MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/50

Template for computer games

Template:ProposalOutcome A decent amount of articles on Flash web games have been written, thanks to the previous proposal, and there are more to come. Now they need their own template. Seeing as how neither do other computer games ("Mario's Fun Preschool", "Mario's FUNdamentals" etc.) have an assigned template, I think herding them all together into one single template is the best solution -- see this mock-up on my sandbox page. Computer games have long yearned a template of their own.

There are five ways this could go:

1. Look up to the mock-up: we respect the layout and content of the mock-up. Those Flash games were intended to be played on computer browsers, after all. I support this.
2. Split the Flash games from other computer games: we make two separate templates for both. This would be a waste of memory in my opinion...
3. Computer games no, Flash games yes: organising computer games into one template might be awkward due to so many ports, so this can be grounds for not creating them a template. We create one for Flash games, though. This is my secondary option.
4. Flash games no, computer games yes: this option here is a no go for me. At least the Flash games are on a league of their own and need a nav template.
5. Do nothing, or just add the Flash games to the Mario Games template: what it says on the tin.

Also, if you vote, please let me also know if you think Flash games should be listed with their complete names (e.g.: Diddy Kong Racing DS -- Timber's Balloon Pop) or just their essential title (e.g.: Timber's Balloon Pop). I personally find the latter option less confusing.

Proposer: Super Radio (talk)
Deadline: December 22, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. Super Radio (talk) per proposal.
2. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Flash and PC games fall into the same category IMO, so per Super Radio.
3. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per Radio and Toadette. As for the title used, I think the essential title should be used as it would make the template less crowded and confusing.
4. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all. Also, I think only essential titles should be used, with the full title stated in the article.
5. Jazama (talk) Per all.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
7. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
8. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, this seems like a useful template.
9. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) I like the mock-up generally, but I feel that browser games should be titled Flash instead, unless there exists like a Microsoft Silverlight, HTML5, or Java game for some examples.

Option 3

1. Super Radio (talk) also good.

Option 4

1. Astro-Lanceur (talk)makes scence. Super Radio!

Comments

Out of curiosity, are all of the browser games run with flash? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:06, 15 December 2017 (EST)

Yes, at least the ones in the Nintendo Arcade. (This thing, though, which I don't even know if it's official, which is official, looks like isn't powered by Flash.) I called them browser games just in case. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 03:46, 16 December 2017 (EST)

@Wildgoosespeeder: Donkey Kong Country: Barrel Maze (see my comment above for details) is a browser game and definitely not made in Flash. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:34, 17 December 2017 (EST)

Create a new template for file revision deletions

Template:ProposalOutcome So we don't have to keep bothering Shokora about this stuff, I thought of creating a new template specifically to alert admins on image revisions that need to be deleted, not the image itself. Here's what I had in mind:

It has been requested that revisions of this file be deleted.

An optional reason can also be included. Was thinking this could go under a new category, Category:Revision to be deleted. {{delete}} has Category:To be deleted and {{delete-request}} has Category:Deletion requested, so this would make it a sub-category of To be deleted. This would be the full coding of the new template {{delete-revision}}:

<div class="notice-template" style="text-align:justify;background:#A9A9A9;margin:.5em 2%;padding:0 1em;border:1px solid darkred;color:black"> It has been requested that '''revisions''' of this file be deleted. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{1}}}.|}} </div> <includeonly>[[Category:Revisions to be deleted|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly><noinclude>This template is to be used to call attention to files that have repeated reuploads that should be deleted to clear memory on the server. The earliest and newest revisions cannot be deleted. If the file itself needs to be deleted, {{tem|delete}} should be used instead.</noinclude>

Proposer: Alex95 (talk)
Deadline: December 24, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Create "delete-revision"

1. Alex95 (talk) - ^
2. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Why not?
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
4. YoshiStar28 (talk) Well, it's ok by me!
5. Supermariofan67 (talk) Per proposal
6. LuigiMaster123 (talk) This seems like a useful idea. Per all.
7. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per proposal. Also, this could potentially help admins delete inappropriate images that were uploaded on an existing image if they didn't see the image (rare, but you never know).
8. wildgoosespeeder (talk) I often felt guilty bothering Shokora (talk) about this sort of thing and thought about creating a template. This is way quicker.
9. Astro-Lanceur (talk)Awesome!
10. Mister Wu (talk) I mean, the second option is way more enticing and well written, but I'm too lazy to even bother Shokora about this stuff, so...
11. Niiue (talk) Per all.
12. Jazama (talk) Per all.
13. Shokora (talk) – Yes, please stop bothering me :) Per all.

Comments

I don't think I missed anything, but if I did, let me know. 13:23, 17 December 2017 (EST)

Just to be clear, this is to be used on FILES ONLY, correct? I don't want articles to have things like these on them, as that simply calls attention to the fact that they exist. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2017 (EST)

Yeah, just files. Don't see a reason to make one for articles. 17:28, 18 December 2017 (EST)

The Secret Courses of Remix 10 in Super Mario Run

Template:ProposalOutcome In Super Mario Run's Remix 10, there are three kinds of levels: regular courses, Secret Courses (labelled with question marks), and Special Remix Courses (labelled with exclamation marks). The Special Remixes are wholly based on existing levels, so they're not of particular interest, but the Secret Courses are completely unique. All of them (25 27?) even have individual names, and although those names may be generic, that hasn't stopped us with World 1-1, World 1-2, and all of the rest. Considering our new article policy that strives to give articles to every level, it seems like we should make articles for the Secret Courses. However, they're short, and noticeably shorter than the other Super Mario Run levels. All of them are certainly distinct from each other, but considering the last level-based snafu, it'd probably be best to settle this by proposal.

If this proposal passes (i.e. if you support it), all twenty-five Secret Courses would receive individual articles (I'd make a mock-up, but I don't have enough information on-hand to do so). If this proposal does not pass, they would be concentrated into a single table (ditto).

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: December 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Alex95 (talk) - They are levels, and we have plenty of short articles. As long as the information given is as accurate and as much as we have, then I think it's fine. Before anyone uses that information against me to describe the Power Moon articles, I'll repeat that I think they are more along the lines of collectables (albeit important ones) than actual levels or missions, sans a few story-relevant ones. In this case with the Super Mario Run levels, they are full levels, at least as far as I can tell.
2. Super Radio (talk) - per Time Turner and Alex
3. Chester Alan Arthur (talk) Per proposal
4. Time Turner (talk) Per all.
5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Yoshi the SSM (talk) We may or may not have seen all of the Secret Courses' layouts. And considering the mode it is in, it would be very difficult to write these levels. For now, a table would work best for these if we want to include them. I'm saying if due to how they are. Like regular and Special Remixes, they are short levels (parts of levels even) with variety of different set ups, but usually repeatable throughout the Areas. Considering their current state, they can't be level articles, yet. If Nintendo decides to add those levels in where we can actually play the whole thing and all of them without going to Remix 10, then they will be worth having articles.
2. Astro-Lanceur (talk) per SSM.
3. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per Yoshi the SSM.

Comments

You forgot to vote in your own proposal. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2017 (EST)

No, I did not. I want to see how other people vote first. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:48, 19 December 2017 (EST)

@Yoshi the SSM: To paraphrase Alex, every level or mission, no matter how short, is required to have its own article. And there's a video compilation of all Secret Courses on YouTube, so problem solved but apparently no compilation with "!" courses. Maybe separate gameplay videos will help? -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 04:21, 20 December 2017 (EST)

We should find them out. I think they're likely going to be one possibility of the whole level (and they can actually be compared with the levels, these can't), but I could be wrong. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2017 (EST)

The "!" courses aren't a priority for this proposal, but they're something that we should definitely look into for the future. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:10, 20 December 2017 (EST)

But seeing them will help me out on this. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2017 (EST)

Do not require main templates to be placed on pages alongside auxiliary templates

Template:ProposalOutcome MarioWiki:Navigation templates § Game-specific templates:

These auxiliary game-specific templates only need to go on the articles of subjects that concern them (e.g. the NSMB2 level articles) and the game page itself, however the main template has to go on the subject pages along with the auxiliary template.

My problem is with the bolded sentence (emphasis mine). What's the point of placing a navigation template on an article if the article itself isn't in the template? It's not as if the opposite is true, where, for example, {{PM Items}} needs to be placed on every non-item page. What's the point of even splitting subjects into separate templates if we're just going to throw them all together anyways? It's extraneous and self-defeating.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: December 29, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
2. Alex95 (talk) - The Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels level articles all have the {{SMB}} template, despite the levels themselves not showing on it. Conversely, the Super Mario Sunshine missions do not have the main {{Super Mario Sunshine}} template, creating an inconsistency. Considering I worked on both of those, I suppose that would be poor planning on my part, but regardless, per proposal.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
4. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal.
5. Astro-Lanceur (talk)Per ALL
6. Jazama (talk) Per all

Comments

"What's the point of placing a navigation template on an article if the article itself isn't in the template?" The missing article could always be added to the template if it's relevant. 16:20, 24 December 2017 (EST)

That's not relevant for this case, as the link should have been there in the first place. Here, however, the links are being specifically placed in another nav template. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 19:53, 24 December 2017 (EST)

Add anchor links to Power Moon lists

Template:ProposalOutcome Recently, I've had a small talk with Legomariofanatic (talk) on the removal of anchor links from the Power Moon lists for each kingdom in Super Mario Odyssey. Some lists actually had anchor templates, but Legomariofanatic removed them because someone suggested that anyone looking for a specific Power Moon can use the CTRL+F function to find it in a list. Here's my discussion with Legomariofanatic.

Thing is, I think it's less probable that a user will look up "List of Power Moons in whatever Kingdom" and then do some search on that page to find the location of a Power Moon, than they will simply search that name of the Power Moon. In the game, Talkatoo tells you the names of uncollected Power Moons, so there's how someone could learn their names. The Hint Toad locates them directly on the map, although in some cases the locations may not be exact--that's where the Internet comes to help.

Because this might spur a quarrel, seeing as how someone saw anchor links as useless, I think a proposal is necessary to settle it. Should we use anchor links or not?

Proposer: Super Radio (talk)
Deadline: December 31, 2017, 08:53 GMT

Support

1. Super Radio (talk) per proposal
2. Alex95 (talk) - I think the anchor template was created for this sort of thing, so sure, per proposal.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
4. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Clearly a no-brainer, per all.
5. Baby Luigi (talk) Per Mario jc's comments
6. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Give me one reason not to. Per all.
7. Mario jc (talk) Per my comment below.
8. Astro-Lanceur (talk) per ALL
9. Jazama (talk) Per all.
10. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.

Comments

I honestly think this is a no-brainer. Like other pages with a list of searchable names like the Things from Sticker Star and Color Splash, obviously it'd be faster and more convenient for people to be taken directly to the specific Power Moon they're looking for (this applies to both searching and linking to Power Moons on other pages). They shouldn't have to use CTRL+F to find the name themselves in this situation. It's better to have the anchor links than to not have them at all. Mario JC 00:29, 25 December 2017 (EST)

There are many lists that use anchor links, like the treasure lists from different Wario games. So yeah, the proposal is apparently a no-brainer. But I thought someone could step forward and argue why those links wouldn't be needed. We need to be cautious! -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 06:55, 25 December 2017 (EST)

@YoshiFlutterJump: Please give a reason as to why you're supporting, even if it's "per all". Your vote doesn't seem valid, as it doesn't appear to be based on anything. 10:10, 27 December 2017 (EST)

The format of the statistics in the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

Template:ProposalOutcome While the statistics shown in the menus of Mario Kart games have been notoriously inaccurate and sometimes even outright wrong, since Mario Kart 7 the vehicle customization screen finally shows statistics in a way that at least is directly correlated with the underlying in-game statistics: internally the games use points that are summed to determine the final values of the statistics, with each character or part contributing their own points to each statistics, and in the vehicle customization screen every time there is an increase of 1 point in a statistics, the corresponding value shown by the bar increases by 0.25. This direct correspondence between the length of the bar and the underlying sum of points in each statistics led to the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe exclusively reporting the statistics in the format used by the games' vehicle customization screens.
It must be noted that said format is actually used by the games to display the final statistics of a certain combination of character, vehicle, tires and glider, while in the main pages it is being used to display the statistics of the individual elements (characters and vehicle parts).
This mismatch first of all leads to different criteria used for the characters (the final statistics obtained when using said characters with standard parts) and the parts (how the tatistics of each part compare with respect to standard parts), furthermore when discussing a redesign of the tables of statistics thanks to an automated script with 2257 (talk), other aspects emerged:

• the differences between various parts and how much characters and parts contribute to the final stats are potentially more difficult to evaluate, since fractional number that, in the case of the parts, can be both negative and positive are being used to display the stats in place of integers
• standard parts can have values which are not average in some statistics, leading to the numbers being skewed as a result, this being the case of Standard Tires in Mario Kart 8 which have maximum water speed
• comparison between games can be more difficult, as the statistics of the standard parts are different in each game - as an example, the Standard Kart has different stats in each game, but the current format doesn't show this
• more importantly, the current format can be misleading when trying to make considerations in the individual parts' pages, such as the ones on the Standard Kart that didn't reflect the actual statistics of the kart nor the actual contribution of the characters to the final statistics in Mario Kart 7.

Therefore, since the current format has both advantages and disadvantages and the games actually use an alternative format, the points, which is still simple and thus could be used in the main pages I propose to review and decide which format to use for the statistics shown in the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, between those two:

1. values actually used by the game (called points)
2. values shown in the vehicle customization screen (what I'll call bar values)

In short, those are what I think are the main advantages of each format:

MAIN ADVANTAGES OF POINTS

• They are the values actually used by the game and, as such, they are not misleading
• They allow for an easy comparison between characters and parts and between games using the points system, while allowing to easily see how much a character or part contributes to the final stats

MAIN ADVANTAGES OF BAR VALUES

• They are the ones shown in the vehicle customization screen and, as such, they are the ones most readers are familiar with and the ones mainly used by the competitive Mario Kart community as well
• They tend to be useful for statistics which are tiered on the integer part of bar values, in particular acceleration in Mario Kart 8 and weight in Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

As a final note, a revision of the pages of the individual parts will have to be done regardless of the outcome of this proposal, to add the actual statistics of the parts and to see if there are other considerations which need to be corrected in light of the actual statistics of each part.

Proposer: Mister Wu (talk)
Deadline: January 2, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Use points

1. Alex95 (talk) - While bars are more familiar to players, points show the statistics more accurately, which I think is what should be used.
2. 2257 (talk) the idea that most readers are already familiar with bar values is not really correct. most readers are familiar with the in-game system of bar values, which they might assume is identical with the wiki's system. but that is not a correct assumption, and cannot be. the in-game system is used to rate a combination of a character and three vehicle parts, while the wiki's system is used to rate each character or part individually. the mapping between the two is based on some fairly arbitrary decisions that readers can easily gloss over without understanding their implications for interpretation of the reported values. the upshot is that although the bar value format feels familiar to readers, because it resembles the in-game system, this feeling is inaccurate and misleads readers into believing that they understand the system when they actually do not. we have already seen the result of this: the claim linked above that the standard kart "doesn't offer any stat changes due to the main stats relying more on the weight class of the character and is shared for all characters" is completely wrong, and this is a direct result of an editor attempting to reason about the bar values system while having misunderstood it. this is a weakness that the point system lacks: because it does not falsely seem to be immediately familiar, users are less likely to incorrectly assume that they understand it when they do not, and more likely to read adjacent explanations of how to properly interpret the data as it is presented
   regardless of which system the page uses, it will need to include some such text to explain the system to uninformed readers, and readers who opt to ignore this text are likely to come to inaccurate conclusions regarding part statistics. since readers must read and understand this text to correctly use either system, it makes sense to use whichever of the two systems is most helpful to those who do understand it. this is clearly the point system, which allows users to easily understand how each individual part affects the overall stats of a build, cross reference the stats of a part with the translation tables here, and compare parts between mario kart 8 and mario kart 8 deluxe to see how their stats have changed. none of these tasks can easily be done with the bar values system. meanwhile, the main presumed advantage of the bar values system is that it's likely to feel familiar to readers. but as i've shown, this feeling does not mean that most readers actually understand it, and may actually be harmful to their ability to learn to use it
3. Lord Bowser (talk) Accuracy should take priority over familiarity. Readers would be better off with a foreign yet accurate display of information than a familiar yet flawed display, and it would be better to take the time to learn how to read it than simply go with what they already know, especially if the latter is inaccurate. Using the bar system would defeat the purpose of us being a wiki -- a reputable source of information -- due to said system having inaccurate data. Per 2257.
4. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Point values are better because they accurately measure the statistics of a certain part. It's also advisable that the maximum value should be present as well, so that the bar charts are truly obsolete. Per 2257.
5. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per 2257.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per 2257.
7. Supermariofan67 (talk) Per 2257.
8. Astro-Lanceur (talk) per 2257
9. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
10. Jazama (talk) Per all.
11. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all, especially 2257.

Use bar values

1. Lcrossmk8 (talk) You know, if readers are familiar with the bar values, and if the competitive Mario Kart community uses them, then I'm going with bar values. Anyway, that is some of the most detailed in-depth stuff I've read yet on this wiki. I'm gonna have to take a look at it again to make things a little clearer for me.
2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per Lcross. The games use bars, and bars are easier for players to understand, so we use bars.

Comments

Why not both, like how we have for the Mario Kart Wii vehicles like Standard Kart M (but done better)? 17:55, 26 December 2017 (EST)

Dingo-DONGO. I like that idea. The problem is, how are we going to implement thatt? Lcrossmk8 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2017 (EST)

I personally tried that, and I was asked to just report one set of stats. We can of course include two sets of tables, but that would be additional vertical scrolling. In short, unless you can come up with a new layout that manages to do that more clearly, this simply isn't going to happen again.--Mister Wu (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2017 (EST)

If only one set of stats is what's been asked, then we may as well just use one for now. 19:30, 26 December 2017 (EST)

I was thinking putting the number inside the bar. Just needs proper CSS. See Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii) or Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U) for great examples. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 15:54, 2 January 2018 (EST)

@Wildgoosespeeder: You can't vote for both options when there are only two. Please choose just one of them. 15:46, 2 January 2018 (EST)

You're right. What was I thinking? Retracted. However, this proposal should have had four options: Values, Bars, Both, or Do Nothing. I would have voted for the both option. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 15:54, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Both was already done and it was asked to be reverted due to difficulty in reading the tables, so it was not a feasible option. Using bar values has the same effect as Do Nothing, since we currently use bar values in the pages.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Allow the coverage of distinctly Mario aspects from guest appearances

Template:ProposalOutcome According to MarioWiki:Coverage, Nintendo Land is "not a crossover" and is therefore a guest appearance; since the game constitutes a guest appearance, it should only receive one page and the minigame pages (Donkey Kong's Crash Course, Luigi's Ghost Mansion, Mario Chase, and Yoshi's Fruit Cart) should be deleted, per the rules on MarioWiki:Coverage. However, why not change the rules? Instead of having these pages exist in a grey area, why not change things so that they, and any other subjects from guest appearances that are clearly baked in Mario iconography, can have articles? To be clear, this is not a proposal to give articles to every subject from a guest appearance: LeBron James and Psymon would still not have articles, but, for example, Nintendo Village might be eligible. These are subjects that use the Mario IP with Nintendo's express approval, if not because Nintendo themselves created them, and they're arguably more related to the franchise than some of the stuff that the wiki already covers. I don't see why we shouldn't allow them here.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: January 4, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
2. Lcrossmk8 (talk) I'm with you on this one. Sounds like a good idea to cover Mario-only elements of any non-Mario game. And plus, why even bring up LeBron James in the first place? Come on now, I don't want an article on that, because then we might have people yelling out constantly about how the stupid Warriors blew a 3-1 lead. Jesus, man, can we just not do that?
3. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per proposal.
4. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) The summary above sounds convincing. Per all.
5. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Policy needs an overhaul for these cases, and this is a step in the right direction.
6. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, it leaves a gap in our coverage otherwise.
7. Alex95 (talk) - I honestly thought this was a crossover already. Per proposal.
8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
9. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all.
10. Jazama (talk) Per all.
11. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per all. Yeah, I don't think LeBron James or Mooshroom need an article, though I think subjects such as Tetris DS Puzzle Mode are deserving of one.
12. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.
13. Astro-Lanceur (talk)Per all.
14. LudwigVon (talk) Per all.

Does Tetris DS count as a guest appearance?

Template:ProposalOutcome Once upon a time, a proposal deemed that Tetris DS was irrelevant to the Super Mario Wiki, and should therefore be deleted... except that was four years ago, and the article still remains. Now it just sits in limbo or something, and that's not satisfying to me. To me, Tetris DS is about on par with Nintendo Land in terms of Mario content. From the six games, half of them prominently feature Mario characters and integrate them into the gameplay, especially with the Standard game's multiplayer items and the Yoshi's Cookie Puzzle game. If you say that the Mario aspect only affects the visuals and not the gameplay, and therefore shouldn't be covered here, then I'll ask why Nintendo Badge Arcade and Minecraft are covered at all, or even why Nintendo Land is covered when its line-up includes a game of tag and moving a cart around. Also, that clearly ignores the multiplayer items. Simply put, this game has more than enough Mario-related content to justify its coverage on the wiki.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: January 4, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Yes, it is a guest appearance (and therefore, keep the page)

1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
2. Lcrossmk8 (talk) I guess I will support this one, but holy smoke, are you a proposal machine or what? You keep belching these out like factory goods on the conveyor belt every day.
3. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Should be a no-brainer, per all.
4. Astro-Lanceur (talk)Per all.
5. Alex95 (talk) - Per proposal.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
7. SmokedChili (talk) Per proposal, to me Mario content in Tetris DS is no different from Mario content in Smash Bros.
8. Niiue (talk) Per all.
9. LudwigVon (talk) Per all.
10. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Per all, but SmokedChili especially.

No, it is not a guest appearance (and therefore, delete the page)

1. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) The games mentioned besides Tetris DS are governed by a very black and white policy. I have also wanted to stir up discussion to no avail. I don't think the game is the issue. It's how we cover crossovers, which isn't satisfactory, because we end up covering non-Mario things. It's a very hard call due to the current complexity of the Mario universe intertwined with other video game universes.
2. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per Wildgoosespeeder.

Comments

@Wildgoose: What are you talking about? What's so black-and-white about the policy that it completely annuls Tetris DS from having an article? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:30, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Watching playthroughs of Tetris DS, NES games are used as a background theme as you play Tetris, which Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Donkey Kong, and Yoshi's Cookie for some examples. This sounds like a guest appearance to me. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 00:46, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Yes. That is the point of the proposal. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:47, 28 December 2017 (EST)

But wanting to allow it anyways (at this time 3-1 vote to keep) means the policy is very black and white about this, but not just with Tetris DS. Policy needs to be reworked for these instances. NES Remix, Tetris & Dr. Mario, and others all have issues with policy. Not just Tetris DS. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 00:56, 28 December 2017 (EST)

I think I knew where I confused myself. I want Tetris DS to be considered a cameo. I just looked at Densetsu no Starfy 3 and that makes a little more sense to cover levels where Wario makes a physical appearance. In Tetris DS, you don't interact with the themes, but in Densetsu no Starfy 3, Wario interacts with Starfy. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 01:08, 28 December 2017 (EST)

And what about the multiplayer items? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 10:40, 28 December 2017 (EST)

• List of Mario references in Nintendo video games#Art Style: PiCTOBiTS (DSi)
• List of Mario references in Nintendo video games#Baseball (GB)
• List of Mario references in Nintendo video games#Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day! (DS)
• List of Mario references in Nintendo video games#Chibi-Robo! (GCN)
• List of Mario references in Nintendo video games#F-1 Race (GB)
• List of Mario references in Nintendo video games#Jet Force Gemini (N64)

Just some examples found in List of Mario references in Nintendo video games. There's likely many more. Does that mean these games deserve their own article? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 11:38, 28 December 2017 (EST)

How are they relevant to my point? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:43, 28 December 2017 (EST)

I read the section about multiplayer items, and there is a level of interaction with the Tetris universe. My point was we have many games that don't have articles and there are physical appearances of Mario universe people or things in them that has influence in those universes. This supports my other point that policy is very black and white, leaving people to grasp at straws to cover either by separate article or merge contents in list articles. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 11:50, 28 December 2017 (EST)

You still haven't explained how the policy is black-and-white in the first place. And frankly, what if I say that those games should have articles? What then? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:55, 28 December 2017 (EST)

It's either full coverage (mainstream or crossover) or some coverage (guest appearance or cameo). I don't think this is satisfactory for crossover or guest appearance. Instead of two "modes" of coverage, we need four. Also, you have another proposal going addressing issues with this policy as well, so I think you understand somewhat of what I mean that I think policy is very black and white. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 12:05, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Seriously, what are you talking about? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 12:23, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Can you elaborate what's not clear to you? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 12:41, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Go basic here: what do you mean by "black-and-white"? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 12:48, 28 December 2017 (EST)

No grey area. The games in question don't fit the full coverage or partial coverage policy completely. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 13:40, 28 December 2017 (EST)

How so? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:57, 28 December 2017 (EST)

We've had multiple discussions before, like with the creation of Minecraft that I can immediately recall. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 14:57, 28 December 2017 (EST)

And yet Minecraft is being covered on the wiki. What are you talking about? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:29, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Yes, it was covered. I wasn't trying to outright stop its coverage. However, the current way it is being covered just doesn't feel right compared to other games. The point is just because it features Mario characters or references it doesn't mean it is a Mario game. If that were true, the List of Mario references in Nintendo video games shouldn't exist and should be split into separate articles. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 15:38, 28 December 2017 (EST)

The point isn't that it's a Mario game. The point is that it has content that is relevant to the wiki. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:56, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Not arguing that it has relevance. I am arguing the presentation just isn't quite right. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:00, 28 December 2017 (EST)

What would be right for you, then? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:02, 28 December 2017 (EST)

A merge to the references list or a general guest appearance article. Since guest appearance, link to the appropriate NIWA wiki article, or Wikipedia article if the game is not a Nintendo property. In the case of Tetris DS, it's a reference and not a guest appearance, although policy isn't definitive on that. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:17, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Why shouldn't we give them individual articles? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:01, 28 December 2017 (EST)

It feels like we are giving these games the same precedence as regular normal releases. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 17:15, 28 December 2017 (EST)

One page and dedicated coverage of clearly Mario aspects, versus every single subject within the game getting an article. They are not the same. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:34, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Shouldn’t this be a TPP? -YFJ (talk · edits) 17:57, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Hypothetically, if Tetris DS didn't already have a page, then the proposal would have definitely gone here. I think this kind of stuff is better suited for here, anyways, as it sets a visible precedent for what future games may or may not be considered as guest appearances. Besides, my other guest appearance proposals have all been here. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:08, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Create a page for Luigi's Mansion (series)

I am honestly surprised that this page does not exist, as I believe it once did. In short, there are three installments to this series: Luigi's Mansion, Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, and Luigi's Mansion Arcade. Though it might seem to some that only three games won't be enough to warrant a series page, keep in mind the DK series and the Mario Baseball series pages. There is plenty of information for this page, as we have a main protagonist (Luigi) and many other supporting characters and reoccurring enemies such as King Boo and Boos. It only seems logical to create a page for a series within the Mario franchise that features two games for consoles and one arcade game.

Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk)
Deadline: January 9, 2018 23:59 GMT

Support

1. DKPetey99 (talk) Per my proposal.
2. Astro-Lanceur (talk) Good Idea! :P
3. Alex95 (talk) - A series page did exist before, but it was deleted back in 2011. That was before the arcade title, however, so I don't see a reason to not make one now.
4. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per proposal.
5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal. Since other similar series pages exist, I don't see an issue with creating this one.
6. LudwigVon (talk) Per proposal.
7. Lcrossmk8 (talk) OH YEAH! I KNEW this was supposed to be a thing. As a person whose favorite video-game character is the man in green, Mr. Number Two, I think this proposal is just great. After all, don't we hear people talk about the Luigi's Mansion games as a series? I think we're on a roll, boys. Per proposal. This thing should have been created when Dark Moon was released.
8. Supermariofan67 (talk) Per all.
9. Toadette the Achiever (talk) If we have articles on series with only two games, then clearly this subject merits an article. Per all.
10. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all. It may seem strange to have an article on a two-game series. However, this one has three.
11. Niiue (talk) Per all.
12. MegaYarnPoochy (talk) Per all. It'd be weird pre-Arcade game, but three seems enough that the article could be useful.
13. BBQ Turtle (talk) There's an article for DK (series), which only consists of two games, so having one for a three game series seems more than logical. Per all.
14. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.

Comments

Is there a policy page/section about what qualifies as a series and allow for a series article? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 15:00, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Not finding one, but I think the unspoken rule is about three games? I remember reading that somewhere. 15:13, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Thought there would be so that way proposals don't need to be created. Would the admins be in favor of a policy to bypass the need for a proposal? I wouldn't know how to define the prerequisites. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 17:38, 2 January 2018 (EST)

This page was previously deleted, so I understand the need for this proposal. But, imo, a policy for it doesn't seem necessary. As long as there is more than one game in the same series and a decent amount of information can be written, then proposals shouldn't be necessary either. Something can probably be added to MarioWiki:Glossary though. 17:50, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Just thought of something else. Series vs. Franchise. We got both those types of pages that are similar-ish in concept. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 23:24, 2 January 2018 (EST)

2011 was even before Dark Moon was released so I see why the original page was deleted. DKPetey99^TCE

Whoop, forgot when Dark Moon was released. That makes the original page even more pointless :P 15:19, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Lcrossmk8: I do not think you can just support this proposal just because you like Luigi. Please, look rule #4.--^(TALK) 16:40, 2 January 2018 (EST)

I'm not supporting the proposal just because I like Luigi. I agree with all the other reasons the proposal is on here, and that's why I voted for it. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2018 (EST)

You just say in your reason for voting: "As a person whose favorite video-game character is the man in green, Mr. Number Two, I think this proposal is just great." This is not a valid reason to support a proposal. Rule #4 says: "irrelevant quips or comments are just as invalid as providing no reason at all. But now, I saw you put "Per proposal." so your vote is now valid."--^(TALK) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (EST)