MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(221 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 12: Line 12:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary===
===Standardize the coverage of elements from guest appearance titles===
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?
As brought up by an earlier cancelled proposal, the current coverage of ''The Legend of Zelda'' series is very inconsistent, and the worst offender is [[Bombite]]. Unlike Spiked Thwomp, Stone Elevator or Mega Thwomp, it has no direct or implied connection to the ''Mario'' franchise, but has an article anyway, solely based on its appearance.


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.)
[[MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest_appearances]] permits giving individual articles for subjects ''"unique to the [guest appearance] game while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise"''. I propose to more clearly define on [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] what elements from guest appearance titles should be given their own pages:
#The subject is clearly derived from or based on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, as confirmed by Nintendo. (''Nintendo Land'' minigames, Thwomp types exclusive to ''The Legend of Zelda'', etc.)
#The subject is distinct enough to justify its own article. (Cannot be merged with an existing page. BowWows or Cheep-Sheeps don't get individual articles because they're not distinct enough from their Mario counterparts)
#Subjects exclusive to ''Mario''-themed stages or minigames ([[Chili plate]], [[Blue check mark]], etc. Monita still doesn't get her own page, despite her role in the [[Luigi's Ghost Mansion]] minigame)
#If the subject derived from the ''Mario'' franchise appears in a Nintendo-published or endorsed media that isn't considered guest appearance, a proposal is required before creating a page. (If Nintendo ever releases a game with a unique ''Mario'' subject that can't otherwise be considered a guest appearance title, wiki editors have an option to consider if it's worth covering anyway)


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.
This is where Bombite comes into play:


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.
Option 1: Similar appearance isn't enough to justify creating a new article. This option would result in the deletion of [[Bombite]], its contents will be merged with the ''Zelda'' section of Bob-omb's article


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.
Option 2: Similar appearance is a good justification for creating a new article for a distinct enemy. Bombite's page remains


'''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Axis}}<br>
'''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
'''Deadline''': July 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Option 1====
#{{User|DryKirby64}} As proposer.
#{{User|Axis}} Per proposal
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I agree with this proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Connecting Bombite to Bob-omb does feel like a stretch, so yeah it doesn't need an article.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} As I already stated [[Talk:Bombite#Falls within the scope our coverage?|here]], Bombite being covered here with its own article is really strange, even if it does resemble Bob-omb, and the game it's from references Mario a lot. Rest of the proposed guidelines also check out, per all.
#{{User|7feetunder}} I really have no idea why Bombites even exist when they could've just put Bob-ombs in ''Link's Awakening''. Regardless, per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
 
====Option 2====


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{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====
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)
How is "Option 2" any different from "Oppose"? Doesn't this proposal just decide whether Bombite stays or goes? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:23, July 20, 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's about standardizing it so there's something to refer to in case something like this comes up again. Both options support the new standart, the difference is whether or not visual similary qualifies as a connection [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 08:31, July 20, 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)
A somewhat recent proposal about the coverage of the ''Rhythm Heaven'' series decided that ''Rhythm Heaven'' minigames with ''WarioWare'' characters in them (including Kung Fu Ball from ''[[Rhythm Heaven Fever]]'', the debut of [[Cicada]]) should not get dedicated articles. Would this new definition overturn that decision? {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 08:33, July 20, 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)
:It is not within the scope of this proposal, no [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 08:40, July 20, 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)
Relatedly, though I did [[Talk:Monita#Reinstate the page|vote against Monita having a page]] a couple years ago, I have started to reconsider a bit. She's a bit of an edge case, but not having a page on her creates a gap in our otherwise full coverage for Luigi's Ghost Mansion. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:56, July 20, 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)
Side note, would [[wikirby:Togezo|Togezo]] also be affected by the scope of the proposal? It's currently being covered on the [[Spiny]] article as if it's the same thing, even though it only ''vaguely'' resembles a Spiny (read: it's a black ball with two Kirby feet, dot eyes and a [[Spiny Shell]] helmet), and even had the Japanese and English name for Spiny swapped at first. Even with Doc's explanation in [[Talk:King Bob-omb#Trade & Battle: Card Hero|this discussion]], I'm still unsure if Togezo was meant to be the same creature as Spiny, or anything more than a simple reference to Spiny (it honestly looks more like [[Spiky]], or even [[Bumbleprod]]). The [[zeldawiki:Spiked Beetle|Spiked Beetle]], in comparison, resembles Spiny much more, especially in the Switch version of Link's Awakening. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:09, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:Whether part of this proposal or not, we should absolutely stop considering Togezo to be Spiny, it's patent speculation and the enemies don't even look alike besides having spiky shells. For all we know, they could've been created entirely separately from each other and coincidentally ended up with the same spike-based names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:I agree with Hewer, unless any of the guides say otherwise. Either way, it should be handled by a different proposal. (Also, I don't think any of the Kirby games are considered guest appearance anyway? So it isn't related, really) [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 14:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
::Y'all keep neglecting to bring up the "rolling into ball" bit as well as Spiny having the same black face in their prior appearances in SMB3 and SMW. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::I really don't see how that changes anything. Neither aspect is uncommon among Kirby characters. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:18, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::''Later'' Kirby characters. Remember, Spinies were introduced to ''Kirby'' in that series' second game, and those attributes didn't become "common" to that series until after it was suspiciously phased out for the remake and onward... not unlike how Capsule J was phased out for being a Twinbee clone. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:20, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::::I still think it's too much of a stretch based entirely on conjecture. We have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes with Kirby enemy designs over the years, we weren't there with the developers, and even if they did base it on Spiny, that doesn't mean it has to be literally the same character. And I don't see what's "suspicious" about it no longer appearing (which is yet another trait not uncommon among Kirby enemies), or why its vague Spiny resemblance would have anything to do with that fact. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:34, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::::(ec) Not particularly convinced we should have the Kirby enemy Togezo lumped with the Mario enemy in the Spiny article and in the gallery for the Spiny. Differences are too significant. The dark face in a sprite seems to just be a coloration quirk; they're not dark in official art and the whole rolling up into ball is just probably just a coincidence since they're both round enemies anyway. How they become a ball is so vastly different; in the original games, Spinys are balls while being thrown out; Togezo patrols areas, rolls into a ball, bounces, and spins around like a hedgehog. {{User:Mario/sig}} 14:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Later games give Spiny the ability to roll on a whim, like ''Paper Mario'' and NSMB. And I find it too unlikely that they'd ''happen'' to share both a name and basic appearance plan with an iconic creature from their creator's parent company's primary money-maker - especially when ''Kirby Super Star'' from the same dev team as ''Kirby's Adventure'' (ie, the Sakurai-headed one rather than the other one the so-called "Dark Matter saga" games had) went all-out on Nintendo cameos. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:46, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::''Later'' Spiny abilities (and in games with no relation to Kirby). And was Spiny really that iconic as of Kirby's Adventure, to the point that there's no way they could've made their own separate spiked-shelled enemy? At best Togezo warrants a mention in trivia or something on Spiny's page for possibly being inspired by the Mario character. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:54, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Any SMB1 enemy I'd count as fair game, to be frank. Granted, last I checked Sakurai was fairly open on social media so I suppose someone could ask him if it was an intentional cameo. Either way, we both know that if that ever gets a proposal itself, we'll have forgotten (conveniently or otherwise) each other's points by that point, so no point wasting our keystrokes here. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::Well, if we would've forgotten each other's points if it ever gets a proposal by itself, [[:Talk:Spiny#Stop considering Togezo (Kirby series enemy) to be the same as Spiny|why ''not'' strike while the iron's hot, then?]] {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:59, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::[https://x.com/tabekurono/status/1635628473833369607/ A friend] once asked this very question, Doc, but all we got was a curious like from the programmer of ''Gimmick!'' [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 23:00, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::Gimmick ''also'' had a similar-looking enemy (in fact, it looked right in between those designs), but its only deal was flipping over when hit and having the feet function as a tiny conveyor belt. And that game was entirely 3rd party, and the enemies in that game seem to be unnamed. [https://youtu.be/O71__ki3rYw?t=263 Here it is.] [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:05, July 20, 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)
Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA ''Zelda'' games, which themselves heavily borrow from ''Link's Awakening'' - particularly ''Four Swords Anniversary Edition'' having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 14:23, July 20, 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)
==Miscellaneous==
===Create a list of official hashtags===
This proposal targets the creation of an index for social media hashtags that:
#relate to the Mario series;
#were used or otherwise disseminated by Nintendo, a [[Nintendo#Supported regions|representative]], or any other official partner in the context of a Mario product.
If a hashtag meets these two criteria, it's eligible for inclusion no matter which social media network it's used on. It could be YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, you name it.


===Split ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' bosses into boss levels===
These hashtags count as official content, so I figured what's not to gain from having them gathered up in a historical record? I haven't seen anyone complain about the current [[list of fonts]], which has a similarly huge scope and I assume is currently inexhaustive.
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:
You can see how I envision the list's appearance in [[User:Koopa con Carne/sandbox#List of hashtags|my sandbox]], but this aspect is not enforced by the proposal and I am open to feedback. As you can see here, the list explains the context of each hashtag, cites references, and includes imagery appended to the hashtags upon use when applicable.


*[[Rollanratl]] → [[Rollanratl Battle]]
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
*[[Hot Roderick]] → [[Hot Roderick Race]]
'''Deadline''': July 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
*[[Chortlebot]] → [[Chortlebot Challenge]]
*[[Bloomsday]] → [[Bloomsday Blowout]]
*[[Large Fry]] → [[Large Fry Cook-Off]]
*[[Shake King]] → [[VS the Shake King]]


Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' boss levels.
====Create a list of official hashtags, including those relate to both Mario (e.g. "#MarioParty", "#DonkeyKong") and Nintendo in general (e.g. "#NintendoSwitch")====


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}} (banned)<br>
====Create a list of official hashtags that only relate to Mario specifically====
'''Deadline''': <s>June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} #perproposal
 
#{{User|Hewer}} <s>anything to improve our [[Wigger Wednesday|Wiggler Wednesday]] coverage</s> Sure, per proposal.
====Support====
#{{User|Mario}} Weak support. Seems really particular and niche, but if someone is willing to do the motions for this, okay. I guess someone will find this useful, but I'm not really a social media user.
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Eh, why not.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see [[Bowser's Sourpuss Bread]], which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)
#{{user|Arend}} I suppose that makes sense. Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
<s>#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal</s>


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} While there is precedence, I just don't see this as necessary given the information is currently detailed on the existing pages without overcrowding them.
====Comments====
Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
:Looking at "[[Special:ShortPages|Short Pages]], when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP]]'' items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split ''[[Speed Mario Bros.]]''. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when [[Pesky Billboard]] is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
:Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
===Standardize sectioning for ''Super Mario'' series game articles===
I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the ''[[Super Mario (series)|Super Mario]]'' series on and off for the past few years. I think presenting information in a shared, unified way is beneficial for readers and passively communicates that these games are part of a shared series, something I think is helpful for a franchise covering so many genres and series. Game articles in the ''[[Yoshi's Island (series)|Yoshi's Island]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country (series)|Donkey Kong Country]]'' series are similarly organized to one another. It is easy to jump from one article to another, information is where I'd expect it to be, and they look nice. Good stuff.
At present, some ''Super Mario'' game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare ''[[Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins]]'' to ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]''.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents.
The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is:
'''Characters''': living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm
* '''Playable characters''': characters controlled
* '''Non-playable characters''': characters that aren’t controlled
'''Enemies and obstacles''': subjects that damage or inhibit the player character
* '''Enemies''': living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment
* '''Obstacles''': abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement
* '''Bosses''': subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression
'''Items and objects''': beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic
* '''Items''': subjects that are absorbable/collectible, holdable, or health-restoring
* '''Power-ups''': items that transform the player character’s appearance and grant unique abilities
* '''Objects''': interactable subjects in the environment that are not items
This sectioning arrangement has been integrated on the ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels]]'', ''[[Super Mario Land]]'', ''[[Super Mario 64]]'', ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'', ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'', ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]'', ''[[Super Mario 3D Land]]'', ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' articles.
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
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per all, makes it much easier when reading between game pages.
====Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently====
====Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy====
#[[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)
===Allow colorful tables again===
Recently, there's been an update to follow [[Help:Table]] that standardizes all the colorful tables into boring, white-and-gray ones. I personally don't like this: not only is it removing a bit of charm from the site, the colored boxes are legitimately helpful at a glance and make it easier to distinguish individual sections in these large chunks of data.
Take [[Rock-Candy Mines]], a world from ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' and ''[[New Super Luigi U]]''. Here are two versions of the level lists:
----
{|style="text-align: center; width: 100%; margin: 0 auto 10px auto; border-collapse: collapse; font-family:Arial;"border="1"cellpadding="1"cellspacing="1"
|-style="background: #0097CB;"
!width="5%"|Level Number
!width="3%"|Level Name
!width="20%"|Description
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-1'''
|[[Fuzzy Clifftop]]
|This is a clifftop level that features [[Yoshi]], [[Fruit (Yoshi food)|Fruits]] and [[Fuzzy|Fuzzies]].
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-2'''
|[[Porcupuffer Falls]]
|Another cliff level over the water, where [[Porcupuffer]]s attack. Many [[Urchin]]s can be found, too.
|-
|'''{{world|Rocky|tower}}'''
|[[Grinding-Stone Tower]]
|The sixth and final tower where [[Boom Boom]] is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are [[Grrrol]]s.
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-3'''
|[[Waddlewing's Nest]]
|This level features [[Chain Chomp]]s, [[Waddlewing]]s and tilting stands.
|}
{|style="text-align: center; width: 100%; margin: 0 auto 10px auto; border-collapse: collapse; font-family:Arial;"border="1"cellpadding="1"cellspacing="1"
|-style="background: #43DD3B;"
!width="5%"|Level Number
!width="3%"|Level Name
!width="20%"|Description
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-1'''
|[[Mount Fuzzy]]
|An overworld level with some [[Fuzzy|Fuzzies]].
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-2'''
|[[Porcupuffer Cavern]]
|An underground level with low water level and a [[Porcupuffer]].
|-
|'''{{world|Rocky|tower}}'''
|[[Smashing-Stone Tower]]
|A tower full of [[Brick Block|blocks]] destroyable only by [[Grrrol]]s.
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-3'''
|[[Spike's Seesaws]]
|A level with tilting platforms attacked by [[Spike]]s.
|}
----
{|style="text-align: center; width: 100%" class=wikitable
!width="5%"|Level number
!width="3%"|Level name
!width="20%"|Description
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-1'''
|[[Fuzzy Clifftop]]
|This is a clifftop level that features [[Yoshi]], [[Fruit (Yoshi food)|Fruits]] and [[Fuzzy|Fuzzies]].
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-2'''
|[[Porcupuffer Falls]]
|Another cliff level over the water, where [[Porcupuffer]]s attack. Many [[Urchin]]s can be found, too.
|-
|'''{{world|Rocky|tower}}'''
|[[Grinding-Stone Tower]]
|The sixth and final tower where [[Boom Boom]] is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are [[Grrrol]]s.
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-3'''
|[[Waddlewing's Nest]]
|This level features [[Chain Chomp]]s, [[Waddlewing]]s and tilting stands.
|}
{|style="text-align: center; width: 100%" class=wikitable
!width="5%"|Level Number
!width="3%"|Level Name
!width="20%"|Description
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-1'''
|[[Mount Fuzzy]]
|An overworld level with some [[Fuzzy|Fuzzies]].
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-2'''
|[[Porcupuffer Cavern]]
|An underground level with low water level and a [[Porcupuffer]].
|-
|'''{{world|Rocky|tower}}'''
|[[Smashing-Stone Tower]]
|A tower full of [[Brick Block|blocks]] destroyable only by [[Grrrol]]s.
|-
|'''Rock-Candy Mines-3'''
|[[Spike's Seesaws]]
|A level with tilting platforms attacked by [[Spike]]s.
|}
The only concern I can see is that black-on-blue text might be a bit hard to read, but we can change the text color to white, like some articles [[Not-Bottomless Hole|already do]]. It's a lot easier to tell with the colored header. If someone is just scrolling through the article to find the levels, the blue and green will catch their eye and they can easily know which game is which. The specific blue and green are distinctly featured on the games' logos and boxes:
<gallery>
NSMBU boxcover.png
NSLU NA Box Art.png
</gallery>
The standardization of the templates also really harms articles like ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'': compare the [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Mario_World_2:_Yoshi%27s_Island&oldid=4128148#Bosses colored navbox] revision to the [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Mario_World_2:_Yoshi%27s_Island&oldid=4277340 current], and it looks more inconsistent because the levels section is still using a unique format and color. Also compare [[Pi'illo]], an item list: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Pi%27illo&oldid=4283314 colored revision] vs. [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Pi%27illo&oldid=4283342 standardized revision]. I don't mind that the colors aren't official wiki standard because they're not arbitrary: they clearly correspond to the area, and lists for this game use the same colors for the same areas. Even so, it's still useful to ''have'' different colors because you can scroll through the article and easily know when one list ends and another begins.
Some lists are also heavily dependent on color to distinguish areas with colors ''specifically used in-game'', such as [[List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: The Origami King]] or [[List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: Color Splash]]. Standardizing these would make them much less usable. I don't care if we need to make the colors specifically approved or consistent on a per-game basis, I just want them back. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 20:51, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
====Support: Allow colors====
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal. Not only is it more aesthetically pleasing, but it is also easier to read. I do, however, agree we should look into somehow standardizing colors, like what we do with [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive]].
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. Just because they weren't standardized heavily isn't a very good reason to default to "plain ol' gray". In addition, while this is admittedly an "us" issue, we do find it annoying how similar the two grays actually are when we're scrolling quickly--the higher contrast provided by the colors helps to quell that issue.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal, and per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} I am a very simple man; I enjoy colorful things. But in all seriousness, I feel it helps make sections stand out and could make them easier to identify when reading. Per proposal.
#{{User|Meester Tweester}}  Per proposal.
====Oppose: Prioritize gray====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Colors are based on arbitrary choice and not by official merit. I think there can be a system where there are exceptions to allow for certain colored tables on a case by case basis, but allowing it in absolutely every single case is overdoing it.


====Comments====
====Comments====
@Super Mario RPG: [[Chestnut Valley]], [[List_of_hidden_Toads_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer]], [[Not-Bottomless_Hole#Blue_Streamer]], [[List_of_Collectible_Treasures_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer]], [[List_of_%3F_Blocks_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer]] all use the exact same colors. And it's because this is a blue streamer area in game, so it makes logical sense; I will usually color pick directly from sprites to get the right color codes. I don't really see where the "arbitrary" part is coming from. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 21:14, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
I think we're underestimating just how often [[Play Nintendo]] uses hashtags. I wouldn't be surprised if a big portion of them are one-offs. [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 08:38, July 14, 2024 (EDT)
 
:I don't really see the problem there. I like the idea of being as comprehensive as possible with our coverage. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:43, July 17, 2024 (EDT)
To be fair, even the [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Help:Table&oldid=4076198 older revisions] didn't acknowledge the color styling of the former table format, so that part wasn't erased to begin with. It's just the design, and colors work with the wikitable class as well ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Frosted_Glacier&diff=prev&oldid=4283436 see here, for example]). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:50, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
::The only thing I fear is that eventually people will stop maintaining this list, really. [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 09:31, July 19, 2024 (EDT)
 
:::I'm hopeful given our [[Template:Play Nintendo|very thorough coverage]] of other online promotional stuff. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:35, July 19, 2024 (EDT)
==Miscellaneous==
::::TBH that was mostly maintained by me, Axis, and LuigiMaster123 lol {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 10:34, July 19, 2024 (EDT)
''None at the moment.''
As I'm looking for hashtags to fill up that page, I discover that Nintendo [https://x.com/search?q=%28%23Waluigi%29+%28from%3ANintendoAmerica+OR+from%3ANintendoAUNZ+OR+from%3ANintendoBE_NL+OR+from%3ANintendoCanada+OR+from%3ANintendoDE+OR+from%3ANintendoES+OR+from%3ANintendoEurope+OR+from%3ANintendoFrance+OR+from%3ANintendoItalia+OR+from%3ANintendoLatam+OR+from%3ANintendoNL+OR+from%3ANintendoPT+OR+from%3ANintendoUK+OR+from%3ANintendoUKVS+OR+from%3ANintendoVS%29 has seemingly only ever made one tweet] with the hashtag "#Waluigi" across all of their Twitter accounts with "Nintendo" in the name. Just throwing this out there. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:11, July 19, 2024 (EDT)
:[[Wigger Wednesday|#WaluigiWednesday]] lives on in our hearts {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:28, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 23:06, July 20, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, July 21st, 19:45 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 21, 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)
Split Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels, GuntherBayBeee (ended July 2, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Allow colorful tables, Scrooge200 (ended July 9, 2024)
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge Golf (series) with Mario Golf (series), Hewer (ended July 15, 2024)
Reorganize Template:Galleries, JanMisali (ended July 20, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Standardize the coverage of elements from guest appearance titles

As brought up by an earlier cancelled proposal, the current coverage of The Legend of Zelda series is very inconsistent, and the worst offender is Bombite. Unlike Spiked Thwomp, Stone Elevator or Mega Thwomp, it has no direct or implied connection to the Mario franchise, but has an article anyway, solely based on its appearance.

MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest_appearances permits giving individual articles for subjects "unique to the [guest appearance] game while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise". I propose to more clearly define on MarioWiki:Coverage what elements from guest appearance titles should be given their own pages:

  1. The subject is clearly derived from or based on the Super Mario franchise, as confirmed by Nintendo. (Nintendo Land minigames, Thwomp types exclusive to The Legend of Zelda, etc.)
  2. The subject is distinct enough to justify its own article. (Cannot be merged with an existing page. BowWows or Cheep-Sheeps don't get individual articles because they're not distinct enough from their Mario counterparts)
  3. Subjects exclusive to Mario-themed stages or minigames (Chili plate, Blue check mark, etc. Monita still doesn't get her own page, despite her role in the Luigi's Ghost Mansion minigame)
  4. If the subject derived from the Mario franchise appears in a Nintendo-published or endorsed media that isn't considered guest appearance, a proposal is required before creating a page. (If Nintendo ever releases a game with a unique Mario subject that can't otherwise be considered a guest appearance title, wiki editors have an option to consider if it's worth covering anyway)

This is where Bombite comes into play:

Option 1: Similar appearance isn't enough to justify creating a new article. This option would result in the deletion of Bombite, its contents will be merged with the Zelda section of Bob-omb's article

Option 2: Similar appearance is a good justification for creating a new article for a distinct enemy. Bombite's page remains

Proposer: Axis (talk)
Deadline: July 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. Axis (talk) Per proposal
  2. Hewer (talk) Connecting Bombite to Bob-omb does feel like a stretch, so yeah it doesn't need an article.
  3. JanMisali (talk) Per Hewer.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.
  5. Arend (talk) As I already stated here, Bombite being covered here with its own article is really strange, even if it does resemble Bob-omb, and the game it's from references Mario a lot. Rest of the proposed guidelines also check out, per all.
  6. 7feetunder (talk) I really have no idea why Bombites even exist when they could've just put Bob-ombs in Link's Awakening. Regardless, per proposal.
  7. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.

Option 2

Oppose

Comments

How is "Option 2" any different from "Oppose"? Doesn't this proposal just decide whether Bombite stays or goes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It's about standardizing it so there's something to refer to in case something like this comes up again. Both options support the new standart, the difference is whether or not visual similary qualifies as a connection Axis (talk) 08:31, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

A somewhat recent proposal about the coverage of the Rhythm Heaven series decided that Rhythm Heaven minigames with WarioWare characters in them (including Kung Fu Ball from Rhythm Heaven Fever, the debut of Cicada) should not get dedicated articles. Would this new definition overturn that decision? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 08:33, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It is not within the scope of this proposal, no Axis (talk) 08:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Relatedly, though I did vote against Monita having a page a couple years ago, I have started to reconsider a bit. She's a bit of an edge case, but not having a page on her creates a gap in our otherwise full coverage for Luigi's Ghost Mansion. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:56, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Side note, would Togezo also be affected by the scope of the proposal? It's currently being covered on the Spiny article as if it's the same thing, even though it only vaguely resembles a Spiny (read: it's a black ball with two Kirby feet, dot eyes and a Spiny Shell helmet), and even had the Japanese and English name for Spiny swapped at first. Even with Doc's explanation in this discussion, I'm still unsure if Togezo was meant to be the same creature as Spiny, or anything more than a simple reference to Spiny (it honestly looks more like Spiky, or even Bumbleprod). The Spiked Beetle, in comparison, resembles Spiny much more, especially in the Switch version of Link's Awakening. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:09, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Whether part of this proposal or not, we should absolutely stop considering Togezo to be Spiny, it's patent speculation and the enemies don't even look alike besides having spiky shells. For all we know, they could've been created entirely separately from each other and coincidentally ended up with the same spike-based names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I agree with Hewer, unless any of the guides say otherwise. Either way, it should be handled by a different proposal. (Also, I don't think any of the Kirby games are considered guest appearance anyway? So it isn't related, really) Axis (talk) 14:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Y'all keep neglecting to bring up the "rolling into ball" bit as well as Spiny having the same black face in their prior appearances in SMB3 and SMW. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I really don't see how that changes anything. Neither aspect is uncommon among Kirby characters. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:18, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Later Kirby characters. Remember, Spinies were introduced to Kirby in that series' second game, and those attributes didn't become "common" to that series until after it was suspiciously phased out for the remake and onward... not unlike how Capsule J was phased out for being a Twinbee clone. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I still think it's too much of a stretch based entirely on conjecture. We have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes with Kirby enemy designs over the years, we weren't there with the developers, and even if they did base it on Spiny, that doesn't mean it has to be literally the same character. And I don't see what's "suspicious" about it no longer appearing (which is yet another trait not uncommon among Kirby enemies), or why its vague Spiny resemblance would have anything to do with that fact. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:34, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
(ec) Not particularly convinced we should have the Kirby enemy Togezo lumped with the Mario enemy in the Spiny article and in the gallery for the Spiny. Differences are too significant. The dark face in a sprite seems to just be a coloration quirk; they're not dark in official art and the whole rolling up into ball is just probably just a coincidence since they're both round enemies anyway. How they become a ball is so vastly different; in the original games, Spinys are balls while being thrown out; Togezo patrols areas, rolls into a ball, bounces, and spins around like a hedgehog. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Later games give Spiny the ability to roll on a whim, like Paper Mario and NSMB. And I find it too unlikely that they'd happen to share both a name and basic appearance plan with an iconic creature from their creator's parent company's primary money-maker - especially when Kirby Super Star from the same dev team as Kirby's Adventure (ie, the Sakurai-headed one rather than the other one the so-called "Dark Matter saga" games had) went all-out on Nintendo cameos. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Later Spiny abilities (and in games with no relation to Kirby). And was Spiny really that iconic as of Kirby's Adventure, to the point that there's no way they could've made their own separate spiked-shelled enemy? At best Togezo warrants a mention in trivia or something on Spiny's page for possibly being inspired by the Mario character. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:54, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Any SMB1 enemy I'd count as fair game, to be frank. Granted, last I checked Sakurai was fairly open on social media so I suppose someone could ask him if it was an intentional cameo. Either way, we both know that if that ever gets a proposal itself, we'll have forgotten (conveniently or otherwise) each other's points by that point, so no point wasting our keystrokes here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Well, if we would've forgotten each other's points if it ever gets a proposal by itself, why not strike while the iron's hot, then? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 19:59, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
A friend once asked this very question, Doc, but all we got was a curious like from the programmer of Gimmick! LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:00, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Gimmick also had a similar-looking enemy (in fact, it looked right in between those designs), but its only deal was flipping over when hit and having the feet function as a tiny conveyor belt. And that game was entirely 3rd party, and the enemies in that game seem to be unnamed. Here it is. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:05, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA Zelda games, which themselves heavily borrow from Link's Awakening - particularly Four Swords Anniversary Edition having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. Axis (talk) 14:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

Create a list of official hashtags

This proposal targets the creation of an index for social media hashtags that:

  1. relate to the Mario series;
  2. were used or otherwise disseminated by Nintendo, a representative, or any other official partner in the context of a Mario product.

If a hashtag meets these two criteria, it's eligible for inclusion no matter which social media network it's used on. It could be YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, you name it.

These hashtags count as official content, so I figured what's not to gain from having them gathered up in a historical record? I haven't seen anyone complain about the current list of fonts, which has a similarly huge scope and I assume is currently inexhaustive.

You can see how I envision the list's appearance in my sandbox, but this aspect is not enforced by the proposal and I am open to feedback. As you can see here, the list explains the context of each hashtag, cites references, and includes imagery appended to the hashtags upon use when applicable.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: July 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create a list of official hashtags, including those relate to both Mario (e.g. "#MarioParty", "#DonkeyKong") and Nintendo in general (e.g. "#NintendoSwitch")

Create a list of official hashtags that only relate to Mario specifically

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) #perproposal
  2. Hewer (talk) anything to improve our Wiggler Wednesday coverage Sure, per proposal.
  3. Mario (talk) Weak support. Seems really particular and niche, but if someone is willing to do the motions for this, okay. I guess someone will find this useful, but I'm not really a social media user.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) Eh, why not.

Oppose

Comments

I think we're underestimating just how often Play Nintendo uses hashtags. I wouldn't be surprised if a big portion of them are one-offs. Axis (talk) 08:38, July 14, 2024 (EDT)

I don't really see the problem there. I like the idea of being as comprehensive as possible with our coverage. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:43, July 17, 2024 (EDT)
The only thing I fear is that eventually people will stop maintaining this list, really. Axis (talk) 09:31, July 19, 2024 (EDT)
I'm hopeful given our very thorough coverage of other online promotional stuff. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:35, July 19, 2024 (EDT)
TBH that was mostly maintained by me, Axis, and LuigiMaster123 lol -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:34, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

As I'm looking for hashtags to fill up that page, I discover that Nintendo has seemingly only ever made one tweet with the hashtag "#Waluigi" across all of their Twitter accounts with "Nintendo" in the name. Just throwing this out there. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:11, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

#WaluigiWednesday lives on in our hearts Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:28, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4305454"