MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
==Writing guidelines==
*Create the page: Drilldigger ([[Talk:Robo-Drilldigger#Create the page: Drilldigger|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
===Add identifiers to near-identical titles===
*Split the sections [[Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam#Attackathlon|Attackathlon]], [[Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam#Toad Quiz|Toad Quiz]] and [[Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam#Lakitu Info Centre|Lakitu Info Centre]] into {{fakelink|Lakitu Info Centre}} and {{fakelink|Arcade (''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam'')}} ([[Talk:Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam#Split the sections Attackathlon, Toad Quiz and Lakitu Info Centre into Lakitu Info Centre and Arcade (Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam)|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: [[Mark (Mario Tennis series)|Mark (''Mario Tennis'' series)]] and [[Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)|Mark (''NES Open Tournament Golf'')]]). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means [[Color coin]] (''Super Mario Run'') and [[Colored coin]] (''Wario Land 3'') do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include [[Secret Course 1]] (''Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins'') and [[Secret Course 01]] (''Super Mario Run''), [[Spyguy]] (''Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis'') and [[Spy Guy]] (''Paper Mario''), and [[Rollin' Down the River]] (''Yoshi's Woolly World'') and [[Rolling Down the River]] (''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'').
*{{tem|not-unused}}: Allow Additional Parameter to Specify Where the File is Linked ([[Template talk:Not-unused#Proposal|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': February 3, 2016, 23:59 GMT
*Split and create articles for {{fakelink|Skeeter (New Super Mario Bros.)}} and {{fakelink|Pondskater}}. ([[Talk:Skeeter#Split and create articles for Skeeter (New Super Mario Bros.) and Pondskater|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': February 14, 2016, 23:59 GMT
*Split [[Frog]] and {{fakelink|Frog (Donkey Kong)}}, {{fakelink|Frog (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon)}}, and {{fakelink|Frog (Yoshi's Story)}}. ([[Talk:Frog#Split Frog (Donkey Kong), Frog (Yoshi's Story), and Frog (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': February 14, 2016, 23:59 GMT
*Split [[Bee]] and {{fakelink|Bee (Super Mario Galaxy)}} and {{fakelink|Bee (Yoshi's Story)}}. ([[Talk:Bee#Split Bee (Yoshi's Story) and Bee (Super Mario Galaxy)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': February 14, 2016, 23:59 GMT


==Writing Guidelines==
This proposal aims to amend [[MarioWiki:Naming]] to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.
''None at the moment.''
 
Note that this proposal only covers names that are '''semantically identical''', and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. [[Buzzar]] and [[Buzzer]] have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. [[Balloon Boo]] and [[Boo Balloon]] are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.
 
'''Edit:''' Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include [[Family Basic (microgame)]] and [[Family BASIC]] (as ruled by [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|a proposal]]), [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)|Hot Air Balloon (''Donkey Kong'' franchise)]] and [[Hot-air balloon]], [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]], and [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] and both [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)|Avalanche! (''Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix'')]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)|Avalanche! (''Mario Party 4'')]]. If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Altendo}} I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with ''identical names'', not similar names.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Altendo, this is what [[Template:Distinguish]] is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|Dine2017}} Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.
 
====Comments====
I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the [[Secret exit]] article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. [[Family Basic (microgame)]] recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from [[Family BASIC]] [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|was deemed unreasonable]]. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)]] (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from [[Hot-air balloon]]. [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] has an identifier to separate it from [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]], even though both of them have exclamation marks. [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]] get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made [[Family Basic]] a redirect to [[Family BASIC]], so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)


==New features==
==New features==
===Deal with the duplicate Paper subjects in ''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam''===
===Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts===
Since we started hearing about the subject matter of ''[[Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam]]'', there has been [[Talk:Mario#Paper_Mario_2|questions]] about [[Talk:Mario_%26_Luigi:_Paper_Jam#Characters_of_paper|what that means]] for the ''[[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario]]'' series and how we cover it and its subjects. There are three options:
I'm currently contributing to ''[[Mario & Luigi: Brothership]]'' content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that [[Glohm]] enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.


#Make separate pages for the duplicate Paper characters/species/etc. that appear in ''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam'' alongside their flesh/real/3D counterparts, ONLY covering their appearances in that one game, and NOT in any preceding ''Paper Mario'' games. It follows the same logic that splits [[Metal Mario (character)]] from regular Mario (or [[Metal Mario (form)]]) and Baby characters from their adult counterparts, in that the two versions of the characters appear in at least one game simultaneously and function separately from each other. Separate characters (or species, etc.) in the context of the applicable games getting separate articles makes coverage easier (one characters' plot overview per page, one set of stats per page, etc.), and, since the subjects have specific names and identities, it's likely that people will search for them, and we want to make sure that traffic comes to us and finds what they want. '''This is what I suggest we do.'''
This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:
#Split coverage of the ''Paper Mario'' series entirely due to the ''M&L:PJ'' showing that the paper world exists in a book in the regular Mario universe. This means that for consistency, ''everything'' that appeared in both series should get split, which is insane from an organizational/comprehensive coverage standpoint and runs afoul of numerous policies and fundamental organization standards. For one thing, the mere assertion that all previous ''Paper Mario'' games happened in the ''M&L:PJ'' book is reading between the lines and linking unrelated games together into a single narrative, [[MarioWiki:Good_Writing#Reading_between_the_lines|which is against the rules]]. It also comes dangerously close to [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|making forbidden canon judgments]] about the ''Paper Mario'' series, and even ignoring the "the book's not the real world" angle, it's still placing ''Paper Mario'' into its own [[MarioWiki:Chronology|chronology]] by separating it from the regular Histories of all the subjects, and we haven't organized articles like that for MANY years, much less split them over it. The only vestige of that sort of thinking is the separation of the film characters, under a biased "they're different" excuse, and that is currently being fixed by another proposal. Even [[Dr. Mario]], while superficially splitting out info based on series origin, is actually more along the lines of the aforementioned Baby characters (as well as other things like [[Dry Bowser]] and different forms of boss enemies), in that he's split because he has a specific name, appearance and function with self-contained info that folks are likely to search for, with extra justification that he appears alongside the regular Mario in ''SSB''. And so, because this flies in the face of how we cover things in the Super Mario Wiki and would result in the creation of hundreds of superfluous pages that would snarl up organization forever, '''I strongly suggest we do NOT do this'''.
#Make no new articles and talk about both versions of every co-occurring pair of Paper and flesh/3D subjects in single pages. While this would keep all the Paper things together in one page, I think the resulting clutter in those sections will outweigh any advantage that not splitting it apart would bring, plus ''M&L:PJ'' isn't even a ''Paper Mario'' game, so the Paper content within it will still be far from the actual ''Paper Mario'' content on pages with any sort of History built up. Unless there's two ''M&L:PJ'' sections per History section, one for the flesh/3D stuff, one for the Paper stuff, but that would be awkward, and could even make both sections seem incomplete or repetitive, depending on how they're handled, plus it's unlike any other aspect of our coverage of any game, and inconsistency is bad. '''So I suggest we don't do this either.'''


Hopefully there were enough pros and cons in there to convince everyone that Option 1 is the simplest way, and is the most consistent with current standards and policies. If you want more words, [[forum:29237.msg1812094#msg1812094|I also made a big forum post]] going through all the different sorts of doppelgangers we cover. That forum discussion actually exists because someone already went and made a [[Paper Mario (character)]] article, without any discussion, and initially as an "option 2"-style ''Paper Mario'' series-wide page, although I've since cut it back to ''M&L:PJ'' only. I'm hoping this proposal will make it clear that the community as a whole is behind that decision of mine, and will continue in that direction to move forward with that article, and the ones to follow.
1. '''Glohm enemies get their own articles.''' They get their own dedicated pages.


I'm not going to bother making a list of pages that will need creating if Option 1 passes, but it's basically every Paper character in ''M&L:PJ'', including Paper Luigi and his cameo, as well as the Paper Toads and Paper enemies, assuming their stats, attacks and/or other non-superficial aspects about them are different from their non-Paper counterparts (but if, for example, Paper Goombas are the same as regular Goombas except for how they look, and same goes for all the other enemies too, don't bother splitting them). Unfortunately, I don't have the game yet, so I don't know enough to even attempt to split anything myself, so others are feel free to have at it: I'm just here to establish the overall game plan.
2. '''Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts.''' This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
Let's see what happens!
'''Deadline:''' February 9, 2016, 23:59 GMT


====Option 1: Separate pages for ''M&L:PJ'' characters only====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br>
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per proposal. Even if subsequent ''SSB'' trophies or whatever vaguely characterize the ''M&L:PJ'' character as the "Paper Mario" from earlier games, I think it'd be disastrous to split the series: everything being canon and equal and organized through release dates only is the simplest and best solution, and the current practice of giving pages to simultaneously occurring alternate forms of characters is a logical, straightforward and consistent exception that should work for ''Paper Jam'' too.
'''Deadline''': December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Supported this stance from [[Talk:Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam#Characters of paper|the beginning]], supported it [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=29237.1260 in the forums], will continue doing so.
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|LudwigVon}} Per Walkazo. I was skeptical at first, but after playing Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam and have read discussions, I finally agree to separates paper characters and only those of Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam.
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} I've supported this stance, and Walkazo's points only reinforce my position.
#{{User|Tails777}} This is the most reasonable solution. The enemies were likely going to get separate articles anyway seeing as they were fully classified as separate enemies in game, but it does fully clear up what we'd do with characters like Paper Mario, Paper Peach and Paper Bowser (due to his incredibly small role, I'll assume Paper Luigi doesn't fully count, or does he?). Either way, per all.


====Option 2: Split all ''Paper Mario'' series content====
====Create new articles for Glohm enemies====
#{{User|Sparks}} My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We give articles to [[Elite Dry Bones|other stronger]] [[Shy Guy R|RPG enemy]] [[Antasma X|and boss variants]], so why should Brothership be any different?
#{{User|Tails777}} They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Zootalo}} The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Cheat-master30}} Given that some of them have specific differences in attack patterns, it seems like they should probably get unique articles.


====Option 3: No separate pages (do nothing)====
====Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them====


====Comments====
====Comments====
{{@|Zootalo}} The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are. {{Unsigned|Nightwicked Bowser}}


While I'm not suggesting we should split all Paper Mario content, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why [[Baby Mario]] is different. His article covers all his appearances as Baby Mario, even when he doesn't appear alongside adult Mario (apart from Super Mario Momotarō and "The Early Years", for a reason I admittedly don't quite grasp). Why should we not cover Baby Mario's appearances when he doesn't meet Adult Mario in the main [[Mario]] article, which is what you guys are suggesting to do for Paper Mario? {{User:Banon/sig}} 17:22, 2 February 2016 (EST)
Kinda torn to be honest. I voted yes because some of them have specific differences from their regular counterparts (Glohm Floopfly Rs and Glohm Soreboars always explode once defeated for example), but then we've got the weird situation of trying to figure out what exactly you'd include on a page for the enemies without these things, like the Glohm Palookas (which as far as I know, look and act almost identically to their standard counterparts). --[[User:Cheat-master30|Cheat-master30]] ([[User talk:Cheat-master30|talk]]) 22:30, November 23, 2024 (EST)
:In fairness, this could also be said about many other stronger variants of enemies. The only real difference between a Goomba and Gloomba are the color schemes, in a similar way to how the only difference between a Palooka and a Glohm Palooka is the darker coloration and Glohmy aura. It's kinda just a natural thing for most stronger variants (not all mind you, but most). {{User:Tails777/sig}}


==Removals==
==Removals==
Line 47: Line 68:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Remerge most ''Super Mario Bros.'' film information===
===Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading===
It's a pretty complex problem, so it's important that you read and understand what exactly is going on in this proposal. The general crux of this proposal is to overturn the previous proposals mentioned below, thus remerging the film information to their parent articles, but there are a few exceptions that have to be made, and they'll be explained below.
It's been two years since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Do not use t-posing models as infobox images|the previous proposal]] had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take [https://www.models-resource.com/resources/big_icons/4/3950.png?updated=1673644745 this image] for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:
 
Some history: we had a few proposals related to the [[Super Mario Bros. (film)|''Super Mario Bros.'' film]]. [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_18#Different_Version_Characters This one] in 2009 set the idea that film information should be separate because, the reasoning went, the film depictions are drastically different and unfaithful to the games for the most part. Later, [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_29#Super_Mario_Bros._Film_Information:_Where_Should_It_Go.3F this proposal] (by me) reinforced it. The biggest problem with this reasoning is that is singles out the ''Super Mario Bros.'' film for being different from the games but other media and ''even the games themselves'' don't exactly follow the standards for character designs all the time. One example is Mario, which if we did went by "they look super different", we may have to split live action depictions of Mario (such as in the cartoons) because there's no way to faithfully replicate Mario's design in live-action. Another example, we don't separate King Koopa from the cartoons from Bowser even though King Koopa is completely green, has no hair, wears a crown, and has yellow underbelly that extends to his tail, traits Bowser does not have. It may be argued that King Koopa isn't different enough and the cartoons want us to treat this character the same as Bowser. What is the line between "different" enough, though? This is entirely subjective and while King Koopa indeed shares more traits with games Bowser than film Bowser does with games Bowser, I feel this is the wrong point to make. This film also wants its viewers to treat this human as Bowser, but simply "evolved" to look more human, and we get to see this character as a reptilian later in the film anyway. Furthermore, there is at least one enemy that largely resembles its game counterpart, the [[Bob-omb]], but that isn't split.
 
Which brings me another problem: the split job from those proposals is inconsistent. [[Mario Brothers Plumbing]], [[Snifit]], [[Tweeter]], and [[Bullet Bill]]/[[Banzai Bill]] are also not split. Why not just split them instead of merging the rest? Because there are no very good reasons to keep them split, as the only reasoning was that "they're super different". After you look past the drastic depictions, the split invites canon arguments in the wiki and suggests that the film is "less canon" than the games/cartoons/whatever, which violates a well-enforced [[MarioWiki:Canoncity|policy]], which appears to be a major blind spot or double standard for outsiders to this wiki. We've had users trying to add film information to these character's articles, which may have highlighted the problem with this split.
 
;To be merged
*[[Mario (film character)]]
*[[Luigi (film character)]]
*[[Toad (film character)]]
*[[Princess Daisy (film character)]] (similarities to Princess Peach can be noted if needed; do NOT add extensive infant Daisy's information to [[Baby Daisy]] aside from a side note, similar to how [[Toddler Terrors of Time Travel]] is handled in [[Baby Mario]] and [[Baby Luigi]])
*[[President Koopa]] (to Bowser)
*[[Yoshi (film character)]]
*[[Goomba (film)]] (reptilian forms can be noted as a possible parallel to Koopa Troopas, although I don't know if the film ever refers to these as even Koopa Troopas.
*[[Iggy (film character)]]
*[[King (film character)]] to [[Mushroom King]]
 
Sure, some of these will vastly expand the parent characters (which may be heavy in content to begin with), but that means a rewrite not a reason to keep articles split. Our own MaRPG plot information is arguably just as detailed as the film's plot information, but we don't split information.
 
;To remain split
*[[Big Bertha (film character)]] (no individual Big Bertha character; there is a Big Bertha character in [[Fins and Roses]], although its article isn't created as I speak, so the film identifier is fine)
*[[Spike (film character)]] (there was no individual Spike character in the games; rename to Spike (character))


;Needs information
{{tem|image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}
*[[Mario Brothers Plumbing]]
*[[Snifit]] ([[Shy Guy]] could also use a mention if not there already)
*[[Banzai Bill]] (it resembles a Banzai Bill and is linked as Banzai Bill in the film's article, so a mention in Banzai Bill needs to be made)
*<s>Monkey!</s>


The general idea is that there has to be some parallel to these two characters. If there is an individual in the film (Mario) that is an individual in the games (Mario), then it should be merged. If there is an individual in the film (Big Bertha) that is a generic species in the game (''a'' Big Bertha) then it should get its own article.  
That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Bazooka Mario}}, suggestions by {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 4, 2016, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}}
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per proposal, per consistency with how we deal with every other conflicting piece of media, including games that don't quite fit. Even for species we split for being different in certain appearances, it's because there's different names to justify it, but that's not really applicable here, and besides, there's no reasonable question that characters like the film's Mario is Mario, just a different take on him, and that's too subjective to split pages over. If the to-be-merged character pages are massive, that's only because they're doing a poor job of summarizing the film and ''should'' be cut down: the film has its own article for a scene-by-scene breakdown, on character pages, [[MarioWiki:Good_Writing#Summaries_that_aren.27t|it's padding]] (regardless of whether the articles are merged or standalone).
<s>#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots|this]] is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.</s>
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.
#{{User|Andymii}} Per all.
#{{User|Roy Koopa}} Per all.
#{{User|LudwigVon}} Per all.
#{{User|Banon}} Per all. I always thought this splitting was inconsistent.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
<s>#{{User|Tucayo}} - If we are going to have pages for all paper characters (see [[Paper Mario (character)]]) on the basis of them being different characters, I see no reason why the film characters should be re-merged. Paper Mario is way more similar to [[Mario|Game Mario]] than [[Mario (film character)|Film Mario]], and it makes little sense to state that Paper Mario is "its own entity", as Film Mario clearly doesn't follow the general story and concept of Game Mario and should therefore be its own entity.</s>
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there [[:File:PiantissimoUnmasked.png|can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models]], and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have ''if'' they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there ''are'' scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
#{{User|Mario}} Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Who would we merge Iggy with? He's clearly not Iggy Koopa. --{{User:SuperYoshiBros/sig}} 18:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)
Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds ([https://www.models-resource.com/resources/big_icons/4/3950.png?updated=1673644745 like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl], Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)
:How is he not "Iggy Koopa", though? I know, he appears different and the rest of the Koopalings aren't there, but I'm sure he was created with the Koopaling in mind, with him being a cousin rather than a sibling. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 18:35, 28 January 2016 (EST)
::Possibly, but the only similarity besides the name (which could be a coincedence) is that he's a Koopa who serves Bowser. I would believe he was based on Iggy if the other Koopalings actually existed. --{{User:SuperYoshiBros/sig}} 18:39, 28 January 2016 (EST)
:::So he's Koopa's adult cousin in the film instead of the (now-retconned) parent-child connection? Big whup - it's no more drastic a change than Daisy being the Mushroom princess, Koopa being President instead of King, Goombas being giant pea-headed men, Yoshi being a pet, Toad being a busker, a bare-faced Luigi being much younger than Mario, etc. It's pretty obvious that they got the name and inspiration from the Koopaling, so let's call a spade a spade and put the info in that article. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::::Fair enough, you got me :P --{{User:SuperYoshiBros/sig}} 18:41, 28 January 2016 (EST)
 
@Tucayo: Just because the film does a poor job at handling the depiction of the Mario characters doesn't make it grounds for disqualification within the Mario series. That's pretty much the base of your entire argument, something this proposal thoroughly debunked in its opening statements, regarding how differently various characters were portrayed in the cartoon (including the live-action version of the Super Mario Bros. Super Show, should we also split that information off considering how vastly different their roles are?) and even within the games themselves. Whereas, it's arguable within not only storyline matters but also gameplay matters that Paper Mario is his own character. Film Mario had never been referred as separate from regular Mario in the Mario series. The movie clearly established that it's the same Mario as this Mario, no matter how bad of a job they did with it or how deviating from the canon it is (and we know that this wiki has a firm stance against established canonicity), so therefore, they should be merged. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 13:12, 1 February 2016 (EST)
:"''disqualification within the Mario series''". The fact that the movie is not part of the Mario series makes it grounds for disqualification within the Mario series. I'd actually support splitting those appearances as well, but that should be a debate for another time. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}}
::And may I ask exactly how is it not part of the Mario series? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 13:21, 1 February 2016 (EST)
:::From [[Mario (series)]]:
:::<blockquote>The Mario series is a long-running '''video game''' series published by the popular gaming company, Nintendo. The Mario series has been running for more than a quarter of a century, and in its lifespan has released more than two hundred '''video games'''. The series also holds the title of best-selling '''video game''' franchise in history, with over 262 million combined units sold.</blockquote>
:::''Video game series''. I'm aware we classify it as "Other Media", and it's exactly that, it's '''other''' media. Our own name for it indicates it's "other", not a main part of the series but rather something additional. My vote stands. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 13:25, 1 February 2016 (EST)
::::Are you going to advocate splitting off the Mario as depicted in other media aside from the film as well? Like, any appearances in [[Super Mario Adventures]], [[Super Mario-Kun]], [[Super Mario Bros. Super Show]], [[Amada Anime Series: Super Mario Bros.]], and whatnot as well? Keep in mind, this is not a Mario series argument. This is an argument whether to integrate the film depiction of Mario into Mario's article, Luigi film character into Luigi, and others. We don't have the cartoon series and what not in the Mario series article simply because you are correct, the Mario series is a video game series. However, we are talking about individual character articles, not a video game series one, and that allows more leeway of interpretations of the character into them, in which, film Mario has the criteria of being included into Mario the characters article. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 13:38, 1 February 2016 (EST)


Tucayo: Where did you get that conclusion from? What does Paper Mario have to do with the film? We're splitting Paper Mario because he's treated as a different character in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam (he's considered a third partner, he has his own stats, and Flesh Mario interacts with him as if he's his own character). Film Mario should be merged because he's supposed to be a take on Mario; if this Mario interacted with Game Mario, it would be feasible, but no, this is supposed to be ''the'' Mario. This has nothing to do with how "different" a Mario is or "he's made of paper" or this conclusion based on faulty logic that "Paper Mario is different and his own character; Bob Hoskins Mario is different, so therefore, he should be his own character". Frankly, your logic behind why "the movie is not part of the Mario series" is ridiculous. You're even contradicting yourself in your definition: first, you're saying it's not part of the series, but then you go around and say it's not a ''"main"'' part of the series but something additional. The external media ''does'' count as part of the ''Mario'' series, but the ''Mario'' series is primarily about the games, especially when the other media are based off these games. The only barometer of what makes media worthy of coverage is if Nintendo officially was involved in it. How closely a medium (or a series of it!) adheres to Nintendo's world of Mario invites canon arguments like you're arguing here, specifically "it's not faithful so it shouldn't be covered alongside everything else", which is just a different way of saying "it's less canon/it's less authentic" when we shouldn't even begin to focus on that. As [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]] states, "the organization of an article is simply a way to convey information in the most effective and efficient manner possible." The current split-off is not effective or efficient due to its inconsistent nature and that it singles out the ''Super Mario Bros.'' film just for being different. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 15:27, 1 February 2016 (EST)
Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models ''as they are''. [[:File:MLNPC.png]] is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)
:Show me what the article would look like if it's merged. That way I'll decide if this is indeed efficient and effective. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 15:56, 1 February 2016 (EST)
::This is what it may [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Bazooka_Mario/sandbox&oldid=1946425#_3 look like]. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 16:29, 1 February 2016 (EST)
::Alright, looks OK. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 21:46, 1 February 2016 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 19:12, November 24, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, November 25th, 15:58 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  5. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  6. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  7. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  8. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  9. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  10. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  13. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  14. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  15. After a proposal or talk page proposal passes, it is added to the corresponding list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  16. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  17. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  18. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  19. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  20. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  21. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Create articles for "Ashita ni Nattara" and "Banana Tengoku" or list them in List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs, Starluxe (ended November 23, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Add identifiers to near-identical titles

Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: Mark (Mario Tennis series) and Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means Color coin (Super Mario Run) and Colored coin (Wario Land 3) do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include Secret Course 1 (Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins) and Secret Course 01 (Super Mario Run), Spyguy (Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis) and Spy Guy (Paper Mario), and Rollin' Down the River (Yoshi's Woolly World) and Rolling Down the River (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!).

This proposal aims to amend MarioWiki:Naming to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.

Note that this proposal only covers names that are semantically identical, and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. Buzzar and Buzzer have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. Balloon Boo and Boo Balloon are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.

Edit: Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include Family Basic (microgame) and Family BASIC (as ruled by a proposal), Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) and Hot-air balloon, Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame), and Avalanche (obstacle) and both Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4). If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) per.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Altendo (talk) I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with identical names, not similar names.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Altendo, this is what Template:Distinguish is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
  3. Ray Trace (talk) Per Hewer.
  4. Dine2017 (talk) Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
  5. SeanWheeler (talk) Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.

Comments

I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)

i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the Secret exit article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. Family Basic (microgame) recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from Family BASIC was deemed unreasonable. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from Hot-air balloon. Avalanche (obstacle) has an identifier to separate it from Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4), even though both of them have exclamation marks. Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame) get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. EvieMaybe (talk) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)
This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made Family Basic a redirect to Family BASIC, so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)

New features

Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts

I'm currently contributing to Mario & Luigi: Brothership content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that Glohm enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.

This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:

1. Glohm enemies get their own articles. They get their own dedicated pages.

2. Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts. This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.

Let's see what happens!

Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create new articles for Glohm enemies

  1. Sparks (talk) My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) We give articles to other stronger RPG enemy and boss variants, so why should Brothership be any different?
  3. Tails777 (talk) They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
  4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  5. Zootalo (talk) The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
  6. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. Cheat-master30 (talk) Given that some of them have specific differences in attack patterns, it seems like they should probably get unique articles.

Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them

Comments

@Zootalo The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightwicked Bowser (talk).

Kinda torn to be honest. I voted yes because some of them have specific differences from their regular counterparts (Glohm Floopfly Rs and Glohm Soreboars always explode once defeated for example), but then we've got the weird situation of trying to figure out what exactly you'd include on a page for the enemies without these things, like the Glohm Palookas (which as far as I know, look and act almost identically to their standard counterparts). --Cheat-master30 (talk) 22:30, November 23, 2024 (EST)

In fairness, this could also be said about many other stronger variants of enemies. The only real difference between a Goomba and Gloomba are the color schemes, in a similar way to how the only difference between a Palooka and a Glohm Palooka is the darker coloration and Glohmy aura. It's kinda just a natural thing for most stronger variants (not all mind you, but most). Sprite of Yoshi's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Tails777 Talk to me!Sprite of Daisy's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading

It's been two years since the previous proposal had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take this image for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:

{{image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}

That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If this is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models, and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have if they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there are scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
  7. Mario (talk) Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.

Comments

Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds (like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl, Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models as they are. File:MLNPC.png is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4442939"