MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62

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 Archive 69 Archive 70 Turn the Stafy article into a disambiguation Pictured: Wario, alongside some Super Princess Peach enemy. And he isn't even on Battlefield! We apologize in advance for how long this proposal is, but we wanted to make sure we covered all our bases here... Y'know, for a disambiguation article. You'll see what we mean. Stafy, probably, does not need a full article as a character. He does not directly appear in any Mario games as himself. But like, the current state of his "article" is not much better. It currently directly redirects to his given section of the Assist Trophy section, which would be fine enough if that was all there was, right? Stafy has only made a physical appearance in Smash Bros., it's another Smash Bros. thing, pack it in, chumps, we're done! Crisis averted, and we can all go home. ...But then, Starfish exists. Yeahhh, this guy is weird. Starfish is implied in all but direct statements to be Stafy himself in sunglasses, prancing about in Super Princess Peach in multiple distinct levels, which is, indeed, a Mario game; or at least a game with Mario in it that we give sufficient coverage for. And he's not just some background cameo, either; he makes physical appearances, he's acknowledged by the in-game Bestiary, he's even mentioned in in-game hints telling the player about his secret presence! In fact, there's been a proposal in the past to just outright merge him with a formerly-extant Stafy page. Now, while resurrecting the old page just to merge this article into it feels like a bit too much (especially since that's really just a more roundabout rename at that point), it bugs us quite a bit that this article for a character we know is heavily based on Stafy, and is implied to even be Stafy, is just... an article you wouldn't come across if you had the gull to search "Stafy" directly, and you'd get shoved right to his Assist Trophy section instead. And then there's Densetsu no Stafy 3. Yes, that's a blue link, and for good cause; one of the levels in that game is a crossover with Wario Land 4. Wario even physically appears in it, complete with his transformation gimmicks, which Stafy must readily exploit to solve puzzles and progress through the level! This is something we cover readily, since we've determined this is a substantial appearance of Wario. It's even got a Staff page. And besides, it's not like we haven't set the precedent before that crossovers like this that are for a full level are fine before this; just look at Rhythm Heaven Megamix or Sonic Lost World. And, again... You wouldn't find this if you just typed "Stafy" and had the gull to hit "search" or press your enter key, without hearing the advice of autocomplete first. It's only marginally less hard to find with autocomplete, to be fair, but it wouldn't shock us if people are flat-out unaware this exists because they did just type "Stafy" and not think twice. That's two entire articles we have about Stafy, both of which are, indeed, worthy of coverage on our wiki (an entire enemy in a video game for the former, and a substantially important crossover in the latter), that you'd never even know were there if you simply wrote "Stafy". This isn't even getting in to the less substantial stuff, like, say, the Yoshi Theater cameo in Superstar Saga, or the List of Mario references in Nintendo games article's subsection, or even that one SMM1 level, because frankly, 3 is already enough as-is to us. We re-iterate; we do not think Stafy needs a full article on his own, so please don't treat us like we're saying so, thanks to his lack of direct physical appearance in-game. Starfish comes close, but it's just a little too indirect and wishy-washy for us. However, we do think that making the Stafy article a redirect to Assist Trophy, blatantly ignoring the other two articles, is... a little too extreme, wouldn't you say? And it's not like we can't just append a "see also" to Stafy's section on the Assist Trophy article, or anything. So... What if we just didn't do either of those? That's right, you read the proposal name, we're finally about to say the line. We think Stafy should be a disambiguation article. What should it disambiguate between? Well, here's our idea: His appearance as an Assist Trophy up top, as it's his most direct appearance by far. It's what most people probably are thinking of when they search "Stafy" on the Mario Wiki, so it seems only fair. Starfish, in the middle; being an important, albeit indirect, appearance. (This could maybe be the first one as it's the only cameo he has in a proper Mario game? But it's still fairly obscure, and he's not overtly called Stafy, so it could honestly go either way.) Densetsu no Stafy 3, a game he appears in that features a prominent Mario (well, Wario) cameo that we have coverage of. If we decide it's important enough to include for whatever reason, we could maybe mention the Yoshi Theatre or the List of Mario References or the Mario Maker level articles here. Probably only the References one if we include any of these, but it doesn't hurt to ask, right? Either at the very end or right below the assist trophy, link to his article on the Stafy Wiki, just as a final little courtesy thing. If, for whatever reason, you disagree with the "just a disambiguation" and feel he needs his own full article after this, that's fine, and we did put that as an option just in case that begins to prevail for whatever reason. However, we'd personally advise against it, because we don't feel like he's gotten quite that appearance that's more involved than brief cameos lasting only a stage/a few stages/an Assist Trophy just yet. But as for us, we feel like we've made our stance fairly clear that we could definitely bear to at least let readers know that there's a little bit more to Stafy than just his assist trophy. Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: May 15, 2023, 23:59 GMT Convert to a disambiguation page Camwoodstock (talk) - Per that very long-winded proposal about why Stafy needs a little bit more to his article, but not that much. There's a little bit more we could be pointing at than just an Assist Trophy; and while a full article feels excessive, a disambiguation page feels a lot more reasonable, and is readily expandable into a fuller article should the occasion (somehow) ever arise where that's necessary. Hewer (talk) I'm not entirely sure why this needs a proposal (let alone such a long one) but sure, per proposal (though the disambiguation should probably be called "Starfy" instead of "Stafy" since that's his official English name nowadays, and "Stafy" can be a redirect to it). Waluigi Time (talk) A problem I have with the current coverage for Starfy and many other crossover characters that have multiple appearances is that the information about them is scattered across the wiki, but nothing helping you to find it. There's a lot here that could be talked about, but searching Starfy just redirects you to the Assist Trophy list which makes no mention of any of it. We've only recently started to address this problem by keeping the other Mario-relevant appearances on the Smash fighter lists. This is a good start but there's a lot more that needs to be done. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I would be more inclined to make an article for Starfy on account of the Mad Scienstein article, but what really irritates me is that Starfish from Super Princess Peach is never explicitly stated to be Starfy, and could be just another member of Starfy's species, like Starly. Because the rest of Starfy's appearances not in his own series are very minor, I can see a disambiguation page with very brief descriptions of each of his appearances as working better; however, in that case, I'd prefer for the disambiguation to be comprehensive in listing Starfy's appearances in the Mario franchise, followed by Mario elements appearing in The Legendary Starfy series (since the only other case of this is Starfy himself being able to wear a costume based on Super Princess Peach). If anyone's interested, I've made a mockup of what the disambiguation could look like on my sandbox. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all. Shadic 34 (talk) Per all. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Convert to a full article Waluigi Time (talk) I would also be perfectly fine with this, considering how much can talked about here even if none of it's coverage-worthy by itself. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Second choice; per discussion in the comments below. Killer Moth (talk) Second choice; I wouldn't be against doing this either. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Do nothing SeanWheeler (talk) I don't like disambiguations for a single character. The only reason an individual character should ever have a disambiguation page would be for multiverse counterparts. Disambiguations serving to link to the character on list pages are the problem I have with Smash Wiki's disambiguations. And we're cutting down on Smash content, so it's best not to recreate pages on non-Mario Assist Trophy characters. Comments @Hewer: The reason the proposal is so long is, well, we effectively had to cover every apperance Stafy made in Mario-adjacent media, and then explain why we think it's fair enough that there's an article for that, but Stafy himself doesn't really warrant an article. As for the whole Starfy/Stafy thing, that's admittedly force of habit on our part; but now that you've brought it up, yes, we'd probably go with Starfy, as that's the most recent English name for him, with Stafy being a redirect. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:30, May 8, 2023 (EDT) Consider, if you will, how Mad Scienstein is handled. It seems relevant here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:05, May 8, 2023 (EDT) That's... A really good point, actually. Mad Scienstein is unequivocally considered fine enough to have his own article, despite originating from a non-Mario game under a name that got localized vastly different here in English. If nothing else, that's more than a sound reason to us to give Starfy something more than a redirect to Smash and nothing else. Don't know if we're on board for a Starfy article yet, but we can't blame anyone if our treatment of Scienstein sways others. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:11, May 8, 2023 (EDT) I really don't see how Scienstein is relevant here, seeing as unlike Starfy, any of his individual crossover appearances would have been enough for full article coverage on their own. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:54, May 9, 2023 (EDT) From what we'd assume; Mad Scienstein debuted in From Whom The Frog Bell Tolls, and later cameo as an enemy in Wario Land 4 before appearing elsewhere as cameos. Starfy debuted in... well, Stafy, and then made a cameo as an enemy in Super Princess Peach and made cameos elsewhere--though notably, a good chunk of those cameos were before Super Princess Peach, not after. Both also have different names in their appearance as an enemy (Arewo Shitain-hakase -> Mad Scienstein, Starfy -> Starfish). ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:10, May 9, 2023 (EDT) Actually, Sceinstein was an enemy in Wario Land 3, with a slightly alternate design (presumably under mind control, as he's Rudy's main minion in Dr. Mario 64, which uses the same design). In Wario Land 4, Scienstein is a throwable object in the secret rooms, and has a design that harkens back to that of his initial appearance in For Whom the Frog Bell Tolls. Mad Scienstein in Wario Land 3 seems definitely the best comparison with Starfish from Super Princess Peach: an enemy that is implied or outright confirmed to be a character from a more obscure Nintendo game, except with a slightly different design and name (Mad Scienstein's Japanese WL3 name is Mad Shitain, as opposed to the Dr. Arewo Shitain he has in both WL4 and Frog Bell Tolls). rend (talk) (edits) 14:19, May 9, 2023 (EDT) Move Banzai Bill to Bomber Bill and other related species Template:ProposalOutcome (I made this proposal here and not on the talk page since this doesn't just affect the main Banzai Bill page but also the other species) You may have noticed Banzai Bills are occasionally getting called "Bomber Bills" on occasion. At first, it seemed like either a strange case of censorship (regarding the LEGO sets) or a translation error (such as the English Mario Portal website). However, with The Super Mario Bros. Movie using this term now, I am heavily convinced that Bomber Bill is the new name. To explain, let me detail the history of Banzai Bill's renames. LEGO Mario Sets In the LEGO Super Mario sets, the Boomer Bill Barrage set includes Banzai Bills for you to add to your sets. As the set's name suggests, they are renamed "Boomer Bills". Why the name changed is unknown, but as just2good mentions in his censorship video, the word "Banzai" is a Japanese war cry. Now this rename isn't the only case of renames as they refer to Parabombs as "Parachute Bob-ombs" which has yet to appear in a mainline game or a feature-length movie. The LEGO set incident wouldn't be the best reason to rename them since it seems like it was just a LEGO thing. LEGO doesn't like to dip its toes into military themes unless it's fantasy (Star Wars), likely being a case of aiming the sets toward a family audience. And then came the English Mario Portal. English Mario Portal The Japanese Mario Portal website has the option to view certain elements of the page in English. The English localization on this website is intriguing, mainly because it took names from the Mario Encyclopedia, which also plagiarized the Mario Wiki. One of the odd things about it was the Banzai Bill translations. Their names are Bomber Bills. The Bull's-Eye Banzais are Bull's-Eye Bomber Bills. The Cat variation is Cat Bomber Bill. However, Gold Banzai Bill and Mad Banzai Bills are not localized yet. Now this website isn't perfect; there are some errors and kinks in terms of translations, and at that time, the term Bomber Bill had not appeared. But what was interesting was that it was somewhat a combination of the word "bomb" and "boomer", like the LEGO sets. That is particularly strange, but it wouldn't suggest a rename. Well, that is until now. The Super Mario Bros. Movie Now this section will contain spoilers. If you have yet to see the movie, I strongly suggest you do. It's a decent flick and does a proper job of adapting the Mario games into a story, and it does lack some of the severe flaws in other Illumination films. In this movie, Bowser is about to launch a giant Banzai Bill onto Peach's Castle. But here's the riveting thing; Bowser says, "Launch the Bomber Bill and DESTROY THE MUSHROOM KINGDOM!!" Woah, what?! Bowser just used the term "Bomber"! What does that mean? Well, the implications seem to be clear now. What seemed like censorship on LEGO's part or an odd translation goof on the Mario website, we now have a significant, full-length movie telling us it's a Bomber Bill. I didn't know about it until I randomly stumbled upon it on its page. The goal of this proposal It's pretty clear what this proposal is about: Moving Banzai Bill to Bomber Bill and making similar, relevant changes to its subspecies. The short story, the Bill has recently been referred to differently in its last few appearances. It could be possible to join Podoboo and Swooper for pointless name changes. I don't know about specific arguments people could have for keeping the old name. However, the one possible side point I could hear is that Banzai Bill is in Super Mario Maker 2, and unlike other Mario enemies, Banzai was in effect for a long time. And that is true, but the recent attempts at not calling this thing a Banzai Bill piqued my interest here. These articles will get these renames.: Banzai Bill to Bomber Bill Bull's-Eye Banzai to Bull's-Eye Bomber Bill Cat Banzai Bill to Cat Bomber Bill These articles will keep their names currently.: Gold Banzai Bill Mad Banzai Bill Banzai Bill Cannon The reasons are that they have yet to get an English translation. If they appear in future games and have the name Bomber Bills, we still call the cannons Banzai Bill Cannons if they aren't named in-game. If a new name for them comes out (like Bomber Bill Blasters), we call them that in their appearances with Bomber Bills as we did with Paragaloomba. Proposer: Wikiboy10 (talk) Deadline: May 24, 2023, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: May 18, 2023 Support Wikiboy10 (talk) Per proposal and The Super Mario Bros. Movie Oppose Arend (talk) I dunno, the name "Banzai Bill" has still been used fairly recently (like with Parabomb), and the movie is not 100% one-to-one with the games either. I'd wait until the games use "Bomber Bill" as well. Swallow (talk) I'd rather wait and see if at least one more game uses this name first, then I'll be more convinced Nintendo have settled on this as the new name. Hewer (talk) The Super Mario Bros. Movie actually has a few naming oddities like Blue Shell and Blue Mushroom, as well as calling the Tanooki Suit a Raccoon Suit. Lego Super Mario is also a bit of a stretch to use as evidence since it doesn't use Banzai Bill or Bomber Bill. Since we're yet to see this name in a source that doesn't have oddities like this, and the name "Banzai Bill" was still in use recently, I'd rather wait until the name gets used in more sources (preferably an actual game). I'll gladly support if the name ends up consistently getting used, though. Camwoodstock (talk) - Per all, we'd definitely give it at least one more instance of Bomber Bill over Banzai Bill--preferably in an actual game--before we put it to a vote. Banzai Bill was still in use as recently as Super Mario Maker 2 and Dr. Mario World in 2019, after all. also we still call lava bubbles "podoboos" out of habit 7feetunder (talk) I'm with the "wait for the actual games to start using it" camp. Spectrogram (talk) Per all. Cadrega86 (talk) Oppose until it's used in a game. SeanWheeler (talk) I heard Bowser call it the Banzai Bill in the movie. Ray Trace (talk) Not a regular occurrence and I think it's too early to make that call just yet. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all. TheFlameChomp (talk) I kind of expected to see a proposal about this, but "Banzai Bill" has still been used fairly recently in games and I would prefer that it is used in the context of a game before changing it. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. We should only change it if the games started using the name Bomber Bill instead of Banzai Bill. Comments @Seanwheeler He definitely says "Bomber". Nightwicked Bowser 16:21, May 17, 2023 (EDT) Nah, he said "Banzai." If he said "Bomber," I would have been confused. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:29, May 17, 2023 (EDT) Oh, goodness, is this gonna be the next Yanny/Laurel? We haven't seen the movie/don't have plans to, so we can't vouch for one side or the other... ;p ~Camwoodstock (talk) 01:04, May 18, 2023 (EDT) Regardless of what they were called in the movie, as other people said the name change haven't been made into the games yet. Also, LEGO called them Boomer Bills, not Bomber Bills, which leaves the Japanese site translated to English as the last source for "Bomber Bills." This proposal doesn't have any ground to stand on. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:38, May 18, 2023 (EDT) Oh boy, who would prevail: "Banzai" or "Bomber"? I have not watched the movie for the second time, so I don't know if ever I hear King Koopa utter banzai, or bomber.  PnnyCrygr  05:28, May 18, 2023 (EDT) I've seen the movie in theaters, the English version with Dutch subtitles to be specific. I'm pretty sure Bowser said "Bomber Bill", and I theorize that they were called "Bomber Bill" on the Mario Portal because of the movie. But regardless if he actually said "Bomber" or "Banzai", the movie still has several other inconsistencies that don't match one-to-one with the games (e.g. in the movie, Donkey Kong is Cranky's son, whilst in the games, he's Cranky's grandson). This is true for the names of several things as well, as Hewer stated before. So it doesn't really matter whether or not Bowser did call them "Bomber Bills", as the movie and the Portal aren't sufficient enough to rename the page of a character that's been used fairly recently and quite often. The most important thing is that we need to see the games themselves using said name, too, before we do anything. rend (talk) (edits) 06:20, May 18, 2023 (EDT) Create articles for Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix songs Template:ProposalOutcome My reasoning for this is simple: Our coverage policy is that levels get their own article. As a rhythm game, Mario Mix's songs are its equivalent of levels. Therefore, they should have their own article. I think these articles would be substantial enough to justify their existence on their own, as well. Each one would have an infobox primarily made to contain information on each difficulty's note count, and the article would cover the song's origin, role in Story Mode, what occurs in the background during the song, and what elements show up in Mush Mode. The elements in question here are the names of these articles, and whether they should cover all of the original song's Mario-series appearances (similarly to how Mario is Missing! opens up articles for landmarks that then appear in minor roles in Mario Kart Tour). I see multiple philosophies here, each with potential upsides and downsides. OPTION 1: Consider them all separate songs from their source material, thereby receiving entirely separate articles covering only their Mario Mix appearances. This approach neatly sidesteps all naming issues, and it works great with Moustache, Barrel, and Gorilla, which takes from multiple songs, but it also creates situations like Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) and Here We Go! being two separate articles. Maybe that makes sense, though, especially with our increasingly split-heavy approach to level articles. OPTION 2: Consider the Mario Mix songs arrangements of the song they're based on, and give those songs articles covering all their appearances, including their Mario Mix ones with the information outlined above. (Note that Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.), Underwater Theme, Fever, and Underground Theme all already exist.) This works excellently with things like Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros. 2) and Athletic Theme (Super Mario Bros. 3, but it also results in things like Greenhorn Forest (song), having to decide on which Double Dash!! circuit to name Rollercoasting's article after, and Moustache, Barrel, and Gorilla. Most unfortunate here is the classical music - Mario Mix is most of these tracks' only relevance to the series, so it feels odd to have Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and not Underground Mozart, Overture (Carmen) instead of Garden Boogie, and especially Tritsch-Tratsch Polka instead of Always Smiling (seriously, they barely sound like each other). Maybe it wouldn't be a big deal since the Mario Mix names would all be redirects, but this still doesn't seem ideal. OPTION 3: They're arrangements again, and we still cover its other appearances, but this time we use the Mario Mix names because those were the names when the songs were most mechanically relevant. The upside of this is that all the naming stuff that was awkward with option 2 disappears. The downside is that we're naming the articles for all these recurring and important songs after what this one obscure GameCube game called them once. This would rename the Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) to Here We Go!. It doesn't seem like the right move to me. OPTION 4: Articles still cover all appearances of the song, but this time we name them on a case-by-case basis. With a few exceptions, the classical songs will use their Mario Mix names since that's their only relevance to the series, while Mario songs will use their original titles and be covered in articles that also cover all the other appearances of the song. The exceptions are Moustache, Barrel, and Gorilla, which is a combination of multiple songs from the original Donkey Kong; Ms. Mowz's Song, because the name "Ms. Mowz's Theme" is close but has never been official as far as I can tell; Bowser's Castle (song), which needs the identifier for obvious reasons; and Piroli, which would use its Mario Mix name in absence of having anything better to call it. The disadvantage of this option is its lack of consistency, but it doesn't suffer from any of the awkwardness of the previous two options. Oh, one more thing: yes, my argument for making Mario Mix song articles does also apply to the Donkey Konga series. I was originally planning on this proposal extending to those games as well, but I'm much less familiar and their situations are slightly different in many places, so I decided to just focus on Mario Mix for now. Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk) Deadline: May 18, 2023, 23:59 GMT Option 1: Articles cover only Mario Mix, use Mario Mix names Ahemtoday (talk) I can easily see the reasoning for this one. While I'd probably prefer option 4, this also seems like it could be the right move. Hewer (talk) Per proposal and these being the equivalent of level articles. RHG1951 (talk) After seeing the drafts, I prefer the information be handled this way. 7feetunder (talk) No reason to pretend that articles for what are essentially just random music tracks that just happened to get redone for a dancing game would exist if they didn't appear in said dancing game. As for the issue of creating "redundant" articles, I see no problem here. We should be treating these like level articles, not music articles. The logic behind this proposal is that these are this game's equivalent of levels, not that Toy Dream's background music magically becomes article-worthy because it appeared in this game. It's no more redundant than splitting DKC boss level articles from the bosses when they're pretty much interchangeable. Arend (talk) Actually yeah, 7feetunder brings up a good point I should've thought about while voting earlier: the articles should be about levels first and music second, not the other way around. Per. Option 2: Articles cover all appearances, use original names #Arend (talk) Second choice, see Option 4 reasons. Option 3: Articles cover all appearances, use Mario Mix names Option 4: Articles cover all appearances, named on case-by-case basis Ahemtoday (talk) This is my favored option. Articles like Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) show that major enough Mario-series songs can warrant articles, and here we have a bunch of songs that are directly mechanically relevant, being the game's equivalent of levels. Camwoodstock (talk) This works for us. Don't want to avoid having articles for effectively redundant tracks, but having articles for as many tracks as make sense/within reason would definitely help a lot more with coverage, especially since the tracks are fairly distinct from one another (at least, as far as we could tell; admittedly, we're not very familiar with DDR Mario Mix, but what we've seen and what we understand about it and other DDR games checks out). #Arend (talk) I too feel like this (or Option 2) is the best option too, given that Option 1 might gives us multiple articles of themes we already have an article of, and Option 3 would give single-game song titles of remixes to the original themes that already have more well-known names. Sure, Ahemtoday's draft on Greenhorn Forest with this option isn't the best example, given the long list of appearances of the Greenhorn Forest leitmotif in Wario World, but I feel like that could be rewritten into a regular paragraph as well. Option 5: Do not create articles Comments Personally, I think we should consider an attempt to list the original music for each arrangement more correctly; for instance, this table lists the original music for "Pirate Dance" being the Athletic theme of Super Mario World, yet the beginning is clearly based on the intro for Super Mario World's Ground theme; and with "Step by Step", the original music is listed as "Bonus game / Switch Palace" from Super Mario World: not only parsed with spaces as if they're two different tunes (even though they share the same music), but I believe it's also an arrangement of Vanilla Dome, also from Super Mario World, which the table fails to mention completely. "Step By Step" could also be a slower-paces arrangement of the Athletic theme instead of "Pirate Dance", the intro for "Step by Step" does sound like a mix between that and Vanilla Dome. I don't know if the current listings were originally from Nintendo themselves or not, but I think some more thorough research may be in order for a couple of tracks. rend (talk) (edits) 19:44, May 11, 2023 (EDT) For clarification, do options 2-4 create separate pages for the music like the recurring themes in Category:Musical themes or are they included in the Mario Mix level page itself like with Gusty Garden Galaxy § Music? If it's the former, the original proposal for covering recurring themes specifies that a theme needs to appear in at least 8 unique games. - RHG1951 (talk) 11:17, May 12, 2023 (EDT) What I was envisioning happening was: if one of those options wins, we create (as an example) the article Lots of Toys. This article has sections for both the song's appearance in Mario Party 5 as Toy Dream's theme, and its appearance in Mario Mix as Cabin Fever, which would be a redirect to that section (or simply the name of the article in option 3). I think that's the second thing. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:53, May 12, 2023 (EDT) I'd personally prefer to see a draft of an article before I throw my hat in the ring. If I do support, I'm definitely picking option 1 - most of the tracks in Mario Mix are neither major recurring themes nor original songs ("songs" meaning they have lyrics, like Phantom of the Bwahpera), so we should be treating these like level articles, not song articles. Plus it's just awkward to be like "yeah here's an article on the music from Toy Dream even though none of the other Mario Party board themes have one; it appeared in some rhythm game so that makes it special". I am completely opposed to making song articles for the Donkey Konga games. There's no storyline or scenario behind the songs in that game, so articles on them would ultimately boil down to lyrics sheets for a bunch of random pop and rock songs. At best they warrant a list, like ones we have for the Mario cartoons. 09:24, May 13, 2023 (EDT) Gotcha. I made a couple drafts for Starring Wario!: This one for option 1, and this one for option 4 (though it can be easily repurposed for options 2 and 3 with only minor changes). I chose Starring Wario mostly at random, for the record. Ahemtoday (talk) 16:57, May 13, 2023 (EDT) ...y'know, on second thought, maybe I should've chosen a different song. They wouldn't all have big weird lists like that, I swear. (Though maybe that's just a sign I needed to stretch to fill the Wario World section with halfway-worthwhile information...) Ahemtoday (talk) 19:24, May 13, 2023 (EDT) Split major classic remakes Template:ProposalOutcome I was inspired by the Mario Bros. split proposal to make this proposal. Essentially, we have some remakes, like SM64/DS, the SMA series, & SMBDX split. With the Switch/3DS remake proposal, I feel like someone should do a classic remake proposal, whence why I'm doing this. There are 3 options. Option 1 splits all major remakes. Option 2 only splits major remakes that would be in a strict definition. Option 3 is the "do nothing" option. Proposer: SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Deadline: May 19, 2023, 23:59 GMT Option 1 SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) This is my perferred option. Option 2 SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) I'm fine with this, though. Secondary option. Option 3 SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Of course, if enough people are fine with the inconsistency, this would be fine, too. Tertiary option. Hewer (talk) This proposal is extremely vague and unclear in what it's trying to achieve and I still don't really see the point of it, so I'll oppose. Spectrogram (talk) Per Hewer, and the fact that the proposer doesn't seem to know which games would be split as well. Even if the goal of this proposal is to open a door for future splits, that door was never closed in the first place, and it's better to determine what needs to be split on a case-by-case basis. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Spectrogram. This proposal in its current state is in this uncomfortable middle ground between being way too vague and having way too many potential ramifications. What's... What's even meant to be enacted if this passes? What articles are being effected? What does this policy mean?! It was mentioned this was apparently meant to be the prelude to determining potential articles to split in future proposals, but honestly, you need to lead with that, because we don't want to say "yeah, let's do it!" and then it turns out exactly 0 of the given games are remakes we agree should be split up, rendering everything a moot point anyways as we end up with some protocol that has an "exceptions" list that covers every possible application. Arend (talk) Per all: It is extremely unclear which articles the proposer wants to split, especially regarding Option 2 which would split major remakes that "would be in a strict definition" (and even when clarifying that it would be like how we split modern remakes on a case-by-case basis, it's still rather vague). Clarity is key for a proposal with big ramifications like this one, so the proposer should make sure to provide a list of which articles would be split under Option 1, and a list of which would be split under Option 2; yet, they didn't provide any of these lists. Even when asked, it gets totally ignored in favor of other questions. This makes Spectrogram's theory of the proposer actually having no idea what games should be split very plausible, which, for a proposal like this, is a huge problem. If you don't know what should be split for your proposal to split articles, then why bother making it? Should this proposal be tried by someone else another day, please think of the articles you want to split first, and make sure to list them when you do make the proposal. RealStuffMister (talk) per all. everyone else here has said it perfectly. Comments What exactly do you mean by "classic remake" here? That's much too vague. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:48, May 12, 2023 (EDT) What games would fall in the scope of this proposal? Spectrogram (talk) 12:51, May 12, 2023 (EDT) What "major classic remakes" are we talking about here? Which ones "would be in a strict definition"? Are there "minor remakes" we're excluding here? Ahemtoday (talk) 12:55, May 12, 2023 (EDT) Whoa! Already, you 3 ask this! Not being rude, of course. Now, to answer Doc's question, "classic remake" is a remake of a classic game, unlike a "modern remake" which is something like Donkey Kong Country Returns 3DS, or Tropical Freeze Switch. To answer Spectrogram's question, games like Super Mario Bros, Donkey Kong, and so on, would fall in the scope of this proposal. Mario Bros is not included due to there already being a passed proposal for it. To answer Ahemtoday's questions, here's my answers. 1. I'm talking about remakes of a game like Super Mario All-Stars' remakes of SMB1, TLL, 2, & 3 that are still in the articles of the OG game. 2. Strict definition would be something akin to the DKC games mentioned earlier, Luigi's Mansion 3DS, & Poochy & Yoshi's Wooly World. 3. Minor remakes would be like splitting Mario Bros. Classic from Mario Bros. Battle, or Super Mario Bros. with its' FDS version. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:57, May 12, 2023 (CST) I think they were asking for a complete list of what articles would be split with each option. By the way, you should probably remove at least one of your votes, voting for every option is effectively the same as not voting at all. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:35, May 12, 2023 (EDT) @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) One user cannot support to every option at the same time. They should support to at most, one option.  PnnyCrygr  00:01, May 13, 2023 (EDT) You can support multiple. But not all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:26, May 13, 2023 (EDT) I must say, this is probably the first time I've seen a proposer put their support in all options of their proposal. I don't think it's allowed to vote for every option though, because as Waluigi Time said, it's essentially like not voting at all. If every option is given a vote by the same person, it doesn't make a significant change in the standings. Another thing: I'm really confused at what the difference between options 1 and 2 are. Option 1 is "Split all major remakes", that sounds clear enough, but Option 2 is "Only split major remakes that would be in a strict definition", and reading that, I'm like: "what would does 'in a strict definition' even mean?!" I got to ask, what games are affected with option 2, and which games are not affected? I know Ahemtoday already asked what "in a strict definition" meant and you already answered that, but I don't feel any more enlightened with the three examples you gave him. All I'm certain of is that minor remakes won't be affected by either option. Listing all games that will be or won't be affected by either option (similar to this or this) would help a lot, as Waluigi Time said. rend (talk) (edits) 02:40, May 13, 2023 (EDT) There is no rule against voting for every option on a proposal with multiple options though Spectrogram (talk) 03:09, May 13, 2023 (EDT) There's no rule against it because it doesn't really hurt anything, but it's also pointless to do so. You can vote for every option, but you shouldn't because it accomplishes nothing. There's no difference between the current state of the proposal and if the proposer had decided not to vote at all. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:14, May 15, 2023 (EDT) WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!! JEEZ! This is crazy! Let me try to clear more things up. Waluigi Time, PnnyCygr, Doc, & Arend have good points on voting, but I think on that matter Spectrogram sums it up perfectly. On the topic of what falls under 2, I was talking about how we split modern remakes under a case-by-case basis, option 2 would essentially be like that. It's nice to know that you understood option 1! One last thing. PnnyCygr, that at symbol thing made me get Porplemontage vibes. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:39, May 15, 2023 (CST) So do you have a list of games that would be split if option 2 passes, or is it just meant to pave the way for future proposals? -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:14, May 15, 2023 (EDT) The second one. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:42, May 15, 2023 (CST) Look, man, we cannot really work here if we don't get any specific games that need to be split off, at least for Option 2. While I appreciate the slight clarity with the case-by-case explanation, that doesn't mean much without examples. Just give us a full list of what articles would be affected for Option 1, and a more trimmed-down list for the articles that would be affected for Option 2. And if you can't provide such lists, then perhaps this proposal a bit undercooked. It's quite vague as it is, so you might need to take some time, think it through, etc. rend (talk) (edits) 17:35, May 15, 2023 (EDT) Fine, no one likes this. Can an admin cancel this, then? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:30, May 15, 2023 (CST) If you cannot wait for an admin to veto/cancel it, you can always move your proposal from here to MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive. Make sure you reach the bottom end of the archive page (press the End key), then cut this proposal above and paste into that archive. Hope it help.  PnnyCrygr  09:26, May 16, 2023 (EDT) This is incorrect. "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals)." Spectrogram (talk) 09:36, May 16, 2023 (EDT) Oh. sorry about that. I thought proposals can be cancelled within any amount of time (remember my sonic character proposal?).  PnnyCrygr  09:42, May 16, 2023 (EDT) Make changes to MarioWiki's editbox wallpaper Template:ProposalOutcome The editbox is the field where one can type their edits into. But the most overlooked cosmetic aspect of the editbox is its wallpaper thing: Those strings of character artwork located at the bottom half of the editbox. Currently, it features 2000s artwork (Luigi, Mario Sunshine with Yoshi, Princess Peach, Luigi, Mario Sunshine with Yoshi), as somehow the wiki was established in the 2000s. The editbox's wallpaper pattern as of now looks like this: If changes were to be made to it, I would elaborate on these three options: Give new changeable designs to the editbox wallpaper: We could implement new designs to the editbox's wallpaper. This could be changeable in Special:Preferences, under Editing. There could be countless designs: "Mario Kart", "Paper Mario", "Mario Party", "WarioWare", "Donkey Kong Country (game series)", "Wario Land", "Luigi Mansion", "Yoshi's Island", "Yoshi's Wooly/Crafted World", the list goes on and on. Just update the existing wallpaper design with new Mario franchise artwork: The editbox still looks like it's from the 2000s, so maybe we can just replace the old art with the 2017-present promo arts of Mario characters. Do nothing: Do not like these changes? Please feel free to state your reasons for choosing this option. Proposer: PnnyCrygr (talk) Deadline: May 21, 2023, 19:06 EDT Give new changeable designs to the editbox wallpaper PnnyCrygr (talk) Per explanations above, as I would like more variety to the edit box wallpaper. MegaBowser64 (talk) I agree. I suggest implementing new wallpapers based on specific games, while keeping the old theme as a Super Mario Sunshine wallpaper. I don’t really see what’s wrong with it, I mean sure it isn’t from a recent game, but in no way does that mean that we have to eradicate it from the wiki. After all, the Mario franchise is based on nostalgia. Just because it’s from 2002 doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a place on the wiki. Just update the existing wallpaper design with new Mario franchise artwork Camwoodstock (talk) - Having renders from mid-2000s games that are as high quality as the mid-2000s internet would allow us to get our hands on on bold, proud display as the default, in the year 2023, feels almost comically out of date, right? Updating this to be more in-line with the site aesthetics we've grown into since implementing this is way overdue. It's not 2005 anymore (citation needed), so like, if we've updated the wiki logo and various other parts of the wiki's graphics and visuals since then, why should the thing you're forced to see whenever you edit an article--the thing we see as we write this vote and constantly revise it--be some exception? We'd like to suggest, as Koopa con Carne indirectly mentioned, the designs mentioned on the Main Page's talkpage for a potential candidate. Anything a bit more recent than renders that can literally become US Citizens in how old they are! Somethingone (talk) Thank you Camwood for clearing the purpose of this proposal up for me; per Camwood. Hewer (talk) Per all, I've thought the editing field looks bad literally ever since I first saw it so I've long awaited this change. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Updating the renders would be the best call. Arend (talk) Per Camwoodstock. The current edit box image appears make use of low-quality JPGs of outdated artwork and might have never been updated since its inception on the wiki, so let's focus on just updating that first. While it would be real neat to have different edit box skins with specific themes for the novices which may find CSS code too advanced for them, I'm not sure if the suggested manner of having it in Special:Preferences can be easily arranged, since I don't think admins can customize that. Maybe Porplemontage (talk) could, being the wiki proprietor, but you might have to ask. So let's not get too overambitious and just stick with updating the one edit box style we have. Dinoshi 64 (talk) While I do find the current design sort of charming with its 2000's-ish style, I do think it should be changed to something better. Ray Trace (talk) The current one is terrible. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all. It's time to renovate the design and get rid of the ancient renders. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all. Do nothing #Somethingone (talk) I really don't see how the edit box featuring artwork from the 2000s is a bad thing. Is it because they have been replaced by newer artwork? I don't see why that would be a reason to replace them for OOW cosmetic reasons, such as the background of the edit box. Also, per KCC in the comments regarding customization; if it is really an issue for someone, they can change how it looks on their own end. Comments Users can personalise their editing field any way they want with some HTML knowledge through a "monobook.css" user subpage. I do agree that the default editing field skin would benefit from an upgrade, but there should be some consensus on it beforehand. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:16, May 14, 2023 (EDT) There'd have to be more to the proposed themes than just names for us to vote for changeable designs outright, but we're down to update the default if nothing else, because... well, see our statement. Also... Listen. We get it, a user can customize them on their end, so who cares about the default, right? ...But that's not to say that your average user will customize their background, or even if they know how to do that. Being real here, most people would probably just accept they don't know how to do that, and decide to grin and bear it, and slowly tune it out until it all becomes background noise anyways, just another mild eyebrow-raiser to add to the pile, another thing you just have to kind of insist someone will "get used to" whenever it comes up. Like us, we did that. Well, except that last one. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:13, May 14, 2023 (EDT) Come to think of it--should this proposal pass in the favor of option 2 (just update the renders), would we have a second proposal to determine which option we change to based on a select few options (yes, likely these ones, again)? We'd assume the answer is yes, but y'know, we want to make sure all the bases are covered here. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:17, May 15, 2023 (EDT) Maybe we could use this design from Mario Maker 2? I think it fits very well for an editing field! (Maybe you'd need to remove the SMM2 text on it but otherwise it should be fine) Dinoshi 64 Yoshi, Yoshi! 01:44, May 18, 2023 (EDT) I dunno, I would prefer something more general as opposed to something more game-specific. I'd also prefer the background to be white, instead of yellow: I don't mind colors in the editing field, but I feel like the background shouldn't drastically change the color if the editing field itself. rend (talk) (edits) 06:32, May 18, 2023 (EDT) I don't think a design being too "game-specific" is enough to disqualify it, and you could just edit the image to be colored white. But, I guess as a second option we could use this one instead, it is less specific after all, and it's easier to edit to white. Dinoshi 64 Yoshi, Yoshi! 06:44, May 18, 2023 (EDT) In a perfect world, we'd be able to offer multiple options that a purveying editor could select in their account settings, like the first option suggests. Of course, that's a little high-tech at the moment, so it's probably best to not get too far ahead and just settle on something that'd be a very good all-around option; if someone like, say, Porplemontage wants to figure out how to implement that, then we can start mucking about with stuff like offering alternative skins. (Also, one of the renders in the current banner is very explicitly Sunshine, so make of that what you will?) ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:40, May 18, 2023 (EDT) In the meantime, that background for our proposals space is also tacky as mac-n-cheese pizza. Mama mia. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:21, May 18, 2023 (EDT) The section option is not good. I wouldn't vote for it unless we have a clear idea what we're replacing it with. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:28, May 20, 2023 (EDT) @MegaBowser64: Calling the current design a Super Mario Sunshine wallpaper is pretty inaccurate since only one of the artworks is actually pertinent to that game, the Peach artwork being from Mario Party 6 (Peach wore a different outfit in Sunshine) and the Luigi artwork from Super Mario 64 DS (Luigi wasn't even in Sunshine). The current artwork just does a bad job at representing the overall Mario franchise by using a few old and outdated renders, one of which is clearly specific to a particular game due to its inclusion of FLUDD. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:30, May 20, 2023 (EDT) I shot up a discussion on Talk:Main Page a while back (Edit: it's been mentioned in a vote) Talk:Main_Page#That_editing_field... because there's no other better place to start the discussion besides maybe a forum thread, but I guess it got overlooked besides a few comments. The link also includes image suggestions. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:16, May 18, 2023 (EDT) Way back, I did not look at the discuss page of the Homepage. I did not consider it in mind when composing this proposal. But, looks like 2nd option would win.  PnnyCrygr  20:57, May 18, 2023 (EDT)