MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(153 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==


=== Get rid of or heavily restrict the "Subject origin" parameter ===
''None at the moment.''
 
I can already sense a murmur rising in the crowd, but hear me out. I've made it no secret on here that [[Template_talk:Species_infobox#Point_of_derived_subject.2Fsubject_origin.3F|I don't really like the Subject origin parameter]] on the [[Template:Species infobox|species infobox]]. The term "subject origin" is a bit of a misnomer. It really should've been called "design inspiration", because rather than explaining where the subject comes from ''in pieces of media'', it's only ever been used in instances where the subject took any sort of inspiration from another entity, either real or fictional. If that sounds oddly broad... then yes, it ''is'' '''very''' broad.
 
This line of reasoning is used for bizarre classifications such as [[Mincer]]s being derived from [[Zinger]]s because they're both spiky enemies (is Mincer even an enemy, or just an obstacle?) that follow specific paths, or every "Bone" enemy variant being derived from [[Dry Bones]] even if they don't actually fall apart. There's even a few cases where "subject origin" has taken priority over confirmed relatedness between species, despite the term not in itself suggesting a close relationship between subjects, thus ''losing'' useful information in the infobox in these cases (e.g. [[Rocky Wrench]]es which were formerly [[Koopa (species)|Koopa]]s, [[Whomp]]s which are said to be "cousins" of [[Thwomp]]s, [[Krumple]]s being blue Kremlings that follow the same naming scheme as their predecessors [[Krusha]] and [[Kruncha]]).
 
The most awkward instances, however, are easily the instances of a subject being "derived" from a generic concept. [[Kleptoad]]s, though based on [[frog]]s, have little to no relevance to any of the generic instances of frogs present in the Mario franchise. Similarly, [[Rabbid]]s are entirely separated from the Mario series' depictions of [[rabbit]]s, not only because they don't act like generic rabbits in the Mario series, but also because they're not even from the same ''franchise''. It's not even restricted to entities that actually ''have'' pages on the Mario Wiki. [[Kremling]]s are stated to originate from "crocodilians", a page that [[:Category:Crocodilians|only exists as a category]], [[Crazee Dayzee]]s are derived from "flowers" (which are in a similar situation), and [[Krimp]]s are listed as being derived from "dogs". Who's to say [[Boo]]s aren't derived from "ghosts", or that [[Flaptack]]s don't have "bird" as a subject origin, or that [[Octoomba]]s aren't based off of both "aliens" and "octopuses"?
 
I hope you can see that the unrestricted references to generic or real-world species at the very least are a problem. But even for non-generic subject origins, the vast majority of the time (I'm tempted to say all of the time, but there could be an instance I'm struggling to think of that doesn't fall under this), this kind of info is covered sufficiently in the introductory paragraph, or the General information/Appearance section when applicable. I propose we deal with this in one of the following ways:
 
'''Option 1:''' Axe the "subject origin" parameter entirely. (My primary choice)<br>
'''Option 2:''' Ban usage of subject origin to refer to generic species, in addition to switching priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects". (I'm fine with this)<br>
'''Option 3:''' Simply ban usage of citing generic species as the subject origin.<br>
'''Option 4:''' Ban usage of subject origin to refer to species from the ''Mario'' franchise.<br>
'''Option 5:''' Just switch priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects"
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|DrippingYellow}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
==== Option 1 ====
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} As derived from my proposal.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal
#{{User|7feetunder}} This parameter is, as it is currently written, not well defined at all. [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:Species_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=3968459 It was originally] meant to be ''only'' for connections to real-world species, but was [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:Species_infobox&diff=next&oldid=3968459 given a wishy-washy, vague rewording] so it could be used to make flimsy claims like [[Bazuka]] being based on [[Kutlass]] because they're both [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Bazuka&diff=prev&oldid=3976730 "small Kremlings with oversized weapons"] or the aforementioned Mincer thing (which I was unaware of before this proposal).
 
==== Option 2 ====
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Secondary choice.
 
==== Option 3 ====
 
==== Option 4 ====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I think, right now, it's a little confusing, myself. Back when I thought to have the parameter [[Template talk:Species infobox#Repurposing subject origin?|revived]], I thought of only using it for genericized subjects, and this option seems to be closest to what I had in mind. For that matter, we don't need to list every single variant of something under derived subjects; just the base version is fine. I'd rather not go back to listing generic subjects broadly listed under comparable again, and insist that the parameter would benefit from focus.
 
==== Option 5 ====
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Second choice
 
==== Do nothing ====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - I don't really see the issue. If anything, the "relatives" parameter not having directional counterparts is the weakest link. Plus the "listing Galoombas as Goomba relatives rather than variants because a source distinguished them from each other and happened to used the word 'related'"-type of thing might be itself getting out of hand...
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per Doc
<s>#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.</s>
 
==== Comments ====
Oh, looks like I'm involved with this proposal to some degree. You see; I was the one who did the Kremling edit and especially the recent Dry Bones edits. For the latter, my explanation is that subject origin refers to things based on another entity ''while not actually being the entity.'' For example, Galoombas have been considered not Goombas, but they were meant to be inspired by them and even their [[Galoomba#Names in other languages|name]] reflects it. There are various subjects that are definitely inspired, while not considered relatives of the original entity. Goombrats are weird, because they are stated to be relatives, although it's not made clear if they are a variant, as ''Super Mario Run'' loved to throw a wrench at us. The initial existence of subject origin appeared to be more generic species that had multiple fictional variants off of it. I always had this issue with penguins on this, because the ''Mario'' franchise equivalent of penguins are meant to be based on those from ''SM64'', yet the derived section brings up entities that existed ''before it.'' The blue color seems to derived from Bumpties, so there's ''that'' [[MIPS]]hole for you. As for my Dry Bones edit, they've inspired various skeleton enemies over the years. It's obvious that Bone Piranha Plants were inspired by Dry Bones, because their designs have the same type of texture. The same applies to Fish Bones, because they are meant to be underwater Dry Bones, especially given in ''Maker'', where an underwater Dry Bones becomes a Fish Bones. Poplins are not confirmed to be relatives of Toads, but it's wrong to say that aren't inspired by Toads. Really, I got the impression that subject origin = inspiration. We know that Dry Bones and Fish Bones are definitely two different entities not even related, but we know one took inspiration from the other. I guess this type of logic would make Shellcreepers being the origin for Koopa Troopas, although Shellcreepers are retroactively considered part of the Koopa clan. Yeah, relatives is another thing. For me, if its unclear what came first, its a relative. Paragoombas have the ability to spawn Mini Goombas. Mini Goombas aren't really a variant of a Paragoomba, so the relative label fits there. To get back on topic a little bit, I'm surprised [[Moo Moo]] didn't get mentioned here; it's in the same boat of Kremling, except I made it link to the Wikipedia article for [[Wikipedia:Cattle|cattle]]. My thought process behind these edits, where to tell the viewer what the species is based off on. This is somewhat true for Kremlings, who are sometimes called [[Donkey Kong Country (television series)|reptiles or lizards]]. A person who isn't familiar with this franchise might not know what the hell a Kremling is meant to be based on, so I figured that I mention its inspired by both crocodiles and alligators (not sure if Kremlings tend to crossover with these two, like how Diddy and Dixie are crosses between monkeys and chimps). I guess this could get out of hand when talking about fictional animals such as dragons or aliens, so there's that. My thought process is that someone might not realize what the species is based on. Like, if there was a fictional species based off on a [[Wikipedia:Spider monkey|spider monkey]], which some people might not realize actually exists, ''that'' was the intended goal. Of course, it can resort to "well, no shit," situations regarding Kremlings who are just based on typical crocs and Moo Moos. So yeah, I'm not entirely sure what to choose here. I do want it to be obvious to non-''Mario'' readers what the subject is based on. Are we considering making Galoombas be considered comparable to Goombas? [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 23:55, June 11, 2024 (EDT)
 
This very well could just be me, and I do not want to disregard the hard work of my fellow users. However, in my personal experience, the "subjects origins", "relatives", etc. entries for the species infoboxes have become so diluted and bloated with loosely-affiliated species that I usually just ignore whatever is written in those sections completely. This is a bit of a shame, because I remember them being quite fun and informative years prior. Today, I don't really trust/value the information written there because it seems either: (A) very subjective and promoting of drive-by edits; (B) derived from a proposal drawn chiefly from subtle similarities in Japanese nomenclature, to the point that they ignore everything about the species' physical appearance or canonized taxonomy; (C) declares it to be derived from a subject that is pretty apparent just by looking at the subject; (D) based on mechanical similarities within their respective games, which is not something that I think inherently means they are related, variants, or subjects of origins, and are details best left in the body paragraphs; or (E) are so long that it makes the whole concept of the infobox - something to quickly condense information - completely useless.
 
I do not know what would be the best amendment for the species infoboxes. Something to return them to their prior useage would be nice - it's not really clear if any of {{User|DrippingYellow}}'s options would really do that. (Possibly something to address D, I think.) But I am interested in sort of change. Too often, it feels like people are going out of their way to look for connections that are not real, rather than noting ones that unambiguously exist. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:43, June 13, 2024 (EDT)


==New features==
==New features==
===Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes===
''None at the moment.''
Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being [https://www.mariowiki.com/images/2/26/Mario1c.jpg dumb], but hear me out.
 
A few years after [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/31#Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxes|this proposal]] passed, this wiki added a [[Template:Group infobox|group infobox]] for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would '''only''' be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.
 
I've come up with two options:
*Option 1: [[Template:Character infobox]] and [[Template:Species infobox]] get a "member of" parameter, which would be used to link to groups they are, well, a member of. [[Goomba]] and the like would link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[Vivian]] would link to [[Three Shadows]], etc. This parameter would be used to list both memberships and leadership roles (the latter could maybe be distinguished by adding "(leader)" next to the link).
*Option 2: these infoboxes would also get a separate "Leader of" parameter. [[Bowser]] would use this to link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[King K. Rool]] would use this to link to [[Kremling Krew]], [[Captain Syrup]] would use this to link to [[Black Sugar Gang]], characters and species-characters would link to the [[:Category:baseball teams|baseball teams]] they lead, etc.
*Option 3: Only add the "member of" parameter to the character infobox, not the species infobox.
 
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).
 
EDIT THE SEQUEL: Per {{user|LinkTheLefty}}, added an option to only add this to the character infobox. I originally thought it would be weird to exclude it from the species infobox since some species-characters like [[Birdo]] are heavily associated with groups such as the [[Yoshi Islanders|Birdo Beauties]], at least when these characters are treated as individuals rather than species, but in hindsight, it would be odd to, say, classify ''all'' [[Goomba]]s as members of [[Bowser's Minions]] when that's [[Goombario|obviously]] [[Goombaria|not]] [[Goomama|the]] [[Goompapa|case]]. (At least [[Gary (Super Paper Mario)|Gary]] would be classified as a member of Bowser's Minions...)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Option 1====
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} First choice per proposal.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) The folly of the "affiliations" tab was that it was allowed to include characters, which led to nonsense like Fawful being affiliated with "himself" among other things. Restricting it to groups is perfectly fine.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall
 
====Option 2====
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Second choice per proposal.
 
====Option 3====
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Third choice per proposal.
 
====Do nothing====
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place.  Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the [[Template:Character infobox]] is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. [[Excess Express]] passengers, [[Mario Kart 8]] racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances.  In the [[Goomba]] example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions.  What about the Goombas in [[Goomba Village]] or [[Rogueport]] or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas.  You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per DrBaskerville.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Couldn't we just write this stuff in the body paragraphs? I worry an "affiliation" would be too often open to subjective interpretation and promote drive-by edits, further damaging the infoboxes.
 
====Comments====
Would having single character and species infobox options satisfy some of the opposition's concerns? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]])


==Removals==
==Removals==
Line 103: Line 24:


'''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''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


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|DryKirby64}} As proposer.
#{{User|DryKirby64}} As proposer.
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I agree with this proposal.
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I agree with this proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
Line 113: Line 35:
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all.
#{{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.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Line 118: Line 41:
: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)
: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)
::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)
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)


===Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' pages===
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)
This is based on a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|proposal from last year about ''Super Mario RPG'']], which had passed. The proposal was about using (''Super Mario RPG'') as a disambiguation identifier over the full (''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'') title because not only does the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Nintendo Switch remake]] not use the "Legend of the Seven Stars" subtitle from [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|the original SNES title]] while still calling it just "Super Mario RPG", but it would also be easier to navigate and would look nicer due to the page title not being so overly long in comparison.
 
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]]


This proposal is the same principle, but with articles concerning ''[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]]'' instead (in fact, this idea was also suggested in the aforementioned ''Super Mario RPG'' proposal). Both their respective [[Donkey Kong Country 2 (Game Boy Advance)|GBA]] [[Donkey Kong Country 3 (Game Boy Advance)|ports]] have entirely omitted the subtitles from the SNES originals, much like ''Super Mario RPG's'' Nintendo Switch remake, yet articles that make use of a disambiguation identifier still make use of the full title of the SNES originals (see [[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest levels]] per example). I think it'd be much easier to navigate if the identifiers went from (''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'') and (''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'') to simply (''Donkey Kong Country 2'') and (''Donkey Kong Country 3'') respectively. I believe this makes sense because both the SNES originals and GBA ports are still called ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'', and it's the same as what we have done with the ''Super Mario RPG'' identifiers.
Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' boss levels.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Arend}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}} (banned)<br>
'''Deadline''': June 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': <s>June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Arend}} Per proposal
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Makes sense to me. ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' at the very least is even officially abbreviated as just "DKC3", rather than "DKC3:DKDT", in Wrinky's dialogue in ''Donkey Kong 64''.
#{{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|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{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|Pseudo}} Per all.
<s>#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal</s>
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} The [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Discourage .22.28.5BTitle.5D for .5Bsystem.5D.29.22 disambiguation format when .22.28.5BTitle.5D.29.22 alone is sufficient to identify the subject|proposal]] to get rid of the need for specifying the console for remake-exclusive content had passed. Might as well extend that rule to shorten every game's dab terms.
#{{user|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Might as well.


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


====Comments====
====Comments====
If this proposal passes, I think it'd be worth discussing changing "[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]" identifiers to just "Yoshi's Island" per [[Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3]]. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 17:32, June 12, 2024 (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)


===Include "The" for Glitz Pit team articles===
===Standardize sectioning for ''Super Mario'' series game articles===
Many of the Glitz Pit teams use a "the" moniker when listed in rankings and when introduced by Grubba, however most of our articles don't do it with the explaination given when "The Koopinator" was moved to "Koopinator" being that "the" is lowercase when tattling him outside of battle. I get that this means "the" may not be part of the name proper, however this is the sort of thing that does roll of the tongue better when it is included even in the article title. I'm not trying to set a precedence with other wiki subjects in a similar boat (e.g I would still prefer leaving [[Koopalings]] as is), I'm really trying to just limit this proposal for the Glitz Pit teams. Anything outside of this would remain a case-by-case basis.
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.


[[Wings of Night]], [[Spike Storm]], [[Craw-Daddy]], [[Hamma, Bamma, and Flare]], and [[Chomp Country]] are exempt from this proposal due to their names not using "the" at all.
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.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Nightwicked Bowser}}<br>
The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is:
'''Deadline''': June 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
'''Characters''': living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per proposal.
* '''Playable characters''': characters controlled
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly, for a team name, this makes more sense. If necessary, we can have the category order go to "Koopinator, The" for example, but as they are presented in-game, the "The" is part of their names.
* '''Non-playable characters''': characters that aren’t controlled
#{{User|Scrooge200}} - This is the clear intent. or example, "[[Fuzz (group)|Fuzz]]": what is this? In-game, it's always called "The Fuzz", which makes sense because that's a slang term for police, not just "Fuzz" on its own.
'''Enemies and obstacles''': subjects that damage or inhibit the player character
#{{User|Sparks}} Makes sense! Per all.
* '''Enemies''': living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all, and I'd say that exceptions to this like Wings of Night are actually strong evidence that this is an intentional part of the team's full name; they're not the "Iron Adonis Twins" but "The Iron Adonis Twins".
* '''Obstacles''': abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal. I'm the one who moved Koopinator's article for consistency, but I support adding "The" to the article names as that makes the most sense. I probably should have said something about this when I moved the article.
* '''Bosses''': subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression
#{{User|Nintendo}} Per Nightwicked Bowser.
'''Items and objects''': beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The original is consistent about this, and if the remake is the same, let's do it this way.
* '''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.
 
====Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently====


====Oppose====
====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====
====Comments on standardize sectioning for ''Super Mario'' series game articles====
Note to self: the Koopinator example mentioned in the proposal text should probably be incorporated into The Koopinator's article as "'''The Koopinator''', also spelled with a lowercase "the" as the '''Koopinator'''<sup>(insert Tattle dialogue reference)</sup>, is a character in...", or that sort of thing, if this proposal passes, since it's still a valid name reference in its own right. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 19:18, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
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)
:He's only "the Koopinator" because no one else I think had the chance for their name to be mentioned outside the beginning of a sentence. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 21:27, June 13, 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)
::At the start of matches, "The" is capitalised even when it's not at the start of the sentence. I'll leave [https://youtu.be/jQxe3l4FDR0?feature=shared this livestream] here for reference; The Koopinator is at about 1:37:40. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 21:35, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
:::Ah, that's kind of tricky because the game breaks up the text strings in that dialog box and calls in whatever name in memory. Looks like the remake's the same way. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 21:41, June 13, 2024 (EDT)


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

Latest revision as of 18:19, June 28, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, June 29th, 12:28 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: "June 29, 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

None at the moment.

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.

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.)

#GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

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 A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (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.

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 A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (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=4278994"