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


Line 11: Line 12:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)===
===Split ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' bosses into boss levels===
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.
This proposal is similar to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/41#Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levels|the one that passed]]. As you see, we have [[Motley Bossblob]] and [[Hisstocrat]] boss levels from ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'', the boss levels from the [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|''Donkey Kong Country'' series]], even boss levels ''[[Yoshi's Crafted World]]'' where each boss guards a [[Dream Gem]]. Right now, you might be wondering how we can create separate articles for the ''[[Wario Land: Shake It!]]'' boss levels.
 
According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split:
 
*[[Rollanratl]] → [[Rollanratl Battle]]
*[[Hot Roderick]] → [[Hot Roderick Race]]
*[[Chortlebot]] → [[Chortlebot Challenge]]
*[[Bloomsday]] → [[Bloomsday Blowout]]
*[[Large Fry]] → [[Large Fry Cook-Off]]
*[[Shake King]] → [[VS the Shake King]]
 
Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' boss levels.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}} (banned)<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see [[Bowser's Sourpuss Bread]], which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)
#{{user|Arend}} I suppose that makes sense. Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
<s>#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal</s>
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} While there is precedence, I just don't see this as necessary given the information is currently detailed on the existing pages without overcrowding them.
 
====Comments====
Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
:Looking at "[[Special:ShortPages|Short Pages]], when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP]]'' items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split ''[[Speed Mario Bros.]]''. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when [[Pesky Billboard]] is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
:Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Standardize sectioning for ''Super Mario'' series game articles===
I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the ''[[Super Mario (series)|Super Mario]]'' series on and off for the past few years. I think presenting information in a shared, unified way is beneficial for readers and passively communicates that these games are part of a shared series, something I think is helpful for a franchise covering so many genres and series. Game articles in the ''[[Yoshi's Island (series)|Yoshi's Island]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country (series)|Donkey Kong Country]]'' series are similarly organized to one another. It is easy to jump from one article to another, information is where I'd expect it to be, and they look nice. Good stuff.
 
At present, some ''Super Mario'' game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare ''[[Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins]]'' to ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]''.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents.
 
The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is:
 
'''Characters''': living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm
* '''Playable characters''': characters controlled
* '''Non-playable characters''': characters that aren’t controlled
'''Enemies and obstacles''': subjects that damage or inhibit the player character
* '''Enemies''': living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment
* '''Obstacles''': abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement
* '''Bosses''': subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression
'''Items and objects''': beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic
* '''Items''': subjects that are absorbable/collectible, holdable, or health-restoring
* '''Power-ups''': items that transform the player character’s appearance and grant unique abilities
* '''Objects''': interactable subjects in the environment that are not items
 
This sectioning arrangement has been integrated on the ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels]]'', ''[[Super Mario Land]]'', ''[[Super Mario 64]]'', ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'', ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'', ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]'', ''[[Super Mario 3D Land]]'', ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' articles.


'''Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually ''cause'' a proposal to pass.'''
Because of the tactile nature of platformers, I like organizing subjects based on their mechanical relationship to the player character, so I keep bosses organized with enemies and obstacles because they all hurt the player. It is also thematically appropriate, because at least some bosses are usually rulers of an enemy species in the same section. I do not like using terms that have strong connotations outside of gaming like "cast" or "antagonist". (I particularly do not like using "antagonist" here because these platformers are not chiefly driven by narrative, so the fact that some bosses also serve antagonistic narrative roles is of lesser importance to their tactile roles as bosses.) "Characters" is more neutral, I think. I also do not separate "returning enemies" from "new ones". I'd rather delineate that information in one shared table, [[Super Mario Galaxy#Enemies|like so]]. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new.


Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.
I don't envision this sectioning being applied rigidly, and this is apparent in some of the articles I linked to above. There aren't really enough items in ''Super Mario Land'' for them to be severed from power-ups, so I lumped them together in one table there. Both ''Super Mario Sunshine'' and ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' include a "rideable characters" section, and there is a "clothing" section between "Items" and "objects" in ''Super Mario Odyssey''. Rather, I would like this sectioning to be a jumping off point, from which users can manipulate and change things as needed. No two games are exactly the same, after all.
*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.
*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.


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.
I offer four options.


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.
#'''Support: I like this! Let's do it''' (if this passes, this sectioning arrangement will be integrated into the remaining ''Super Mario'' game articles)
#'''Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently''' (if this one passes, a second proposal would be raised by the voters that outline their preferred organizational scheme)
#'''Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy''' (this option is basically the "do nothing" option)
#'''Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed'''


'''Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so ''at least one option'' must have a minimum of 4 votes.'''
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT


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.
====Support: I like this! Let's do it====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Consistency is never a bad thing.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess if this ought to be a proposal, then sure, per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per proposal
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} Per proposal.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per all. Consistency is good.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per all, makes it much easier when reading between game pages.


Now for the other problem.
====Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently====


'''Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.'''
====Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - I see page layouts as an organically changing thing, it's best to not create guidelines where they needn't exist. I'm fine with the pages being changed to follow this pattern, but it shouldn't require an additional proposal to change further.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.


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?
====Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed====


'''Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.'''
====Comments on standardize sectioning for ''Super Mario'' series game articles====
These sound like good ideas, but do they need a proposal? Proposal rule 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." {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:39, June 26, 2024 (EDT)
:I originally did not plan on doing so, but {{User|EvieMaybe}} recommended I raise one. I supposed it was a good way to assess how other folks think game articles should be organized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:45, June 26, 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.
===Allow colorful tables again===
Recently, there's been an update to follow [[Help:Table]] that standardizes all the colorful tables into boring, white-and-gray ones. I personally don't like this: not only is it removing a bit of charm from the site, the colored boxes are legitimately helpful at a glance and make it easier to distinguish individual sections in these large chunks of data.


'''Proposer''': {{User|7feetunder}}<br>
Take [[Rock-Candy Mines]], a world from ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' and ''[[New Super Luigi U]]''. Here are two versions of the level lists:
'''Deadline''': April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Apply both solutions====
----
#{{User|7feetunder}} Preferred option.
#{{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====
{|style="text-align: center; width: 100%; margin: 0 auto 10px auto; border-collapse: collapse; font-family:Arial;"border="1"cellpadding="1"cellspacing="1"
#{{User|7feetunder}} Second option.
|-style="background: #0097CB;"
!width="5%"|Level Number
!width="3%"|Level Name
!width="20%"|Description
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-1'''
|[[Fuzzy Clifftop]]
|This is a clifftop level that features [[Yoshi]], [[Fruit (Yoshi food)|Fruits]] and [[Fuzzy|Fuzzies]].
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-2'''
|[[Porcupuffer Falls]]
|Another cliff level over the water, where [[Porcupuffer]]s attack. Many [[Urchin]]s can be found, too.
|-
|'''{{world|Rocky|tower}}'''
|[[Grinding-Stone Tower]]
|The sixth and final tower where [[Boom Boom]] is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are [[Grrrol]]s.
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-3'''
|[[Waddlewing's Nest]]
|This level features [[Chain Chomp]]s, [[Waddlewing]]s and tilting stands.
|}


====Apply problem #2's solution====
{|style="text-align: center; width: 100%; margin: 0 auto 10px auto; border-collapse: collapse; font-family:Arial;"border="1"cellpadding="1"cellspacing="1"
#{{User|7feetunder}} Better than nothing.
|-style="background: #43DD3B;"
#{{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]]).
!width="5%"|Level Number
#{{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.
!width="3%"|Level Name
#{{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.
!width="20%"|Description
<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>
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-1'''
|[[Mount Fuzzy]]
|An overworld level with some [[Fuzzy|Fuzzies]].
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-2'''
|[[Porcupuffer Cavern]]
|An underground level with low water level and a [[Porcupuffer]].
|-
|'''{{world|Rocky|tower}}'''
|[[Smashing-Stone Tower]]
|A tower full of [[Brick Block|blocks]] destroyable only by [[Grrrol]]s.
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-3'''
|[[Spike's Seesaws]]
|A level with tilting platforms attacked by [[Spike]]s.
|}


====Leave the rule as is====
----
#{{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.
 
{|style="text-align: center; width: 100%" class=wikitable
!width="5%"|Level number
!width="3%"|Level name
!width="20%"|Description
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-1'''
|[[Fuzzy Clifftop]]
|This is a clifftop level that features [[Yoshi]], [[Fruit (Yoshi food)|Fruits]] and [[Fuzzy|Fuzzies]].
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-2'''
|[[Porcupuffer Falls]]
|Another cliff level over the water, where [[Porcupuffer]]s attack. Many [[Urchin]]s can be found, too.
|-
|'''{{world|Rocky|tower}}'''
|[[Grinding-Stone Tower]]
|The sixth and final tower where [[Boom Boom]] is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are [[Grrrol]]s.
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-3'''
|[[Waddlewing's Nest]]
|This level features [[Chain Chomp]]s, [[Waddlewing]]s and tilting stands.
|}
 
{|style="text-align: center; width: 100%" class=wikitable
!width="5%"|Level Number
!width="3%"|Level Name
!width="20%"|Description
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-1'''
|[[Mount Fuzzy]]
|An overworld level with some [[Fuzzy|Fuzzies]].
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-2'''
|[[Porcupuffer Cavern]]
|An underground level with low water level and a [[Porcupuffer]].
|-
|'''{{world|Rocky|tower}}'''
|[[Smashing-Stone Tower]]
|A tower full of [[Brick Block|blocks]] destroyable only by [[Grrrol]]s.
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-3'''
|[[Spike's Seesaws]]
|A level with tilting platforms attacked by [[Spike]]s.
|}
 
The only concern I can see is that black-on-blue text might be a bit hard to read, but we can change the text color to white, like some articles [[Not-Bottomless Hole|already do]]. It's a lot easier to tell with the colored header. If someone is just scrolling through the article to find the levels, the blue and green will catch their eye and they can easily know which game is which. The specific blue and green are distinctly featured on the games' logos and boxes:
<gallery>
NSMBU boxcover.png
NSLU NA Box Art.png
</gallery>
 
The standardization of the templates also really harms articles like ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'': compare the [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Mario_World_2:_Yoshi%27s_Island&oldid=4128148#Bosses colored navbox] revision to the [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Mario_World_2:_Yoshi%27s_Island&oldid=4277340 current], and it looks more inconsistent because the levels section is still using a unique format and color. Also compare [[Pi'illo]], an item list: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Pi%27illo&oldid=4283314 colored revision] vs. [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Pi%27illo&oldid=4283342 standardized revision]. I don't mind that the colors aren't official wiki standard because they're not arbitrary: they clearly correspond to the area, and lists for this game use the same colors for the same areas. Even so, it's still useful to ''have'' different colors because you can scroll through the article and easily know when one list ends and another begins.
 
Some lists are also heavily dependent on color to distinguish areas with colors ''specifically used in-game'', such as [[List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: The Origami King]] or [[List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: Color Splash]]. Standardizing these would make them much less usable. I don't care if we need to make the colors specifically approved or consistent on a per-game basis, I just want them back. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 20:51, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: Allow colors====
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal. Not only is it more aesthetically pleasing, but it is also easier to read. I do, however, agree we should look into somehow standardizing colors, like what we do with [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive]].
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. Just because they weren't standardized heavily isn't a very good reason to default to "plain ol' gray". In addition, while this is admittedly an "us" issue, we do find it annoying how similar the two grays actually are when we're scrolling quickly--the higher contrast provided by the colors helps to quell that issue.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal, and per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} I am a very simple man; I enjoy colorful things. But in all seriousness, I feel it helps make sections stand out and could make them easier to identify when reading. Per proposal.
#{{User|Meester Tweester}}  Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Fun and look nice. It's also nice to give users some breathing room with what they want to try integrating into the articles they work on.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} TBH I always found it odd why only the ''Donkey Kong'' games get to have the colored tables... is it a remnant of the DK Wiki? In any case, it'd be nice to have some color (not sure if everything should have similar standardized colors or if it should be a case-by-case basis though)
 
====Oppose: Prioritize gray====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Colors are based on arbitrary choice and not by official merit. I think there can be a system where there are exceptions to allow for certain colored tables on a case by case basis, but allowing it in absolutely every single case is overdoing it.


====Comments====
====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)
@Super Mario RPG: [[Chestnut Valley]], [[List_of_hidden_Toads_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer]], [[Not-Bottomless_Hole#Blue_Streamer]], [[List_of_Collectible_Treasures_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer]], [[List_of_%3F_Blocks_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer]] all use the exact same colors. And it's because this is a blue streamer area in game, so it makes logical sense; I will usually color pick directly from sprites to get the right color codes. I don't really see where the "arbitrary" part is coming from. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 21:14, July 1, 2024 (EDT)


@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.
To be fair, even the [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Help:Table&oldid=4076198 older revisions] didn't acknowledge the color styling of the former table format, so that part wasn't erased to begin with. It's just the design, and colors work with the wikitable class as well ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Frosted_Glacier&diff=prev&oldid=4283436 see here, for example]). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:50, July 1, 2024 (EDT)


@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)
I think I'd like a ''little'' standardization, just so we don't end up with complete chaos. Maybe standardize alternating-color cells of the same color as the header? And as for the colors themselves — outside of when they're used to separate levels, which is by necessity a case-by-case basis — maybe we could do something similar to or based on the [[MarioWiki:Navigation_templates#Chart|standardized navbox color schemes]]? {{unsigned|Ahemtoday}}
: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)
:{{@|Ahemtoday}} Yeah, perhaps something like the navboxes could work. The problem with the proposal title is that it's misleading in a certain sense since there already has been one custom styling for the wikitables -- "dk" , which is for ''Donkey Kong'' content. I think what it's trying to get at is allowing more standardized wikitable options, and this way there would be less likelihood of conflict if, let's say, someone else were to overhaul an entire page and how it looks. I still think colors should be reserved in specialized circumstances. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:34, July 2, 2024 (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?===
===Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full names===
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]].
Or, to be specific, move:
* [[G. R. P-Troopa]] to "Glad Red Paratroopa"
* [[G. Torpedo Ted]] to "Glad Torpedo Ted"
* [[Glad P. Plant]] to "Glad Piranha Plant"
* [[M. M-Spike Top]] to "Mad Mecha-Spike Top"
* [[M. Red P-Goomba]] to "Mad Red Paragoomba"
* [[Mad G. P-Troopa]] to "Mad Green Paratroopa"
* [[Sad N. Plant]] to "Sad Nipper Plant"
* [[C. A. F. H. Bro]] to "Calm Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother"
* [[C. Chain Chomp]] to "Calm Chain Chomp"
* [[C. Fishing Boo]] to "Calm Fishing Boo"
* [[C. V. Plant]] to "Calm Volcano Plant"
* [[A. F. H. Bro]] to... nothing in particular, actually, they're already included on the same page as the [[Super Mario World|SMW]] one. More on that later.


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.  
We have a few reasons for wanting this, and a few justifications, but for the sake of putting everything out on the table, I'll start with our immediate emotional feelings.


Alternatively, we can '''only''' allow coverage for the scene C, which features Mario as a playable character and Pauline.
In [[Super Princess Peach]], a lot of returning enemies with existing official names are given "emotional" variants. When English names are said in full, these are exclusively referred to as "Glad", "Mad", "Sad", or "Calm" versions of the original enemies. Additionally, to my understanding, the Japanese version of the game universally modifies names for emotional variants by appending 喜(Ki), 怒(Do), 哀(Ai), and 楽(Raku) respectively to preexisting official names for all enemies which have them. With this in mind, we feel it is, if nothing else, a bit silly to present these enemies as if we don't know what their names are supposed to be abbreviating.


'''Affected pages:'''
That being said, of course, we're aware of the reasons why. Despite this feeling, we would have begrudgingly respected the former name of friend of the wiki [[Bombshell Bill Blaster]] had she not decided to change it, and we were certainly in support of keeping [[The Old Psychic Lady|The O. P. L. W. T. E. E. W. R. F. A. K. E. B. I. Happens]] faithful to the source material. There are many cases like this, where something awkward needs to be the name of a page because, well, that's just what it's called.
* [[Template:Pinball]]
* [[Card (Pinball)]]


'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br>
But this bothers us anyway, and I think that hinges on the contention that these names are definitive official names for unique enemies.
'''Deadline''': April 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Allow full coverage====
Super Princess Peach presents these names in exactly one context, which is the in-game glossary section. In Japanese, none of the names are abbreviated, and all names of returning enemies are shared with previous official names for those enemies, with the variants having the relevant emotion appended. Meanwhile, in English, a number of emotional variant enemy names (and A. F. H. Bro, but we'll get to him later) are abbreviated when the addition of the extra words would make them excessively long. While the names are able to scroll to display more, the display column for their names in-game is quite small, and none of the abbreviated names are longer than 15 characters. This implies that, regardless of how the localizers may have wanted to change these names, they had a hard character limit.
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per proposal.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - if [[Alleyway]] can get full coverage, so can this.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all.
#{{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.
#{{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)====
The [[MarioWiki:Naming|Naming policy]] actually has something that I think expresses our feelings here. It's for name changes, but given that these are all variants of preexisting enemies, I think it applies. Quote: ''"...the newer name will replace the older one with certain exceptions. Exceptions include naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames ... It is up to the users to find and determine what the naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames are. When mentioning subjects whose names have changed overtime, the newest name generally takes greater priority, except in the context of older media where they went by previous names, in which case those are used instead."''
#{{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.


====Allow coverage for the Mario scene (scene C) only (and classify as a guest appearance)====
So, if we're in a situation where an enemy is agreed to be a variant of a preexisting enemy (the pages of these enemies will generally confidently state this, because it's obviously the case), and that enemy uses a variant of the same name as that preexisting enemy in Japanese, but then is shortened in English in a manner that would have been impossible to not do... Isn't that just a forced translation error? Or at the very least, some kind of alias? Can we really consider these to be official English names for these enemies if it was physically impossible to translate them in accordance with the Japanese naming scheme? And furthermore, when we can see that literally every name in the game that wouldn't have been over 15 characters ''was'' translated that way?
#{{User|Spectrogram}} Second option.


====Comments====
Personally, I think this is a pretty compelling explanation of why we feel this should be an exception to the usual rules, so I wanted to raise it. With all this in mind, it feels sort of disingenuously literal to take an alias that the localizers had no choice but to use and which doesn't reflect the Japanese name at all as more official than a name which actually describes all of the properties of the enemy as depicted in the game. But it's up to you guys.
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)


===Classify Art Style: PiCTOBiTS as a guest appearance and give it its own page===
Though, I will say, if we're going to take the stance that the literal in-game name is all that matters... Why are A. F. H. Bros still using their old name from 1991? Super Princess Peach was their last in-game appearance, and therefore has the most modern official English name.
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.)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Jacklavin}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Exiled.Serenity}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2022, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': July 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Jacklavin}} This is my proposal.
#{{User|Exiled.Serenity}} Proposer.
#{{User|Spectrogram}} This game has a significant amount of Mario-related content to be classified as a guest appearance.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Though Pseudo makes compelling points, I don't see how there could be anything else but the names the pages all already say are "presumably" their actual names. If necessary, we can add the conjuncture disclaimer at the top of the articles. The main reason I support this change is because the abbreviations do not make it immediately obvious to someone who is browsing all Paratroopa variants (something I was actually doing recently) what "G. R. P-Troopa" is. This is true for all of the enemies and their base species. Moving them to the full names makes it clear what they are without having to click on the page.
#{{User|PanchamBro}} Per Spectrogram
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Pseudo}} These names are simply not these enemies' official names. We can certainly [[SMW:Good writing#Reading between the lines|read between the lines]] regarding their names and come to reasonable conclusions about what they stand for and why their names are abbreviated, and this is currently done on all of these articles by mentioning what each title is presumably short for. Despite that, the unabbreviated names aren’t actually used in the game itself nor in any other extant official material, so I’m not comfortable moving these pages unless a source can be found explicitly backing up the enemies' full names (and, for the record, I am not staunchly opposed to moving [[Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother]] to {{fake link|A. F. H. Bro}} despite its strangeness, since it's the more common name in recent sources, though I'm not really certain I'd support it, either, but it's a conversation for another day and another proposal anyway).
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Pseudo.
#{{User|Hewer}} I'd rather we didn't move official names to unofficial ones because we don't like the official names. [[Talk:Conker#Rename to Conker|There]] [[Talk:Princess Daisy#Move to "Daisy"|is]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Change full names of crossover characters to the more often used shortened versions in article titles|plenty]] [[Talk:Professor E. Gadd#Rename (proposal edition)|of]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Move animal names from the Donkey Kong Country series to just their normal names|precedent]] [[Talk:Baby DK#Move to Baby DK|now]] for using shortened names if they're what official sources use, but in all of those cases, the long names were at least also official names - here, they're not.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. Using the official in-game names takes priority over using "full names".
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Those are their names.


====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)
To clarify the end of my vote regarding [[Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother]], it was brought up a while ago on [[Talk:Volcano Lotus]] that the English version of the Mario Portal’s [https://archive.ph/yutSZ ''Super Mario World'' page] surprisingly refers to this enemy as an A. F. H. Bro despite the original game using the full name in the end credits. While there has been understandable concern about citogenesis on the Mario Portal, this still can be taken to suggest that A. F. H. Bro became the main official name starting with ''[[Super Princess Peach]]'', especially since this enemy’s article wasn’t moved on this wiki at the time for the Mario Portal localizers to cross-reference. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 01:15, July 3, 2024 (EDT)
 
Abstaining for now, but the very reason why we haven't moved these ''Super Princess Peach'' enemies to the full name is also the exact same reason why hadn't moved {{fake link|B. Bill Blaster}} to [[Bombshell Bill Blaster]] for so long ''until'' the [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|Nintendo Switch remake of TTYD]]. There simply hasn't been an ''official'' record of these enemies' full names. This is due to character limitations, of course, but it should be noted that the original GCN version of TTYD still never even referred to the B. Bill Blaster by its full name in the Tattle, which should be exempt from character limitations, as can be seen with [[Hyper Spiky Goomba|H. S. Goomba]]; it was only until the Nintendo Switch remake when the full name of Bombshell Bill Blaster has ''finally'' been used, hence we finally moved that article then. But the full names for all these ''Super Princess Peach'' enemies have still never been in use before in an official sense (at least [[Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother]]'s full name had been implemented in [[Super Mario World|its debut game's]] cast roll). {{User:Arend/sig}} 05:47, July 3, 2024 (EDT)
:Not just in TTYD, but also in the first ''Paper Mario'' they're also called B. Bill Blasters in the tattle. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 06:27, July 3, 2024 (EDT)


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

Latest revision as of 09:47, July 3, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, July 3rd, 13:47 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), 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 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. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, 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 deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted 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: "July 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

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts 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 article 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

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
^ NOTE: Currently the subject of an active proposal.
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)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
^ Note: Images in "Image-only" portions still need to be checked for Mario elements, and those without them need to be removed.

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Split Wario Land: Shake It! bosses into boss levels

This proposal is similar to the one that passed. As you see, we have Motley Bossblob and Hisstocrat boss levels from Super Mario 3D World, the boss levels from the Donkey Kong Country series, even boss levels Yoshi's Crafted World where each boss guards a Dream Gem. Right now, you might be wondering how we can create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split:

Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk) (banned)
Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Hewer (talk) I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
  3. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see Bowser's Sourpuss Bread, which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)
  4. Arend (talk) I suppose that makes sense. Per all.
  5. Jazama (talk) Per all

#GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) While there is precedence, I just don't see this as necessary given the information is currently detailed on the existing pages without overcrowding them.

Comments

Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

Looking at "Short Pages, when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or Mario Kart Arcade GP items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split Speed Mario Bros.. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when Pesky Billboard is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles

I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the Super Mario series on and off for the past few years. I think presenting information in a shared, unified way is beneficial for readers and passively communicates that these games are part of a shared series, something I think is helpful for a franchise covering so many genres and series. Game articles in the Yoshi's Island and Donkey Kong Country series are similarly organized to one another. It is easy to jump from one article to another, information is where I'd expect it to be, and they look nice. Good stuff.

At present, some Super Mario game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins to New Super Mario Bros. U and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents.

The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is:

Characters: living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm

  • Playable characters: characters controlled
  • Non-playable characters: characters that aren’t controlled

Enemies and obstacles: subjects that damage or inhibit the player character

  • Enemies: living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment
  • Obstacles: abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement
  • Bosses: subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression

Items and objects: beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic

  • Items: subjects that are absorbable/collectible, holdable, or health-restoring
  • Power-ups: items that transform the player character’s appearance and grant unique abilities
  • Objects: interactable subjects in the environment that are not items

This sectioning arrangement has been integrated on the Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, Super Mario Land, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario 3D Land, Super Mario 3D World, and Super Mario Odyssey articles.

Because of the tactile nature of platformers, I like organizing subjects based on their mechanical relationship to the player character, so I keep bosses organized with enemies and obstacles because they all hurt the player. It is also thematically appropriate, because at least some bosses are usually rulers of an enemy species in the same section. I do not like using terms that have strong connotations outside of gaming like "cast" or "antagonist". (I particularly do not like using "antagonist" here because these platformers are not chiefly driven by narrative, so the fact that some bosses also serve antagonistic narrative roles is of lesser importance to their tactile roles as bosses.) "Characters" is more neutral, I think. I also do not separate "returning enemies" from "new ones". I'd rather delineate that information in one shared table, like so. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new.

I don't envision this sectioning being applied rigidly, and this is apparent in some of the articles I linked to above. There aren't really enough items in Super Mario Land for them to be severed from power-ups, so I lumped them together in one table there. Both Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy 2 include a "rideable characters" section, and there is a "clothing" section between "Items" and "objects" in Super Mario Odyssey. Rather, I would like this sectioning to be a jumping off point, from which users can manipulate and change things as needed. No two games are exactly the same, after all.

I offer four options.

  1. Support: I like this! Let's do it (if this passes, this sectioning arrangement will be integrated into the remaining Super Mario game articles)
  2. Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently (if this one passes, a second proposal would be raised by the voters that outline their preferred organizational scheme)
  3. Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy (this option is basically the "do nothing" option)
  4. Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: I like this! Let's do it

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Consistency is never a bad thing.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Hewer (talk) I guess if this ought to be a proposal, then sure, per proposal.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal
  6. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) Per proposal.
  7. DrBaskerville (talk) Per all. Consistency is good.
  8. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.
  9. Jazama (talk) Per all
  10. Scrooge200 (talk) Per all, makes it much easier when reading between game pages.

Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently

Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I see page layouts as an organically changing thing, it's best to not create guidelines where they needn't exist. I'm fine with the pages being changed to follow this pattern, but it shouldn't require an additional proposal to change further.
  2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.

Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed

Comments on standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles

These sound like good ideas, but do they need a proposal? Proposal rule 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." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:39, June 26, 2024 (EDT)

I originally did not plan on doing so, but EvieMaybe (talk) recommended I raise one. I supposed it was a good way to assess how other folks think game articles should be organized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:45, June 26, 2024 (EDT)

Allow colorful tables again

Recently, there's been an update to follow Help:Table that standardizes all the colorful tables into boring, white-and-gray ones. I personally don't like this: not only is it removing a bit of charm from the site, the colored boxes are legitimately helpful at a glance and make it easier to distinguish individual sections in these large chunks of data.

Take Rock-Candy Mines, a world from New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U. Here are two versions of the level lists:

Level Number Level Name Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1 Fuzzy Clifftop This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2 Porcupuffer Falls Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower Grinding-Stone Tower The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3 Waddlewing's Nest This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands.
Level Number Level Name Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1 Mount Fuzzy An overworld level with some Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2 Porcupuffer Cavern An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower Smashing-Stone Tower A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3 Spike's Seesaws A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes.
Level number Level name Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1 Fuzzy Clifftop This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2 Porcupuffer Falls Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower Grinding-Stone Tower The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3 Waddlewing's Nest This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands.
Level Number Level Name Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1 Mount Fuzzy An overworld level with some Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2 Porcupuffer Cavern An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower Smashing-Stone Tower A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3 Spike's Seesaws A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes.

The only concern I can see is that black-on-blue text might be a bit hard to read, but we can change the text color to white, like some articles already do. It's a lot easier to tell with the colored header. If someone is just scrolling through the article to find the levels, the blue and green will catch their eye and they can easily know which game is which. The specific blue and green are distinctly featured on the games' logos and boxes:

  • NSMBU boxcover.png
  • NSLU NA Box Art.png

The standardization of the templates also really harms articles like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island: compare the colored navbox revision to the current, and it looks more inconsistent because the levels section is still using a unique format and color. Also compare Pi'illo, an item list: colored revision vs. standardized revision. I don't mind that the colors aren't official wiki standard because they're not arbitrary: they clearly correspond to the area, and lists for this game use the same colors for the same areas. Even so, it's still useful to have different colors because you can scroll through the article and easily know when one list ends and another begins.

Some lists are also heavily dependent on color to distinguish areas with colors specifically used in-game, such as List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: The Origami King or List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: Color Splash. Standardizing these would make them much less usable. I don't care if we need to make the colors specifically approved or consistent on a per-game basis, I just want them back. Scrooge200 (talk) PMCS Mustard Cafe Sign.png 20:51, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: July 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: Allow colors

  1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal. Not only is it more aesthetically pleasing, but it is also easier to read. I do, however, agree we should look into somehow standardizing colors, like what we do with MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Just because they weren't standardized heavily isn't a very good reason to default to "plain ol' gray". In addition, while this is admittedly an "us" issue, we do find it annoying how similar the two grays actually are when we're scrolling quickly--the higher contrast provided by the colors helps to quell that issue.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal, and per all.
  5. Tails777 (talk) I am a very simple man; I enjoy colorful things. But in all seriousness, I feel it helps make sections stand out and could make them easier to identify when reading. Per proposal.
  6. Meester Tweester (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Nintendo101 (talk) Fun and look nice. It's also nice to give users some breathing room with what they want to try integrating into the articles they work on.
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  9. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.
  10. Arend (talk) TBH I always found it odd why only the Donkey Kong games get to have the colored tables... is it a remnant of the DK Wiki? In any case, it'd be nice to have some color (not sure if everything should have similar standardized colors or if it should be a case-by-case basis though)

Oppose: Prioritize gray

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Colors are based on arbitrary choice and not by official merit. I think there can be a system where there are exceptions to allow for certain colored tables on a case by case basis, but allowing it in absolutely every single case is overdoing it.

Comments

@Super Mario RPG: Chestnut Valley, List_of_hidden_Toads_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, Not-Bottomless_Hole#Blue_Streamer, List_of_Collectible_Treasures_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, List_of_?_Blocks_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer all use the exact same colors. And it's because this is a blue streamer area in game, so it makes logical sense; I will usually color pick directly from sprites to get the right color codes. I don't really see where the "arbitrary" part is coming from. Scrooge200 (talk) PMCS Mustard Cafe Sign.png 21:14, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

To be fair, even the older revisions didn't acknowledge the color styling of the former table format, so that part wasn't erased to begin with. It's just the design, and colors work with the wikitable class as well (see here, for example). Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:50, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

I think I'd like a little standardization, just so we don't end up with complete chaos. Maybe standardize alternating-color cells of the same color as the header? And as for the colors themselves — outside of when they're used to separate levels, which is by necessity a case-by-case basis — maybe we could do something similar to or based on the standardized navbox color schemes?
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahemtoday (talk).

@Ahemtoday Yeah, perhaps something like the navboxes could work. The problem with the proposal title is that it's misleading in a certain sense since there already has been one custom styling for the wikitables -- "dk" , which is for Donkey Kong content. I think what it's trying to get at is allowing more standardized wikitable options, and this way there would be less likelihood of conflict if, let's say, someone else were to overhaul an entire page and how it looks. I still think colors should be reserved in specialized circumstances. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:34, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full names

Or, to be specific, move:

We have a few reasons for wanting this, and a few justifications, but for the sake of putting everything out on the table, I'll start with our immediate emotional feelings.

In Super Princess Peach, a lot of returning enemies with existing official names are given "emotional" variants. When English names are said in full, these are exclusively referred to as "Glad", "Mad", "Sad", or "Calm" versions of the original enemies. Additionally, to my understanding, the Japanese version of the game universally modifies names for emotional variants by appending 喜(Ki), 怒(Do), 哀(Ai), and 楽(Raku) respectively to preexisting official names for all enemies which have them. With this in mind, we feel it is, if nothing else, a bit silly to present these enemies as if we don't know what their names are supposed to be abbreviating.

That being said, of course, we're aware of the reasons why. Despite this feeling, we would have begrudgingly respected the former name of friend of the wiki Bombshell Bill Blaster had she not decided to change it, and we were certainly in support of keeping The O. P. L. W. T. E. E. W. R. F. A. K. E. B. I. Happens faithful to the source material. There are many cases like this, where something awkward needs to be the name of a page because, well, that's just what it's called.

But this bothers us anyway, and I think that hinges on the contention that these names are definitive official names for unique enemies.

Super Princess Peach presents these names in exactly one context, which is the in-game glossary section. In Japanese, none of the names are abbreviated, and all names of returning enemies are shared with previous official names for those enemies, with the variants having the relevant emotion appended. Meanwhile, in English, a number of emotional variant enemy names (and A. F. H. Bro, but we'll get to him later) are abbreviated when the addition of the extra words would make them excessively long. While the names are able to scroll to display more, the display column for their names in-game is quite small, and none of the abbreviated names are longer than 15 characters. This implies that, regardless of how the localizers may have wanted to change these names, they had a hard character limit.

The Naming policy actually has something that I think expresses our feelings here. It's for name changes, but given that these are all variants of preexisting enemies, I think it applies. Quote: "...the newer name will replace the older one with certain exceptions. Exceptions include naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames ... It is up to the users to find and determine what the naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames are. When mentioning subjects whose names have changed overtime, the newest name generally takes greater priority, except in the context of older media where they went by previous names, in which case those are used instead."

So, if we're in a situation where an enemy is agreed to be a variant of a preexisting enemy (the pages of these enemies will generally confidently state this, because it's obviously the case), and that enemy uses a variant of the same name as that preexisting enemy in Japanese, but then is shortened in English in a manner that would have been impossible to not do... Isn't that just a forced translation error? Or at the very least, some kind of alias? Can we really consider these to be official English names for these enemies if it was physically impossible to translate them in accordance with the Japanese naming scheme? And furthermore, when we can see that literally every name in the game that wouldn't have been over 15 characters was translated that way?

Personally, I think this is a pretty compelling explanation of why we feel this should be an exception to the usual rules, so I wanted to raise it. With all this in mind, it feels sort of disingenuously literal to take an alias that the localizers had no choice but to use and which doesn't reflect the Japanese name at all as more official than a name which actually describes all of the properties of the enemy as depicted in the game. But it's up to you guys.

Though, I will say, if we're going to take the stance that the literal in-game name is all that matters... Why are A. F. H. Bros still using their old name from 1991? Super Princess Peach was their last in-game appearance, and therefore has the most modern official English name.

Proposer: Exiled.Serenity (talk)
Deadline: July 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Exiled.Serenity (talk) Proposer.
  2. DrBaskerville (talk) Though Pseudo makes compelling points, I don't see how there could be anything else but the names the pages all already say are "presumably" their actual names. If necessary, we can add the conjuncture disclaimer at the top of the articles. The main reason I support this change is because the abbreviations do not make it immediately obvious to someone who is browsing all Paratroopa variants (something I was actually doing recently) what "G. R. P-Troopa" is. This is true for all of the enemies and their base species. Moving them to the full names makes it clear what they are without having to click on the page.

Oppose

  1. Pseudo (talk) These names are simply not these enemies' official names. We can certainly read between the lines regarding their names and come to reasonable conclusions about what they stand for and why their names are abbreviated, and this is currently done on all of these articles by mentioning what each title is presumably short for. Despite that, the unabbreviated names aren’t actually used in the game itself nor in any other extant official material, so I’m not comfortable moving these pages unless a source can be found explicitly backing up the enemies' full names (and, for the record, I am not staunchly opposed to moving Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother to A. F. H. Bro despite its strangeness, since it's the more common name in recent sources, though I'm not really certain I'd support it, either, but it's a conversation for another day and another proposal anyway).
  2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Pseudo.
  3. Hewer (talk) I'd rather we didn't move official names to unofficial ones because we don't like the official names. There is plenty of precedent now for using shortened names if they're what official sources use, but in all of those cases, the long names were at least also official names - here, they're not.
  4. JanMisali (talk) Per all. Using the official in-game names takes priority over using "full names".
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Those are their names.

Comments

To clarify the end of my vote regarding Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother, it was brought up a while ago on Talk:Volcano Lotus that the English version of the Mario Portal’s Super Mario World page surprisingly refers to this enemy as an A. F. H. Bro despite the original game using the full name in the end credits. While there has been understandable concern about citogenesis on the Mario Portal, this still can be taken to suggest that A. F. H. Bro became the main official name starting with Super Princess Peach, especially since this enemy’s article wasn’t moved on this wiki at the time for the Mario Portal localizers to cross-reference. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) User:Pseudo 01:15, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

Abstaining for now, but the very reason why we haven't moved these Super Princess Peach enemies to the full name is also the exact same reason why hadn't moved B. Bill Blaster to Bombshell Bill Blaster for so long until the Nintendo Switch remake of TTYD. There simply hasn't been an official record of these enemies' full names. This is due to character limitations, of course, but it should be noted that the original GCN version of TTYD still never even referred to the B. Bill Blaster by its full name in the Tattle, which should be exempt from character limitations, as can be seen with H. S. Goomba; it was only until the Nintendo Switch remake when the full name of Bombshell Bill Blaster has finally been used, hence we finally moved that article then. But the full names for all these Super Princess Peach enemies have still never been in use before in an official sense (at least Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother's full name had been implemented in its debut game's cast roll). ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 05:47, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

Not just in TTYD, but also in the first Paper Mario they're also called B. Bill Blasters in the tattle. Bowser Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 06:27, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4285372"