MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53

Split Diddy Kong Pilot into Diddy Kong Pilot (2001) and Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)

Template:ProposalOutcome Hi, this is Results May Vary. I am the administrator of the defunct DK Wiki. So one thing I've noticed is the mess on the Diddy Kong Pilot page--it covers two versions of Diddy Kong Pilot that are actually entirely different from each other. And it makes merging the 2001 and 2003 pages more difficult. The two are so different that the 2003 build is even more similar to Banjo-Pilot. I remember there's some history as to why Diddy Kong Pilot was entirely reskinned along the way. The 2003 version of Diddy Kong Pilot was from that year, according to the original title of the YouTube gameplay video. Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, the YouTube account is gone, and the only information we have left from that time are via forum threads such as The RWP or NeoGAF. Thanks for reading.

Proposer: Results May Vary (talk)
Deadline: January 19, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Results May Vary (talk) I started this proposal.
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) This page had no proposal until now! Thanks Results May Vary! Anyways, the two are really different, per proposal.
3. Alex95 (talk) - Per proposal. The two builds are vastly different.
4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
6. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
7. Doomhiker (talk) Per all.
8. Toadette the Achiever (talk) It should be Diddy Kong Pilot (2001 tech demo) and Diddy Kong Pilot (2003 tech demo) if you ask me, but otherwise, per proposal.
9. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, they're two very different builds.
10. MarioManiac1981 (talk) Per all. The 2001 version is more Mario-based, while the 2003 version is closer to the Donkey Kong sub-franchise.
11. Bazooka Mario (talk) ya, sure
12. Syncro263892XL (talk) Per all.

Comments

Is this really a good idea? We have all sorts of genre-jumping tech demos and such in the pre-release and unused content articles, after all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2019 (EST)

The only difference is that both games were never released. Results May Vary (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2019 (EST)

You meant "similarity", right? ^(T|C) 23:28, 15 January 2019 (EST)

Yeah and that both games are "prerelease and unused content". Results May Vary (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2019 (EST)

They are also both within the plane-flying genre, they just had a complete overhaul. It's basically a scrapped alpha/beta and another one built from the ground up. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2019 (EST)

Delete certain Game & Watch game articles

Template:ProposalOutcome Currently, we have several articles for Game & Watch games that have no relation to the Mario series. Unlike other Game & Watch games we cover, these do not have "Modern" remakes featuring Mario elements, and do not appear as microgames, or if they do the articles neglect to mention them. Most, if not all, of these articles are only justified by the flimsy connection of them being playable in the Game & Watch Gallery games alongside other Game & Watch games which do have Modern versions featuring Mario elements and have earned their place here. However, Game & Watch Gallery 4, which most of these games are included in, also has a port of the Zelda Game & Watch game which we do not cover and instead link to ZeldaWiki for. We don't have articles for the non-Mario minigames in Nintendo Land, or games like Duck Hunt which were bundled with Mario games in the past, so why should we have these? It could also be argued that some of these games influenced Mr. Game & Watch's moveset in Smash, but I don't think that's a valid reason to keep these considering our lessened Smash coverage.

If this proposal passes, the following articles will be deleted:

• Bomb Sweeper
• Climber
• Judge
• Life Boat
• Safe Buster
• Spitball Sparky
• Tropical Fish

This would also prevent the currently-redlinked Dynamite Jack and The Wily Bomber articles from being made, as they are only characters who appear in these games.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: January 27, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
2. Shadow2 (talk) This has always bugged me a lot. Does not belong here at all.
3. Toadette the Achiever (talk) After some thinking, yeah, I don't really see why these pages are needed after all. Per Waluigi Time.
4. Doomhiker (talk) This section of MarioWiki:Coverage stated that we do not cover games that are included in packages such as Duck Hunt, and while these games are playable in the Game & Watch galleries they do not feature Mario characters or themes, and Mario characters cannot be played in them either, making them completely separate from anything Mario related besides from being packaged with other Game & Watch games with a Mario-themed modern version.
5. Glowsquid (talk) what ^ said
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. FanOfYoshi (talk) I'm against outright deletion. Also, Dwhitney is working hard on these pages. Why not instead merge these to their respective page like we did for Destroy Them All? And by extension, Alex95's comments.
2. 1337star (talk) Per MarioWiki:Coverage. "In all cases, these crossovers are given full coverage: everything appearing in the games gets articles." And the Game and Watch Gallery series is considered a crossover. The fact that most, if not all, of these Game & Watch games are unlockable rewards makes them different than a typical pack-in title. See also Jetpac for another example of a non-Mario game which is covered because it appears in one (albeit in an arguably more important capacity).

Comments

I think we should review MarioWiki:Coverage but common sense tells me that those articles really aren't needed. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:47, 21 January 2019 (EST)

I'm against outright deletion. -- FanOfYoshi at 03:56, 22 January 2019 (EST)

@FanOfYoshi: Yes, work was put into them, but that's a moot point if they're not related to the Mario series. They shouldn't be merged either, as they have no place here. Someone could make an original write up of the entire history of Link in every Zelda game on his page, but it's not relevant to the Mario series so it would be removed regardless of the effort put in to make it. Besides, everything on this wiki is work, so how is this different than deleting, trimming, or rewriting any other article? -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 10:44, 22 January 2019 (EST)

Also, years ago the wiki covered the Banjo and Conker games because of their debut in Diddy Kong Racing, but all those articles were later deleted because the community decided they really weren't spinoffs of the Mario series at all and had no place here as a result, which was a lot more work down the drain than this would be. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 10:48, 22 January 2019 (EST)

Considering I was the one to tell Dwitney to make these, I should probably weigh in here. In MarioWiki:Coverage, the Game & Watch series is marked under two sections: Crossovers and Guest Appearances, both of which we cover. I suppose it could also fall under Package Deals, which we only cover the Mario aspects of. This was a bit of a confusing matter for me, and Flagman apparently appears in Wario Land II according to Doc von Schmeltwick. I think this is something we could cover, but if consensus is we shouldn't, Nintendo Wiki could use them, so they shouldn't be deleted immediately. 10:51, 22 January 2019 (EST)

I do think our stance on covering the Game & Watch series should be changed, since aside from the Mario-themed remakes the rest of the minigames are ports. Super Mario Bros. was packaged on the same cartridge as Duck Hunt and World Class Track Meet, but we don't cover those games. Nintendo Land is full of other original minigames (which would make them more worthy of articles than the Game & Watch ports in my opinion, although I don't think they should be covered either) that we don't cover. I think the Game & Watch games are the same situation, so I don't see why they should have special treatment. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 10:59, 22 January 2019 (EST)

@1337star: Jetpac at least appears in what's more than basically a minigame compilation. Flagman, another Game & Watch game, also appears in Wario Land II and as a microgame in WarioWare: Touched!, and was exempt from this proposal for similar reasons. Personally, I don't think the Game & Watch games should be considered crossovers at all. What makes them more important than Nintendo Land, for example? -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 14:41, 25 January 2019 (EST)

The version of Flagman featured in Wario Land II is a remake in the same style as the "Modern" games in the Game and Watch Gallery titles, so it wouldn't be a valid target for deletion under this proposal anyway. In any case, you're correct in that they aren't really crossovers; they're remakes of the original Game and Watch titles with a Mario paint job, like Doki Doki Panic/Super Mario Bros. 2 or Panel de Pon/Tetris Attack. The only difference is that unlike those games, the original version of the games are also included and some of the games (the ones covered by this proposal) have no Mario counterpart. But as unlockable minigames in a Mario title, I feel these games should be covered. It's a tenuous distinction, but one I feel is important. After all, what's really the difference between these Game and Watch games and the Pyoro minigames from the WarioWare titles other than the fact that the Game and Watch games happened to already exist in real life first? Both are unlockable minigames having very little to do with the main content of the game they are featured in. (As an aside, all of our articles on non-Mario Game and Watch games should probably focus more on their status as minigames in the Game and Watch Gallery games and not the real games they were based on.) -- 1337star ^{(Mailbox SP)} 15:42, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Honestly, we should probably be covering the Game & Watch games in the same way we cover Super Smash Bros. content. ^(T|C) 16:01, 25 January 2019 (EST)

I don't think your argument works well considering you're throwing out a big difference. At least Pyoro and his minigames originated in the Wario series, which we cover fully. However, I do agree with you that if these articles stay the information about the original games should be trimmed/removed altogether. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 16:26, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Yeah, I meant "more or less", not "completely" like Super Smash Bros. ^(T|C) 16:28, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Jetpac is essential to be played and completed if one wants to complete DK64. It is necessary to obtain the Rareware Coin. Playing through to the end of DK64 will unquestionably force the player to play it. The G&W games without Mario remakes are not as essential to the game they are a part of. They are extra, bonus content, equivalent in my mind to Duck Hunt and World Class Track Meet. As Waluigi Time mentioned, as well, Pyoro was created in WarioWare and is a product of the WarioWare series. These G&W games had no connection to Mario when they were envisioned, created, and sold. For me, I like to hit the 'Random Button' on this wiki when I'm bored and read something Mario-related to pass the time. It's always stuck me as very, very strange that one could hit the Random button and get a page about Tropical Fish. It was even worse in the past when I would hit the button and get Goldeen, Aether and Hyrule Castle all in a row, but thankfully some of that has been trimmed. I think trimming these articles is a good step in the same direction. Furthermore, if we were to go by the logic of including games because they're included in games we cover (a la Jetpac > DK64), then wouldn't we need an article about all of the Masterpieces included in SSBB and SSB4? That would be crazy. Shadow2 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Update the Manual of Style to strongly discourage abbreviations of game titles on mainspace articles

Template:ProposalOutcome NSMBUDX is a port of NSMBU. What? While that example was made up abbreviations are quite common in articles, and can be annoying to read or even downright confusing, such as the previously mentioned King K. Rool edit where not only was Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest shorted, but Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! was abbreviated to 3, which can be extremely confusing to a reader if they do not know the abbreviations of a game, especially in the case of 3 as there is several threequels in the Donkey Kong franchise with 3 in their name, such as Donkey Konga 3: Tabehōdai! Haru Mogitate 50 Kyoku. There is other examples of potentially confusing abbreviations such the commonly used Deluxe abbreviation for New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, which could be mistaken for Super Mario Bros. Deluxe. This is why I am proposing that we update the Manual of Style to strongly discourage abbreviations of game titles on mainspace articles only, as this would greatly improve reading experience. Please note that this only applies to the main content of mainspace articles as, redirects of commonly used abbreviations, talk pages and user discussion, the {{redirect}} and {{about}} templates in articles, and brief mentions of an official abbreviation in the article such as with Fire Stalking Piranha Plants (sometimes abbreviated as Fire Stalking Piranha Pl. and Fire Stalking P . Plant) (Imagine that sentence referring to a game title) are fine as they tell and help guide users with popular or official abbreviations, however the main content of an article should have the full, official name of the game if this proposal passes. In my opinion, this change would greatly improve user experience.

EDIT: Per several user's suggestions, I also included a Allow abbreviations if they are necessary for space or infoboxes or are more convenient and are not confusing such as Deluxe option as for example Donkey Konga 3: Tabehōdai! Haru Mogitate 50 Kyoku could be shorted to Donkey Konga 3 due to that abbreviation not being confusing, while for example New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe still will not be shorted to Deluxe due too potential confusion, and in this option some abbreviations would be allowed if necessary for space or infoboxes.

Proposer: Doomhiker (talk)
Deadline: January 30, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Fully restrict the use of abbreviations

1. Doomhiker (talk) Per proposal.
2. Syncro263892XL (talk) Per Doomhiker

#FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all. Do you mean that we'll use abreviations?
#Alex95 (talk) - We're supposed to use the full title of a game in article bodies anyway, but I can't find anything about this. Closest is in MarioWiki:Naming, where it says the article title has to be a full game title (aside from Mario Kart courses), but doesn't say anything about the actual content of the article. If someone does find something already on MarioWiki pages and I completely missed it, then rip this proposal :P
#Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
#Waluigi Time (talk) I'm surprised this wasn't in the Manual of Style already, per all.

Allow abbreviations if they are necessary for space or infoboxes or are more convenient and are not confusing while discouraging the use of confusing abbreviations such as Deluxe

1. Doomhiker (talk) My second option, per proposal.
2. Alex95 (talk) - Echoing my struckthrough comment above, but also abbreviations can be used in charts, like Amiibo#Figure_list. Not every abbreviation is discouraged, just those used in the actual paragraphs.
3. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Better option per Mario jc, 7feetunder, and BBQ Turtle in the comments.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
5. BBQ Turtle (talk) This option would be more beneficial, per all and my comment below.

#Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. 7feetunder (talk) I don't like this idea at all. The first time a game is mentioned, yes, the full title should be used, but I don't see anything wrong with shortening a long-ass title like Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest to just Donkey Kong Country 2 otherwise. No one is going to be confused by this, and having to read (let alone write) a long title over and over again is irritating itself (there's also the fact that the GBA versions of DKC2 and DKC3 don't even use the subtitles). There's also what Mario jc said below about tables and infoboxes (e.g. Krazy Kremland). Simply put, this is a needlessly pedantic proposal, and this issue should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (or at least with a less restrictive guideline) rather than the "kill it with fire" approach you've taken.
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Changed mind per 7feetunder.
3. Scrooge200 (talk) Changed mind per 7feetunder.
4. Bazooka Mario (talk) What we currently have is fine, no policy change. Just expand abbreviations in body text, but keep abbreviations/shortened names when common sense calls for it. We already are doing this.
5. Waluigi Time (talk) Changing my mind again, per all.
6. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
7. 1337star (talk) Per all.
8. Niiue (talk) Per all.

Comments

Please note that the Game Boy Advance versions of the Donkey Kong Country games do not have subtitles. Therefore, when referring to them, they should just be Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (EST)

While I'm not opposed to using the full titles, I don't think using abbreviations should be fully restricted, as there are often cases where titles have to be shortened, like a column for a table, or using the full title would be too lengthy, like in an infobox. Basically, how I've seen it is, "Don't shorten the title if you don't need to." Mario JC 21:00, 16 January 2019 (EST)

Does this proposal also account for shortening the game names? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:34, 17 January 2019 (EST)

@Bazooka Mario yes it does, and with the King K. Rool edit the trivia was mentioning the remakes of SNES games, in which the SNES games full names should be used being Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest for example, and as the Game Boy Advance remakes have a shortened name when those games are specifically being talked about their full names should be used, which are just Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3, however, if the SNES games with the longer title are shorted to just for example, Donkey Kong Country 2 they should be expanded to add the full name of the title. Doomhiker (talk) 6:34 17 January 2019

Even so, I agree with Mario jc and 7feetunder that maybe they shouldn't be completely restricted. ^(T|C) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)

@FanOfYoshi this proposal is about strongly discouraging the use of abbreviations in the main content of mainspace pages, so if this proposal passes the use of abbreviations will decrease in mainspace articles, however abbreviations will still be allowed in discussions, in redirects, etc. Doomhiker (talk) 6:44 17 January 2019

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify before I vote for this, does this proposal only cover confusing or misleading abbreviations, such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe being shortened to Deluxe (Which I definitely support), or all titles in general? Because, as others have mentioned, sometimes it can be beneficial to shorten the title, and I think it would be alright to do so if it wouldn't be confusing or misleading, so shortening Donkey Konga 3: Tabehōdai! Haru Mogitate 50 Kyoku to Donkey Konga 3 if required to do so for space, as there is no other game it could easily be confused with. In limited-space situations, it'd likely be beneficial to drop the lengthy subtitle, as long as it isn't confusing or misleading. BBQ Turtle (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2019 (EST)

@BBQ Turtle the first option would fully restrict abbreviations of all titles in general, while the second option is like what you just said. Doomhiker (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Shouldn't proposal on this page last 1 week? 2 weeks if for talk pages. -- FanOfYoshi at 09:00, 18 January 2019 (EST)

Per rule 3, writing guideline proposals also last 2 weeks. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2019 (EST)

Delete Do the Donkey Kong

Template:ProposalOutcome This article should just be a short section in List of Mario references in music. It does not need an article for itself and can be turned into a redirect. See Talk:Do the Donkey Kong.

Proposer: Platform (talk)
Deadline: February 2, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Platform (talk) Per proposal.
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per proposal. It is pointless, and will soon redirect to its target page.
3. Doomhiker (talk) The song is not licensed by Nintendo and is simply a reference to Donkey Kong and thus does not need an article for itself.
4. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per all.

Comments

This should be a TPP, not a mainspace proposal, as it affects only one article. Ray Trace^(T|C) 16:15, 26 January 2019 (EST)

Yeah, this should be a proposal on the subject's talk page. Also @Doomhiker, is it not official? Doesn't seem to be anything saying it isn't. 01:31, 27 January 2019 (EST)

@Alex95 according to Pac-Man Fever's wikipedia page (Pac-Man Fever was where the song came from) the album was about different arcade games, Donkey Kong being one of them, and that the album was recorded by Buckner & Garcia. There is no proof from what I could find that it was endorsed by Nintendo, if anything the song was a tribute to the game. This ad, directly says that the songs are inspired by the nation-wide video game craze, which includes Do the Donkey Kong. Doomhiker (talk) 10:12, January 27 (EST)

I agree. I think this should be in the talk page, but anyways, i support changing the page itself into a redirect. -- FanOfYoshi at 13:03, 28 January 2019 (EST)

Decide how to handle Donkey Kong Country 2 and Land 2 boss stages

Template:ProposalOutcome As of right now, most of the boss stages for these two games still need articles. So far, only two exist: Kreepy Krow (level) and Krocodile Kore. However, these articles cover both the DKC2 an DKL2 versions of the stage, which is not consistent with how we cover the other levels in these games. The levels in DKC2 and DKL2, despite sharing names and themes, are split due to having different designs. The boss battles aren't identical between games either, so it makes sense to split these as well.

However, there is one I'm not sure about: Stronghold Showdown. Unlike everything else, this really is the same thing in both games - a small castle room with a short cutscene where DK is seen tied up before being taken to the Flying Krock. While splitting it would be consistent with all of the other DKC2/DKL2 splits, it would also create two articles that are basically the same thing. The only game where Stronghold Showdown is actually different is the GBA version of DKC2, where Kerozene is added as a boss. Plus, we've already voted not to split the returning Super Mario 3D World levels in the Wii U version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker for a similar reason.

Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: February 10, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Split the boss stages, including Stronghold Showdown

1. 7feetunder (talk) While I find splitting Stronghold Showdown kind of redundant, it's at least consistent.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Per 7.
3. FanOfYoshi (talk) Changing vote due to my mishap. Stronghold Showdown has enough differences as well.

Split the boss stages, excluding Stronghold Showdown

1. 7feetunder (talk) My preferred option.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Per 7, preferred as well.
3. Alex95 (talk) - If the two games share the exact same information, it makes more sense to me to keep them together. The GBA information can simply be an extra point.
4. Doomhiker (talk) Per all.
5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
6. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per all.
7. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.
8. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. Any minor changes in Stronghold Showdown can easily be mentioned briefly, but I don't see a need for an entirely new article for them.
9. Results May Vary (talk) As the editor who expanded both those pages, I agree it's better to split the pages, so to focus on one. Stronghold Showdown is practically the same in DKL2, so that can stay as one.
10. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
11. Mister Wu (talk) If there aren't significant differences, this makes sense.

Comments

Sorry, my first vote was a mistake. I wanted to vote "including" as, if everything is going to be split, this might need a split as well. Should i restart a proposal if the "excluding" option passes? -- FanOfYoshi at 04:32, 4 February 2019 (EST)

Or is the proposal unneeded? -- FanOfYoshi at 03:56, 5 February 2019 (EST)

It's not needed. The current consensus is that Stronghold Showdown should not be split. If you really wanted to, you could wait four weeks after the deadline, then make another proposal, but you'd need to come up with a compelling argument to convince all of these voters, myself included, that such a split needs to happen. So far you have only said "Stronghold Showdown has enough differences" without actually explaining what these important differences are. 21:30, 5 February 2019 (EST)