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}}


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Forbid "special symbols" from being used in article titles===
===Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"===
This page - [[★ door]] - basically describes it. While it is true that the source refers to the Star Door as the "★ Door", I believe this is unintuitive for readers of this wiki. It makes more sense for an average user to search for the "star door" instead of copypasting a character that isn't even present on many keyboards. The name "★ door" should still be used in the article itself, but the title should transcribe the symbol instead of using that symbol. This would also be consistent with other articles:
Currently, the way our proposals are set up, there are two deadlines. On the main proposals page, they last for 1 week. On talk pages, or for writing guidelines proposals, 2 weeks. Now, this is ''fine.'' We're not going to claim this is like, some total deal-breaker or nothing. However, lately, [[MarioWiki talk:Proposals#Why the inconsistency?|there have been a few concerns raised about this inconsistency]], and we figured, what the hey, why not put it up to vote?


* [[World 1-Castle (New Super Mario Bros.)]], where the title uses the transcribed name instead of a castle emoji (🏰).
A few concerns we've seen, both from others and from us, in no particular order;
* [[Minna de Atsumete!]], where the title of this official SMM2 course does not use the Japanese symbols.
* The largest one to us is just that, unless a proposal is really specific, it's just not worth it to make a talk page proposal over a main page proposal, since it'll end faster. The only thing immune to this are writing guidelines proposals.
* While the proposals themselves are different lengths, the duration before you can make a second proposal on them remains the same.  Thusly, if you want to set a policy in stone, you would actually want to make it a writing guidelines/talk page proposal over an ordinary one, as that means it will last for, at least, 6 weeks (4 weeks for the cooldown, and 2 weeks to put it to proposal again.)
* Lastly, talk page proposals just inherently take longer to happen. This can be an issue if their changes are, overall, quite small (like a simple merge/split or rename), or the consensus is reached very quickly; this stings when an ordinary proposal would happen twice as fast with the exact same amount of votes!


I believe, for the overall consistency of naming pages and unneeded complexity for readers of this wiki, uncommon symbols such as the star or emojis should be forbidden from being used in the names of articles.
Now, there's a few ways you can go about this, but there's one in particular we've taken a liking to: uh, just make all proposals take '''2''' weeks, lmao.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br>
"BUT CAM & TORI!", we hear you shout, "BUT YOU SAID 2 WEEKS PROPOSALS TAKE TOO LONG??? WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THEM TO SOMETHING YOU HATE???", and to that we say... No! We actually like the 2 weeks proposals! They have a distinct benefit to them! The problem is that they're juxtaposed with the 1 week proposals. Let's run through those same bullet points.
'''Deadline''': April 12, 2022, 23:59 GMT
* If all proposals were 2 weeks, well, there's no real loss to making a talk page proposal over a main proposal page proposal, as they'll all last 2 weeks anyways. (Sure, a proposal can take longer if there's a tie, but that just happens for all proposals anyways.)
* There's also no incentive to make a talk page proposal/writing guideline proposal if you particularly want your porposal to stick around, as again, now ''every'' proposal is guaranteed to last for, at the very least, 6 weeks.
* Now. While it's annoying that all proposals will take 2 weeks, despite the inherent risk of some coming to their consensuses much faster than the deadlines, for one, [[Talk:Alien (Club Nintendo)#ANTI-ALIEN ALARM!!! (Delete this article)|this is also an issue with talk page proposals as-is]]. For two, the extra time can offer extra time for new information to come to light or for particularly close votes to make their cases and form a proper consensus, without needing a tiebreaker. Lastly, if it's really ''that'' big of an issue, we could perhaps create a rule that if a proposal comes to a particularly large consensus a week in, it'll pass early (the finer details would be created as necessary).


====Support====
There is, of course, the alternative of making all proposals '''1''' week. While we realize this does also resolve a lot of things, it does also necessarily mean that some proposals that would want to happen slower, now don't have that time, and are rushed. Even making only talk page proposals take only 1 week means that Writing Guideline proposals will be at a unique disadvantage for how long they take/an advantage for how long they last if they pass. (And of course, we could just leave everything as they are, but that goes without saying.) That being said, we ''have'' provided options for these, and you're free to make your case for these.
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per my proposal.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Make all proposals last for 2 weeks====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If it's not obvious, this is our primary option; we're a big fan of the idea of global 2 week proposals!. Even with their caveats, in the worst-case scenario, we could make a clause to prevent proposals for lasting too long if they reach their consensus early, or we could simply revert back to the current system. We think the added consistency and preventing of shenanigans is very potent, and it also means that you have to put a bit more thought into your proposal as you make it. Patience fans will be eating ''good'' if this passes.
 
====Make all proposals last for 1 week====
 
====Make all proposals except for writing guidelines proposals last for 1 week====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option. While we like this much less, we do see the merit of making Talk Page Proposals 1 week, and it's not exactly the end-all-be-all. However, we would ''vastly'' prefer 2-week proposals, and keeping Writing Guidelines proposals 2-week is kind of a necessary evil to prevent them from being too rushed for their own good. However, compared to truly ''all'' 1-week proposals, this is better... though, not as good as all 2-week proposals.
#{{user|7feetunder}} For me, it's either this or bust. [[Talk:Ankoopa#What_to_do_with_this_article|New information coming to light can still invalidate a proposal's entire premise too late and require a counterproposal even with a 2 week deadline]], so extending the deadline of main page props to 2 weeks won't stop that from happening from time to time. Most proposals that don't reach a consensus in a week will probably require extensions anyway. TPPs being less "visible" than main page proposals was more of an issue back when no quorums were immediate, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Overhaul_the_no_quorum_proposal_rule_.28.238.29|but that's no longer the case]].


====Oppose====
====Do nothing====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The problem with the ★ door example is that "Big Star Door" is already pending a move (and currently redirects) to "Star Door" due to that being the in-game name, which complicates matters. Additionally, how levels are titled is generally consistent with official guides, and I don't think romanization systems for foreign characters can be compared since they're an established rule-based process. Overall, I don't think this comes up enough to be an issue like the use of hashtag at the start of a name. The only other one I can think of at the top of my head is ♥ from ''Yoshi's Story'', which is deemed a unique subject from other heart articles.
#{{User|7feetunder}} If making TPPs last 1 week isn't desirable, I say just keep the status quo. While the current system ''does'' encourage making main page proposals over TPPs when possible if one wants their prop to pass faster, I'm fine with that. A controversial prop is not going to end in a week, and a prop with unanimous or near-unanimous support probably doesn't need that extra time in the oven. I'd be more open to global 2 weekers if a "early consensus = early pass" sub-rule was already in effect, but it isn't, and there's no guarantee that such a rule would be accepted by the community.
#{{User|Hewer}} It's still the official name of the subject, and people not being able to type it isn't a problem because of redirects. By this logic we should also move [[Pokémon]] to Pokemon (just as an example, there are loads of pages with accents in their titles).
#{{User|Swallow}} This is a little bit like censoring content.
#{{User|Somethingone}} There is a fine line to draw between accessibility and accuracy, and this is pushing it a bit too much. Redirects will work just fine.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} This just feels arbitrary. To push the logic here, this would revert [[? Block]] back to "Question Block" or "Question-Mark Block" despite pretty much every single source we know calling it "? Block" with an actual question mark. And that's the main problem here: where does it stop?
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Something that occurred to me: The time allowed to edit TPPs was originally 3 like main page proposals, but [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48#Double_the_amount_of_time_a_proposer_can_edit_their_talk_page_proposals|eventually doubled to 6 to go with their extended duration]]. If TPPs are shortened to 1 week, would the time allotted to edit them be reverted? {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 19:30, October 2, 2024 (EDT)
:That seems only fair to put them back to 3 days if that option passes--after all, it would be a glaring oversight to retain that and effectively allow for proposals that were en route to pass suddenly being hijacked on the last day, and pivoting from the original purpose, while ''still retaining the vote''. The plan here is to de-jank the proposal time-lengths and make them more consistent--not to introduce ''even more shenanigans''! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:18, October 2, 2024 (EDT)


==New features==
==New features==
Line 34: Line 45:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)===
=== Split articles for certain official single-game enemy behavior splits ===
The current rule no quorum proposals is vague, flawed, and counterproductive. Per rule 8, if a proposal has three votes or less at deadline, it NQs, ending with no action taken. In other words it needs at least four votes overall to pass. I have two major problems with this.
In the early days, before Nintendo was really sure how they wanted to classify enemies, there were some splits that didn't stick - namely, behaviors that were initially unique to a specific subtype, and then became normal alternatives to the base enemies. I'm specifically talking about:
*'''Sky Blooper''' - [[Blooper]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels''
*'''Upside-down Buzzy Beetle''' - [[Buzzy Beetle]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros. 3''
*'''Upside-down Spiny''' - [[Spiny]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros. 3''
*'''Scattering Blooper''' - [[Blooper Nanny]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros. 3''
*'''Upside-down Piranha''' - [[Piranha Plant]] variant from ''Super Mario Land''
 
I make this mainly because [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/archives/smb2/?lang=en the] [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/archives/smb3/?lang=en Mario] [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/archives/land/?lang=en Portal] splits each of these for these games specifically, across language borders, despite being a newer source (which is notably a lot more than Boss Bass/Big Bertha gets, so that merge remains correct), along with Upside-down Piranha making the ''Smash Bros.'' Piranha Plant list; other instances of similar things occurring that have not (yet) been corroborated by a source like Portal (such as ''[[Cheep Cheep|Tobipuku]]'' from ''New Super Mario Bros.'') will not be counted. Now, I want to clarify something important: '''this split only covers the appearances where the official word treats them as distinct enemies.''' Random upside-down Buzzy Beetles and Piranha Plants in ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' are not counted, as they are not distinguished from their base species in any way in that game. I see this as similar to [[Fire Nipper Plant]], another SMB3 enemy whose fire-breathing characteristics were given to normal [[Nipper Plant]]s in a few later games.
 
I have a demo for these pages in the various sections of [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Early merges|this]] page, along with stuff for the below proposal.
 
EDIT 9/28: Adding an option for only splitting the two Bloopers.


'''Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually ''cause'' a proposal to pass.'''
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT


Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.
====Scattering Support====
*Proposal A reaches its deadline with 3 support and 0 oppose votes. That's a total of 3, exactly one shy of the minimum 4. Therefore, the proposal NQs.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
*Proposal B reaches its deadline with 3 support and 2 oppose votes. That's a total of 5, enough to avoid NQ. Since there are too few votes for rule 10 to apply, and there's more support than opposition, the proposal passes.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per proposal.


See the problem here? Proposal B has the same amount of support as Proposal A, but ''more'' opposition, yet Proposal B passes while Proposal A does not. If Proposal B did not have those oppose votes, it wouldn't have enough votes to avoid NQ. Therefore, the opposition actually ''causes'' the proposal to pass. This should ''not'' be possible. Proposals should only ever pass in ''spite'' of opposition, never ''because'' of it.
====Bloopers only, no upside-down!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I see no problem with this. Unlike the other proposed splits, normal Bloopers have not inherited the defining airborne traits of Sky Bloopers outside of the ''Super Mario Maker'' games, which breaks a lot of conventions for the sake of fun creative gameplay. I do not think it is the same situation as Upside-down Piranha Plant or Spiny.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Agreed.
#{{User|Hewer}} Blooper proposal
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} If [[Super Blooper (boss)|this Blooper]] can be split, then so can the ones listed here. On the other hand, the upside-down variants are splitting hairs. Do we split [https://youtu.be/G-JHFcn3qWs?t=58 the Goombas from anti-gravity sections] just because they're upside down?
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Second pick, per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.


Three-or-more-option proposals have the same problem, especially since you can vote for more than one option - the rule does not clarify whether or not multiple votes from the same user counts toward quorum. [[Talk:Wario Land II#Decide if unlocalized Wario Land II enemies should use Japanese or generic names|This proposal]] is a good example - it only met the minimum four because one of the voters picked two options.
====Upside-down Oppose====
#{{User|Arend}} ''Maybe'' a case could be made for Scattering Blooper, but Sky Blooper and Upside-down Piranha Plant also behave (nearly) identical to their regular counterparts. Not to mention that nearly all the regular versions of these enemies have retroactively gained attributes of these enemies too (Buzzy Beetles and Spinies can appear commonly walking on ceilings and dropping down in various games, Piranha Plants can pop out upside down from a ceiling pipe in various games, nearly all Bloopers encountered on land float above the ground; none of these are regarded as distinct variants in those later games), so it's a little weird to me if only those specific versions of enemies are regarded as separate entities but regular versions of these enemies adapting these attributes aren't; feels inconsistent and confusing for a reader.
#{{User|Axii}} Per Arend. I feel like it would be an unnecessary split. Nintendo doesn't refer to these enemies separately in any newer games. Sky Blooper may have had a chance, but ''Super Mario Maker'' clearly shows that they are just regular Bloopers. I can see Scattering Blooper being split in the future though.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per opposition.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} i can see the case for scattering blooper and MAYBE sky blooper, but i don't think i agree with the philosophy behind the proposal.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} The idea of splitting certain minor behavior differences in enemies, but ''only'' in certain games where they are given a specific adjective relating to the thing they do, honestly just sounds ridiculous. If you're going to split some of them, you might as well split all of them, lest you create a glaring inconsistency in the wiki's coverage of these enemy variants.<br>Also keep in mind that these individual acknowledgements of upside-down enemies aren't consistent even between these similar-era games; Piranha Plants can be found upside-down as early as ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels|The Lost Levels]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]'', yet would be confusingly absent from your proposed "Upside-down Piranha Plant" article due to not being called "Upside-down Piranha Plants" (and also kind of throws a wrench into your theory that these were originally special variants before being merged into the main enemy). These upside-down enemies are only listed on ''Mario Portal'' when the game's respective manual also mentions them (with apparently a single exception in SMB3's Upside-down Spiny), suggesting less of a confirmation as species and more of an attempt to parallel existing material.<br>The only potential exceptions I see here are the Bloopers, particularly the Sky Blooper with its actually distinct appearance. Though, if the red Koopa Troopa, an enemy that has had consistently has a different appearance and behavior from its green counterpart in all mainline games it has appeared in (the black-and-white SML2 with only the ledge-fearing green Koopa doesn't count due to there being no red Koopa to compare with), [[Talk:Koopa_Troopa#Split_Red_Koopa_Troopa_and_Green_Koopa_Troopa|is too minor a difference to get an article]], then how are these any different?
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Some of these proposed splits are overkill.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Split enemies for one game each? Not unless we split everybody into singular game subpages like [[smashwiki:Mario (SSBB)|Smash Wiki's fighter pages]].
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I don't think there's a benefit to splitting Bloopers because the ''Super Mario Maker'' games treat them the same anyways. Plus, there's games like ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' where Bloopers come from the water and are fought on land, and there's no specific place to put those.
<s>#{{User|Hewer}} Not opposed to all of these (I'd probably support splitting Sky Blooper), but while I do generally like following official classification of things, having an article for Buzzy Beetles that were upside down in SMB3 specifically and no other game just feels silly and confusing.</s><br>
<s>#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.</s>


'''Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so ''at least one option'' must have a minimum of 4 votes.'''
====Sky Comments====
I understand the rationale, but Mario Portal (and most game material) also recognizes things like green-shelled and red-shelled Koopas as distinct from one another and they also have different behaviors from one another. That'd probably be a bigger proposal than you'd be interested in executing, but how would you feel on those types of enemies being split? I at least like the idea of Sky Blooper getting its own article on the face of it. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:27, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
:Those shouldn't be by virtue of the functional distinctions being inconsistent, especially when you get into things like Shy Guys. Most of them use (identifiers) too rather than actual naming differences. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:09, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
::Fair (especially for Shy Guys), though generally, I'm pretty sure red-shelled Koopas mechanically are always the ones that turn when they reach an edge, whereas green-shelled ones don't.
::What if, for those enemies, there was a similar scenario as with [[Koopa Shell]]s, where there is one main article, but also smaller ones for [[Green Shell]]s and [[Red Shell]]s for scenarios where the shells have mechanical differences? We could have a main [[Koopa Troopa]] article, and then a Koopa Troopa (Green) and Koopa Troopa (Red). - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:50, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::You're only looking in terms of 2D platformers, there. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:02, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
::::(I hope this is isn't too tangential - I appreciate your insight on this) I think the only 3D platformer with both Koopa Troopas is Super Mario Galaxy, and they still have mechanical differences from one another in those games.
::::For platformers and spin-offs where colors are only cosmetic, I think it would be fine for them to share a single Koopa Troopa article (again, similar setup to Koopa Shell). But I understand the resistance to that idea, because it could be messy and difficult to curate. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
:::::And there's the black-and-white ''Super Mario Land 2'', where the art shows green, but the behavior's more like typical red ones. Then we get into Paratroopas, where originally green hopped or moved back-and-forth and red moved up-and-down, then games like ''Super Mario World'' have red ones moving horizontally or green ones moving vertically. And then there's Cheep Cheep - swimming Cheep Cheeps' colors in SMB1 were purely cosmetic, then SMB3 had lots of behavioral variation among red-colored ones and only one behavior for green-colored ones. I think keeping the "color" ones grouped unless a very notable difference is present (like the ''Paper Mario'' and ''Yoshi's Story'' versions of [[Black Shy Guy]]) is the best way to go in that regard. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:23, September 26, 2024 (EDT)


This retains the current minimum number of supports necessary to pass a proposal where no other options receive votes, but eliminates the "opposition backfire" issue mentioned above. Under this new rule, Proposal B would NQ, just like Proposal A. This rule would also apply to proposals with three or more options - at least one option would need at least 4 votes to avoid NQ.
@Opposition I see this as a similar case to [[Gloomba]] only covering the blue underground Goombas when they are officially split, or [[Headbonk Goomba]] only covering headbonking Goombas when ''they'' are officially split. Same for the large-sized Chain Chomps and Wigglers sometimes being considered "big" versions and sometimes considered standard. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
:I see those as a bit different since they have functional or other differences specific to those games, blue Goombas aren't normally stronger than the standard versions. As far as I can tell, the only way Upside-down Buzzy Beetle is more of a variant in SMB3 than it is any other game is in name. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:52, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
::The fact that Portal, which is recent, bothers to split them for those games specifically rather than ignore it in favor of following what later games do makes me think this is still valid. Especially since Upside-Down Piranhas were also differentiated in Viridi's Piranha Plant list in ''Smash Ultimate''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:09, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::Technically, do we know whether Viridi was referring to specifically upside-down Piranha Plants from Super Mario Land, rather than just upside-down ones in general? Not sure if it's different in Japanese, but their placement in the list is notably odd especially if it was meant to be referring to just Mario Land, as they are the last variant listed before the three Petey Piranhas, rather than the roughly release date order the list mostly uses. As for Mario Portal, Nintendo101's point about red and green Koopa Troopas compels me to ignore that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:12, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
::::They're the only ones that are named as such, so yes. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:36, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Uhhh, I'd find sources other than Super Mario Land and the Mario Portal before I confidently make claims like that. Personally, I doubt that these games are the only instances in which the Japanese word for "upside-down" immediately precedes the name of an enemy that happens to be upside-down. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 01:46, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Treating it as a label, there are none. Prose, perhaps, but not as a deliberate label. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:03, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Again, sources???? The only evidence I could find vaguely supporting you (for the Piranha Plant in ''Lost Levels'' at least) is in a scan of the Japanese Super Mario All-Stars guide, which is after you claim they dropped the concept. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:47, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::What Portal is doing is enough, IMO. It shows their "current interpretation" is that they are different enough for a separate listing (without the parentheses, even) specifically in the respective games I listed, but not elsewhere. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:42, September 28, 2024 (EDT)


Now for the other problem.
{{@|DrippingYellow}} - Technically, only the Upside-Down Piranha Plants in SML have the point bonus, which is part of how the game defines its enemies. Also, that "paralleling existing material" also doesn't split color, so this doesn't seem inconsistent to me. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:36, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
:...Are you seriously trying to argue that the ''point value'' of the enemy is the clincher here? As though enemies are supposed to stay exactly the same with no changes between games? Maybe the developers of SML thought you deserved more of a reward for landing a Superball shot on these upside-down enemies, but how does that specifically support them being considered a unique variant of Piranha Plant in only Super Mario Land? And sure, they called the red Koopa Troopas "Koopa Troopa (Red)" or whatever instead of "Red Koopa Troopa", but simply having a unique name is not the end-all be-all of whether something gets an article or not ([[Black Shy Guy (Yoshi's Story)]], the countless articles that we had to give a conjectural name, to name a few).<br>The problem is simply that versions of enemies that are visually idential and behaviorally similar to their normal counterpart usually don't get split, regardless of whether they have a unique name or not. And somehow, what you're proposing is even more bizarre than that; that these specific enemies in these specific games are Upside-down with a capital "U", and should be split, and the others, lowercase "u", with the ''exact same behavior, attributes, and appearance'', should not. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 01:46, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::I see this as equivalent to [[Fire Nipper Plant]], which only appeared once in SMB3, and later RPGs gave normal Nipper Plants identical fire breath abilities. And the point value is a notable difference in function. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:03, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::Even if these truly are separate listed enemies in only these specific games, this is more like the Grinder/Ukiki situation if anything; two completely different enemies from different series that were eventually merged, and we treat them as the same thing. No "Grinder" article that only covers the monkeys in the ''Yoshi's Island'' games and not ''Wooly World''. This situation is even simpler than that debacle if you ask me, as we know exactly what to look for in terms of defining traits (that is, they are upside-down). See also: the [[Helper Monkey]] article, with all of the uniquely-named-in-Japan variants merged together for the sake of simplicity. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:47, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::The monkeys are mainly a snarl because YNI used both (O-saru-san in-game for a level name, Ucky in the guidebook), but in that case the "two separate enemies" weren't in a single game alongside each-other separately, so that situation is still different. There's also a reverse situation related to that, where Big Cheep Cheep lost its funny big mouth and its original design was eventually given to its derivative Cheep Chomp (in the same game that gave Grinder's design to Ukiki). Now, I do ''get'' where you're coming from, but I find this situation clean enough to enact this. Meanwhile, on the [https://triforcewiki.com/ Triforce Wiki], I list both of the "Zora" designs together, while Nintendo back-and-forths on whether they're different, the same, or different-looking clans of the same species (which as of ''Echoes of Wisdom'', is their current depiction) - I find that to be too much confusing mingling to bother attempting to split it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:45, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::I will say, Nintendo is inconsistent with whether they list colored variants as separate subjects or lumped together, but in the modern era (the mid-2010s onward), they generally do if there are mechanical differences between them. For example, the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'' and Mario Portal list red and green Koopa Troopas separately for every game where they both appear (as well as yellow and blue ones in ''Super Mario World''), as well as the [https://ninten-switch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/supar-mario-bros-wonder-for-nintendo-switch-kanzepki-guidebook-hanbai3.jpg Kadokawa guidebook for ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'']. They do not do this for enemies that appear in multiple colors but have no mechanical differences between them, like [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/history/3d_world/index.html Biddybuds, Para-Biddybuds, or Lava Bubbles in ''Super Mario 3D World''] (of note, they do recognize blue and red Lava Bubbles separately [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/history/galaxy2/index.html in ''Super Mario Galaxy 2''], where they do have mechanical and behavioral differences with each other. I should also note that I have seen ''Super Mario 3D Land'' Biddybud figures sold with color denotations in their listed names in Japan, but it makes sense to do that for physical merchandise).
::I do not know the best approach for Super Mario Wiki. My gut feeling is that it would be best to stick to the systematics employed by the source material, and if that material is listing enemies separately by behavior or color or size, then it is not inherently unreasonable for them to get a dedicated article. What constitutes an "enemy" is not innate - it does not necessarily mean they are members of different species or anything like that (as apparent with [[Giant Goomba]]s, which can split into [[Hefty Goomba]]s, then normal [[Goomba]]s, indicating all Goombas have the capacity to mature into Giant Goombas and would be members of the same exact species, but they are not the same enemy). But our source material is inconsistent and fluid, adjusting based on the specific functions of individual games, as is the case with Lava Bubbles in SMG2 and SM3DW. They have flipflopped with whether they recognize different colors as separate enemies or the same ones (such as [https://imgur.com/32lQKbm here, in the bestiary for ''New Super Mario Bros.'' from 2006 that lumps Koopa Troopas together]) but they are also inconsistent in contemporary sources. In the encyclopedia, [[Big Deep Cheep]] is listed as a distinct enemy in the first ''New Super Mario Bros.'' and ''New Super Mario Bros. 2'' - it is lumped with the [[Deep Cheep|smaller one]] in ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' even though it has not undergone any behavioral changes, and this is in the same book. [[Dragoneel]]s are lumped as one enemy in the ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' section, even though there are fast, extremely long red Dragoneels and stout, slow-moving blue Dragoneels, which seems as valid a distinction as green and red Koopa Troopas. In the Kadokawa ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' excerpt I linked to above, it recognizes Red Koopa Troopas and Red Koopa Paratroopas as separate enemies from the green ones, but it lists brown and purple [[Trompette]]s as one enemy, as well as yellow and blue [[Konk]]s. This is despite the fact that the difference between the brown and purple Trombettes is that the latter turns around when it reaches the edge of a platform... just like red Koopa Troopas in the same game. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:18, September 28, 2024 (EDT)


'''Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.'''
{{@|ThePowerPlayer}} - Well those aren't given a different name, especially not in a consistent manner across multiple sources, which was the crux here. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:37, September 29, 2024 (EDT)


Imagine the frustration. Your TPP has three supports and no opposition. If just one more person would vote, you'd be golden. But before it can happen, that deadline comes. Your proposal's over. You waited two weeks for nothing. Hey, at least you have "the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion", even though that's an extremely vague statement that is not clear at all about what it actually means. I guess it just means "redo the proposal from scratch", but why should you have to do that?
@SeanWheeler: What? The proposal is about splitting particular enemy variants. It has nothing to do with what you said. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:24, September 30, 2024 (EDT)


'''Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.'''
{{@|Scrooge200}} - The SMM ones are to stay on the Blooper page, though. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:59, October 2, 2024 (EDT)


Why do no quorum proposals have to end right then and there? Why not just extend them, like we do with proposals that do not reach a consensus by deadline? This would help give vote-starved proposals more of a chance to gain attention and reduce the number of frustrating NQs. I'm not sure if we should apply the four-week waiting period for proposals that ''do'' NQ under this new rule, but I'm leaning towards no. If you think it should, feel free to comment on it.
=== Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from ''All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.'' ===
''[[All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.]]'' has various alternatively named graphic swaps of things from ''Super Mario Bros.'', most of which relate to the cast and iconography of the show it is based on. These include:
*OkaP and Pakkun OkaP replacing Goomba and Piranha Plant ([[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Early merges|split demoed here]] alongside stuff from the above proposal
*The ''Hiranya'' replacing the Star
*The various celebrities replacing the Toads (though admittedly the bonus one is unknown)


'''Proposer''': {{User|7feetunder}}<br>
These are meant to be seen as different things from the originals, so the current system of lumping them in with them is awkward to say the least. The only real outlier here is the NBS logo replacing the axe, because from what I can tell [https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Nippon_Broadcasting_System Katsu Yoshida never named the eye].
'''Deadline''': April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Apply both solutions====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
#{{User|7feetunder}} Preferred option.
'''Deadline''': October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal; I especially support enacting the first problem's solution since it would sew a blatant policy loophole.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal. I think both solutions can work. I do support the idea of the first solution, but the second solution is also a good idea, especially if it concerns a topic that's easy to miss or can easily duck under the radar.
#{{User|Somethingone}} After thinking a bit more, I might've misinterpreted what solution 1 would do.
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} Per. Also, yes, I do feel that the four-week moratorium rule need only be applied to proposals that have several votes but remain without a clear majority.


====Apply problem #1's solution====
====Sunplaza Support - all subjects====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Second option.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Consistent with how we handle, say, [[Deku Baba]]s in ''[[Mario Kart 8]]''.
#{{User|Shoey}} I've always said the wiki needs more weirdo articles.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per. Don't see why not. Deku Baba is a good parallel.
#{{User|Mariuigi Khed}} Per.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} i always thought we dont give ANNSMB enough coverage here. per all
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} I'm tempted to say this seems like unnecessary splitting of information, but I guess the information would still also be present in the main article, wouldn't it? This seems fine.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense, and perhaps this could finally crack the mystery of who that unknown celebrity is! Per all.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all, especially on [[Deku Baba]] and [[Keese]].
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Those look nothing like the original enemies.


====Apply problem #2's solution====
====Sunplaza Support - only enemies====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Better than nothing.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Hewer}} I'm neutral about the other point, but per proposal on this one (I was actually thinking of this problem recently after [[Talk:Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64)#Merge to Crocodile Isle|this proposal]]).
#{{User|Spectrogram}} While I disagree on some points in problem #1, namely the proposed solution, I do believe extending the NQ proposals is better than relisting them.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm not sure if the first proposed solution is great in how it would affect proposals with more than two choices, but the second seems fair enough to me.
<s>#{{User|Somethingone}} I feel like a better solution to problem #1 would be to modify rule 10 so that it applies to all proposals, not just ones with >10 votes, and/or maybe reduce its margin from 3 to 2. That said, I do think solution #2 is a good idea.</s>


====Leave the rule as is====
====OkaP Oppose====
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} I'm admittedly working from vague memories at the moment, so I apologize if anything I say is flat-out wrong, but my understanding is the portion of the rule about relisting NQ proposals is there because there isn't always enough information in them for users to make an informed decision and cast a vote. Other times, what information is there might be at odds with the stated goal. Maybe a proposed solution wouldn't adequately address a problem raised. Maybe someone points out (or realizes) the problem itself is larger in scope than originally outlined or an entirely different problem altogether. Since these sorts of discussions tend to happen after the deadline for editing the proposal has passed, it's an opportunity to incorporate whatever comes out of those into the next iteration of the proposal (in part because of rule 5). The initial deadline is usually enough time for those sorts of discussions to take place, and there are ways of getting people to weigh in if the specific issue is a lack of attention (an ever-present one regardless of what the deadline is). That said, sometimes, unfortunately, there aren't a significant number of people concerned about/invested in a particular thing, and I think the proposed more-votes-per-option solution could therefore result in more NQs or failed proposals.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'd personally not want to split these enemies since doing so is practically a degree away from re-splitting ''Super Mario World'''s "Fall" graphic swaps (and the ''Advance 2'' exclusives don't have their own names).


====Comments====
====Katsu-eye Comments====
Another problem with no quorum is that it also means that the proposal is treated as failed, as if it was a clear opposed result. I disagree; I think it should be treated as if the proposal didn't happen, opening the door for resolution to occur via discussion. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 10:32, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
 
===Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2===
Since the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles|last proposal]], other proposals have cropped up which sought to trim excess appellatives and nicknames from the titles of various character articles. As a result of these proposals, which saw little to no contention, the following changes were made:
*Professor Elvin Gadd [[Talk:Professor E. Gadd#Rename (proposal edition)|was moved to]] "Professor E. Gadd".
*Baby Donkey Kong [[Talk:Baby DK#Move to Baby DK|was moved to]] "Baby DK".
*Crossover characters with formerly descriptive titles (e.g. Sonic the Hedgehog, Fox McCloud) [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Change_full_names_of_crossover_characters_to_the_more_often_used_shortened_versions_in_article_titles|were moved to]] the shortened forms of their names (e.g. "Sonic", "Fox").
 
As well, before the aforementioned proposal:
*Donkey Kong Country's Animal Friends [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Move_animal_names_from_the_Donkey_Kong_Country_series_to_just_their_normal_names|were moved to their shorthand names]].
*Conker the Squirrel [[Talk:Conker#Rename_to_Conker|was moved to]] "Conker".
 
Vigilant gamers and game lore extraordinaires will know why these changes were made: the short forms of these subjects' names have been much more prominent and recent in their relevant official works, and their display titles across the site did not reflect this predilection. The Koopalings, as well as [[Princess Daisy]], are now the outliers in this specific regard--but while [[Talk:Princess_Daisy#Move_to_"Daisy"|the sentiment against moving Daisy's name to its more common shortened form]] was the inconsistency that would arise with [[Princess Peach]] using her long title, I do not recall the Koopalings, as a group, having some special counterpart that would create a similar perceived inconsistency.
 
Yeah, [[Larry]] was called "Larry Koopa" in a specific line of dialogue within Smash Ultimate, in a decade-and-a-half old licensed player's guide, and probably some 2010's toy that I'm sure users will name here in the comments, but the fact is, his short name has been promoted front-and-center within all of the games he has appeared from Mario Kart 8 back in 2014 until today, many of which are namedropped in the previous proposal. Same with his 6 siblings.


@Somethingone: I'm not going to say I'm against a rule 10 modification, but such a thing would require a separate proposal, since it would need different options for reducing the voting margin or not reducing it (or only reducing it for proposals with ten votes or less). Additionally, rule 10 only applies to two-option proposals, so it would not solve problem #1 for proposals with more than two options like the one I linked. I would also like the know the issue with implementing my solution so I can improve it or come up with an alternative.
Besides, [[MarioWiki:Naming]] states plainly:
*"the name of an article should correspond to the '''most commonly used English name''' of the subject"
*"the more commonly used modern name should be used as the title"


@Mario4Ever: You completely misunderstand the purpose of NQs. It is merely to prevent proposals from passing with too few votes. That's it. It is not a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals as you seem to be claiming. The proper response to such proposals is inform the proposer in the comments why their proposal is flawed so they can either improve it, or in the event a complete overhaul is needed, cancel it and make a new one (or request an admin cancel it if 3/6 days have already passed). Plenty of proposals that NQ don't have issues at all, they just aren't getting the attention they need, and extending them would help with that. Additionally, proposals with the issues you mentioned don't always fail to obtain votes - depending on what the issue is, voters may just outright oppose it until their problems are addressed. Alternatively, the proposal might gain support ''before'' the issues with it are fully realized ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Stop listing reused artwork as a reference to an older game|example]]), so the idea of NQs as a defense against flawed proposals is a flimsy excuse at best.  {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 13:50, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
and I believe it's only sensible for the wiki to mirror the more recent developments of the franchise in how a subject is introduced to readers.
:I'm not saying that NQs are a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals. I was just explaining that a lack of attention isn't necessarily why the minimum vote threshold isn't met, since that's one of your main points of contention. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 15:36, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
::The vast majority of proposals that end with no quorum only do so because they don't get enough attention, and there are plenty of poorly written proposals that don't get no quorum. Besides, I don't really see how your argument relates to the proposed rule changes, as waiting for flawed proposals to NQ isn't really how you're meant to deal with them anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:45, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
:::I think part of the disconnect is that the proposal references and directly links to TPPs, which do tend to get less attention than proposals on this page (or at least, they did). Most of the proposals I've weighed in on have been in the latter category, where the things I've mentioned are (were?) more likely to come up. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 00:57, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::Your point? The majority of proposals made nowadays are TPPs, and issue of whether or not the proposal is on a talk page is irrelevant. You have yet to justify your opposition in any way. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::It's relevant to my argument to the extent that it informs my perception of proposals, but getting to the point, I don't see the proposal's problem #1 as such (and don't believe effectively redefining what constitutes a quorum would benefit them if it were). I also don't think more time would necessarily give TPPs more attention because my general approach involved prioritizing things like the scope or the information I had/needed over the deadline. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 14:41, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::How can you possibly think that problem #1 isn't an issue? You're saying that oppose votes actually ''causing'' proposals to pass is entirely logical. It's not. Imagine you oppose a proposal. It has 3 supports and 1 oppose - namely, you - near the deadline. This encourages you to game the system by removing your oppose vote at the last minute to stop the proposal from passing. How is that not completely asinine? {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:44, April 9, 2022 (EDT) 
:::::::Let's say the proposed solution to problem #1 is implemented. You create a proposal that's set to pass with four votes to one. At the last minute, the fourth supporter decides they're ambivalent toward the outcome and removes their vote, or maybe they get blocked for some reason, and their vote is removed.  Now, let's say the extension solution is also in effect, so the proposal doesn't get relisted. In the worst case scenario, another three weeks go by with no additional votes to give either option the four-vote minimum, so at the final deadline, it fails with a 3-1 ratio. Is having your proposal not go into effect at all preferable to the scenario of it getting potentially overturned later? {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 22:09, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::You're missing the point. Let's take your hypothetical proposal, but remove that one oppose vote. What happens under the current rules? It NQs, since it doesn't have enough votes. Meanwhile, your version of the proposal would pass because it does, despite having the ''exact same amount of support''. Why should that happen? Why should it be possible for opposing a proposal be counterproductive to actually stopping a proposal from passing? Like I just said, this encourages the opposer to game the system by removing their oppose vote at the last minute so the proposal will NQ and therefore not pass, which is ridiculous. Simply put, if a 3-0 proposal doesn't pass, then a 3-1 or 3-2 shouldn't pass either. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 22:38, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it's counterproductive to vote in opposition to something even if it's not likely to (or doesn't) prevent the proposal from passing. My hypothetical scenario demonstrates that "gaming the system" is technically possible under the proposed new system. Since that's therefore not the problem being solved, I don't think it's a relevant justification. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 23:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::Your hypothetical scenario demonstrates nothing of the sort. A supporter removing their vote because they changed their mind isn't gaming the system, it's normal. An opposer ''removing their oppose vote'' at the last minute to deliberately cause an NQ for a proposal that would otherwise pass is absolutely gaming the system - a form of which my proposed solution would render unnecessary. Opposition not preventing a proposal from passing is ''not'' the problem, it's opposition ''actively causing'' a proposal to pass because of the current NQ rule. Stop misinterpreting my posts. I'm still waiting for you to justify why a 3-0 proposal shouldn't pass, but a 3-1 or 3-2 should. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 13:04, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::Community input is as or more important than a proposal's outcome, the impact of which is neither permanent nor irreparable. Ignoring that I never encountered a single instance of someone doing what you describe in 12 years, I think, depending on the proposal, four or five votes is an adequate reflection of that input. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 14:19, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::That's just flat out wrong. Community input is what ''causes'' a proposal's outcome. You can't just lump supporters and opposers together under the banner of "community input" like they're the same thing. When someone opposes a proposal, it's because they ''don't want it to pass''. Therefore, it should never ''result'' in it passing for any reason, ever. While proposals can be overturned, it requires another successful proposal, which means just one or two people wanting the overturning aren't going to cut it. If a proposal with those one or two opposers should pass, then a proposal without those opposers should also pass. If a proposal with three supporters shouldn't pass, then a proposal with three supporters and one or two opposers shouldn't pass either. I don't get why that's so hard for you to understand. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 15:39, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::I haven't been following the discussion too closely but I think the idea is that a proposal with five votes, even if some of them are opposition, has had adequate community participation to move forward. Honestly, I think you're focusing way too hard on the issue of people potentially "gaming the system" by not opposing to deliberately force a no quorum. I've never seen that happen and it seems like assuming bad faith to me. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:53, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I don't think concern over a potential issue equates with assuming bad faith in the userbase. It's still a loophole and the system's better off without it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:47, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Precisely. It doesn't matter if this loophole isn't exploited regularly, the mere fact that it's possible to exploit it warrants fixing it. It doesn't matter if you've seen it happen, not voting is a non-action, so you can't produce evidence of it happening or not happening. There's no reason ''not'' to fix this; I should never have to consider not voting on a proposal I actively oppose (or removing my existing oppose vote) just because of this loophole. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 17:15, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
@LinkTheLefty: I don't understand what the problem is with how it would affect proposals with more than two choices. Be more specific so I can maybe improve it or come up with a better solution. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:I feel like an issue one might have with solution 1 is that it could result in situations where proposals with many options could have many votes but still NQ because no option has >3 votes. Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that. [[User:Somethingone|Somethingone]] ([[User talk:Somethingone|talk]]) 13:31, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::Basically. It just makes it needlessly harder for multiple-choice proposals to pass, also considering option results sometimes overlap with each other. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:21, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::"Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that." Not necessarily. A proposal with 5 options may have accrued only 4 total votes and still pass, provided all those votes are for one option in particular. If not one option has more than 3 votes, it's a NQ period, regardless of how many available options there are. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:22, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::That still doesn't factor when choices overlap, which more often than not do in multiple-choice proposals. Say this hypothetical proposal: 1) do X only, 2) do Y only, 3) do Z only, 4) do X & Y, 5) do X & Z, 6) do Y & Z, 7) do X, Y & Z, and 8) don't do anything. Let's say the X & Y options are generally unpopular, but votes are accrued for options involving Z. Let's say #3 gets 3 votes, and #s5, 6 & 7 get two votes each. And for the sake of argument, let's say that all the votes are from different users. That's at least nine total, with the remaining options having zero-to-two votes. Under the current system, #3 passes, and everyone walks away somewhat pleased because they at least agreed to do Z. Under the first proposed solution, the proposal becomes a no quorum, despite the fact that virtually everyone had Z in mind, making no one happy. That's another reason why I think no quorums should be considered non-proposals rather than opposed/failed ones. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:50, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::You seem to have forgotten about rule 9, which would force an extension on your hypothetical proposal anyway. If there were nine voters, three votes wouldn't be enough for the option to win. It would need more than half, in other words, at least five. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 17:26, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Then that might be another technicality with the system, but I digress. Fudge the specifics a bit if you like; the bottom line is 100% support on one action minimal (Z) and a lot of multiple-choice proposals are structured this way. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::Are you saying that you oppose rule 9 or want it changed? Because that's what would get in the way of your hypothetical proposal. It doesn't matter how many votes there are, if the voters are spread across four voting options and they're too close, rule 9 won't let it pass. Anyway, a simple solution to the "overlapping options" issue is, once you've established that everyone wants to do Z, make Z a standalone proposal. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:28, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::That seems cumbersome. You could just note in the above proposal that overlapping choices (e.g. "Z", "X&Z", and "X&Y&Z") will count votes together towards the common goal "Z". I agree with LTL insofar as it doesn't make much sense to treat these as mutually exclusive. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:51, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::Is that allowed? There isn't anything about it in the proposal rules, and I've never heard of such a thing happening. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:58, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::Rule 14 states: "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation". I assume "rewritten" implies you can bring in any modifications, including additions--I've done it before in my proposals and nobody minded. [[Special:Diff/3595274|It's been 2 days and ~6 hours since the proposal was published]], so I think changing it as of this comment's writing is still ok. ''If'' your question refers to the matter of overlapping options, I'd say that, since the proposal at hand already sets out to amend the rules, you may indeed add any further stipulations if you see it fit. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:18, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::I wasn't talking about my own proposal, I was asking if a rule about the overlapping options thing ''already existed'' (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't). {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 19:32, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::It doesn't, that's why I was suggesting it's offhandedly taken care of in the current proposal. Adding such a rule could and should have been made through a separate proposal, but what the current proposal advocates makes way to the issues described above by LTL (although I still support the amendment per se), so I was thinking you could kill two birds with one stone by taking care of it in the same proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:49, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem with deciding on the addition of such a rule here is that this proposal already has four options, and that would require adding additional variants of those options that include adding the new rule. If there turned out to be disagreement on whether it should be added or not, this would cause division amongst the current options' votes (which are already rather close between two of them), thus increasing the risk of this proposal stalemating. Anyway, I already mentioned that the issue described in LTL's hypothetical proposal ''is already present'' due to rule 9, so as long as rule 9 exists, problem #1's solution doesn't cause any issues that don't already exist. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 20:07, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Yeah, ultimately, it might be better to address that matter in a future proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:19, April 9, 2022 (EDT)


===''[[Pinball (game)|Pinball]]'' (1984): full coverage or guest appearance?===
Affected pages include:
Should ''Pinball'', an NES game released in 1984, be classified as a guest appearance or a part of the ''Mario'' series? This proposal was created following [[User:Mario jc]]'s comment [[Template_talk:Pinball|here]].
{|
|-
|
*[[Larry Koopa]] (will be moved to "Larry")
*[[Roy Koopa]] ("Roy")
*[[Wendy O. Koopa]] ("Wendy")
*[[Lemmy Koopa]] ("Lemmy")
*[[Morton Koopa Jr.]] ("Morton")
*[[Ludwig von Koopa]] ("Ludwig")
*[[Iggy Koopa]] ("Iggy")
|
*[[List of Larry Koopa profiles and statistics]] (will be moved to "List of Larry profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Roy Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Roy profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Wendy O. Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Wendy profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Lemmy Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Lemmy profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Morton Koopa Jr. profiles and statistics]] ("List of Morton profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Ludwig von Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Ludwig profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Iggy Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Iggy profiles and statistics")
|}


I believe this game features enough Mario-related content to justify full coverage of this game on this wiki. 1 out of 3 scenes is dedicated to Mario. In the scene C the player is controlling Mario to save Pauline, Mario is also heavily used in promotional material, including being on the cover-art for this game.  
Note:
*This proposal targets only page titles. Even if it's a pass, articles can still acknowledge the full forms of these characters where appropriate, such as in Koopaling article openers.
*If this proposal passes, the templates in [[:Category:Koopaling content templates]] become obsolete and are to be abolished.


Alternatively, we can '''only''' allow coverage for the scene C, which features Mario as a playable character and Pauline.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Affected pages:'''
====Support====
* [[Template:Pinball]]
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per proposal, and per the former proposal as well, which I encourage participants to peruse. (Though, this time, with no multi-option shenanigans.)
* [[Card (Pinball)]]
#{{User|Axii}} Per con Carne (like the last time).
#{{User|Nintendo101}} This may be controversial, but I think this is fine and in-line with our policies. These characters have largely only been referred to by their first names since ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga''. This does not mean Ludwig's full name is not "Ludwig von Koopa" or that it does not see occasional use in marketing and in games - it just means the title of the article is just Ludwig. I personally do not think that is as systematically harmful or erroneous as previous proposals seemed to have suggested. Lots of reference material does this. For example, the name of the {{wp|Mark Twain}} article on Wikipedia is not "Samuel L. Clemens" in any language.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Needless to say, there have been a few changes since the last time this was proposed.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. It seems only fair as we clamp down more and more on these elongated page titles.
#{{User|Tails777}} Supported once and I'll do it again. Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all. I never really understood the main argument against this last time ("the full names still exist", as though that means they should automatically take priority over their more common short counterparts).
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|DesaMatt}} Per all von Koopa.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} while i don't agree with the de-title-ification that's been going on, if we're going to do it we might as well be consistent with it.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} The fact that there exists an entire category of templates just to circumvent a standard that violates MarioWiki:Naming is concerning, to say the least.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} per all
#{{User|BMfan08}} Per all.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all, I know I opposed this before but I've changed my mind after several similar proposals since then have passed.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per Koopall


'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br>
====Oppose====
'''Deadline''': April 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} No. Okay, no. I'm trying to make a case for undoing the proposal that shortened the Sonic characters' names. I've got a strong case for Fox McCloud in that not only was his last name mentioned in every Smash game, his [[Costume Mario#92|costume]] in [[Super Mario Maker]] is the "Fox McCloud" costume, not the "Fox" costume. And I know that if this proposal passes, Peach and Daisy are next.


====Allow full coverage====
====Comments====
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per proposal.
To clarify my position on Daisy, it was not because I thought the proposal was unreasonable. To me, an analogous situation would be drafting a proposal to only change the name of Iggy Koopa's article and none of other Koopalings. Maybe others don't see Peach and Daisy as related to each other as sibling characters like the Koopalings, but that's how I feel at least. I would receive a proposal that included both Peach and Daisy differently. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:31, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - if [[Alleyway]] can get full coverage, so can this.
:I reworded that point about the Daisy vs. Peach situation to sound less like a potshot. Sorry. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:34, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all.
::I thought it was funny :) Just wanted to clarify my position. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:37, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I feel like this is one of the loosest games you can consider part of the franchise (and Mario is not referenced or advertised at all on the Famicom box), but Lady/Pauline is mentioned in the manual's "plot"/objective, so you can say it barely counts.
:::I appreciate that you took it in good humor, but I've made a point that I'll try and be more careful with the way I word my statements. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:41, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Jacklavin}} Perhaps this is a crossover between the Mario series and the game of pinball.  We have full coverage of the Mario & Sonic series.  I'd argue that this game fits into the Donkey Kong/DK Jr./Donkey Kong GB line of games and would suggest adding it in the "related games" section of that series, if it's not already there.


====Classify as a guest appearance (prohibit full coverage)====
@SeanWheeler: If Mario Maker costume names were the decider, [[Mr. Resetti]] would just be "Resetti", and indeed, Princess Peach and Princess Daisy would just be Peach and Daisy. But the main thing the Fox page covers isn't a costume in Mario Maker, it's his more common, prominent, and recent Smash appearances, in which the main name used to refer to him is always just "Fox". (Also, Sonic's Mario Maker costume is just called "Sonic", not "Sonic the Hedgehog".) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:03, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} As I understand it, this removes ''Pinball''-exclusive articles while keeping the main game article intact. If it must be considered a guest appearance, I'd rather go for this approach, since the main article is short enough that I don't feel it's worth trimming. Either way, "penguin" does irk me a bit under the SM64 one.
:It's not just the Mario Maker costumes. He's been referred to as "Fox McCloud" in Melee's trophies and Ultimate's spirits, plus in Snake's Codec and Palutena's Guidance. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 17:22, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
::And he's been referred to as "Fox" in his actual role as a playable character in every single Smash game. As I've repeated countless times in our [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Change full names of crossover characters to the more often used shortened versions in article titles|previous]] [[Talk:Shadow (character)#Rename to "Shadow"|debates]], this isn't an argument of whether the full name exists, it only matters which name is more common. Please stop cherry-picking the times when the full name was used in profiles and such and acting like that automatically outweighs the more common name. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:56, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
:::I feel like these proposals shortening names are meant to take the "common name" part of the naming policy to it's literal conclusion. The article names were fine before they were changed by proposals, and now we're changing very distinctive article names to generic names. That's not good for disambiguation. The shortened names could be used as redirects, but we are discouraged from linking redirects, making me confused why we have redirects at all. I mean, link templates for the Koopalings? In November, I'm going to make a proposal to encourage linking redirects. My proposal to overturn the crossover character naming was only delayed by me not having unlocked the Sonic Character Book at the Secret Shop in Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. Yes, I was going to bank on the full names being used somewhere in the games being enough to outweigh the player names. Are Peach and Daisy are going to lose their princess titles for the sake of following the naming conventions? I think the naming rule should be changed. Problem is, I can't figure out how to word it in a way to have the pages moved back to the names I want. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 23:55, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
::::This proposal is trying to get rid of those Koopaling templates, though. We have redirects for search purposes, not for linking. And why shouldn't the common name policy be taken to its "literal conclusion"? Are you saying you'd rather we enforced it inconsistently? That we should only enforce it when you personally happen to prefer the common name? We shouldn't ignore official sources just so that we can use the names we prefer. Also (another thing I've repeated endlessly), calling these names "generic" is subjective at best and just false at worst. Nothing about "Larry" makes it inherently a more "generic" name than "Mario" or "Pauline", and if Nintendo is content to use the shorter names to identify the characters, we have no reason not to follow suit. "But Peach and Daisy" is also a bad counterargument when several of the users supporting this proposal also supported the Daisy proposal, myself included. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:07, October 1, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Redirects just for search purposes are practically useless when there's autofill and search results. Linking to a redirect would have less bytes then pipelinking wouldn't it? And no, I don't like inconsistent rules either. I'm still trying to figure out my proposal to the naming convention. I don't want the most frequently used names which would just reduce everyone to just their first names or nicknames. Wiki page titles should be more formal than that. But during the Shadow proposal, you have pointed out some awful full names, so giving literally everyone their full names would be out too. And I feel nostalgia for the names the wiki had for years, so I wouldn't want Bowser to be moved to King Bowser Koopa. What would be the best naming convention that would have us move most if not all these characters back to their original page titles? I thought maybe "the longest common-used name" as in the full name that was referenced in most of the characters' appearances, which would keep Peach at Princess Peach (because she hasn't used her Toadstool surname in a long time, and she has been referred to as Princess Peach at least once in most of the Mario games, right?) That would definitely move Fox back to Fox McCloud. But with that rule of naming the characters their fullest name used in the most appearances, that would force us to use the full names of one-time characters like [[Squirps]] becoming {{fake link|Prince Squirp Korogaline Squirpina}}, so that rule wouldn't work out with me either. I don't have that many Mario games, so it would be hard to verify when each name was used in each game. If I go for "best known name," that's probably going to rely too much on bias, so that wouldn't work either. And if I just make a proposal to undo every move in the wiki's history and make it so that every article name is simply the original title, I doubt anyone would be on board if there were more legitimate reasons those pages moved like if some page titles started out misspelled. I've voted to shorten parentheticals, so it would make me a hypocrite to revert all the moves I've supported. This is really hard, especially as we're moving articles on a case-by-case basis when the articles should already be following the naming rules. Instead of the case-by-case basis, we really need to clarify the naming rules and what we mean by the "most common name." If we mean by the given name most frequently said in every game, then maybe the rule should be changed. Tell me, how many games have the Koopalings been referred to as their full names at least once? How many manuals and guides have their full names? They use their first names in playable character data, so how do we count playable character data? I would like to only count the playable character data just once. But how will we count dialogue? If we count every instance in dialogue, would we shorten Diddy Kong to just Diddy? Would Bowser Jr. be called Junior? This is all so complicated. All it shows is that our current naming rules aren't good. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 23:06, October 1, 2024 (EDT)
::::::In my opinion, I think our approach to article names for characters has been a bit technocratic. I don't think we need a strict, blanketedly applied naming policy is as beneficial as some think, and I really deciding these things on a case by case basis is perfectly fine.
::::::I personally would be in favor of returning the [[Fox]] article to Fox McCloud, purely because the word "fox" alone as plenty of connotations on its own and including the surname is just immediately clarifying that it is the main character from ''Star Fox''. I similarly would feel fine with returning the ''Sonic'' characters to their full names because it is just immediately pretty clarifying what the article's subject is about, as opposed to something else in the ''Mario'' series called a shadow. Some of them had to have clarifications between parentheses attached to the end anyways, which wouldn't have been necessary if we just kept the full names.
::::::Making decisions like that does not have to have ramifications on the names of other character articles. Inconsistency is not inherently bad if it leads to better clarification for readers. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:50, October 1, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Inconsistency is bad. Following your logic, we could end up with characters like "Sonic" and "Espio" keeping short names while others like "Shadow the Hedgehog" and "Big the Cat" get their full names, since only the latter share their names with other subjects. And wasn't inconsistency the main reason you didn't want to shorten "Princess Daisy"? Also, why would "Fox" cause clarification problems when he doesn't share that name with anything else on the wiki? Would we just arbitrarily decide which names do and don't need clarification? The best solution to all these problems is to stick to how official sources most commonly handle the names, i.e. the current naming policy (which I don't think needs changing, just enforcing). Also, @SeanWheeler, redirects are not "practically useless", they help significantly with streamlining the search process and helping people find what they're looking for. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:32, October 2, 2024 (EDT)


====Allow coverage for the Mario scene (scene C) only (and classify as a guest appearance)====
===Overturn the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/55#Delete_Category:User_eo|proposal]] that resulted in the deletion of [[:Category:User eo]] (category for speakers of {{wp|Esperanto}})===
#{{User|Spectrogram}} Second option.
Myself, I don't care about this language, and needless to say, neither do most people on the planet, but I take issue with the proposal that had it removed in the first place for a few reasons.
*The proposal argues that this language "is not a real language", that "nobody really picked it up", and likens it to the fictional language of Klingon. Despite its status as a constructed language, it is, in fact, very much a real language intended and created to be functional. It has a(n admittedly small) number of speakers across the planet, some of whom may well be potential editors on this wiki for all we know. The comparison to Klingon, which was created with an artistic purpose, is misleading.
*The proposer [[User talk:Doomhiker#Woah|was outed as an extremist]] (read up on the details at your own risk) who seemingly was planning to have other language-based user categories removed, as he followed up with another [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/55#Delete_Category:User_ka|proposal targeting the Georgian user category]]. The wiki's policies outline that we shouldn't assume bad faith in users, but given the circumstances here, I hope you'll allow me the assumption that this user had ulterior motives in their little curatorial project, namely in altering the wiki ever so slightly according to their outlooks. Proposal failed and the user was banned for their concerning behavior, preventing further such proposals from being made.
 
Now, as you'd expect, the Esperanto user category certainly never saw much use--in fact, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140712133001/http://www.mariowiki.com/Category:User_eo only one user employed it as of 2014] <small>(archive.org)</small> and even then [https://web.archive.org/web/20140711152028/http://www.mariowiki.com/User:Pakkun only listed Esperanto as a second language] <small>(archive.org)</small> (though, the very point of Esperanto was to be an auxillary language between people who don't speak the same native language). That user, who goes by {{user|Pakkun}}, has since taken the category off their page, so you could argue that this proposal lacks a tangible purpose as "User eo" would be dead on arrival should it be recreated.
 
The point of this proposal, however, isn't to recreate this language immediately; it is to negate the proposal that currently prevents its creation if someone ever considers they'd derive some use from it. '''This community should be open to anyone regardless of their cultural background.''' The previous proposal is contrary to that.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly, we would be down for ''more'' Conlangs to have user categories. We can't imagine the overlap of, say, Vötgil speakers to Mario Wiki users is very large, but like, in regards to a strictly English wiki, the Conlang categories in particular are just for-fun categories at the end of the day, and who the hey are we to ''expressly prohibit'' other people's fun? And even in the most generous reading of the events, it still feels like a bit of warped priorities when some categories have been in need of reforms for awhile now <small>(sorry about the Thieves category thing, we're still thinking of that and honestly at this point we wouldn't mind someone else chipping in with that)</small> and haven't gotten them, but we have an entire proposal dedicated to... Deleting a category for Esperanto speakers??? (And for the record, this was back when [[:Category:Canines]] was called Dogs--something something, obligatory mention of [[Penkoon]].)
#{{User|Shadow2}} We DID this? wtf??
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} With the provided context, something about Trig Jegman's proposals rubs me the wrong way. If it's true that he was trying to gradually remove other languages, where would he stop? He stated that Esperanto and Gregorian are languages not supported by Nintendo (a weak argument IMO, as Nintendo =/= this wiki), and not widely spoken, so would he first try to get all small-spoken languages removed? Would he eventually try to get larger languages removed just because Nintendo doesn't support these languages? Would he eventually go even further and get even languages that ''are'' supported by Nintendo removed because they're not as widely spoken as other languages? Would he eventually make it so that English is the ''only'' language remaining? Would he then remove that category too because if that's the only language category for users, then what's the point of keeping it? Or worse, is this a ploy to recognize who is native to other languages and would he try to get non-English users banned so only English-speaking users have access to the wiki (and ''then'' remove the English category)? ...Uh...fearmongering aside, per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} No harm having it if people want to use it.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} The more the Marior. That older proposal was dumb.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} I'm not a fan of banning users for off-site drama, especially when it's political. But if his proposal was bigoted, then maybe it should be overturned.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all, especially Sean. This proposal was asinine at best, in retrospect, and harmful at worst. And that's coming from a man who doesn't have full context as to what happened.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. That category never hurt nobody.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====


====Comments====
====Comments====
I do want to add something. I was reminded of pages 238-255 of ''Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.'' earlier which, while "not an exhaustive list", is nonetheless a fairly big one. It contains a bar showing Mario's involvement with each entry: four stars is "Main ''Super Mario'' series games", three stars is "Mario is a major character", two stars is "Mario plays a small part", one star is "Mario's likeness appears", and no star is "A member of the Mario family appears". Obviously, this can vary depending on if it counts ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', or ''Wario'' franchises, or one-off character spinoffs like ''Super Princess Peach'' (two stars), but ''Pinball'' is decidedly none of those (for the record, the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games are two stars, though the wiki deems them a special exception). ''Pinball'' and ''Alleyway'' are given the same two-star status as things like ''Tennis'', ''Tetris'', ''Qix'', and "Famicom Disk System (boot-up screen)". For reference, ''Famicom Grand Prix II: 3D Hot Rally'' has three stars even though ''Famicom Grand Prix: F1 Race'' has two stars, and ''Golf'' isn't mentioned. Granted, this is mainly referring to the involvement of character Mario rather than necessarily being indicative of ''Mario'' games, so make of this what you will. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:14, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
The real question is if we can have a Klingon category (as [[User:Alex95|a certain other editor who is no longer with us due to concerning behavior]] mentioned on that proposal). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:11, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:Up for debate whether user categories can have some basis in fiction. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:16, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:We think that Conlangs in general should just be allowed, just because it both feels really, really weird to try to police ''what'' Conlangs "count" as languages, and because the idea of focusing even more proposals on such a for-fun topic feels.... A little too much, when that effort is best used elsewhere. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:14, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
 
<s>We should be open for Inklingese and Smurf.</s> {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:24, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:<s>Per Arend.</s> --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 05:50, September 30, 2024 (EDT)


===Classify Art Style: PiCTOBiTS as a guest appearance and give it its own page===
===Lower the requirement for a disambiguation page from 5 to 4===
The DSiWare game Art Style: PiCTOBiTS is a block-falling game where you try to make various sprites.  A good number of these sprites are from the NES Super Mario Bros., while a couple come from NES Wrecking Crew.  While it's certainly a crossover between different franchises, the main franchise of the game is Mario, since 12 of its 30 stages focus on the franchise. The game also includes, as part of its main mechanics, coins (using their Super Mario Bros. sprites) and the POW Block; no other franchise is referenced in the main mechanics.  I'd argue that it deserves coverage, just like [[Super Smash Bros.]] and [[NES Remix]].  Let's make a page for it, rather than just including it in the list of Mario references in Nintendo games. I've written something up in https://www.mariowiki.com/User:Jacklavin/Sandbox. (I've been playing the game on my 3DS, and I used No$GBA to take the screenshot.)
As of now, the requirement for a disambiguation page's creation is five pages:
:''"If there are five or more pages which could be reasonably associated with a given name, then a disambiguation page must be created"'' ([[MarioWiki:Naming]])
This rule feels needlessly restrictive, considering the amount of clutter links make at the very top of the page. "For a minigame in the ''WarioWare'' series, see X. For an object in ''Super Mario Odyssey'' found in the Luncheon Kingdom, see Y. For an underwater enemy from...", you get the idea. If this proposal passes, the threshold on MarioWiki:Naming will be lowered from 5 to 4.  


'''Proposer''': {{User|Jacklavin}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Axii}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2022, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Jacklavin}} This is my proposal.
#{{User|Axii}} ^
#{{User|Spectrogram}} This game has a significant amount of Mario-related content to be classified as a guest appearance.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} One or two other articles are fine, but having three separate articles in the <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template at the top of the page is the point where a disambiguation page is ideal.
#{{User|PanchamBro}} Per Spectrogram
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} We don't need to clutter the {{tem|About}} template.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Frankly, I'd support bringing the requirement as low as 3. Per proposal.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====


====Comments====
====Comments====
While this game appears on page 250 of the Super Mario Bros. encyclopedia, it's clear from the information provided that the writer only learned about the first stage of the game; its information is actually incorrect. --[[User:Jacklavin|Jacklavin]] ([[User talk:Jacklavin|talk]]) 12:39, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
Do you have any examples of how many subjects would be affected by this change? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 10:52, September 29, 2024 (EDT)
:I don't think there's an easy way to tell, but I can't imagine it being too many. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 12:05, September 29, 2024 (EDT)


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

Latest revision as of 21:59, October 2, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, October 3rd, 03:57 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.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • 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 registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (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 one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 administrators.
    • 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.
  6. 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.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. 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.
  9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  10. 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 the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  11. 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 can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
  12. 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.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for writing guidelines and talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. 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.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. 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, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "October 3, 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. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. 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. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

  • Rename {{Manga infobox}} to {{Publication infobox}} (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge Play Nintendo secret message puzzles (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge categories for Donkey Kong Country remakes with their base game's categories (discuss) Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Refer to "King Bill" as "Bull's-Eye Banzai" for coverage in New Super Mario Bros. Wii (discuss) Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Rename Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia to Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten (discuss) Deadline: October 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Split the References in other media section on Super Mario Bros. to its own article (discuss) Deadline: October 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Split Luigi's Twin from Luigi (discuss) Deadline: October 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Create an article for secret exits and merge Goal Pole (secret) with both it and Goal Pole (discuss) Deadline: October 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Remove "(series)" identifier from titles that don't need it (discuss) Deadline: October 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
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 New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)
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)
Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)
Create MarioWiki:WikiLove and WikiLove templates, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 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)

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 Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"

Currently, the way our proposals are set up, there are two deadlines. On the main proposals page, they last for 1 week. On talk pages, or for writing guidelines proposals, 2 weeks. Now, this is fine. We're not going to claim this is like, some total deal-breaker or nothing. However, lately, there have been a few concerns raised about this inconsistency, and we figured, what the hey, why not put it up to vote?

A few concerns we've seen, both from others and from us, in no particular order;

  • The largest one to us is just that, unless a proposal is really specific, it's just not worth it to make a talk page proposal over a main page proposal, since it'll end faster. The only thing immune to this are writing guidelines proposals.
  • While the proposals themselves are different lengths, the duration before you can make a second proposal on them remains the same. Thusly, if you want to set a policy in stone, you would actually want to make it a writing guidelines/talk page proposal over an ordinary one, as that means it will last for, at least, 6 weeks (4 weeks for the cooldown, and 2 weeks to put it to proposal again.)
  • Lastly, talk page proposals just inherently take longer to happen. This can be an issue if their changes are, overall, quite small (like a simple merge/split or rename), or the consensus is reached very quickly; this stings when an ordinary proposal would happen twice as fast with the exact same amount of votes!

Now, there's a few ways you can go about this, but there's one in particular we've taken a liking to: uh, just make all proposals take 2 weeks, lmao.

"BUT CAM & TORI!", we hear you shout, "BUT YOU SAID 2 WEEKS PROPOSALS TAKE TOO LONG??? WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THEM TO SOMETHING YOU HATE???", and to that we say... No! We actually like the 2 weeks proposals! They have a distinct benefit to them! The problem is that they're juxtaposed with the 1 week proposals. Let's run through those same bullet points.

  • If all proposals were 2 weeks, well, there's no real loss to making a talk page proposal over a main proposal page proposal, as they'll all last 2 weeks anyways. (Sure, a proposal can take longer if there's a tie, but that just happens for all proposals anyways.)
  • There's also no incentive to make a talk page proposal/writing guideline proposal if you particularly want your porposal to stick around, as again, now every proposal is guaranteed to last for, at the very least, 6 weeks.
  • Now. While it's annoying that all proposals will take 2 weeks, despite the inherent risk of some coming to their consensuses much faster than the deadlines, for one, this is also an issue with talk page proposals as-is. For two, the extra time can offer extra time for new information to come to light or for particularly close votes to make their cases and form a proper consensus, without needing a tiebreaker. Lastly, if it's really that big of an issue, we could perhaps create a rule that if a proposal comes to a particularly large consensus a week in, it'll pass early (the finer details would be created as necessary).

There is, of course, the alternative of making all proposals 1 week. While we realize this does also resolve a lot of things, it does also necessarily mean that some proposals that would want to happen slower, now don't have that time, and are rushed. Even making only talk page proposals take only 1 week means that Writing Guideline proposals will be at a unique disadvantage for how long they take/an advantage for how long they last if they pass. (And of course, we could just leave everything as they are, but that goes without saying.) That being said, we have provided options for these, and you're free to make your case for these.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: October 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Make all proposals last for 2 weeks

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) If it's not obvious, this is our primary option; we're a big fan of the idea of global 2 week proposals!. Even with their caveats, in the worst-case scenario, we could make a clause to prevent proposals for lasting too long if they reach their consensus early, or we could simply revert back to the current system. We think the added consistency and preventing of shenanigans is very potent, and it also means that you have to put a bit more thought into your proposal as you make it. Patience fans will be eating good if this passes.

Make all proposals last for 1 week

Make all proposals except for writing guidelines proposals last for 1 week

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. While we like this much less, we do see the merit of making Talk Page Proposals 1 week, and it's not exactly the end-all-be-all. However, we would vastly prefer 2-week proposals, and keeping Writing Guidelines proposals 2-week is kind of a necessary evil to prevent them from being too rushed for their own good. However, compared to truly all 1-week proposals, this is better... though, not as good as all 2-week proposals.
  2. 7feetunder (talk) For me, it's either this or bust. New information coming to light can still invalidate a proposal's entire premise too late and require a counterproposal even with a 2 week deadline, so extending the deadline of main page props to 2 weeks won't stop that from happening from time to time. Most proposals that don't reach a consensus in a week will probably require extensions anyway. TPPs being less "visible" than main page proposals was more of an issue back when no quorums were immediate, but that's no longer the case.

Do nothing

  1. 7feetunder (talk) If making TPPs last 1 week isn't desirable, I say just keep the status quo. While the current system does encourage making main page proposals over TPPs when possible if one wants their prop to pass faster, I'm fine with that. A controversial prop is not going to end in a week, and a prop with unanimous or near-unanimous support probably doesn't need that extra time in the oven. I'd be more open to global 2 weekers if a "early consensus = early pass" sub-rule was already in effect, but it isn't, and there's no guarantee that such a rule would be accepted by the community.

Comments

Something that occurred to me: The time allowed to edit TPPs was originally 3 like main page proposals, but eventually doubled to 6 to go with their extended duration. If TPPs are shortened to 1 week, would the time allotted to edit them be reverted? Dark BonesSig.png 19:30, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

That seems only fair to put them back to 3 days if that option passes--after all, it would be a glaring oversight to retain that and effectively allow for proposals that were en route to pass suddenly being hijacked on the last day, and pivoting from the original purpose, while still retaining the vote. The plan here is to de-jank the proposal time-lengths and make them more consistent--not to introduce even more shenanigans! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:18, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Split articles for certain official single-game enemy behavior splits

In the early days, before Nintendo was really sure how they wanted to classify enemies, there were some splits that didn't stick - namely, behaviors that were initially unique to a specific subtype, and then became normal alternatives to the base enemies. I'm specifically talking about:

  • Sky Blooper - Blooper variant from Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels
  • Upside-down Buzzy Beetle - Buzzy Beetle variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
  • Upside-down Spiny - Spiny variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
  • Scattering Blooper - Blooper Nanny variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
  • Upside-down Piranha - Piranha Plant variant from Super Mario Land

I make this mainly because the Mario Portal splits each of these for these games specifically, across language borders, despite being a newer source (which is notably a lot more than Boss Bass/Big Bertha gets, so that merge remains correct), along with Upside-down Piranha making the Smash Bros. Piranha Plant list; other instances of similar things occurring that have not (yet) been corroborated by a source like Portal (such as Tobipuku from New Super Mario Bros.) will not be counted. Now, I want to clarify something important: this split only covers the appearances where the official word treats them as distinct enemies. Random upside-down Buzzy Beetles and Piranha Plants in New Super Mario Bros. Wii are not counted, as they are not distinguished from their base species in any way in that game. I see this as similar to Fire Nipper Plant, another SMB3 enemy whose fire-breathing characteristics were given to normal Nipper Plants in a few later games.

I have a demo for these pages in the various sections of this page, along with stuff for the below proposal.

EDIT 9/28: Adding an option for only splitting the two Bloopers.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Scattering Support

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per proposal.

Bloopers only, no upside-down!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I see no problem with this. Unlike the other proposed splits, normal Bloopers have not inherited the defining airborne traits of Sky Bloopers outside of the Super Mario Maker games, which breaks a lot of conventions for the sake of fun creative gameplay. I do not think it is the same situation as Upside-down Piranha Plant or Spiny.
  2. DryBonesBandit (talk) Agreed.
  3. Hewer (talk) Blooper proposal
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) If this Blooper can be split, then so can the ones listed here. On the other hand, the upside-down variants are splitting hairs. Do we split the Goombas from anti-gravity sections just because they're upside down?
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Second pick, per all.
  6. Jazama (talk) Per all
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.

Upside-down Oppose

  1. Arend (talk) Maybe a case could be made for Scattering Blooper, but Sky Blooper and Upside-down Piranha Plant also behave (nearly) identical to their regular counterparts. Not to mention that nearly all the regular versions of these enemies have retroactively gained attributes of these enemies too (Buzzy Beetles and Spinies can appear commonly walking on ceilings and dropping down in various games, Piranha Plants can pop out upside down from a ceiling pipe in various games, nearly all Bloopers encountered on land float above the ground; none of these are regarded as distinct variants in those later games), so it's a little weird to me if only those specific versions of enemies are regarded as separate entities but regular versions of these enemies adapting these attributes aren't; feels inconsistent and confusing for a reader.
  2. Axii (talk) Per Arend. I feel like it would be an unnecessary split. Nintendo doesn't refer to these enemies separately in any newer games. Sky Blooper may have had a chance, but Super Mario Maker clearly shows that they are just regular Bloopers. I can see Scattering Blooper being split in the future though.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per opposition.
  4. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) i can see the case for scattering blooper and MAYBE sky blooper, but i don't think i agree with the philosophy behind the proposal.
  6. DrippingYellow (talk) The idea of splitting certain minor behavior differences in enemies, but only in certain games where they are given a specific adjective relating to the thing they do, honestly just sounds ridiculous. If you're going to split some of them, you might as well split all of them, lest you create a glaring inconsistency in the wiki's coverage of these enemy variants.
    Also keep in mind that these individual acknowledgements of upside-down enemies aren't consistent even between these similar-era games; Piranha Plants can be found upside-down as early as The Lost Levels and Super Mario Bros. 3, yet would be confusingly absent from your proposed "Upside-down Piranha Plant" article due to not being called "Upside-down Piranha Plants" (and also kind of throws a wrench into your theory that these were originally special variants before being merged into the main enemy). These upside-down enemies are only listed on Mario Portal when the game's respective manual also mentions them (with apparently a single exception in SMB3's Upside-down Spiny), suggesting less of a confirmation as species and more of an attempt to parallel existing material.
    The only potential exceptions I see here are the Bloopers, particularly the Sky Blooper with its actually distinct appearance. Though, if the red Koopa Troopa, an enemy that has had consistently has a different appearance and behavior from its green counterpart in all mainline games it has appeared in (the black-and-white SML2 with only the ledge-fearing green Koopa doesn't count due to there being no red Koopa to compare with), is too minor a difference to get an article, then how are these any different?
  7. Shoey (talk) Per all.
  8. Mario (talk) Some of these proposed splits are overkill.
  9. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  10. SeanWheeler (talk) Split enemies for one game each? Not unless we split everybody into singular game subpages like Smash Wiki's fighter pages.
  11. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
  12. Scrooge200 (talk) I don't think there's a benefit to splitting Bloopers because the Super Mario Maker games treat them the same anyways. Plus, there's games like Paper Mario: The Origami King where Bloopers come from the water and are fought on land, and there's no specific place to put those.

#Hewer (talk) Not opposed to all of these (I'd probably support splitting Sky Blooper), but while I do generally like following official classification of things, having an article for Buzzy Beetles that were upside down in SMB3 specifically and no other game just feels silly and confusing.
#DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.

Sky Comments

I understand the rationale, but Mario Portal (and most game material) also recognizes things like green-shelled and red-shelled Koopas as distinct from one another and they also have different behaviors from one another. That'd probably be a bigger proposal than you'd be interested in executing, but how would you feel on those types of enemies being split? I at least like the idea of Sky Blooper getting its own article on the face of it. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:27, September 25, 2024 (EDT)

Those shouldn't be by virtue of the functional distinctions being inconsistent, especially when you get into things like Shy Guys. Most of them use (identifiers) too rather than actual naming differences. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:09, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
Fair (especially for Shy Guys), though generally, I'm pretty sure red-shelled Koopas mechanically are always the ones that turn when they reach an edge, whereas green-shelled ones don't.
What if, for those enemies, there was a similar scenario as with Koopa Shells, where there is one main article, but also smaller ones for Green Shells and Red Shells for scenarios where the shells have mechanical differences? We could have a main Koopa Troopa article, and then a Koopa Troopa (Green) and Koopa Troopa (Red). - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:50, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
You're only looking in terms of 2D platformers, there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:02, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
(I hope this is isn't too tangential - I appreciate your insight on this) I think the only 3D platformer with both Koopa Troopas is Super Mario Galaxy, and they still have mechanical differences from one another in those games.
For platformers and spin-offs where colors are only cosmetic, I think it would be fine for them to share a single Koopa Troopa article (again, similar setup to Koopa Shell). But I understand the resistance to that idea, because it could be messy and difficult to curate. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
And there's the black-and-white Super Mario Land 2, where the art shows green, but the behavior's more like typical red ones. Then we get into Paratroopas, where originally green hopped or moved back-and-forth and red moved up-and-down, then games like Super Mario World have red ones moving horizontally or green ones moving vertically. And then there's Cheep Cheep - swimming Cheep Cheeps' colors in SMB1 were purely cosmetic, then SMB3 had lots of behavioral variation among red-colored ones and only one behavior for green-colored ones. I think keeping the "color" ones grouped unless a very notable difference is present (like the Paper Mario and Yoshi's Story versions of Black Shy Guy) is the best way to go in that regard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:23, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

@Opposition I see this as a similar case to Gloomba only covering the blue underground Goombas when they are officially split, or Headbonk Goomba only covering headbonking Goombas when they are officially split. Same for the large-sized Chain Chomps and Wigglers sometimes being considered "big" versions and sometimes considered standard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

I see those as a bit different since they have functional or other differences specific to those games, blue Goombas aren't normally stronger than the standard versions. As far as I can tell, the only way Upside-down Buzzy Beetle is more of a variant in SMB3 than it is any other game is in name. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:52, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
The fact that Portal, which is recent, bothers to split them for those games specifically rather than ignore it in favor of following what later games do makes me think this is still valid. Especially since Upside-Down Piranhas were also differentiated in Viridi's Piranha Plant list in Smash Ultimate. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:09, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
Technically, do we know whether Viridi was referring to specifically upside-down Piranha Plants from Super Mario Land, rather than just upside-down ones in general? Not sure if it's different in Japanese, but their placement in the list is notably odd especially if it was meant to be referring to just Mario Land, as they are the last variant listed before the three Petey Piranhas, rather than the roughly release date order the list mostly uses. As for Mario Portal, Nintendo101's point about red and green Koopa Troopas compels me to ignore that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:12, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
They're the only ones that are named as such, so yes. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:36, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
Uhhh, I'd find sources other than Super Mario Land and the Mario Portal before I confidently make claims like that. Personally, I doubt that these games are the only instances in which the Japanese word for "upside-down" immediately precedes the name of an enemy that happens to be upside-down. DrippingYellow (talk) 01:46, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
Treating it as a label, there are none. Prose, perhaps, but not as a deliberate label. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:03, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
Again, sources???? The only evidence I could find vaguely supporting you (for the Piranha Plant in Lost Levels at least) is in a scan of the Japanese Super Mario All-Stars guide, which is after you claim they dropped the concept. DrippingYellow (talk) 11:47, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
What Portal is doing is enough, IMO. It shows their "current interpretation" is that they are different enough for a separate listing (without the parentheses, even) specifically in the respective games I listed, but not elsewhere. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:42, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

@DrippingYellow - Technically, only the Upside-Down Piranha Plants in SML have the point bonus, which is part of how the game defines its enemies. Also, that "paralleling existing material" also doesn't split color, so this doesn't seem inconsistent to me. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:36, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

...Are you seriously trying to argue that the point value of the enemy is the clincher here? As though enemies are supposed to stay exactly the same with no changes between games? Maybe the developers of SML thought you deserved more of a reward for landing a Superball shot on these upside-down enemies, but how does that specifically support them being considered a unique variant of Piranha Plant in only Super Mario Land? And sure, they called the red Koopa Troopas "Koopa Troopa (Red)" or whatever instead of "Red Koopa Troopa", but simply having a unique name is not the end-all be-all of whether something gets an article or not (Black Shy Guy (Yoshi's Story), the countless articles that we had to give a conjectural name, to name a few).
The problem is simply that versions of enemies that are visually idential and behaviorally similar to their normal counterpart usually don't get split, regardless of whether they have a unique name or not. And somehow, what you're proposing is even more bizarre than that; that these specific enemies in these specific games are Upside-down with a capital "U", and should be split, and the others, lowercase "u", with the exact same behavior, attributes, and appearance, should not. DrippingYellow (talk) 01:46, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
I see this as equivalent to Fire Nipper Plant, which only appeared once in SMB3, and later RPGs gave normal Nipper Plants identical fire breath abilities. And the point value is a notable difference in function. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:03, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
Even if these truly are separate listed enemies in only these specific games, this is more like the Grinder/Ukiki situation if anything; two completely different enemies from different series that were eventually merged, and we treat them as the same thing. No "Grinder" article that only covers the monkeys in the Yoshi's Island games and not Wooly World. This situation is even simpler than that debacle if you ask me, as we know exactly what to look for in terms of defining traits (that is, they are upside-down). See also: the Helper Monkey article, with all of the uniquely-named-in-Japan variants merged together for the sake of simplicity. DrippingYellow (talk) 11:47, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
The monkeys are mainly a snarl because YNI used both (O-saru-san in-game for a level name, Ucky in the guidebook), but in that case the "two separate enemies" weren't in a single game alongside each-other separately, so that situation is still different. There's also a reverse situation related to that, where Big Cheep Cheep lost its funny big mouth and its original design was eventually given to its derivative Cheep Chomp (in the same game that gave Grinder's design to Ukiki). Now, I do get where you're coming from, but I find this situation clean enough to enact this. Meanwhile, on the Triforce Wiki, I list both of the "Zora" designs together, while Nintendo back-and-forths on whether they're different, the same, or different-looking clans of the same species (which as of Echoes of Wisdom, is their current depiction) - I find that to be too much confusing mingling to bother attempting to split it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:45, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
I will say, Nintendo is inconsistent with whether they list colored variants as separate subjects or lumped together, but in the modern era (the mid-2010s onward), they generally do if there are mechanical differences between them. For example, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia and Mario Portal list red and green Koopa Troopas separately for every game where they both appear (as well as yellow and blue ones in Super Mario World), as well as the Kadokawa guidebook for Super Mario Bros. Wonder. They do not do this for enemies that appear in multiple colors but have no mechanical differences between them, like Biddybuds, Para-Biddybuds, or Lava Bubbles in Super Mario 3D World (of note, they do recognize blue and red Lava Bubbles separately in Super Mario Galaxy 2, where they do have mechanical and behavioral differences with each other. I should also note that I have seen Super Mario 3D Land Biddybud figures sold with color denotations in their listed names in Japan, but it makes sense to do that for physical merchandise).
I do not know the best approach for Super Mario Wiki. My gut feeling is that it would be best to stick to the systematics employed by the source material, and if that material is listing enemies separately by behavior or color or size, then it is not inherently unreasonable for them to get a dedicated article. What constitutes an "enemy" is not innate - it does not necessarily mean they are members of different species or anything like that (as apparent with Giant Goombas, which can split into Hefty Goombas, then normal Goombas, indicating all Goombas have the capacity to mature into Giant Goombas and would be members of the same exact species, but they are not the same enemy). But our source material is inconsistent and fluid, adjusting based on the specific functions of individual games, as is the case with Lava Bubbles in SMG2 and SM3DW. They have flipflopped with whether they recognize different colors as separate enemies or the same ones (such as here, in the bestiary for New Super Mario Bros. from 2006 that lumps Koopa Troopas together) but they are also inconsistent in contemporary sources. In the encyclopedia, Big Deep Cheep is listed as a distinct enemy in the first New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. 2 - it is lumped with the smaller one in New Super Mario Bros. Wii even though it has not undergone any behavioral changes, and this is in the same book. Dragoneels are lumped as one enemy in the New Super Mario Bros. U section, even though there are fast, extremely long red Dragoneels and stout, slow-moving blue Dragoneels, which seems as valid a distinction as green and red Koopa Troopas. In the Kadokawa Super Mario Bros. Wonder excerpt I linked to above, it recognizes Red Koopa Troopas and Red Koopa Paratroopas as separate enemies from the green ones, but it lists brown and purple Trompettes as one enemy, as well as yellow and blue Konks. This is despite the fact that the difference between the brown and purple Trombettes is that the latter turns around when it reaches the edge of a platform... just like red Koopa Troopas in the same game. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:18, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

@ThePowerPlayer - Well those aren't given a different name, especially not in a consistent manner across multiple sources, which was the crux here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:37, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: What? The proposal is about splitting particular enemy variants. It has nothing to do with what you said. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:24, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

@Scrooge200 - The SMM ones are to stay on the Blooper page, though. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:59, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.

All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros. has various alternatively named graphic swaps of things from Super Mario Bros., most of which relate to the cast and iconography of the show it is based on. These include:

  • OkaP and Pakkun OkaP replacing Goomba and Piranha Plant (split demoed here alongside stuff from the above proposal
  • The Hiranya replacing the Star
  • The various celebrities replacing the Toads (though admittedly the bonus one is unknown)

These are meant to be seen as different things from the originals, so the current system of lumping them in with them is awkward to say the least. The only real outlier here is the NBS logo replacing the axe, because from what I can tell Katsu Yoshida never named the eye.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Sunplaza Support - all subjects

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Consistent with how we handle, say, Deku Babas in Mario Kart 8.
  3. Shoey (talk) I've always said the wiki needs more weirdo articles.
  4. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per. Don't see why not. Deku Baba is a good parallel.
  5. Mariuigi Khed (talk) Per.
  6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) i always thought we dont give ANNSMB enough coverage here. per all
  8. DrippingYellow (talk) I'm tempted to say this seems like unnecessary splitting of information, but I guess the information would still also be present in the main article, wouldn't it? This seems fine.
  9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  10. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense, and perhaps this could finally crack the mystery of who that unknown celebrity is! Per all.
  11. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all, especially on Deku Baba and Keese.
  12. Jazama (talk) Per all
  13. SeanWheeler (talk) Those look nothing like the original enemies.

Sunplaza Support - only enemies

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

OkaP Oppose

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) I'd personally not want to split these enemies since doing so is practically a degree away from re-splitting Super Mario World's "Fall" graphic swaps (and the Advance 2 exclusives don't have their own names).

Katsu-eye Comments

Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2

Since the last proposal, other proposals have cropped up which sought to trim excess appellatives and nicknames from the titles of various character articles. As a result of these proposals, which saw little to no contention, the following changes were made:

  • Professor Elvin Gadd was moved to "Professor E. Gadd".
  • Baby Donkey Kong was moved to "Baby DK".
  • Crossover characters with formerly descriptive titles (e.g. Sonic the Hedgehog, Fox McCloud) were moved to the shortened forms of their names (e.g. "Sonic", "Fox").

As well, before the aforementioned proposal:

Vigilant gamers and game lore extraordinaires will know why these changes were made: the short forms of these subjects' names have been much more prominent and recent in their relevant official works, and their display titles across the site did not reflect this predilection. The Koopalings, as well as Princess Daisy, are now the outliers in this specific regard--but while the sentiment against moving Daisy's name to its more common shortened form was the inconsistency that would arise with Princess Peach using her long title, I do not recall the Koopalings, as a group, having some special counterpart that would create a similar perceived inconsistency.

Yeah, Larry was called "Larry Koopa" in a specific line of dialogue within Smash Ultimate, in a decade-and-a-half old licensed player's guide, and probably some 2010's toy that I'm sure users will name here in the comments, but the fact is, his short name has been promoted front-and-center within all of the games he has appeared from Mario Kart 8 back in 2014 until today, many of which are namedropped in the previous proposal. Same with his 6 siblings.

Besides, MarioWiki:Naming states plainly:

  • "the name of an article should correspond to the most commonly used English name of the subject"
  • "the more commonly used modern name should be used as the title"

and I believe it's only sensible for the wiki to mirror the more recent developments of the franchise in how a subject is introduced to readers.

Affected pages include:

Note:

  • This proposal targets only page titles. Even if it's a pass, articles can still acknowledge the full forms of these characters where appropriate, such as in Koopaling article openers.
  • If this proposal passes, the templates in Category:Koopaling content templates become obsolete and are to be abolished.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) per proposal, and per the former proposal as well, which I encourage participants to peruse. (Though, this time, with no multi-option shenanigans.)
  2. Axii (talk) Per con Carne (like the last time).
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) This may be controversial, but I think this is fine and in-line with our policies. These characters have largely only been referred to by their first names since Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. This does not mean Ludwig's full name is not "Ludwig von Koopa" or that it does not see occasional use in marketing and in games - it just means the title of the article is just Ludwig. I personally do not think that is as systematically harmful or erroneous as previous proposals seemed to have suggested. Lots of reference material does this. For example, the name of the Mark Twain article on Wikipedia is not "Samuel L. Clemens" in any language.
  4. LinkTheLefty (talk) Needless to say, there have been a few changes since the last time this was proposed.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. It seems only fair as we clamp down more and more on these elongated page titles.
  6. Tails777 (talk) Supported once and I'll do it again. Per proposal.
  7. Hewer (talk) Per all. I never really understood the main argument against this last time ("the full names still exist", as though that means they should automatically take priority over their more common short counterparts).
  8. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  9. DesaMatt (talk) Per all von Koopa.
  10. EvieMaybe (talk) while i don't agree with the de-title-ification that's been going on, if we're going to do it we might as well be consistent with it.
  11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) The fact that there exists an entire category of templates just to circumvent a standard that violates MarioWiki:Naming is concerning, to say the least.
  12. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
  13. YoYo (talk) per all
  14. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
  15. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per all, I know I opposed this before but I've changed my mind after several similar proposals since then have passed.
  16. Jazama (talk) Per all
  17. OmegaRuby (talk) Per Koopall

Oppose

  1. SeanWheeler (talk) No. Okay, no. I'm trying to make a case for undoing the proposal that shortened the Sonic characters' names. I've got a strong case for Fox McCloud in that not only was his last name mentioned in every Smash game, his costume in Super Mario Maker is the "Fox McCloud" costume, not the "Fox" costume. And I know that if this proposal passes, Peach and Daisy are next.

Comments

To clarify my position on Daisy, it was not because I thought the proposal was unreasonable. To me, an analogous situation would be drafting a proposal to only change the name of Iggy Koopa's article and none of other Koopalings. Maybe others don't see Peach and Daisy as related to each other as sibling characters like the Koopalings, but that's how I feel at least. I would receive a proposal that included both Peach and Daisy differently. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:31, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

I reworded that point about the Daisy vs. Peach situation to sound less like a potshot. Sorry. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:34, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
I thought it was funny :) Just wanted to clarify my position. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:37, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
I appreciate that you took it in good humor, but I've made a point that I'll try and be more careful with the way I word my statements. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:41, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: If Mario Maker costume names were the decider, Mr. Resetti would just be "Resetti", and indeed, Princess Peach and Princess Daisy would just be Peach and Daisy. But the main thing the Fox page covers isn't a costume in Mario Maker, it's his more common, prominent, and recent Smash appearances, in which the main name used to refer to him is always just "Fox". (Also, Sonic's Mario Maker costume is just called "Sonic", not "Sonic the Hedgehog".) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:03, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

It's not just the Mario Maker costumes. He's been referred to as "Fox McCloud" in Melee's trophies and Ultimate's spirits, plus in Snake's Codec and Palutena's Guidance. SeanWheeler (talk) 17:22, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
And he's been referred to as "Fox" in his actual role as a playable character in every single Smash game. As I've repeated countless times in our previous debates, this isn't an argument of whether the full name exists, it only matters which name is more common. Please stop cherry-picking the times when the full name was used in profiles and such and acting like that automatically outweighs the more common name. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:56, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
I feel like these proposals shortening names are meant to take the "common name" part of the naming policy to it's literal conclusion. The article names were fine before they were changed by proposals, and now we're changing very distinctive article names to generic names. That's not good for disambiguation. The shortened names could be used as redirects, but we are discouraged from linking redirects, making me confused why we have redirects at all. I mean, link templates for the Koopalings? In November, I'm going to make a proposal to encourage linking redirects. My proposal to overturn the crossover character naming was only delayed by me not having unlocked the Sonic Character Book at the Secret Shop in Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. Yes, I was going to bank on the full names being used somewhere in the games being enough to outweigh the player names. Are Peach and Daisy are going to lose their princess titles for the sake of following the naming conventions? I think the naming rule should be changed. Problem is, I can't figure out how to word it in a way to have the pages moved back to the names I want. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:55, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
This proposal is trying to get rid of those Koopaling templates, though. We have redirects for search purposes, not for linking. And why shouldn't the common name policy be taken to its "literal conclusion"? Are you saying you'd rather we enforced it inconsistently? That we should only enforce it when you personally happen to prefer the common name? We shouldn't ignore official sources just so that we can use the names we prefer. Also (another thing I've repeated endlessly), calling these names "generic" is subjective at best and just false at worst. Nothing about "Larry" makes it inherently a more "generic" name than "Mario" or "Pauline", and if Nintendo is content to use the shorter names to identify the characters, we have no reason not to follow suit. "But Peach and Daisy" is also a bad counterargument when several of the users supporting this proposal also supported the Daisy proposal, myself included. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:07, October 1, 2024 (EDT)
Redirects just for search purposes are practically useless when there's autofill and search results. Linking to a redirect would have less bytes then pipelinking wouldn't it? And no, I don't like inconsistent rules either. I'm still trying to figure out my proposal to the naming convention. I don't want the most frequently used names which would just reduce everyone to just their first names or nicknames. Wiki page titles should be more formal than that. But during the Shadow proposal, you have pointed out some awful full names, so giving literally everyone their full names would be out too. And I feel nostalgia for the names the wiki had for years, so I wouldn't want Bowser to be moved to King Bowser Koopa. What would be the best naming convention that would have us move most if not all these characters back to their original page titles? I thought maybe "the longest common-used name" as in the full name that was referenced in most of the characters' appearances, which would keep Peach at Princess Peach (because she hasn't used her Toadstool surname in a long time, and she has been referred to as Princess Peach at least once in most of the Mario games, right?) That would definitely move Fox back to Fox McCloud. But with that rule of naming the characters their fullest name used in the most appearances, that would force us to use the full names of one-time characters like Squirps becoming Prince Squirp Korogaline Squirpina, so that rule wouldn't work out with me either. I don't have that many Mario games, so it would be hard to verify when each name was used in each game. If I go for "best known name," that's probably going to rely too much on bias, so that wouldn't work either. And if I just make a proposal to undo every move in the wiki's history and make it so that every article name is simply the original title, I doubt anyone would be on board if there were more legitimate reasons those pages moved like if some page titles started out misspelled. I've voted to shorten parentheticals, so it would make me a hypocrite to revert all the moves I've supported. This is really hard, especially as we're moving articles on a case-by-case basis when the articles should already be following the naming rules. Instead of the case-by-case basis, we really need to clarify the naming rules and what we mean by the "most common name." If we mean by the given name most frequently said in every game, then maybe the rule should be changed. Tell me, how many games have the Koopalings been referred to as their full names at least once? How many manuals and guides have their full names? They use their first names in playable character data, so how do we count playable character data? I would like to only count the playable character data just once. But how will we count dialogue? If we count every instance in dialogue, would we shorten Diddy Kong to just Diddy? Would Bowser Jr. be called Junior? This is all so complicated. All it shows is that our current naming rules aren't good. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:06, October 1, 2024 (EDT)
In my opinion, I think our approach to article names for characters has been a bit technocratic. I don't think we need a strict, blanketedly applied naming policy is as beneficial as some think, and I really deciding these things on a case by case basis is perfectly fine.
I personally would be in favor of returning the Fox article to Fox McCloud, purely because the word "fox" alone as plenty of connotations on its own and including the surname is just immediately clarifying that it is the main character from Star Fox. I similarly would feel fine with returning the Sonic characters to their full names because it is just immediately pretty clarifying what the article's subject is about, as opposed to something else in the Mario series called a shadow. Some of them had to have clarifications between parentheses attached to the end anyways, which wouldn't have been necessary if we just kept the full names.
Making decisions like that does not have to have ramifications on the names of other character articles. Inconsistency is not inherently bad if it leads to better clarification for readers. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:50, October 1, 2024 (EDT)
Inconsistency is bad. Following your logic, we could end up with characters like "Sonic" and "Espio" keeping short names while others like "Shadow the Hedgehog" and "Big the Cat" get their full names, since only the latter share their names with other subjects. And wasn't inconsistency the main reason you didn't want to shorten "Princess Daisy"? Also, why would "Fox" cause clarification problems when he doesn't share that name with anything else on the wiki? Would we just arbitrarily decide which names do and don't need clarification? The best solution to all these problems is to stick to how official sources most commonly handle the names, i.e. the current naming policy (which I don't think needs changing, just enforcing). Also, @SeanWheeler, redirects are not "practically useless", they help significantly with streamlining the search process and helping people find what they're looking for. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:32, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

Overturn the proposal that resulted in the deletion of Category:User eo (category for speakers of Esperanto)

Myself, I don't care about this language, and needless to say, neither do most people on the planet, but I take issue with the proposal that had it removed in the first place for a few reasons.

  • The proposal argues that this language "is not a real language", that "nobody really picked it up", and likens it to the fictional language of Klingon. Despite its status as a constructed language, it is, in fact, very much a real language intended and created to be functional. It has a(n admittedly small) number of speakers across the planet, some of whom may well be potential editors on this wiki for all we know. The comparison to Klingon, which was created with an artistic purpose, is misleading.
  • The proposer was outed as an extremist (read up on the details at your own risk) who seemingly was planning to have other language-based user categories removed, as he followed up with another proposal targeting the Georgian user category. The wiki's policies outline that we shouldn't assume bad faith in users, but given the circumstances here, I hope you'll allow me the assumption that this user had ulterior motives in their little curatorial project, namely in altering the wiki ever so slightly according to their outlooks. Proposal failed and the user was banned for their concerning behavior, preventing further such proposals from being made.

Now, as you'd expect, the Esperanto user category certainly never saw much use--in fact, only one user employed it as of 2014 (archive.org) and even then only listed Esperanto as a second language (archive.org) (though, the very point of Esperanto was to be an auxillary language between people who don't speak the same native language). That user, who goes by Pakkun (talk), has since taken the category off their page, so you could argue that this proposal lacks a tangible purpose as "User eo" would be dead on arrival should it be recreated.

The point of this proposal, however, isn't to recreate this language immediately; it is to negate the proposal that currently prevents its creation if someone ever considers they'd derive some use from it. This community should be open to anyone regardless of their cultural background. The previous proposal is contrary to that.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) per proposal.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, we would be down for more Conlangs to have user categories. We can't imagine the overlap of, say, Vötgil speakers to Mario Wiki users is very large, but like, in regards to a strictly English wiki, the Conlang categories in particular are just for-fun categories at the end of the day, and who the hey are we to expressly prohibit other people's fun? And even in the most generous reading of the events, it still feels like a bit of warped priorities when some categories have been in need of reforms for awhile now (sorry about the Thieves category thing, we're still thinking of that and honestly at this point we wouldn't mind someone else chipping in with that) and haven't gotten them, but we have an entire proposal dedicated to... Deleting a category for Esperanto speakers??? (And for the record, this was back when Category:Canines was called Dogs--something something, obligatory mention of Penkoon.)
  4. Shadow2 (talk) We DID this? wtf??
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
  8. Arend (talk) With the provided context, something about Trig Jegman's proposals rubs me the wrong way. If it's true that he was trying to gradually remove other languages, where would he stop? He stated that Esperanto and Gregorian are languages not supported by Nintendo (a weak argument IMO, as Nintendo =/= this wiki), and not widely spoken, so would he first try to get all small-spoken languages removed? Would he eventually try to get larger languages removed just because Nintendo doesn't support these languages? Would he eventually go even further and get even languages that are supported by Nintendo removed because they're not as widely spoken as other languages? Would he eventually make it so that English is the only language remaining? Would he then remove that category too because if that's the only language category for users, then what's the point of keeping it? Or worse, is this a ploy to recognize who is native to other languages and would he try to get non-English users banned so only English-speaking users have access to the wiki (and then remove the English category)? ...Uh...fearmongering aside, per all.
  9. Waluigi Time (talk) No harm having it if people want to use it.
  10. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  12. Axii (talk) Per all.
  13. Mario (talk) The more the Marior. That older proposal was dumb.
  14. Jazama (talk) Per all
  15. SeanWheeler (talk) I'm not a fan of banning users for off-site drama, especially when it's political. But if his proposal was bigoted, then maybe it should be overturned.
  16. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all, especially Sean. This proposal was asinine at best, in retrospect, and harmful at worst. And that's coming from a man who doesn't have full context as to what happened.
  17. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. That category never hurt nobody.
  18. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

The real question is if we can have a Klingon category (as a certain other editor who is no longer with us due to concerning behavior mentioned on that proposal). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:11, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Up for debate whether user categories can have some basis in fiction. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:16, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
We think that Conlangs in general should just be allowed, just because it both feels really, really weird to try to police what Conlangs "count" as languages, and because the idea of focusing even more proposals on such a for-fun topic feels.... A little too much, when that effort is best used elsewhere. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:14, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

We should be open for Inklingese and Smurf. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:24, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Per Arend. --A Boo hiding and revealing itself. FanOfYoshi Splunkin model from New Super Mario Bros. 05:50, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

Lower the requirement for a disambiguation page from 5 to 4

As of now, the requirement for a disambiguation page's creation is five pages:

"If there are five or more pages which could be reasonably associated with a given name, then a disambiguation page must be created" (MarioWiki:Naming)

This rule feels needlessly restrictive, considering the amount of clutter links make at the very top of the page. "For a minigame in the WarioWare series, see X. For an object in Super Mario Odyssey found in the Luncheon Kingdom, see Y. For an underwater enemy from...", you get the idea. If this proposal passes, the threshold on MarioWiki:Naming will be lowered from 5 to 4.

Proposer: Axii (talk)
Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Axii (talk) ^
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) One or two other articles are fine, but having three separate articles in the {{about}} template at the top of the page is the point where a disambiguation page is ideal.
  3. SeanWheeler (talk) We don't need to clutter the {{About}} template.
  4. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Pseudo (talk) Frankly, I'd support bringing the requirement as low as 3. Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Do you have any examples of how many subjects would be affected by this change? — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 10:52, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think there's an easy way to tell, but I can't imagine it being too many. Axii (talk) 12:05, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4382203"