smashing-Stone Tower A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols. Rock-Candy Mines-3 Spike's Seesaws A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes. Level number Level name Description Rock-Candy Mines-1 Fuzzy Clifftop This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies. Rock-Candy Mines-2 Porcupuffer Falls Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too. Rock-Candy Mines-Tower Grinding-Stone Tower The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols. Rock-Candy Mines-3 Waddlewing's Nest This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands. Level Number Level Name Description Rock-Candy Mines-1 Mount Fuzzy An overworld level with some Fuzzies. Rock-Candy Mines-2 Porcupuffer Cavern An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer. Rock-Candy Mines-Tower Smashing-Stone Tower A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols. Rock-Candy Mines-3 Spike's Seesaws A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes. The only concern I can see is that black-on-blue text might be a bit hard to read, but we can change the text color to white, like some articles already do. It's a lot easier to tell with the colored header. If someone is just scrolling through the article to find the levels, the blue and green will catch their eye and they can easily know which game is which. The specific blue and green are distinctly featured on the games' logos and boxes: The standardization of the templates also really harms articles like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island: compare the colored navbox revision to the current, and it looks more inconsistent because the levels section is still using a unique format and color. Also compare Pi'illo, an item list: colored revision vs. standardized revision. I don't mind that the colors aren't official wiki standard because they're not arbitrary: they clearly correspond to the area, and lists for this game use the same colors for the same areas. Even so, it's still useful to have different colors because you can scroll through the article and easily know when one list ends and another begins. Some lists are also heavily dependent on color to distinguish areas with colors specifically used in-game, such as List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: The Origami King or List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: Color Splash. Standardizing these would make them much less usable. I don't care if we need to make the colors specifically approved or consistent on a per-game basis, I just want them back. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:51, July 1, 2024 (EDT) Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk) Deadline: July 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support: Allow colors Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal. Not only is it more aesthetically pleasing, but it is also easier to read. I do, however, agree we should look into somehow standardizing colors, like what we do with MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Just because they weren't standardized heavily isn't a very good reason to default to "plain ol' gray". In addition, while this is admittedly an "us" issue, we do find it annoying how similar the two grays actually are when we're scrolling quickly--the higher contrast provided by the colors helps to quell that issue. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal, and per all. Tails777 (talk) I am a very simple man; I enjoy colorful things. But in all seriousness, I feel it helps make sections stand out and could make them easier to identify when reading. Per proposal. Meester Tweester (talk) Per proposal. Nintendo101 (talk) Fun and look nice. It's also nice to give users some breathing room with what they want to try integrating into the articles they work on. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all. Arend (talk) TBH I always found it odd why only the Donkey Kong games get to have the colored tables... is it a remnant of the DK Wiki? In any case, it'd be nice to have some color (not sure if everything should have similar standardized colors or if it should be a case-by-case basis though) FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. This makes the tables easier to read, and it's also easier to find specific sections. I do think we should standardize the colors, though. Order above all. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. I am not sure what caused this recent trend of table bleaching, but it drained all appeal from them. I don't think we need to standardize colors for specific purposes, either. Just give each game or topic a color that is fitting for that particular case. Not everything needs to be set to rigorous standards, live a little. Technetium (talk) Per all. Yook Bab-imba (talk) We should embrace colors in the Mario wiki. I think the DKC games are some of our best looking articles, the tables playing a huge part. I do think some consistency is needed, though (a light yellow row next to a dark purple row with white text for example is just garish). FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all. Super Mario RPG (talk) Actually, I can see some use for this, but I still feel they should be table classes each used under select circumstances. Oppose: Prioritize gray #Super Mario RPG (talk) Colors are based on arbitrary choice and not by official merit. I think there can be a system where there are exceptions to allow for certain colored tables on a case by case basis, but allowing it in absolutely every single case is overdoing it. Comments @Super Mario RPG: Chestnut Valley, List_of_hidden_Toads_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, Not-Bottomless_Hole#Blue_Streamer, List_of_Collectible_Treasures_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, List_of_?_Blocks_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer all use the exact same colors. And it's because this is a blue streamer area in game, so it makes logical sense; I will usually color pick directly from sprites to get the right color codes. I don't really see where the "arbitrary" part is coming from. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:14, July 1, 2024 (EDT) To be fair, even the older revisions didn't acknowledge the color styling of the former table format, so that part wasn't erased to begin with. It's just the design, and colors work with the wikitable class as well (see here, for example). Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:50, July 1, 2024 (EDT) I think I'd like a little standardization, just so we don't end up with complete chaos. Maybe standardize alternating-color cells of the same color as the header? And as for the colors themselves — outside of when they're used to separate levels, which is by necessity a case-by-case basis — maybe we could do something similar to or based on the standardized navbox color schemes? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahemtoday (talk). @Ahemtoday Yeah, perhaps something like the navboxes could work. The problem with the proposal title is that it's misleading in a certain sense since there already has been one custom styling for the wikitables -- "dk" , which is for Donkey Kong content. I think what it's trying to get at is allowing more standardized wikitable options, and this way there would be less likelihood of conflict if, let's say, someone else were to overhaul an entire page and how it looks. I still think colors should be reserved in specialized circumstances. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:34, July 2, 2024 (EDT) Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full names don't move 3-8 Or, to be specific, move: G. R. P-Troopa to "Glad Red Paratroopa" G. Torpedo Ted to "Glad Torpedo Ted" Glad P. Plant to "Glad Piranha Plant" M. M-Spike Top to "Mad Mecha-Spike Top" M. Red P-Goomba to "Mad Red Paragoomba" Mad G. P-Troopa to "Mad Green Paratroopa" Sad N. Plant to "Sad Nipper Plant" C. A. F. H. Bro to "Calm Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother" C. Chain Chomp to "Calm Chain Chomp" C. Fishing Boo to "Calm Fishing Boo" C. V. Plant to "Calm Volcano Plant" A. F. H. Bro to... nothing in particular, actually, they're already included on the same page as the SMW one. More on that later. We have a few reasons for wanting this, and a few justifications, but for the sake of putting everything out on the table, I'll start with our immediate emotional feelings. In Super Princess Peach, a lot of returning enemies with existing official names are given "emotional" variants. When English names are said in full, these are exclusively referred to as "Glad", "Mad", "Sad", or "Calm" versions of the original enemies. Additionally, to my understanding, the Japanese version of the game universally modifies names for emotional variants by appending 喜(Ki), 怒(Do), 哀(Ai), and 楽(Raku) respectively to preexisting official names for all enemies which have them. With this in mind, we feel it is, if nothing else, a bit silly to present these enemies as if we don't know what their names are supposed to be abbreviating. That being said, of course, we're aware of the reasons why. Despite this feeling, we would have begrudgingly respected the former name of friend of the wiki Bombshell Bill Blaster had she not decided to change it, and we were certainly in support of keeping The O. P. L. W. T. E. E. W. R. F. A. K. E. B. I. Happens faithful to the source material. There are many cases like this, where something awkward needs to be the name of a page because, well, that's just what it's called. But this bothers us anyway, and I think that hinges on the contention that these names are definitive official names for unique enemies. Super Princess Peach presents these names in exactly one context, which is the in-game glossary section. In Japanese, none of the names are abbreviated, and all names of returning enemies are shared with previous official names for those enemies, with the variants having the relevant emotion appended. Meanwhile, in English, a number of emotional variant enemy names (and A. F. H. Bro, but we'll get to him later) are abbreviated when the addition of the extra words would make them excessively long. While the names are able to scroll to display more, the display column for their names in-game is quite small, and none of the abbreviated names are longer than 15 characters. This implies that, regardless of how the localizers may have wanted to change these names, they had a hard character limit. The Naming policy actually has something that I think expresses our feelings here. It's for name changes, but given that these are all variants of preexisting enemies, I think it applies. Quote: "...the newer name will replace the older one with certain exceptions. Exceptions include naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames ... It is up to the users to find and determine what the naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames are. When mentioning subjects whose names have changed overtime, the newest name generally takes greater priority, except in the context of older media where they went by previous names, in which case those are used instead." So, if we're in a situation where an enemy is agreed to be a variant of a preexisting enemy (the pages of these enemies will generally confidently state this, because it's obviously the case), and that enemy uses a variant of the same name as that preexisting enemy in Japanese, but then is shortened in English in a manner that would have been impossible to not do... Isn't that just a forced translation error? Or at the very least, some kind of alias? Can we really consider these to be official English names for these enemies if it was physically impossible to translate them in accordance with the Japanese naming scheme? And furthermore, when we can see that literally every name in the game that wouldn't have been over 15 characters was translated that way? Personally, I think this is a pretty compelling explanation of why we feel this should be an exception to the usual rules, so I wanted to raise it. With all this in mind, it feels sort of disingenuously literal to take an alias that the localizers had no choice but to use and which doesn't reflect the Japanese name at all as more official than a name which actually describes all of the properties of the enemy as depicted in the game. But it's up to you guys. Though, I will say, if we're going to take the stance that the literal in-game name is all that matters... Why are A. F. H. Bros still using their old name from 1991? Super Princess Peach was their last in-game appearance, and therefore has the most modern official English name. Proposer: Exiled.Serenity (talk) Deadline: July 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support Exiled.Serenity (talk) Proposer. DrBaskerville (talk) Though Pseudo makes compelling points, I don't see how there could be anything else but the names the pages all already say are "presumably" their actual names. If necessary, we can add the conjuncture disclaimer at the top of the articles. The main reason I support this change is because the abbreviations do not make it immediately obvious to someone who is browsing all Paratroopa variants (something I was actually doing recently) what "G. R. P-Troopa" is. This is true for all of the enemies and their base species. Moving them to the full names makes it clear what they are without having to click on the page. Ahemtoday (talk) My vote seems unlikely to sway things at this stage, but I find the argument that these are forced abbreviations we are divorcing from their original context compelling. Oppose Pseudo (talk) These names are simply not these enemies' official names. We can certainly read between the lines regarding their names and come to reasonable conclusions about what they stand for and why their names are abbreviated, and this is currently done on all of these articles by mentioning what each title is presumably short for. Despite that, the unabbreviated names aren’t actually used in the game itself nor in any other extant official material, so I’m not comfortable moving these pages unless a source can be found explicitly backing up the enemies' full names (and, for the record, I am not staunchly opposed to moving Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother to A. F. H. Bro despite its strangeness, since it's the more common name in recent sources, though I'm not really certain I'd support it, either, but it's a conversation for another day and another proposal anyway). FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Pseudo. Hewer (talk) I'd rather we didn't move official names to unofficial ones because we don't like the official names. There is plenty of precedent now for using shortened names if they're what official sources use, but in all of those cases, the long names were at least also official names - here, they're not. JanMisali (talk) Per all. Using the official in-game names takes priority over using "full names". Nintendo101 (talk) Those are their names. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per all, especially given ongoing Daisy proposal. YoYo (talk) per all. Sdman213 (talk) per all. Comments To clarify the end of my vote regarding Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother, it was brought up a while ago on Talk:Volcano Lotus that the English version of the Mario Portal’s Super Mario World page surprisingly refers to this enemy as an A. F. H. Bro despite the original game using the full name in the end credits. While there has been understandable concern about citogenesis on the Mario Portal, this still can be taken to suggest that A. F. H. Bro became the main official name starting with Super Princess Peach, especially since this enemy’s article wasn’t moved on this wiki at the time for the Mario Portal localizers to cross-reference. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 01:15, July 3, 2024 (EDT) Abstaining for now, but the very reason why we haven't moved these Super Princess Peach enemies to the full name is also the exact same reason why hadn't moved B. Bill Blaster to Bombshell Bill Blaster for so long until the Nintendo Switch remake of TTYD. There simply hasn't been an official record of these enemies' full names. This is due to character limitations, of course, but it should be noted that the original GCN version of TTYD still never even referred to the B. Bill Blaster by its full name in the Tattle, which should be exempt from character limitations, as can be seen with H. S. Goomba; it was only until the Nintendo Switch remake when the full name of Bombshell Bill Blaster has finally been used, hence we finally moved that article then. But the full names for all these Super Princess Peach enemies have still never been in use before in an official sense (at least Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother's full name had been implemented in its debut game's cast roll). rend (talk) (edits) 05:47, July 3, 2024 (EDT) Not just in TTYD, but also in the first Paper Mario they're also called B. Bill Blasters in the tattle. Nightwicked Bowser 06:27, July 3, 2024 (EDT) The tattle log thing is the exact reason why I'm fine with B. Bill Blasters. They had ample opportunity to give a full name, and didn't. In TTYD, they even make something of a joke out of it. Plus, I think it isn't truly unbelievable that they could be, like, "Buff Bill Blasters" or whatever. Meanwhile, Super Princess Peach had nowhere to clarify this, and all of the abbreviated enemies save AFH Bro are variants of enemies that do have official names in the exact same menu. Therefore, I don't think it's reasonable to treat these aliases as official names in this one specific case. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:29, July 3, 2024 (EDT) Contextually speaking, "Buff Bill Blaster" should not make any sense. Given the Japanese names for this (スーパーキラーたいほう/スーパーキラー大砲 Super Killer Taihō) matching with that of Bombshell Bill (スーパーキラー Super Killer), one can easily determine that the "B." stands for "Bombshell". Yet, we did not rename this to Bombshell Bill Blaster until the TTYD remake, because the full name hadn't been recorded in an official game until now. And we should treat these Super Princess Peach enemies the same. rend (talk) (edits) 14:14, July 6, 2024 (EDT) The Japanese name certainly heavily implies this, but the localization team is under no obligation to accurately reflect that, and had ample room to make clear that the enemy was deliberately, officially localized this way. Additionally, unlike SPP, there aren't twenty other enemies in the game referred to officially in full as "Bombshell" variants, all with similar aesthetics and mechanics, in a game where the central gimmick is that both you and your enemies have undergone "Bombshellification". It's just a one off that they could've localized more accurately but decided not to for whatever reason. I get where you're coming from, but I think SPP is in a very unique situation. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 19:49, July 8, 2024 (EDT) Wanted to add a couple comments since it's been a day: I think that DrBaskerville raised a significant point here that I overlooked. Insisting that these literal names are official is fine if you already know what they're supposed to be short for, as we all do, but if you're just a random person browsing variants of Goomba then "M. Red P-Goomba" tells you absolutely nothing. Frankly, it looks like it could just be some guy's real name. I think a lot of the opposition votes aren't contending with our central point here. To be clear: We don't think that the official names should be discounted. We simply think that these should not be considered official names, because they are obvious nicknames describing variants of enemies which themselves have official names in the exact same menu. I don't think there's any real reason to take these names as definitive or official, because they're mistranslations, aliases, and nicknames all at once and there's nothing in the game which goes against this. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:59, July 3, 2024 (EDT) "We don't think that the official names should be discounted. We simply think that these should not be considered official names" ...What? That is discounting the official names. If no official sources back up a name, then it's simply not an official name, no matter how much you think it ought to be. And even if we did have a source for these full names, see the proposals I linked to in my vote - do you disagree with the recent Baby DK rename, for instance? If a shortened name is used significantly more often than a full name, the shortened one is what should take priority. In this case, we've got a usage of the shortened names vs. no usage of the longer names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:48, July 4, 2024 (EDT) What we're saying is that, because these enemies are only referenced via a name that is a forced translation error, they effectively do not have official names. Comparatively, every letter in each acronym (save AFH Bro) has an official indication of what it's supposed to be short for in other official enemy names in the same menu. So, in lieu of an official name, we resort to a conjectural one based on an immense amount of official information. And as a bonus, it also more clearly describes at a glance what an enemy is. As for Baby DK et al, we agree with the change. The SPP enemies are pretty much the only case in which we would want to make an exception. Honestly, we've even pretty much turned around on AFH Bro at this point, though it's too late to edit the proposal now. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 12:15, July 6, 2024 (EDT) They are officially referred to using names. Thus, whether you like them or not, they have official names. Conjectural names should be an absolute last resort when there is no official name at all, not just a way to get out of using official names we don't like - technically, even if they did have no official English name, we'd first have to fall back on the Japanese names before making anything conjectural. It doesn't matter whether we know what the letters stand for, we know what the DK in Baby DK stands for too. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:21, July 6, 2024 (EDT) These are official names, erroneous or not. The wiki still refers to Goobles as Swoopin' Stus in regard of their Super Mario Sunshine appearance, even if them being given the name "Swoopin' Stu" in the Player's Guide is most likely in error as well and might've been for Winged Strollin' Stu instead, as "Swoopin' Stu" fits that enemy much better than it does to Gooble. Besides, most of the names listed aren't even translation errors. Things like Mecha-Spike Top, Volcano Plant and Boss P. Plant certainly are, but G. R. P-Troopa is not given in error, but as I said before, due to character limitations. Do you honestly think that officially given acronyms and shortenings because the full name could not fit in the given space, is an honest-to-god translation error? rend (talk) (edits) 14:05, July 6, 2024 (EDT) I concede that calling it an "error" implies a degree of judgement that I don't really intend to direct toward the localizers here. I'm pretty much just using that term because it's what the naming policy uses, but I think terms like "alias" or "nickname" are more accurate to my feelings. The central point to me is that the truncation was completely forced, which makes me chafe at the idea that it should be considered "official". I understand that that's the string of text that's in the game, but I truly believe that presenting it in lists and links and so forth as an abbreviated name without the context of those space limitations is sacrificing accuracy in the name of precision. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:06, July 8, 2024 (EDT)