MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69

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 Determine a minimum number of glitches in a game to warrant a separate list article 5 is the mininum number of glitches 0-0-9-0 I've noticed some strange discrepancies regarding how glitches are handled when a game has only 3 or 4 of them documented here. Wario Land 4 has a separate article for its 3 glitches (List of Wario Land 4 glitches), but every other game with 3 glitches simply has those glitches merged with the game's page. Specifically, Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Strikers, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), and, most glaringly, Wario Land 3 have sections for glitches rather than separate lists. More complicated is figuring out how to deal with games with 4 glitches. Of the 6 games with 4 documented glitches: 4 of them have glitches merged into the main article: Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Donkey Kong Land, Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle 2 of them have separate "List of glitches" articles: Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem!, Super Mario Advance I put forward this proposal to determine a minimum number of glitches for the creation of "List of glitches" articles. That way, there is consistency between games with the same number of documented glitches. Additionally, if new glitches are documented later that brings the total number over this minimum, a new page can easily be created without the need for a proposal, as the editor can cite this proposal. Option 1 The minimum number of glitches should be 3. "List of glitches" pages would be created for Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), and Wario Land 3 to match that of Wario Land 4. Option 2 The minimum number of glitches should be 4. List of Wario Land 4 glitches would be deleted and its glitches merged into the main game's article. "List of glitches" pages would be created for Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Donkey Kong Land, and Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. Option 3 The minimum number of glitches should be 5. List of Wario Land 4 glitches, List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches, and List of Super Mario Advance glitches would be deleted, with the glitches merged into each game's main article. Do nothing There should be no concrete minimum, and whether glitches should be split or not should be discussed on a game-by-game basis. I could continue with 6, 7, etc., but I feel once this point is reached there is enough to warrant separate "List of glitches" articles, especially since game articles are typically long and images are usually needed to showcase glitches, taking up more space. Proposer: Technetium (talk) Deadline: August 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Technetium (talk) I am a bit torn between Options 2 and 3, but I prefer this one as I feel 4 glitches can easily fit on a game's page, as seen with the examples above. Hewer (talk) I don't particularly mind what the minimum number of glitches is, but I agree that there should be a minimum in order to have some more consistency, and a smaller minimum may cause unnecessary splits of small glitch lists, so I'll go for this option. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. (I really love glitches, so I'm glad this is being settled.) Jazama (talk) Per all ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all; it's good for consistency to have a standard for this. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Nintendo101 (talk) Good idea! Do nothing Comments From what I can tell, articles on this wiki are usually split based on size, not the number of headings. It's why List of Fortune Street quotes is split into Dragon Quest characters (A-J / K-Z) and Super Mario characters (A-M / N-Z) and why the number of headings in these articles is inconsistent. I think it'd be weird to split lists of glitches based strictly on the number of sections rather than the amount of text since that could lead to very short articles that only list a few very minor glitches that can be described in just a few sentences. Dive Rocket Launcher 22:50, August 15, 2024 (EDT) Yeah, I'm aware of that. It just feels different here because glitch descriptions tend to be around the same length. If you look at the examples I discussed in the proposal, you'll find there really isn't a noticeable size difference between the pages that have their glitches merged vs separate. Truth be told, I was originally going to just make a talk page proposal to merge List of Wario Land 4 glitches, but the discrepancies with the pages with 4 glitches led to me coming up with this. I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas on how to make things more consistent, because the way things are currently is frankly bugging me. --Technetium (talk) 23:02, August 15, 2024 (EDT) Adjust proposal rule 9 to prevent exploitation canceled by proposer Put into effect in an alternate solution by proprietor So I realized an issue with Proposal Rule 9 while I was whinily bitching about a proposal I didn't like passing like the selfish little megalomaniac I am (long story there... at least a good realization came out of it) and that is that, by the current setup, the "difference of three votes" only applies for two-option proposal. If a proposal has more than that many options, it is solely decided by being over 50%... regardless of how many options actually have votes in them. This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement. As such, I propose that the rule be amended so that unless there are three options with at least one vote that isn't the proposer's own, it be treated the same as a two-option proposal. Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Deadline: September 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Arend (talk) Doc's points in the comments have enlightened me more to understand the necessity of this amendment. Also it makes multi-option proposals where there's really only two options being voted for more consistent with our regular two-option proposals. Shoey (talk) Per Doc it's silly that a proposal like https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Coin_bag#Split_the_Mario_Party_Coin_Bag_from_the_Super_Princess_Peach_Coin_Bag can pass because of options that have almost no support. Mario (talk) Given the confusion time and time again this rule has inflicted on the wiki historically,[1][2] due to going against basic intuition (and relying too much on head spinning percentages) I rather just kill this particular clause of that rule with fire and simply have multioption proposals follow a similar rule to two-option proposals: one option with majority of votes over a 3 vote margin passes, which this proposal is going. If not, extend it. A 6-5-1-0 is NOT a consensus; neither is 9-8. Both of these should've been extended. SeanWheeler (talk) Changing my vote because if Super Mario Wiki doesn't allow for an ex post facto law to extend already closed proposals, then there's really nothing to worry about. Doc's right, it's not fair to get arrested for a law change without warning, and the idea of this proposal being used to cheat the previous proposal goes against what this proposal is about. And besides it's better to have more consistent rules on voting. Oppose Super Mario RPG (talk) This has never been an issue for all these years we've had proposals, otherwise the amendment would've been proposed and/or added long ago. There's also the margin-of-three-votes rule for proposals with ten or more votes. Also, keep in mind the user proposing this was vehemently opposed to a proposal that I made that passed with a 9-1-1-8 vote and is trying any means possible to undo it, including the drafting of another proposal in late September that is sneaking in a provision to undo the one that passed yesterday, which is another way of saying "we want Pokemon content back on the wiki despite the Poke Ball lists being removed for the reason of lacking any further connection to Super Mario than any other franchises in the Super Smash Bros. series. #SeanWheeler (talk) If you want to reverse a recent proposal, you have to wait a month to do so. Reverse the rule order, change none of the text Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This is an exaggerated example of what I'm trying to prevent, don't take it seriously. Comments I'm kinda half-on-half on this. On the one hand, amendments like these to prevent exploiting loopholes like those is always fine, but on the other hand, I wonder if it's even necessary? Proposers can only change and edit their proposals in the first three days since launch (or first six days if it's a TPP). This is just under halfway through the proposal length, which gives other users ample time to consider voting for a new third option if it's being added at the latest time possible. Even when an option has been added in bad faith, users can bring notice to it in the comments or report it to admins. So while I'm not opposed to this amendment, I think I'm more favoring it for the sake of consistency, rather than to combat exploits, since the 3-6-day limit thing already does that as well. The rules section might need a bit of an overhaul regardless: There's been talks already how Rule 9 sounds a bit confusing due to its wording regarding the required amount of voters, and it's also been stated that the entire section is an unsorted mess with little to no examples for clarity. rend (talk) (edits) 18:07, August 29, 2024 (EDT) It's not about retroactively adding an option. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:25, August 29, 2024 (EDT) ...did you misinterpret my whole message or something? You literally said "This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement." That is LITERALLY "retroactively adding an option", isn't it? And this proposal is about preventing such an exploit, right? As in, what I literally have been talking about as well? rend (talk) (edits) 19:12, August 29, 2024 (EDT) You seem to have missed the point. This is about putting in a dummy option in general, not about doing so at a specific time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:56, August 29, 2024 (EDT) So you HAVE misinterpreted my message (at least somewhat), because I AM well aware that this is about putting a dummy option in general. The thing is, as I stated before, proposers can only edit their proposals within the first three days since launch, which is to say, they cannot add a third option like 5 minutes before the deadline to cheat the system. After those three days, they're locked from editing the proposal, and other users have four days to consider voting for that third option (which is more than the 3 days the proposer was allowed to edit their proposal. All this stuff I said about specific time limits is to say that we already have a method to combat exploits like this, making this extra stipulation for combatting the same exploit kind of redundant, as the most this does is treating multi-option proposals where really only two sides are being voted on, the same as a regular two-option proposal (which admittedly is at least consistent). If you're worried about people using these exploits within the 3-day limit, that's technically also addressed, as I already stated "Even when an option has been added in bad faith, users can bring notice to it in the comments or report it to admins." If you're still worried that this doesn't solve your problem, then I think it's better to add a rule to not add (bad-faith) dummy options (or editing proposals in bad faith in general) for the sake of exploiting the rules. I'll admit that your proposed changes will help bring consistency across proposals, and also will help with preventing third-option exploits from being passed so easily, but I don't think it'll prevent proposers from attempting them within those first three days anyway (hoping in the off-chance that someone will vote for that dummy option), so it'd be wise to remind them that editing a proposal in bad faith is against the rules. rend (talk) (edits) 21:16, August 29, 2024 (EDT) Where are you getting the "after the proposal is created" part from? This is including if it's made with three options, one of which is valid-but-undesirable-to-anyone-involved. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:22, August 29, 2024 (EDT) The statement of yours I quoted before: "This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement.". I interpreted that as someone adding it in later, as opposed to it being already there from the beginning. Thank you for clarifying that you meant both of those instead of only the former, though. rend (talk) (edits) 21:30, August 29, 2024 (EDT) ...yes, "add in" as in a synonym to "include." Sorry for the confusion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:38, August 29, 2024 (EDT) It's OK man. Perhaps I was being too pigheaded myself to realize other interpretations. Anyway, with that in mind, I understand the necessity to add this stipulation a bit more now, because the 3-day edit limit obviously cannot prevent what's there from the beginning, and now there's a 3-day limit to convince the proposer to remove the dummy option instead. rend (talk) (edits) 21:48, August 29, 2024 (EDT) @Super Mario RPG - You're ignoring that our rules for proposal passing and failing have changed several times over the past few years thanks to various proposals. This is just something that was overlooked (the fact a sysop thanked me for bringing this up initially helps me think this was a good idea). Also, I'm not trying to "undo" your proposal by a retroactive rule change, that's not how amendments work. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:19, August 29, 2024 (EDT) If this proposal passes and gets enforced, wouldn't that proposal be affected? Probably should wait four weeks to do make this proposal. Like how I decided to wait after the proposal to move Shadow (character) back to Shadow the Hedgehog to fail before I could start the proposal to move the crossover characters back to their proper names. I could have started that proposal yesterday, but I need to find instances of the Mario & Sonic games referring to the Sonic characters by their full names before I could start that proposal. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:51, August 29, 2024 (EDT) No? You can't (and shouldn't) retroactively enforce a rule that did not exist yet, that's not fair (also that would probably affect a lot of other proposals, and I'm not interested in going down that rabbit trail even if it was ethical). That's why when prohibition was passed everyone who had drank alcohol before wasn't arrested. It's the same deal here. While I want to repeal that proposal, I want to do so the fair-and-square way in a month, not through some dirty underhanded trick. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:13, August 30, 2024 (EDT) I feel like this proposal has actually nothing to do with Rule 9: a margin of votes has nothing to do with majority support. I think we should amend Rule 10 instead to remove the reference to "proposals with only voting options" and extend it to multioption proposals. For example: "Rule 10: If the two most voted options of a proposal gather more than ten votes between them and the vote count difference of those two options is less than three, then the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all." That way, Rule 10 would still work the same as it does now for proposals with only two options, and multioption proposals would need to satisfy both Rule 9 (majority support is needed to ensure that most voters have voted for the winning option) and Rule 10. Jdtendo(T|C) 01:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT) I agree with Doc and the issue at hand, but I want to update the rule in a slightly more comprehensive way than suggested. I've done that and this is canceled! --Steve (talk) 04:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT) Do not use t-posing models as infobox images Do not use t-posing models as infobox images 16-0 Self-explainatory aim for this proposal with the title, I'm proposing because I personally don't think t-posing models look good as introductory images. One case in point is on the Mega Baby Bowser article which used a t-posing model as its infobox image but was changed to a screenshot. Angler Poplin is an article that currently uses a t-posing model. Should this proposal pass, in-game screenshots will be used instead of t-posing images, or if possible a model which is not in a t-pose. Proposer: Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Deadline: September 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal Super Mario RPG (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. Technetium (talk) Per proposal. Sparks (talk) Per all. ThePowerPlayer (talk) T-poses are clearly not how the characters are meant to be portrayed. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us! Per proposal. Ray Trace (talk) This should also include non-t-posed bind models (a-posed models, nonbipedal characters) as well but that's a matter of jargon really. SeanWheeler (talk) Considering I went through the effort of posing the characters of my game Speed Prix before I uploaded them to the Speed Prix Wiki, I know T-poses are not good infobox images. And in the context of Mario games that you're not developing yourself, if artwork is not available, just use screenshots. That is much easier to get. The Models Resource is incomplete. And with other media, we have to. Axii (talk) Per proposal. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Yeah, it looks strange and creepy with the t-poses. Per proposal. PaperSplash (talk) Per proposal. I especially agree that screenshots would be better. Arend (talk) Pose accuracy should take priority over asserting dominance. Mario (talk) Only if T-posing/A-posing/bind posing with a blank expression is part of the character's personality or something. However in the case something that's never used in a game but represented by a 3d model surfaces (Walpeach for instance; let's pretend there's never a sketch for her either), and there's an article and an infobox for it, we probably naturally need to use it but I assume the proposal isn't ridiculously strict in that matter. Jazama (talk) Per all Oppose Comments There's an issue in that many models in earlier 3D games do not have an easily decipherable rigging or animation system. For instance, on The Models Resource, the Luigi's Mansion model uploads lack proper pose data, so they're just automatically T-posed. I do think non T-posed ones should be prioritized, but prohibiting them fully is not the way to go because that's sometimes the only clear option. EDIT: Never mind, I didn't see the "infobox" part of the proposal. I mistook this for a blanket ban. My apologies. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:53, August 25, 2024 (EDT) Screenshots of the subjects in the game are strongly preferred regardless. Ray Trace(T|C) 21:58, August 25, 2024 (EDT) I agree with Ray Trace. If one did not have an organic looking model, couldn't one just use a screenshot? - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:01, August 25, 2024 (EDT) That's still assuming you either have an emulator available or can find a high enough quality video at the proper dimensions. In several cases, the preview image on The Models Resource is the most available option (such as for the Mario Party games on N64). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:04, August 25, 2024 (EDT) There is no shame in taking a screenshot of a YouTube let's play. Not ideal, but I think it is more serviceable than a t-posed model. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:08, August 25, 2024 (EDT) Well I mean that's still assuming you can find one at all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:09, August 25, 2024 (EDT) Editors should take all their screenshots with emulation regardless. Ray Trace(T|C) 23:27, August 25, 2024 (EDT) With how rabid Nintendo can be about ROMs and such, that's sometimes easier said than done. (Plus plenty games have outright never been dumped or officially ported, particularly the more obscure ones; there's a reason there's no maps or screenshots for "Champions' Course" in Golf: Japan Course.) That also assumes one's device has the ability to actually run said emulators or the space for them; even with high-dollar gaming laptops I've had trouble with more advanced game system emulation in that regard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:49, August 25, 2024 (EDT) With the right tools and resources, ROMs aren't difficult to find at all. And, by the way, those are rare cases and have little to do with the proposal which deals with models. Ray Trace(T|C) 21:59, August 26, 2024 (EDT) Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games create sections for unused/pre-release/prototype graphics on gallery pages 13-1 This has been bouncing around in my head ever since the so-called "gigaleak" happened. This would do exactly as the header says: sprites and models and such that do not appear in gameplay of the finalized game they represent would be moved to a separate gallery, similar to what we do with non-game artwork relative to game artwork. This would allow more easy coverage on them without bloating the "main" gallery with them, particularly in cases where the subject does appear in the final game with different sprites (or with different colors), and would also help encourage more unused sprites to be uploaded in the first place. The other gallery section would be placed underneath the main one. Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Deadline: September 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per DrippingYellow (talk) Nothing wrong I can see with this. Per proposal, and Doc in the comments. Ahemtoday (talk) Seems like a straightforwardly good idea to me. Axii (talk) Per proposal FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick in the comments (and per proposal as well). Arend (talk) Per all PaperSplash (talk) Per comments. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all, and per the discussion in the comments. Pseudo (talk) Per all. Windy (talk) Per all. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all. Jazama (talk) Per all Oppose Super Mario RPG (talk) - Opposing because this was done with the gigaleak in mind. The gigaleak consists of unlawfully stolen assets, and one could propose to remove those instead, out of courtesy towards Nintendo. Comments @SMRPG They haven't gone after TCRF so far despite them documenting everything from it. I get there's some "fruit of the poisoned tree" moral concern, but as it is, our role is to document known facts. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:02, August 26, 2024 (EDT) In addition, the current wording of the proposal implies a section for all unused/prototype/pre-release content, not just those that came from the gigaleak (e.g. various prototype/prerelease things from Mario Kart DS came from the kiosk demo, which was distributed to toy stores and game stores by Nintendo themselves). If SMRPG was concerned that hypothetically, those assets would have to be removed as well for Nintendo's concern (in a "one bad apple spoils the bunch" kind of way), then not separating them at all might actually be worse, because hypothetically speaking, Nintendo might request to remove the entire gallery purely because assets from the gigaleak were being included; this of course helps no one. rend (talk) (edits) 12:52, August 27, 2024 (EDT) Indeed, I think it would be a good idea even without the gigaleak occurring, though the fact that the hyper-litigious Nintendo hasn't gone after anyone as far as I can tell (most notably TCRF, who documents that sort of thing as the entire purpose of their existence) for reposting them, it doesn't seem to bother them. And while it makes sense for The Spriters Resource to have a blanket ban on what was uncovered there (they're based on assets that actually do appear and are only barely able to keep the site up monetarily), it makes little sense for us to resort solely to using descriptions and offsite links. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:14, August 27, 2024 (EDT) Being a TCRF user myself, I agree with Doc von Schmeltwick. -- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk · edits) 16:10, August 27, 2024 (EDT) Right indeed. I personally think the whole fearmongering aspect of SMRPG's oppose vote is generally... well, not quite in bad faith, but at the very least somewhat misleading or misunderstanding of the situation. As you said, Nintendo hasn't been witchhunting sites like TCRF for detailing things from the gigaleak even four years after the fact, so we should be safe (and again, these sections would include prototypes that weren't part of the gigaleak, too). Though I simply don't think that oppose vote makes a lot of sense even if Nintendo did send their ninjas to anyone detailing the gigaleak, so we might as well make separate sections for any unused/prototype content regardless. rend (talk) (edits) 16:54, August 27, 2024 (EDT) Shorten disambiguation identifiers "(Super) Nintendo Entertainment System" to "(S)NES" Do not shorten 7-11 The console names "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" are way too long and clunky, so much so that the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles throughout the wiki, even though we usually don't use abbreviations. And yet, we still use the full console names in the disambiguation identifiers of article names: Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System) Mario is Missing! (Super Nintendo Entertainment System) Wario's Woods (Nintendo Entertainment System) Wario's Woods (Super Nintendo Entertainment System) The identifiers are so long that they take up more than half of the article name and are less immediately legible than their respective abbreviations. This is particularly jarring on the Mario is Missing! disambiguation page because the abbreviations are used on the page (e.g., "Mario is Missing!, the NES game") but it links to articles with names containing the full console names ("Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System)"). That's why I propose to shorten "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" to "NES" and "SNES" respectively in disambiguation identifiers of article names: Mario is Missing! (NES) Mario is Missing! (SNES) Wario's Woods (NES) Wario's Woods (SNES) Please note that there is already an article which uses an abbreviated identifier: "Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)", although if we decide to keep the full identifiers, maybe we should rename it to "Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for Super Nintendo Entertainment System)" for consistency? Proposer: Jdtendo (talk) Deadline: August 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to September 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT Support (SNES) Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal and similarly passed earlier proposal on shortening identifiers of the second and third Donkey Kong Country games. Technetium (talk) Per all. Mario shroom (talk) too long, agree. SeanWheeler (talk) Let's simplify the names. PaperSplash (talk) Per proposal and the earlier Donkey Kong Country proposal that Super Mario RPG mentioned, as well as Technetium and Jdtendo in the comments. Paper Plumm (talk) Per all. It is way too tedious a title, especially when the acronym alternative is just as iconic as the original title. #Pseudo (talk) Per all. Oppose (Super Nintendo Entertainment System) Hewer (talk) I don't see much of a problem with long names, and I'd rather go without the inconsistency created by these being the only shortened console names. And yes, I suppose we should move the Building World page too, like how "Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for 3DS)" got moved to "Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS)". Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. While these shortened versions do make for fine redirects (and honestly, I kinda hope these do get made for other games in the form of redirects, but that's neither here nor there), we probably shouldn't be enforcing these as being the default name unless it's a part of a global move to abbreviate the console names for the articles of every game--not just one random edutainment game. JanMisali (talk) Per all. Pseudo (talk) Per Hewer and Camwoodstock. Sdman213 (talk) Per all. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. Jazama (talk) Per all ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all. Axii (talk) Per all. Metalex123 (talk) Per all. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all. Comments (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES) now there's a bit of a grey area here, what about consoles like Nintendo 64, Nintendo Switch and so on? It'd feel somewhat weird to abbreviate one but not the others, there'd be an inconsistency. - YoYo (Talk) 09:33, August 13, 2024 (EDT) The thing with those is that the "Nintendo" part is needed or else it could just be confused as a random number (64) or word (switch). They also just aren't as long. Technetium (talk) 09:57, August 13, 2024 (EDT) Besides, as I said in the proposal, the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles, but other console names are not abbreviated as frequently. For example, here is an extract of the LodgeNet article: "for the SNES, Nintendo 64, and Nintendo GameCube"; note how only the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's name is abbreviated whereas the other console names are written in full. Jdtendo(T|C) 10:09, August 13, 2024 (EDT) I think the shortening of N64, GCN, GBA, etc. could use another propasal. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:30, August 13, 2024 (EDT) @Hewer Okay, The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens' name is ridiculous. I want to propose a shortening of the title, but I don't know enough about the character. But that just shows why page names shouldn't be too long. SeanWheeler (talk) 20:27, August 14, 2024 (EDT) ...Not to burst your bubble, but we actually had a proposal to move it to its current name last month. Prior to that, the article was merely titled "The Old Psychic Lady", which from what I can tell was actually never actually used like that in the episode. She introduced herself by the full title of "The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens" (whether it used capital letters or not is unknown), and the Marios simply refer her to as the "crazy lady" or "that psycho lady" since they can't properly remember such a long name. Since "The Old Psychic Lady" never was used as one of the official names, and the wiki refers to her by her full name anyway, it was proposed to move the article to the lady's full title (I mean, at least "NES" and "SNES" are officially used abbreviations by Nintendo themselves and their full names were not created for comedic purposes). rend (talk) (edits) 20:50, August 14, 2024 (EDT) Arguments about the name being "ridiculous" or "too long" were used in the proposal linked to by Arend, and much like with those arguments, you haven't substantiated the claim very well. Why is a long page name "ridiculous" when it's just accurately referring to the subject? Why should we sacrifice accuracy in favour of a shorter page name? What about long page names is in any way disadvantageous? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:37, August 15, 2024 (EDT) Tbh, I'd merge the two Building Worlds together if it were up to me, they're still both represented by the same icon in the map screen and differences can easily be mentioned in the article, it'd also be consistent with the rest of the Mario's Early Years Worlds. Ray Trace(T|C) 20:09, August 15, 2024 (EDT) Same. Not to mention that the first two (out of three!) paragraphs on both articles are 100% identical outside of the console mentioned (which is really weird and almost BJAODN-worthy regarding the whole "this is a world exclusive to [SYSTEM]" part when the name and icon are identical. Both articles even state that the worlds take place in "an area of pipes and a background of puzzle pieces" (which seems to just be copied blindly from the SNES one and unedited, given that the image for the PC version suggests it takes place in a park with a baseball diamond; but that discrepancy aside, I don't think it's worth splitting when both articles are quite short, and no other world in Mario's Early Years is split based on console version). rend (talk) (edits) 15:13, September 3, 2024 (EDT) I did some more research on the two Building Worlds: So first of all, the two articles even incorrectly described their icons. Both articles state that they're represented by a pair of building blocks. However, that's actually the icon for both versions of Last Letter World. SNES Building World is represented by a jigsaw puzzle with a crayon and the word "red", while PC Building World is represented by a baseball bat and the word "Hit". Second, the SNES version of Building World is actually still present in the PC version of the game, complete with the jigsaw puzzle icon and the exact same kind of gameplay; however, it's now named Blending World, and as far as I can tell, that name is nowhere mentioned on the wiki pages. So I suppose it's correct to have these articles split, but they might need to be renamed (if we choose to prioritize the PC version at least), and they certainly need to be rewritten. rend (talk) (edits) 16:38, September 3, 2024 (EDT)