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 8: Line 9:


==Removals==
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
===Remove ''Zelda''-Exclusive Pages===
There are several pages in [[:Category:The_Legend_of_Zelda_series]] that I believe should be deleted from the wiki.  There are many pages in the category that should clearly remain on the wiki, like [[Ancient Tires]], [[Hyrule Castle]] and [[Deku Baba]], which appear in ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]''; [[8-Bit Hero]], a [[microgame]] in ''[[WarioWare: Touched!]]''; [[Recorder]], an item that has appeared in both series; or [[Link]] and [[Master Sword]], which have appeared in multiple ''Mario'' games.  Then there are pages that have no connection to the ''Mario'' series at all.
 
We have the [[List of references in Nintendo video games]] to cover topics such as these. I fail to see why they need their own pages.  Even some of the links for these articles on the references page link to their equivalent articles on [https://zeldawiki.wiki/wiki/Main%20Page Zelda Wiki], our [[MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|NIWA affiliate]], because editors on our own wiki likely assume we don't have pages for ''Zelda''-exclusive content. For example, why is [[Stone Elevator]] covered as a separate page but we don’t have a page for [https://nookipedia.com/wiki/Gulliver Gulliver], who references [[Toad Town]] and [[the Overthere]] in ''Animal Crossing'', giving Gulliver, who has apparently visited places in the ''Mario'' series, a more direct connection than Stone Elevator, which just shares visual similarities to Thwomps? To be clear, I '''don’t''' think we should have a page for Gulliver for the reason that he '''does not appear in a ''Mario'' series game'''.  Perhaps a more potent example is [https://wikirby.com/wiki/Togezo Togezo] from ''Kirby’s Adventure'', which is clearly a Kirbified version of a [[Spiny]] and even shares the same Japanese name.  Why is there a page for [[Manhandla]] from ''Zelda'', a variant of [[Piranha Plant]], but not Togezo?  There just doesn’t seem to be consistency.
 
For some reason, these pages seem to be disproportionally related to ''The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening'' compared to other ''Zelda'' games.  Perhaps that is because there’s more profound references in ''Link’s Awakening'', but as someone not familiar with the ''Zelda'' series, it strikes me as very odd that there’s favoritism for references in that game but there aren't independent pages any other ''Zelda''-exclusive references on the page. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine_The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Link.27s_Awakening_and_its_reissues_as_a_guest_appearance_and_create_an_article_covering_all_three_versions_and.2For_its_Mario-related_subjects|This proposal]] from 2022 permits the creation of non-''Mario'' series pages, but they seem out of place on '''Mario Wiki''', so I think we should explore undoing the consequences of this proposal.
 
Furthermore, pages like [[Keese]] only cover the enemies’ appearance in ''Mario'' games, whereas Manhandla covers the extensive history of Mandhala throughout the ''Zelda'' series.  Again, notably, Manhandla doesn’t have any appearances in ''Mario'' games, so I suppose it has to cover everything it does in ''Zelda'' since otherwise the page would be blank.
 
If [[Yoshi doll]] exists as an independent page, then shouldn’t every [https://nookipedia.com/wiki/Mario%20Theme ''Animal Crossing'' furniture series] and [https://nookipedia.com/wiki/Item:Big_bro%27s_hat_(New_Leaf) clothing from the ''Animal Crossing'' series like the Big Bro's Hat] that references the ''Mario'' series also be given its own page? I just fail to see the difference. It’s more of the disproportionate coverage of ''Link’s Awakening''.
 
Perhaps the worst offender is [[Bombite]], which has no confirmed connection to the ''Mario'' series whatsoever.  Per the page, “They '''appear''' to be based on Bob-ombs.”  That alone is sufficient to be given a page on the wiki?
 
To be fair, there is [https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Iwata-Asks/Iwata-Asks-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Spirit-Tracks/Iwata-Asks-Zelda-Handheld-History-/2-Kirby-and-Chomps-in-Zelda/2-Kirby-and-Chomps-in-Zelda-233781.html developer commentary] about some of the ''Mario''-inspired features in ''Zelda'' games affirming they were, indeed, inspired by ''Mario'' equivalents (not including Bombite), but is our threshold going to become developer confirmation for significance enough to the ''Mario'' series to have an independent page?  I'm sure that similar commentary could be found for much listed on [[List of references in Nintendo video games]].  If that's our threshold, then shouldn't we create pages for everything confirmed to be inspired by anything to do with the ''Mario'' series?  That would be a tidal wave of new pages. If not, why is ''Link's Awakening'' being treated differently from everything else?
 
Something of a middle-ground solution is to create a page on our wiki for ''Link's Awakening''.  Though I do not favor this idea, there is precedence for the creation of pages for games that pay significant homage to the ''Mario'' series but aren't in the series themselves, including ''but not limited to'' ''[[Captain Rainbow]]'', ''[[Fortune Street]]'', and, of course, the entire [[Super Smash Bros. (series)]].  I don't favor this option given the roles of ''Mario'' characters in ''Link's Awakening'' are much more minor compared to something like [[Birdo]] having a mildly significant role in ''Captain Rainbow'', but there seems to be a lot of love for ''Link's Awakening'' on this wiki, so maybe this could be a middle ground solution.  This page would house the information for Bombite, Mega Thowmp, Spiked Thowmp, Stone Elevator, and Yoshi doll, but it would remove the independent pages for Manhandla (''The Legend of Zelda'') and Head Thwomp (''Oracle of Ages'') and just confine them to the references page.
 
'''Pages that would be deleted:'''
*[[Bombite]] - no connection to ''Mario'' series whatsoever other than looking like Bob-ombs
*[[Head Thwomp]] - never appeared in a ''Mario'' game but is related to Thwomp
*[[Mega Thwomp]] - same as above
*[[Spiked Thwomp]] - same as above
*[[Stone Elevator]] - same as above
*[[Yoshi doll]] - just a reference to Yoshi in ''Link’s Awakening''
 
'''Options breakdown'''
I’ve drafted nine options to address the inconsistencies or excess coverage.
 
*'''Option 1''' deletes the pages I’ve highlights and incorporates relevant parts of the information on those pages elsewhere. In the case of the Thwomps, there is already a section referencing them on [[Thwomp]].
 
*'''Option 2''' takes the converse approach and adds exhaustive information about ''Zelda'' series pages on the wiki to bridge the gap between [[Manhandla]] and [[Keese]] and similar pages.
:<span style="font-size:12px">''^ Note that no equivalent option for Option 2 exists that would simply remove the bulk of the information from the highlighted pages as there would be nothing to put on the pages other than "X is a variant of X", e.g. "Manhandla is a variant of Piranha Plant that appears in ''The Legend of Zelda'' series", since these enemies have no relation to the ''Mario'' series other than being inspired by enemies in the series.''


==Changes==
*'''Option 3''' implements Option 2 but also creates new pages for obvious inspirations from the ''Mario'' series like [https://wikirby.com/wiki/Togezo Togezo], ''Animal Crossing'' furniture and clothing, and similar examples.
===Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)===
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.


'''Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually ''cause'' a proposal to pass.'''
*'''Option 4''' keeps the Thwomp-related pages since they have a more potent connection to the ''Mario'' series, though I believe that if we do this we should create a page on the wiki for Togezo and every other enemy from a different franchise that is based on something from the ''Mario'' series, which I don’t think is necessary but becomes appropriate if we have pages for the Thwomp-relations and Manhandla.  [[Yoshi doll]] is also kept in this option if people want that for whatever reason, but I again suggest that if we have a page for Yoshi doll, then we should have a page for all the similar furniture items from the ''Animal Crossing'' series and other series.  I strongly believe all this information is best confined to [[List of references in Nintendo video games]] instead. If we're taking this option but not Option 3, I just see it as giving a lot of preferential coverage to ''Link's Awakening''.


Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.
*'''Option 5''' keeps Yoshi doll but deletes the Thwomp-related pages and Bombite. See argument against this in Option 4's description.
*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.
*'''Option 6''' keeps all other pages but deletes [[Bombite]] since it is the least related to the ''Mario'' series and would suggest we should have pages for any enemy from any Nintendo game that resembles a [[Bob-omb]], which, given their design, would be basically any sapient bomb enemy.


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.
*'''Option 7''' creates a page for ''Link's Awakening'' and deletes the highlighted pages. This gives a place for all the highlighted pages on the wiki to exist outside of the references list, minus Manhandla and Head Thwomp.


'''Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so ''at least one option'' must have a minimum of 4 votes.'''
*'''Option 8''' creates a page for ''Link's Awakening'' but keeps Manhandla and Head Thwomp as independent pages.


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.
*'''Option 9''', the do nothing option, would consider all of this as a non-issue and leave things as they are now.


Now for the other problem.
'''Proposer''': {{User|DrBaskerville}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 08, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.'''
==== Option 1: Remove the highlighted pages as independent pages, add information about them to Trivia on other pages where applicable, and ensure they are referenced on List of references in Nintendo video games ====
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal.


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?
==== Option 2: Keep all pages and add exhaustive information from the ''Zelda'' series to any ''Zelda'' pages on the wiki, e.g. Keese, Deku Baba, Master Sword, etc. ====


'''Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.'''
==== Option 3: Keep all pages, add exhaustive information from the ''Zeldra'' series to any ''Zelda'' pages on the wiki, and create pages for ''Mario''-inspired content, like Togezo and ''Animal Crossing'' references ====


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.
==== Option 4: Keep Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Yoshi doll, but remove Bombite ====
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Second choice.


'''Proposer''': {{User|7feetunder}}<br>
==== Option 5: Keep Yoshi doll, but remove Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Bombite ====
'''Deadline''': April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Third choice.


====Apply both solutions====
==== Option 6: Keep all other pages, but remove Bombite ====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Preferred option.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Fourth choice.
#{{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====
==== Option 7: Create page for ''Link's Awakening'' and remove highlighted independent pages ====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Second option.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Fifth choice.


====Apply problem #2's solution====
==== Option 8: Create page for ''Link's Awakening'' and keep Manhandla and Head Thwomp pages ====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Better than nothing.
#{{User|Hewer}} I'm neutral about the other point, but per proposal on this one (I was actually thinking of this problem recently after [[Talk:Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64)#Merge to Crocodile Isle|this proposal]]).
#{{User|Spectrogram}} While I disagree on some points in problem #1, namely the proposed solution, I do believe extending the NQ proposals is better than relisting them.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm not sure if the first proposed solution is great in how it would affect proposals with more than two choices, but the second seems fair enough to me.
<s>#{{User|Somethingone}} I feel like a better solution to problem #1 would be to modify rule 10 so that it applies to all proposals, not just ones with >10 votes, and/or maybe reduce its margin from 3 to 2. That said, I do think solution #2 is a good idea.</s>


====Leave the rule as is====
==== Option 9: Do nothing ====
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} I'm admittedly working from vague memories at the moment, so I apologize if anything I say is flat-out wrong, but my understanding is the portion of the rule about relisting NQ proposals is there because there isn't always enough information in them for users to make an informed decision and cast a vote. Other times, what information is there might be at odds with the stated goal. Maybe a proposed solution wouldn't adequately address a problem raised. Maybe someone points out (or realizes) the problem itself is larger in scope than originally outlined or an entirely different problem altogether. Since these sorts of discussions tend to happen after the deadline for editing the proposal has passed, it's an opportunity to incorporate whatever comes out of those into the next iteration of the proposal (in part because of rule 5). The initial deadline is usually enough time for those sorts of discussions to take place, and there are ways of getting people to weigh in if the specific issue is a lack of attention (an ever-present one regardless of what the deadline is). That said, sometimes, unfortunately, there aren't a significant number of people concerned about/invested in a particular thing, and I think the proposed more-votes-per-option solution could therefore result in more NQs or failed proposals.
# {{User|Axis}} The proposal fails to understand why these pages have been created in the first place. ''The Legend of Zelda'' series is considered a guest appearance, meaning anything ''Mario'' themed or derived from the ''Mario'' franchise gets a page. While [[Bombite]] and [[Stone Elevator]] have no direct connection to the ''Mario'' series (someone should dig up ''Player's Guide'' and ''Nintendo Power'' for these), other entries clearly do, and therefore should stay as independent pages ([[MarioWiki:Coverage]]). I believe Bombite and Stone Elevator should be handled seperately on their own respective talk pages (there is an ongoing discussion on Stone Elevator's talk page). The reason items from ''Animal Crossing'' don't get their own pages is because noone made a proposal to classify the series as guest appearance yet (unlike the ''Zelda'' series, the items in ''Animal Crossing'' are purely decorational. I doubt anyone would make a proposal).
#{{User|SmokedChili}} This sounds too convoluted just to get rid of a loophole; I'd prefer keeping NQs and applying the 4-vote minimum condition to rule 9 so that if a proposal with three votes, all for one option, gets the fourth vote for an opposing option, it will be extended until consensus is reached or not.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Axis. It seems to me that this proposal underestimates just how much of a guest appearance Link’s Awakening is for the Mario series—there really are a lot of crossover enemies.


====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)
I apologize for the length of this proposal and the number of options, but I wanted to ensure as many approaches as possible were offered. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 03:55, 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.
It's possible that there are other pages exclusively related to other series on the wiki as well outside of the ''Zelda'' pages that I've highlighted.  Their exclusion from this proposal is not due to me believing they should remain but instead being ignorant of their existence. If similar pages exist from other franchises, please feel free to note them in reply to this comment and, ''if this proposal passes'', I'll explore deletion proposals for them as well depending on the strength of their relationship to the ''Mario'' series. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 03:55, 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)
Uh, there is a [[The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening|Link's Awakening]] page. It was classified as a guest appearance (i.e. page-worthy) by that 2022 proposal you linked to, and [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] tells us that "if a subject is unique to [a guest appearance] while also being clearly derived from the ''Super Mario'' franchise, they can receive individual articles", so all the Link's Awakening Mario-inspired enemies are therefore eligible to get articles. Admittedly though, I'm not sure about pages for the Mario-inspired enemies from other games that we don't consider guest appearances, as while it was technically decided by that 2022 proposal, it was only clarified in a comment that it would extend to all Zelda games rather than just Link's Awakening, and it's less supported by policy. And yeah, some of them (like Bombite) do kinda seem to be stretches, but that's probably better handled on its own rather than in a giant proposal like this. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:19, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
:I'm not saying that NQs are a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals. I was just explaining that a lack of attention isn't necessarily why the minimum vote threshold isn't met, since that's one of your main points of contention. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 15:36, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
::The vast majority of proposals that end with no quorum only do so because they don't get enough attention, and there are plenty of poorly written proposals that don't get no quorum. Besides, I don't really see how your argument relates to the proposed rule changes, as waiting for flawed proposals to NQ isn't really how you're meant to deal with them anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:45, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
:::I think part of the disconnect is that the proposal references and directly links to TPPs, which do tend to get less attention than proposals on this page (or at least, they did). Most of the proposals I've weighed in on have been in the latter category, where the things I've mentioned are (were?) more likely to come up. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 00:57, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::Your point? The majority of proposals made nowadays are TPPs, and issue of whether or not the proposal is on a talk page is irrelevant. You have yet to justify your opposition in any way. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::It's relevant to my argument to the extent that it informs my perception of proposals, but getting to the point, I don't see the proposal's problem #1 as such (and don't believe effectively redefining what constitutes a quorum would benefit them if it were). I also don't think more time would necessarily give TPPs more attention because my general approach involved prioritizing things like the scope or the information I had/needed over the deadline. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 14:41, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::How can you possibly think that problem #1 isn't an issue? You're saying that oppose votes actually ''causing'' proposals to pass is entirely logical. It's not. Imagine you oppose a proposal. It has 3 supports and 1 oppose - namely, you - near the deadline. This encourages you to game the system by removing your oppose vote at the last minute to stop the proposal from passing. How is that not completely asinine? {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:44, April 9, 2022 (EDT) 
:::::::Let's say the proposed solution to problem #1 is implemented. You create a proposal that's set to pass with four votes to one. At the last minute, the fourth supporter decides they're ambivalent toward the outcome and removes their vote, or maybe they get blocked for some reason, and their vote is removed.  Now, let's say the extension solution is also in effect, so the proposal doesn't get relisted. In the worst case scenario, another three weeks go by with no additional votes to give either option the four-vote minimum, so at the final deadline, it fails with a 3-1 ratio. Is having your proposal not go into effect at all preferable to the scenario of it getting potentially overturned later? {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 22:09, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::You're missing the point. Let's take your hypothetical proposal, but remove that one oppose vote. What happens under the current rules? It NQs, since it doesn't have enough votes. Meanwhile, your version of the proposal would pass because it does, despite having the ''exact same amount of support''. Why should that happen? Why should it be possible for opposing a proposal be counterproductive to actually stopping a proposal from passing? Like I just said, this encourages the opposer to game the system by removing their oppose vote at the last minute so the proposal will NQ and therefore not pass, which is ridiculous. Simply put, if a 3-0 proposal doesn't pass, then a 3-1 or 3-2 shouldn't pass either. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 22:38, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it's counterproductive to vote in opposition to something even if it's not likely to (or doesn't) prevent the proposal from passing. My hypothetical scenario demonstrates that "gaming the system" is technically possible under the proposed new system. Since that's therefore not the problem being solved, I don't think it's a relevant justification. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 23:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::Your hypothetical scenario demonstrates nothing of the sort. A supporter removing their vote because they changed their mind isn't gaming the system, it's normal. An opposer ''removing their oppose vote'' at the last minute to deliberately cause an NQ for a proposal that would otherwise pass is absolutely gaming the system - a form of which my proposed solution would render unnecessary. Opposition not preventing a proposal from passing is ''not'' the problem, it's opposition ''actively causing'' a proposal to pass because of the current NQ rule. Stop misinterpreting my posts. I'm still waiting for you to justify why a 3-0 proposal shouldn't pass, but a 3-1 or 3-2 should. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 13:04, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::Community input is as or more important than a proposal's outcome, the impact of which is neither permanent nor irreparable. Ignoring that I never encountered a single instance of someone doing what you describe in 12 years, I think, depending on the proposal, four or five votes is an adequate reflection of that input. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 14:19, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::That's just flat out wrong. Community input is what ''causes'' a proposal's outcome. You can't just lump supporters and opposers together under the banner of "community input" like they're the same thing. When someone opposes a proposal, it's because they ''don't want it to pass''. Therefore, it should never ''result'' in it passing for any reason, ever. While proposals can be overturned, it requires another successful proposal, which means just one or two people wanting the overturning aren't going to cut it. If a proposal with those one or two opposers should pass, then a proposal without those opposers should also pass. If a proposal with three supporters shouldn't pass, then a proposal with three supporters and one or two opposers shouldn't pass either. I don't get why that's so hard for you to understand. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 15:39, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::I haven't been following the discussion too closely but I think the idea is that a proposal with five votes, even if some of them are opposition, has had adequate community participation to move forward. Honestly, I think you're focusing way too hard on the issue of people potentially "gaming the system" by not opposing to deliberately force a no quorum. I've never seen that happen and it seems like assuming bad faith to me. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:53, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I don't think concern over a potential issue equates with assuming bad faith in the userbase. It's still a loophole and the system's better off without it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:47, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Precisely. It doesn't matter if this loophole isn't exploited regularly, the mere fact that it's possible to exploit it warrants fixing it. It doesn't matter if you've seen it happen, not voting is a non-action, so you can't produce evidence of it happening or not happening. There's no reason ''not'' to fix this; I should never have to consider not voting on a proposal I actively oppose (or removing my existing oppose vote) just because of this loophole. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 17:15, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
@LinkTheLefty: I don't understand what the problem is with how it would affect proposals with more than two choices. Be more specific so I can maybe improve it or come up with a better solution. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:I feel like an issue one might have with solution 1 is that it could result in situations where proposals with many options could have many votes but still NQ because no option has >3 votes. Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that. [[User:Somethingone|Somethingone]] ([[User talk:Somethingone|talk]]) 13:31, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::Basically. It just makes it needlessly harder for multiple-choice proposals to pass, also considering option results sometimes overlap with each other. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:21, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::"Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that." Not necessarily. A proposal with 5 options may have accrued only 4 total votes and still pass, provided all those votes are for one option in particular. If not one option has more than 3 votes, it's a NQ period, regardless of how many available options there are. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:22, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::That still doesn't factor when choices overlap, which more often than not do in multiple-choice proposals. Say this hypothetical proposal: 1) do X only, 2) do Y only, 3) do Z only, 4) do X & Y, 5) do X & Z, 6) do Y & Z, 7) do X, Y & Z, and 8) don't do anything. Let's say the X & Y options are generally unpopular, but votes are accrued for options involving Z. Let's say #3 gets 3 votes, and #s5, 6 & 7 get two votes each. And for the sake of argument, let's say that all the votes are from different users. That's at least nine total, with the remaining options having zero-to-two votes. Under the current system, #3 passes, and everyone walks away somewhat pleased because they at least agreed to do Z. Under the first proposed solution, the proposal becomes a no quorum, despite the fact that virtually everyone had Z in mind, making no one happy. That's another reason why I think no quorums should be considered non-proposals rather than opposed/failed ones. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:50, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::You seem to have forgotten about rule 9, which would force an extension on your hypothetical proposal anyway. If there were nine voters, three votes wouldn't be enough for the option to win. It would need more than half, in other words, at least five. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 17:26, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Then that might be another technicality with the system, but I digress. Fudge the specifics a bit if you like; the bottom line is 100% support on one action minimal (Z) and a lot of multiple-choice proposals are structured this way. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::Are you saying that you oppose rule 9 or want it changed? Because that's what would get in the way of your hypothetical proposal. It doesn't matter how many votes there are, if the voters are spread across four voting options and they're too close, rule 9 won't let it pass. Anyway, a simple solution to the "overlapping options" issue is, once you've established that everyone wants to do Z, make Z a standalone proposal. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:28, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::That seems cumbersome. You could just note in the above proposal that overlapping choices (e.g. "Z", "X&Z", and "X&Y&Z") will count votes together towards the common goal "Z". I agree with LTL insofar as it doesn't make much sense to treat these as mutually exclusive. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:51, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::Is that allowed? There isn't anything about it in the proposal rules, and I've never heard of such a thing happening. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:58, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::Rule 14 states: "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation". I assume "rewritten" implies you can bring in any modifications, including additions--I've done it before in my proposals and nobody minded. [[Special:Diff/3595274|It's been 2 days and ~6 hours since the proposal was published]], so I think changing it as of this comment's writing is still ok. ''If'' your question refers to the matter of overlapping options, I'd say that, since the proposal at hand already sets out to amend the rules, you may indeed add any further stipulations if you see it fit. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:18, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::I wasn't talking about my own proposal, I was asking if a rule about the overlapping options thing ''already existed'' (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't). {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 19:32, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::It doesn't, that's why I was suggesting it's offhandedly taken care of in the current proposal. Adding such a rule could and should have been made through a separate proposal, but what the current proposal advocates makes way to the issues described above by LTL (although I still support the amendment per se), so I was thinking you could kill two birds with one stone by taking care of it in the same proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:49, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem with deciding on the addition of such a rule here is that this proposal already has four options, and that would require adding additional variants of those options that include adding the new rule. If there turned out to be disagreement on whether it should be added or not, this would cause division amongst the current options' votes (which are already rather close between two of them), thus increasing the risk of this proposal stalemating. Anyway, I already mentioned that the issue described in LTL's hypothetical proposal ''is already present'' due to rule 9, so as long as rule 9 exists, problem #1's solution doesn't cause any issues that don't already exist. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 20:07, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Yeah, ultimately, it might be better to address that matter in a future proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:19, April 9, 2022 (EDT)


===''[[Pinball (game)|Pinball]]'' (1984): full coverage or guest appearance?===
==Changes==
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]].
===Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary===
An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch)]], as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, ''very'' long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the ''TTYD'' remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and ''then'' go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?


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.  
I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'']] or ''TTYD'' remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'', but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)


Alternatively, we can '''only''' allow coverage for the scene C, which features Mario as a playable character and Pauline.
My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.


'''Affected pages:'''
I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land|Kirby's Return to Dream Land]]'' and ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe|Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe]]'' that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.
* [[Template:Pinball]]
* [[Card (Pinball)]]


'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br>
This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long ''TTYD'' section might, but something like ''Super Mario Advance'' could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.
'''Deadline''': April 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Allow full coverage====
'''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br>
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per proposal.
'''Deadline''': <s>June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{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)====
====Support====
#{{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.
#{{User|DryKirby64}} As proposer.
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I agree with this proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea.


====Allow coverage for the Mario scene (scene C) only (and classify as a guest appearance)====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Spectrogram}} Second option.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I don't think WiKirby is a good example -- of anything. I would be interested in something else to improve the remake pages though.
#{{User|Arend}} I get the concern of this proposal, but I'm not sure if repeating much of the same information over and over is the ideal solution.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Comments====
====Comments====
I do want to add something. I was reminded of pages 238-255 of ''Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.'' earlier which, while "not an exhaustive list", is nonetheless a fairly big one. It contains a bar showing Mario's involvement with each entry: four stars is "Main ''Super Mario'' series games", three stars is "Mario is a major character", two stars is "Mario plays a small part", one star is "Mario's likeness appears", and no star is "A member of the Mario family appears". Obviously, this can vary depending on if it counts ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', or ''Wario'' franchises, or one-off character spinoffs like ''Super Princess Peach'' (two stars), but ''Pinball'' is decidedly none of those (for the record, the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games are two stars, though the wiki deems them a special exception). ''Pinball'' and ''Alleyway'' are given the same two-star status as things like ''Tennis'', ''Tetris'', ''Qix'', and "Famicom Disk System (boot-up screen)". For reference, ''Famicom Grand Prix II: 3D Hot Rally'' has three stars even though ''Famicom Grand Prix: F1 Race'' has two stars, and ''Golf'' isn't mentioned. Granted, this is mainly referring to the involvement of character Mario rather than necessarily being indicative of ''Mario'' games, so make of this what you will. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:14, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
:Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. [[User:DryKirby64|DryKirby64]] ([[User talk:DryKirby64|talk]]) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
::It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
 
I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in ''Super Mario 3D All-Stars'' would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for ''three'' games. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
 
In my eyes, the change list for ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)
 
Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in [[Mario Sports Superstars]] article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
 
Just for reference, the current size of the ''TTYD'' remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Split ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' bosses into boss levels===
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]]


===Classify Art Style: PiCTOBiTS as a guest appearance and give it its own page===
Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' boss levels.
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|GuntherBayBeee}} (banned)<br>
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2022, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': <s>June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Jacklavin}} This is my proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
#{{User|Spectrogram}} This game has a significant amount of Mario-related content to be classified as a guest appearance.
#{{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|PanchamBro}} Per Spectrogram
#{{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|Hewer}} Per all.
#{{user|Arend}} I suppose that makes sense. Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
<s>#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal</s>


====Oppose====
====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====
====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)
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
#'''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'''
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====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
 
====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====
#[[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.
 
====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." {{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)


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

Latest revision as of 11:19, July 1, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, July 1st, 15:19 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 1, 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)
Get rid of the "Subject origin" parameter on the species infobox, DrippingYellow (ended June 25, 2024)
Trim the list of Snake's codec conversations and list of Palutena's Guidance conversations, Dive Rocket Launcher (ended June 26, 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)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove Zelda-Exclusive Pages

There are several pages in Category:The_Legend_of_Zelda_series that I believe should be deleted from the wiki. There are many pages in the category that should clearly remain on the wiki, like Ancient Tires, Hyrule Castle and Deku Baba, which appear in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe; 8-Bit Hero, a microgame in WarioWare: Touched!; Recorder, an item that has appeared in both series; or Link and Master Sword, which have appeared in multiple Mario games. Then there are pages that have no connection to the Mario series at all.

We have the List of references in Nintendo video games to cover topics such as these. I fail to see why they need their own pages. Even some of the links for these articles on the references page link to their equivalent articles on Zelda Wiki, our NIWA affiliate, because editors on our own wiki likely assume we don't have pages for Zelda-exclusive content. For example, why is Stone Elevator covered as a separate page but we don’t have a page for Gulliver, who references Toad Town and the Overthere in Animal Crossing, giving Gulliver, who has apparently visited places in the Mario series, a more direct connection than Stone Elevator, which just shares visual similarities to Thwomps? To be clear, I don’t think we should have a page for Gulliver for the reason that he does not appear in a Mario series game. Perhaps a more potent example is Togezo from Kirby’s Adventure, which is clearly a Kirbified version of a Spiny and even shares the same Japanese name. Why is there a page for Manhandla from Zelda, a variant of Piranha Plant, but not Togezo? There just doesn’t seem to be consistency.

For some reason, these pages seem to be disproportionally related to The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening compared to other Zelda games. Perhaps that is because there’s more profound references in Link’s Awakening, but as someone not familiar with the Zelda series, it strikes me as very odd that there’s favoritism for references in that game but there aren't independent pages any other Zelda-exclusive references on the page. This proposal from 2022 permits the creation of non-Mario series pages, but they seem out of place on Mario Wiki, so I think we should explore undoing the consequences of this proposal.

Furthermore, pages like Keese only cover the enemies’ appearance in Mario games, whereas Manhandla covers the extensive history of Mandhala throughout the Zelda series. Again, notably, Manhandla doesn’t have any appearances in Mario games, so I suppose it has to cover everything it does in Zelda since otherwise the page would be blank.

If Yoshi doll exists as an independent page, then shouldn’t every Animal Crossing furniture series and clothing from the Animal Crossing series like the Big Bro's Hat that references the Mario series also be given its own page? I just fail to see the difference. It’s more of the disproportionate coverage of Link’s Awakening.

Perhaps the worst offender is Bombite, which has no confirmed connection to the Mario series whatsoever. Per the page, “They appear to be based on Bob-ombs.” That alone is sufficient to be given a page on the wiki?

To be fair, there is developer commentary about some of the Mario-inspired features in Zelda games affirming they were, indeed, inspired by Mario equivalents (not including Bombite), but is our threshold going to become developer confirmation for significance enough to the Mario series to have an independent page? I'm sure that similar commentary could be found for much listed on List of references in Nintendo video games. If that's our threshold, then shouldn't we create pages for everything confirmed to be inspired by anything to do with the Mario series? That would be a tidal wave of new pages. If not, why is Link's Awakening being treated differently from everything else?

Something of a middle-ground solution is to create a page on our wiki for Link's Awakening. Though I do not favor this idea, there is precedence for the creation of pages for games that pay significant homage to the Mario series but aren't in the series themselves, including but not limited to Captain Rainbow, Fortune Street, and, of course, the entire Super Smash Bros. (series). I don't favor this option given the roles of Mario characters in Link's Awakening are much more minor compared to something like Birdo having a mildly significant role in Captain Rainbow, but there seems to be a lot of love for Link's Awakening on this wiki, so maybe this could be a middle ground solution. This page would house the information for Bombite, Mega Thowmp, Spiked Thowmp, Stone Elevator, and Yoshi doll, but it would remove the independent pages for Manhandla (The Legend of Zelda) and Head Thwomp (Oracle of Ages) and just confine them to the references page.

Pages that would be deleted:

Options breakdown I’ve drafted nine options to address the inconsistencies or excess coverage.

  • Option 1 deletes the pages I’ve highlights and incorporates relevant parts of the information on those pages elsewhere. In the case of the Thwomps, there is already a section referencing them on Thwomp.
  • Option 2 takes the converse approach and adds exhaustive information about Zelda series pages on the wiki to bridge the gap between Manhandla and Keese and similar pages.
^ Note that no equivalent option for Option 2 exists that would simply remove the bulk of the information from the highlighted pages as there would be nothing to put on the pages other than "X is a variant of X", e.g. "Manhandla is a variant of Piranha Plant that appears in The Legend of Zelda series", since these enemies have no relation to the Mario series other than being inspired by enemies in the series.
  • Option 3 implements Option 2 but also creates new pages for obvious inspirations from the Mario series like Togezo, Animal Crossing furniture and clothing, and similar examples.
  • Option 4 keeps the Thwomp-related pages since they have a more potent connection to the Mario series, though I believe that if we do this we should create a page on the wiki for Togezo and every other enemy from a different franchise that is based on something from the Mario series, which I don’t think is necessary but becomes appropriate if we have pages for the Thwomp-relations and Manhandla. Yoshi doll is also kept in this option if people want that for whatever reason, but I again suggest that if we have a page for Yoshi doll, then we should have a page for all the similar furniture items from the Animal Crossing series and other series. I strongly believe all this information is best confined to List of references in Nintendo video games instead. If we're taking this option but not Option 3, I just see it as giving a lot of preferential coverage to Link's Awakening.
  • Option 5 keeps Yoshi doll but deletes the Thwomp-related pages and Bombite. See argument against this in Option 4's description.
  • Option 6 keeps all other pages but deletes Bombite since it is the least related to the Mario series and would suggest we should have pages for any enemy from any Nintendo game that resembles a Bob-omb, which, given their design, would be basically any sapient bomb enemy.
  • Option 7 creates a page for Link's Awakening and deletes the highlighted pages. This gives a place for all the highlighted pages on the wiki to exist outside of the references list, minus Manhandla and Head Thwomp.
  • Option 8 creates a page for Link's Awakening but keeps Manhandla and Head Thwomp as independent pages.
  • Option 9, the do nothing option, would consider all of this as a non-issue and leave things as they are now.

Proposer: DrBaskerville (talk)
Deadline: July 08, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Remove the highlighted pages as independent pages, add information about them to Trivia on other pages where applicable, and ensure they are referenced on List of references in Nintendo video games

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal.

Option 2: Keep all pages and add exhaustive information from the Zelda series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, e.g. Keese, Deku Baba, Master Sword, etc.

Option 3: Keep all pages, add exhaustive information from the Zeldra series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, and create pages for Mario-inspired content, like Togezo and Animal Crossing references

Option 4: Keep Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Yoshi doll, but remove Bombite

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Second choice.

Option 5: Keep Yoshi doll, but remove Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Bombite

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Third choice.

Option 6: Keep all other pages, but remove Bombite

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Fourth choice.

Option 7: Create page for Link's Awakening and remove highlighted independent pages

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Fifth choice.

Option 8: Create page for Link's Awakening and keep Manhandla and Head Thwomp pages

Option 9: Do nothing

  1. Axis (talk) The proposal fails to understand why these pages have been created in the first place. The Legend of Zelda series is considered a guest appearance, meaning anything Mario themed or derived from the Mario franchise gets a page. While Bombite and Stone Elevator have no direct connection to the Mario series (someone should dig up Player's Guide and Nintendo Power for these), other entries clearly do, and therefore should stay as independent pages (MarioWiki:Coverage). I believe Bombite and Stone Elevator should be handled seperately on their own respective talk pages (there is an ongoing discussion on Stone Elevator's talk page). The reason items from Animal Crossing don't get their own pages is because noone made a proposal to classify the series as guest appearance yet (unlike the Zelda series, the items in Animal Crossing are purely decorational. I doubt anyone would make a proposal).
  2. Pseudo (talk) Per Axis. It seems to me that this proposal underestimates just how much of a guest appearance Link’s Awakening is for the Mario series—there really are a lot of crossover enemies.

Comments

I apologize for the length of this proposal and the number of options, but I wanted to ensure as many approaches as possible were offered. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

It's possible that there are other pages exclusively related to other series on the wiki as well outside of the Zelda pages that I've highlighted. Their exclusion from this proposal is not due to me believing they should remain but instead being ignorant of their existence. If similar pages exist from other franchises, please feel free to note them in reply to this comment and, if this proposal passes, I'll explore deletion proposals for them as well depending on the strength of their relationship to the Mario series. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Uh, there is a Link's Awakening page. It was classified as a guest appearance (i.e. page-worthy) by that 2022 proposal you linked to, and MarioWiki:Coverage tells us that "if a subject is unique to [a guest appearance] while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise, they can receive individual articles", so all the Link's Awakening Mario-inspired enemies are therefore eligible to get articles. Admittedly though, I'm not sure about pages for the Mario-inspired enemies from other games that we don't consider guest appearances, as while it was technically decided by that 2022 proposal, it was only clarified in a comment that it would extend to all Zelda games rather than just Link's Awakening, and it's less supported by policy. And yeah, some of them (like Bombite) do kinda seem to be stretches, but that's probably better handled on its own rather than in a giant proposal like this. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:19, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Changes

Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary

An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?

I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)

My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.

I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.

This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.

Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk)
Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer.
  2. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I agree with this proposal.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
  2. DrBaskerville (talk) Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
  3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all.
  4. Scrooge200 (talk) I don't think WiKirby is a good example -- of anything. I would be interested in something else to improve the remake pages though.
  5. Arend (talk) I get the concern of this proposal, but I'm not sure if repeating much of the same information over and over is the ideal solution.
  6. Jazama (talk) Per all

Comments

This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. BabyLuigiFire.png Ray Trace(T|C) 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in Super Mario 3D All-Stars would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for three games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)

In my eyes, the change list for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. DandelionSprout (talk) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)

Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in Mario Sports Superstars article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). BabyLuigiFire.png Ray Trace(T|C) 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

Just for reference, the current size of the TTYD remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). Scrooge200 (talk) PMCS Mustard Cafe Sign.png 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

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

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)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4282704"