MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tag: Mobile edit
 
(905 intermediate revisions by 73 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"===
===Do not surround song titles with quotes===
Currently, the way our proposals are set up, there are two deadlines. On the main proposals page, they last for 1 week. On talk pages, or for writing guidelines proposals, 2 weeks. Now, this is ''fine.'' We're not going to claim this is like, some total deal-breaker or nothing. However, lately, [[MarioWiki talk:Proposals#Why the inconsistency?|there have been a few concerns raised about this inconsistency]], and we figured, what the hey, why not put it up to vote?
This is a change to [[MarioWiki:Manual_of_Style#Italicizing_titles|this section of our Manual of Style]]. Currently, our policy is to surround song titles with quotation marks whenever they appear. However. We are a Mario wiki, and the Mario series overwhelmingly ''does not'' do this.


A few concerns we've seen, both from others and from us, in no particular order;
The comparison arises to italics, but I feel there's quite a difference between that (an effect applied to text) and the inclusion of punctuation marks, which ''are'' text in and of themselves. Not to mention, unlike italics, which would require special programming to implement, quote marks are supported by anything that supports English text, meaning it's not a question of technical limitations — every game that names its songs is perfectly capable of listing them inside quotation marks, and yet they make the choice not to.
* The largest one to us is just that, unless a proposal is really specific, it's just not worth it to make a talk page proposal over a main page proposal, since it'll end faster. The only thing immune to this are writing guidelines proposals.
* While the proposals themselves are different lengths, the duration before you can make a second proposal on them remains the same. Thusly, if you want to set a policy in stone, you would actually want to make it a writing guidelines/talk page proposal over an ordinary one, as that means it will last for, at least, 6 weeks (4 weeks for the cooldown, and 2 weeks to put it to proposal again.)
* Lastly, talk page proposals just inherently take longer to happen. This can be an issue if their changes are, overall, quite small (like a simple merge/split or rename), or the consensus is reached very quickly; this stings when an ordinary proposal would happen twice as fast with the exact same amount of votes!


Now, there's a few ways you can go about this, but there's one in particular we've taken a liking to: uh, just make all proposals take '''2''' weeks, lmao.
As such, surrounding song titles in quotes is questionable as adherence to an unofficial naming scheme over the original one. Not to mention the effects this can have on lists of song titles — their inclusion on [[Template:DDRMM]] fluffs up the width of the song section by the width of ''several'' song titles.


"BUT CAM & TORI!", we hear you shout, "BUT YOU SAID 2 WEEKS PROPOSALS TAKE TOO LONG??? WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THEM TO SOMETHING YOU HATE???", and to that we say... No! We actually like the 2 weeks proposals! They have a distinct benefit to them! The problem is that they're juxtaposed with the 1 week proposals. Let's run through those same bullet points.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to mention how inconsistently these quote marks are applied across the wiki already — many entries in [[:Category:Music]] do not use them in their article, none of the lists of songs from the shows or of WarioWare DIY records use them, [[Starring Wario!]] and ''only'' Starring Wario has had its article title changed to have the quotes. I take this to mean the rule is not serving the wiki as it stands.
* If all proposals were 2 weeks, well, there's no real loss to making a talk page proposal over a main proposal page proposal, as they'll all last 2 weeks anyways. (Sure, a proposal can take longer if there's a tie, but that just happens for all proposals anyways.)
* There's also no incentive to make a talk page proposal/writing guideline proposal if you particularly want your porposal to stick around, as again, now ''every'' proposal is guaranteed to last for, at the very least, 6 weeks.
* Now. While it's annoying that all proposals will take 2 weeks, despite the inherent risk of some coming to their consensuses much faster than the deadlines, for one, [[Talk:Alien (Club Nintendo)#ANTI-ALIEN ALARM!!! (Delete this article)|this is also an issue with talk page proposals as-is]]. For two, the extra time can offer extra time for new information to come to light or for particularly close votes to make their cases and form a proper consensus, without needing a tiebreaker. Lastly, if it's really ''that'' big of an issue, we could perhaps create a rule that if a proposal comes to a particularly large consensus a week in, it'll pass early (the finer details would be created as necessary).


There is, of course, the alternative of making all proposals '''1''' week. While we realize this does also resolve a lot of things, it does also necessarily mean that some proposals that would want to happen slower, now don't have that time, and are rushed. Even making only talk page proposals take only 1 week means that Writing Guideline proposals will be at a unique disadvantage for how long they take/an advantage for how long they last if they pass. (And of course, we could just leave everything as they are, but that goes without saying.) That being said, we ''have'' provided options for these, and you're free to make your case for these.
The one exception to everything I've mentioned thus far is ''Paper Mario: The Origami King''{{'}}s music discs: [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]], [["Heartbeat Skipper"]], [["M-A-X Power!"]], and [["Thrills at Night"]]. These are the only time the names of songs are formatted this way (possibly due to the items being CDs ''of'' the songs and not the songs themselves). Therefore, '''these will be the only exception if this proposal passes, and will keep their quote marks'''.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
To circle back around to my original point: I think the nail in the coffin for displaying music this way is [[Nintendo Music]]. This application, specifically meant to play music, does not surround their names with quote marks. And yet [[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music|this article]] surrounds them in quotes anyway, stringently adhering to our unofficial way of formatting these over the way Nintendo Music actually formats them. It's almost ''lying'', frankly.
'''Deadline''': October 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Make all proposals last for 2 weeks====
So, our options:
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If it's not obvious, this is our primary option; we're a big fan of the idea of global 2 week proposals!. Even with their caveats, in the worst-case scenario, we could make a clause to prevent proposals for lasting too long if they reach their consensus early, or we could simply revert back to the current system. We think the added consistency and preventing of shenanigans is very potent, and it also means that you have to put a bit more thought into your proposal as you make it. Patience fans will be eating ''good'' if this passes.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal and what was said [[MarioWiki talk:Proposals#Why the inconsistency?|here]]. However, I'd also be fine with an option to just shorten writing guidelines proposals to be one week. I don't really understand the third option here, writing guidelines proposals being two weeks felt to me like the worst inconsistency of the bunch. I still don't see what about "writing guidelines" specifically means they inherently need more time than the other categories on this page.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Regular proposals and TPPs are just as visible as one another and should be treated equally, ''especially'' when regular page proposals can be the home of very important decisions (such as this one!) and are just given 1 week. Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} 1 week proposals have always felt a little short to me. I'd rather err on the side of some proposals running a little longer than needed than not having enough discussion time (I don't like banking on a controversial proposal tying). Having to wait an extra week to implement a proposal isn't the end of the world anyway - proposals are rarely, if ever, urgent enough that an extra week with no change would be detrimental to the wiki (and if that were the case, the change should probably come immediately from wiki staff).
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. Giving an extra week to discuss and vote on proposals is a good thing.
#{{User|Drago}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per, I never got why sitewide ones always got ''less'' time to discuss.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal and the talk page discussion.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I feel like the inconsistency is not justified, and one week may be too short to make an informed decision.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. I was one of the people who participated in the conversation that sparked this proposal, and my reasons are stated there.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I think that the reason site-wide proposals still get only 1 week is to necessitate engagement so that a decision can be reached, due to their importance compared to talk page proposals. However, that logic is flawed since it incentivizes discussion which is quick and not well thought out, so I think the consistency of 2 weeks for every proposal would be better here.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time. Compared to shortening all proposals, I feel like this is the better option if we are wanting to make all proposals the same length, as I would prefer not to cut discussion time on all proposals just because some of them might not need extra time to reach a consensus.


====Make all proposals last for 1 week====
* '''Option 1: Exclude quote marks from song titles in all cases.''' Our manual of style will remove the mention of song titles from the section of italicizing titles. Just for clarity, this excludes Origami King's CDs.
* '''Option 2: Keep quote marks when song titles are used in a sentence, but exclude them from standalone appearances of the title.''' Such standalone appearances would include article titles, navboxes, infoboxes, track listings, and table entries. Just for clarity, this option, too, excludes Origami King's CDs.
* '''Option 3: Do nothing.''' I guess this option ''includes'' Origami King's CDs.


====Make all proposals except for writing guidelines proposals last for 1 week====
'''Proposer:''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option. While we like this much less, we do see the merit of making Talk Page Proposals 1 week, and it's not exactly the end-all-be-all. However, we would ''vastly'' prefer 2-week proposals, and keeping Writing Guidelines proposals 2-week is kind of a necessary evil to prevent them from being too rushed for their own good. However, compared to truly ''all'' 1-week proposals, this is better... though, not as good as all 2-week proposals.
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{user|7feetunder}} For me, it's either this or bust. [[Talk:Ankoopa#What_to_do_with_this_article|New information coming to light can still invalidate a proposal's entire premise too late and require a counterproposal even with a 2 week deadline]], so extending the deadline of main page props to 2 weeks won't stop that from happening from time to time. Most proposals that don't reach a consensus in a week will probably require extensions anyway. TPPs being less "visible" than main page proposals was more of an issue back when no quorums were immediate, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Overhaul_the_no_quorum_proposal_rule_.28.238.29|but that's no longer the case]].
#{{User|Axii}} Voting for this just so the first option doesn't win.


====Do nothing====
====Option 1====
#{{User|7feetunder}} If making TPPs last 1 week isn't desirable, I say just keep the status quo. While the current system ''does'' encourage making main page proposals over TPPs when possible if one wants their prop to pass faster, I'm fine with that. A controversial prop is not going to end in a week, and a prop with unanimous or near-unanimous support probably doesn't need that extra time in the oven. I'd be more open to global 2 weekers if a "early consensus = early pass" sub-rule was already in effect, but it isn't, and there's no guarantee that such a rule would be accepted by the community.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} My primary choice. I've firmly laid out my reasons why here.
#{{User|Axii}} The solution isn't solving anything. There was never a problem with inconsistency. Talk page proposals last for two weeks because they're far less visible to people. Mainspace proposals page is frequently visited by many, having proposals last for 2 weeks instead of one doesn't change anything. It doesn't help the community settle on anything, one week is more than enough. Proposals that are tied already get extended automatically, if anything, I would argue writing guidelines proposals should last a week instead. I proposed a different solution on the talk page as well. If a user making a proposal (or an admin) feel like one week wouldn't be enough, they should be able to extend it to two. (I specifically added "or an admin", because most users don't want a proposal to last for two weeks.) Either way, the fact that users often choose mainspace proposals over talk page is perfectly fine as well. It's not about the time in the oven but the visibility of the proposal to the wiki community. Writing guidelines (if they remain at two weeks) could instead be clarified. Right now it is unclear what writing guidelines proposals even are, I think this is the main problem that should be looked at.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I prefer to think of each music as a work in its own right rather than a part of some "greater whole". ''[[Jump Up, Super Star!]]'' is more than just a piece of ''Super Mario Odyssey''{{'}}s OST. Therefore, song titles should be italicized like any other work and not be in quotation marks as if they were merely chapters.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Secondary choice. The inconsistency isn't that bad and I prefer that to all proposals being shortened.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, and there's [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Italics formatting of boat names, fictional products, and others|precedent]] for following Nintendo's official formatting in spite of usual conventions. The inconsistencies described in the proposal ought to be fixed regardless of the outcome, though.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Second choice.
#{{User|Biggestman}} While I to a degree understand the entire thing with the songs simply being a part of a greater thing, that isn't really fair when I would make an argument some of these songs are a larger part of the series' history than those "greater" things. For example music from Yoshi's Story is still used relatively often to this very day, but Yoshi's Story as a whole is just kinda there. Per all, too.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think it is worth scrutinizing our proposal policies and the issues people brought up are valid, but I do not think setting the same time for everything is necessarily the best solution. I will elaborate on my thoughts below.
 
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
====Option 2====
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I will settle for this — part of my ire toward the quotemarks is that I find them highly unsuitable for these particular usages.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} This is my second choice, as I would prefer to keep the current method over shortening all proposals. However, if this option were to win, I think it might make sense to discuss clarifying what qualifies as a writing guidelines proposal and the purpose for its length inconsistency.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Secondary option, per my comment below in Option 3.
 
====Option 3====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''{{wp|The Color of Water}}''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''{{wp|Resident Alien (TV series)|Resident Alien}}''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the ''Super Mario'' franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per N101. quotation marks are a writing convention! most mario games also don't have italic titles, but we italicize them anyways because it's a formal writing convention that makes sense
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Strong oppose, per all. This is a well-recognized writing convention, the fact that Nintendo doesn't typically follow it within their products is irrelevant.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Nintendo101. These quotes are here for a reason, no matter how remote it may seem.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Quoting songs is from the manual of style itself, it's the same reason we italicize game titles. I would go even further and quote song titles as a display title like I did in "[[Starring Wario!]]"
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - "Because game writing" is what leads to wikis encouraging jokey sarcastic writing, which I'm pretty sure is not the direction we want to go.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Something that occurred to me: The time allowed to edit TPPs was originally 3 like main page proposals, but [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48#Double_the_amount_of_time_a_proposer_can_edit_their_talk_page_proposals|eventually doubled to 6 to go with their extended duration]]. If TPPs are shortened to 1 week, would the time allotted to edit them be reverted? {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 19:30, October 2, 2024 (EDT)
If this passes, how would it affect coverage of non-Mario music? Our only options are either to have two standards, or ignore established convention based on what Nintendo does for media they had no hand in actually producing. Neither seems ideal to me. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:24, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:That seems only fair to put them back to 3 days if that option passes--after all, it would be a glaring oversight to retain that and effectively allow for proposals that were en route to pass suddenly being hijacked on the last day, and pivoting from the original purpose, while ''still retaining the vote''. The plan here is to de-jank the proposal time-lengths and make them more consistent--not to introduce ''even more shenanigans''! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:18, October 2, 2024 (EDT)
:We'd treat non-Mario music the same as Mario music. Established convention doesn't mean much when we're always saying on this page that we're not other wikis and we don't necessarily need to do things the way other wikis do them. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::Then I also suppose that, if ''all'' proposals are going to last two weeks, then the time allowed to edit/cancel those proposals would also be doubled to six days, in order to reflect with the TTPs, right? I've been worried since this was not mentioned in the proposal either. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:58, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
::I don't think anyone is advocating to hold onto a convention just for the sake of it. Rather, that we should hold onto the convention because it is useful and the proposal doesn't provide persuasive reasons to abandon that usage, or at least it does not for me. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)
In addition, I wouldn't use applications such as Nintendo Music as proof that we shouldn't abide by formatting either. Neither music metadata nor files themselves quote song names, neither does [https://open.spotify.com/track/433JymbpWnRMHXzp1oTRP7 Spotify] nor [https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Bother-Shakira/dp/B000BUEG9U Amazon Music]. Yet {{Wp|Don't Bother|Wikipedia still does}} because that's how it's standardized in writing articles. In addition, you pointed out how "Starring Wario!" is the outlier as your point, I've '''only just started working on those articles''' mate. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:01, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:Even Wikipedia doesn't use the quotes in article titles though. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:17, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::I would support an option that called for just removing the quotation marks in the header for articles (as done {{wp|I Am the Walrus|here}}, which should be compared to {{wp|Magical Mystery Tour#Track listing|here}}). This is not uncommon in written books on music. But there currently is no voting option to do just that. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)
{{@|Ray Trace}} I'm aware it's in the manual of style. That's why the proposal is about changing the manual of style. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:I'm not talking about the wiki's manual style. I'm talking about general guidelines especially [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html MLA] {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 15:41, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::If it's not ''our'' manual of style, then there's no reason for us to care about it because we don't use it. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::''Our'' manual of style '''is based on this manual of style.''' {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:11, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::If it's only ''based on'' it, then it ''isn't'' it. The manual of style is ours, so this quote mark convention has to survive on its own merits, not just by virtue of being in someone ''else's'' manual of style. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:22, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::Not using general formatting standard guidelines solely because "we shouldn't just because we're not them" is not a good argument. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::Well, then — '''Nintendo doesn't do this either, so there's no reason for this wiki to ''pretend'' like they do.''' That's been my argument this whole time. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::The main difference is that they're a video game, and they're inherently informal in their presentation. They're not trying to write things and bios formally, they're trying to present writing to players, so formatting like italicizing game titles is optional, because that's what it's set out to do. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, our writing formatting is far more similar to Wikipedia which observes these things and MLA writing guidelines, and how to format sourcing, and it's something we ''should'' emulate over a video game's script. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:47, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::{{@|Ahemtoday}} I don't think that is the strong argument you think it is, because almost no piece of media where it has become conventional to include quotation marks include them themselves. They are not on the back of most [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/e1/7e/abe17ef61a737df53498f93487668213.jpg albums], [https://images.template.net/89102/novel-table-of-contents-template-wvzrz.jpeg books], or [https://addbcdbimages.s3.amazonaws.com/nick/sbsp_fish_bowl.jpg title cards for television shows]. But they are all still presented with quotes arounf them in reference material like Wikipedia and physical books. What makes the Nintendo music we cover here so different that warrants unique treatment? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:53, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::Nintendo doesn't always italicize game titles either, this site does. To be honest, though, I'm not sure how consistently this wiki observes MLA. There's some superficial basis in it (mostly coming off of Wikipedia's style guide, which is sprinkled with some MLA), what with the titles of whole works being written in italics and those of constituent parts of a work being surrounded by quotes, yet the manner in which citations are formatted, arguably a priority of any academic style guide, seems rather peculiar to Wikipedia's house style. Take any citation formatted using the {{tem|cite}} template on this wiki and compare it to how [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_formatting_and_style_guide.html MLA proposes it is done] <small>(owl.purdue.edu)</small>. There's also been at least [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Italics_formatting_of_boat_names.2C_fictional_products.2C_and_others|one attempt]] at explicitly adopting a standard purveyed by MLA that got shot down. Not to digress too much, I just wanted to point out that MLA is not currently as pervasive here as it's made out to be and can't be appealed to solely because of a few instances that (happen to) observe it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:20, November 11, 2024 (EST), edited 19:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::I am personally forgiving on how we structure citations in that template, because many academic journals don't adopt the MLA structure either. Everyone does something a little different from one another. The information included in a citation is more important than how it is organized, and things like ISBN are pretty helpful for an online reference like Super Mario Wiki.
::::::::But I also don't believe in supporting conventions just for the sake of them ''being'' conventions. I'd rather support them if they are beneficial. What are your thoughts on what I said in my vote above? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:33, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::I cannot argue with your vote. If a writing standard promoted by outside guides can harmonize with the needs of Mario Wiki, there's no reason not to adopt it. Quotation marks serve their purpose well in this case. so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:10, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::Cool! I was just curious. I value your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:14, November 11, 2024 (EST)
 
I'm realizing I haven't given my full thoughts on {{@|Nintendo101}}'s vote yet. I agree that there are benefits to formatting song titles in this way (particularly in sentences, which is why I have the option to keep the quote marks exclusively ''in'' sentences) — but this formatting scheme misrepresents how the actual works in question are referred to by official media. I had to ask a friend who had Nintendo Music to find out whether or not the app displayed song titles in quotes, because I couldn't trust this wiki to tell me — and, like I said, Nintendo Music ''doesn't''. Yet [[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music|this article]] writes the song names as if it ''does'', because apparently this convention is more important than this kind of information. I know this is a minor piece of information, but this formatting convention causes me to be '''unable to trust the wiki about it'''. No benefit can counterbalance that. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 20:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:I am sorry that you felt mislead, but are you sure it is not because you were unfamiliar with this being a convention for music pieces in the first place? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:12, November 12, 2024 (EST)
::I was well familiar with the convention and how this wiki used it at the time, which is why I knew to ask a friend instead of taking the wiki's word for it. I take such a hardline stance against it not because this untrustworthiness has personally wronged me, but because untrustworthiness is a failure of the wiki on principle. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 00:02, November 13, 2024 (EST)
:::I am sorry, I was not referring to Super Mario Wiki in isolation. I was referring to the convention at large. In books and articles on music, regardless of topic, individual pieces are placed within quotation marks. I know I myself first learned one is supposed to put quotation marks around music titles while I was taking English class in middle school. So while I am sympathetic that this bothered you, I do not agree it is misleading. Maybe the issue lies with folks who do not have a lot of experience reading or writing about music. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:05, November 13, 2024 (EST)
::::Whether or not readers are familiar with the convention doesn't change the fact that the convention is not reflective of what is being talked about. The only reason wiki readers know [["Thrills at Night"]] and its ilk are actually surrounded in quotes officially is because we haven't been thorough in applying this convention. If we ''did'', then the distinction would vanish completely, because the wiki currently considers adhering to this guideline more important than this kind of information. You can't pin that on readers being unfamiliar. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:17, November 13, 2024 (EST)
:::::I have contacted the director of the Purdue OWL at Purdue University to ask them how one should cite music tracks that already has quotation marks rendered in their name. However, to be honest, I am still not really sure what the issue here is. How are the quotation marks any different from italicization of video games and albums? The name ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' is not displayed anywhere in Nintendo's official material italicized, but we do it for the same reasons one puts quotation marks around music tracks - because it is a useful MLA convention. For music, it is unclear to me on what is being miscommunicated or lost when they are accurately displayed between quotation marks, especially since articles for "Thrills at Night" and other tracks are accompanied with [[:File:PMTOK Thrills at Night.jpg|screenshots that show how they are rendered in-game]]. Is this not sufficient? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 14:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)
::::::It is not sufficient. To begin with, not every use of song titles is accompanied by images showing that the music titles are formatted without quotes — the majority of articles in [[:Category:Sound tests]] do not have such images. (Not to mention that to use these images to establish the formatting of every song title in a given game would require a comically excessive amount of images.) Furthermore, even if they ''did'', this information would be entirely invisible to users of screen readers, raising accessibility concerns. This information can't be conveyed by images alone. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 15:14, November 14, 2024 (EST)
:::::::Couldn't it just be clarified in the article itself that a piece of music is displayed with quotations mark around it? It is not a very common thing to do. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)
::::::::Writing in an explicit note clarifying that ''this'' time the article is actually reflective of how the music is referred to officially is a much more convoluted way of going about this compared to just referring to them in the official way to begin with. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 16:50, November 14, 2024 (EST)
 
Biggestman: The formatting of quotes in songs aren't discussed from a cultural relevancy angle, they're in context of being part of an album. It's the same reason short poetry gets quotes, but novels get italicized, we'd quote "The Raven" but still italicize ''The Day My Butt Went Psycho''. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:40, November 15, 2024 (EST)
 
===Add identifiers to near-identical titles===
Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: [[Mark (Mario Tennis series)|Mark (''Mario Tennis'' series)]] and [[Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)|Mark (''NES Open Tournament Golf'')]]). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means [[Color coin]] (''Super Mario Run'') and [[Colored coin]] (''Wario Land 3'') do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include [[Secret Course 1]] (''Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins'') and [[Secret Course 01]] (''Super Mario Run''), [[Spyguy]] (''Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis'') and [[Spy Guy]] (''Paper Mario''), and [[Rollin' Down the River]] (''Yoshi's Woolly World'') and [[Rolling Down the River]] (''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'').
 
This proposal aims to amend [[MarioWiki:Naming]] to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.
 
Note that this proposal only covers names that are '''semantically identical''', and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. [[Buzzar]] and [[Buzzer]] have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. [[Balloon Boo]] and [[Boo Balloon]] are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.
 
'''Edit:''' Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include [[Family Basic (microgame)]] and [[Family BASIC]] (as ruled by [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|a proposal]]), [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)|Hot Air Balloon (''Donkey Kong'' franchise)]] and [[Hot-air balloon]], [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]], and [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] and both [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)|Avalanche! (''Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix'')]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)|Avalanche! (''Mario Party 4'')]]. If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal.


@7feetunder: Of course there's still a chance for new information to come too late with any proposal length, but longer proposals mean the chance is lower. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:44, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
====Oppose====
#{{User|Altendo}} I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with ''identical names'', not similar names.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Altendo, this is what [[Template:Distinguish]] is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|Dine2017}} Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.


@7feetunder: On your reasoning under ''Do nothing'', the idea of an early-consensus-early-conclusion rule for proposals is intriguing... I feel as if we have 2-week proposals that can end early if everyone has a near unanimous consensus on what to do with the proposal, we'd have an ideal middle ground. --[[User:OmegaRuby|OmegaRuby]] ([[User talk:OmegaRuby|talk]]) 08:55, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
====Comments====
I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the [[Secret exit]] article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. [[Family Basic (microgame)]] recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from [[Family BASIC]] [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|was deemed unreasonable]]. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)]] (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from [[Hot-air balloon]]. [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] has an identifier to separate it from [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]], even though both of them have exclamation marks. [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]] get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made [[Family Basic]] a redirect to [[Family BASIC]], so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)


While finding the discussions where this first took place have not been successful (with the closest approximate being tracked down by retired staff [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals here], which alludes to this issue), there was wisdom in having longer time for talk page proposals, because they would often would get overlooked and fail simply due to lack of engagement, not because there was anything wrong with them. That may not be the case today, but I see a different set issues that this proposal does not address.
==New features==
===Create a category for "catch-all articles"===
By "catch-all article" (tentative term; please suggest names) I mean those that describe elements that are not related, but share an article because they boil down to the same generic, '''often''' real world object. Many of them fit what the [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects|guidelines]] call a "generic subject". Examples of this kind of article are:


Personally, I think certain proposals - regardless of whether they are on the main page or a talk page - are very niche and entail a very granular change that probably does not need two weeks of discussion or even one to be implemented. Proposals that have wide and systematic changes for the site, such as a policy revision or something that would change many pages, do benefit from longer discussion time because the impact would be significant and affect a lot of people. Whether a proposal has narrow or broad impact has nothing to do with whether it is on an article's talk page or this main page.
*[[Hook]], which includes the object from ''[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]'' and the hooks on poles from ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'';
*[[Lift]], which includes the yellow lifts seen in ''Super Mario'' games, elevators from ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'', Moving Platforms from ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis]]'', among others, all just basic platforms;
*[[Bubble]], which includes the underwater bubble from ''[[Super Mario 64]]'', the player-carrying bubble from ''[[New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'', the Bubble trap from ''[[Diddy Kong Racing]]'', among others;
*[[Banana]], which includes the bananas from the [[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'']] series, the bananas from the [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|''Donkey Kong Country'']] games, the bananas from ''[[Yoshi's Story]]'', among others;
*[[Heart (item)|Heart]], which includes the heart item from ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'', the one from ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns]]'', the one from ''[[Dr. Mario World]]'', among others.


Additionally, while it may seem like there should be some sort of rule that allows proposals that gain consensus quickly to be implemented, there have been concerns among staff that users have raised similar proposals to ones that had failed in the past with the hope of getting the attention of a different pool of users who may agree with them. (To clarify, there is a difference between raising a new proposal based on one that had previously failed using new information and arguments, versus one using essentially the same argument). If we had some sort of rule that allowed the passing of a proposal due to quick engagement and support, I can see it being abused in such cases and resulting in proposals passing that people at large may not have agreed with.
They may also boil down to a similar ''fictional'' basic concept, which are their own distinct thing, despite all of them taking a similar form:


I don't like complicated rules. I believe the best policies and rules are straight forward, clear, and unambiguous. There is not use in having rules that people cannot easily understand and follow, imo. However, in this case, I think applying a blanket term policy for all proposals (be it two weeks or one) is too broad and does not address the issues I have observed, or even some of the ones raised by other folks on the main proposal page's talk page. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:18, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
*[[! Block]], which includes the red blocks from the [[Yoshi's Island (series)|''Yoshi's Island'' games]] games, the block-spawning yellow blocks from ''[[Super Mario Maker 2]]'', the ! Block switches from the [[Wario Land (series)|''Wario Land'' games]];
:If you ask me, "talk page proposals are two weeks, but the ones on the main page are one week, except writing guidelines which are also two weeks for some reason" is an overly complicated rule. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form|Every now]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66#Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages|and then]], confusion about the "writing guidelines are two weeks" stipulation arises in proposal comments, which I think is telling. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:54, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
*[[Poison Mushroom]], which includes the mushrooms from ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels]]'', the Poison Shroom item from the early [[Paper Mario (series)|''Paper Mario'' games]], among others;
*[[? Panel]], which includes the panels from ''[[Super Mario Kart]]'', the ones from ''[[Paper Mario: Color Splash]]'', and others.


I think my main issue is the difference with writing guideline proposals specifically. Mostly because it's hard to determine what a writing guideline even means, or which proposal should fall under which category. I'm not sure where I'll place a vote yet, but I do at least think there should be consistency between all main proposal types. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 16:22, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
Compare subjects to which this category would '''not''' apply, like [[? Block]] or [[P-Switch]], where every reappearance of the subject is really a deliberate revisitation of a specific concept that already existed.


If this passes, will it immedately affect all ongoing proposals, or just new ones going forward? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:31, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
This category would be applied to articles on concrete subjects only (most of which, if not all, would be objects).
:I think we should not modify the deadline of ongoing proposals if this proposal passes. Since the deadline is set when a proposal is created, extending it afterwards for an already existing proposal would feel like a retroactive change. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 11:30, October 7, 2024 (EDT)


Not voting because I think the current setup is "don't fix what isn't broken", but I'll be willing to try something new. I'll just wait and see. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:52, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT


===Clarify coverage of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series===
====Support====
I've pitched this before, and it got a lot of approval (particularly in favor of one-at-a-time small proposals), so I'm making it a full proposal:<br>
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} My proposal.
I have thought long and hard about the "proper" way for us to cover ''Super Smash Bros.'' in a way that both respects the desire to focus primarily on ''Super Mario'' elements while also respecting the desire to not leave anything uncovered. As such, the main way to do this is to '''give pages only to ''Super Mario'' elements, whilst covering everything else on the pages for the individual ''Super Smash Bros.'' games; unless otherwise stated, they will instead link to other wikis, be if the base series' wiki or SmashWiki'''. For instance, Link will remain an internal link (no pun intended) because he's crossed over otherwise, Ganondorf will link to Zeldawiki because he hasn't. Link's moves (originating from the ''Legend of Zelda'' series) will link to Zeldawiki, while Ganondorf's moves (original moves due to being based on Captain Falcon's moves) will link to Smashwiki.<br>
Other specific aspects of this, which for the most part make the game pages' internal coverage be more consistent with how we handle other games':
#Structure the "List of items in Smash" to how {{user|Super Mario RPG}} had it in [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=List_of_Super_Smash_Bros._series_items&oldid=4364118 this] edit, albeit with the remaining broken formatting fixed. That page always bothered me, and that version is a definite improvement.
#Merge the "enemies" pages to their respective game - they're already structured like any other game's enemy tables anyway. These pages ''also'' always bothered me.
#Merge the "Subspace Army" and "Subspace Stages" lists to each other to recreate a watered-down version of the Subspace Emissary page (to split from the Brawl page due to length and being exclusive to that campaign); it would also include a table for characters describing their role in said campaign, as well as objects/items found exclusively in it (Trophy Stands, the funny boxes, the metallic barrel cannons, etc... a lot of things from the deleted "List of Super Smash Bros. series objects" page, actually) - once again, all except ''Mario''-derived things will link elsewhere (mostly to Smashwiki in this case).
#Section each game akin to how I had the SSB64 page as of [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Smash_Bros.&oldid=4340069 this] edit, ''including'' sections for Pokemon, Assist Trophies, Bosses, etc., and links to other wikis for subjects that we don't need pages on. Other sections can be added as needed, and table structure is not specifically set, so further info can be added.
#Leave the lists for fighters, stages, and (series-wide) bosses alone (for now at least), as they make sense to have a series-wide representation on here in some capacity. Also, you never know when one of them is going to cross over otherwise, like Villager, Isabelle, and Inkling suddenly joining ''Mario Kart'', so it's good to keep that around in case a split is deemed necessary from something like that happening down the line.
#Have image galleries cover ''everything'' that can reasonably be included in an image gallery for the game, regardless of origin. This includes artwork, sprites, models, screenshots, etc, for any subject - yes, including Pokemon, so that will undo [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Remove lists of Poké Ball and stage-exclusive Pokémon on ''Smash Bros.'' game pages and allow each Poké Ball Pokémon only one representative artwork/screenshot|that one proposal from a month ago]]. Just like on the game pages, the labels will link to other sites as needed.
#Leave Stickers and Spirits alone (for now at least), their pages are too large to merge and are fine as they are for the reasons that opposition to deleting them historically has brought up.
#Include the "minigame" stages (Break the Targets, Board the Platforms, Race to the Finish, Snag Trophies, Home Run Contest, Trophy Tussle, the Melee Adventure Mode stages) in the "list of stages debuting in [game]" articles. For ones like Targets, it would just explain how it worked and then have a gallery for the different layouts rather than describing each in detail (and if we later want to split the ''Mario''-based ones into their own articles, I guess we can at some point). Said minigame pages should be merged to a section in the SSB series article covering the series' minigames. The Subspace Emissary stages will get a section with a {{tem|main}} to the stage section of the Subspace Emissary article (detailed in an above point).
#Keep trophy, assist trophy, challenge, and soundtrack pages covering only ''Mario'' things, leave the remainder of the images in the game gallery (fun fact: Smashwiki does not have game galleries, nor does their community want them; we can base what we ''could'' do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we ''cannot'' do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that).


People may wonder, "What about Nintendo Land and Saturday Supercade? Why don't they get this level of coverage?" It's simple, really: In ''Smash'', you can have Mario throw a Deku Nut at Ridley in Lumiose City and nobody bats an eye at how absurd that situation is. In those other games, the different representations are very much split apart; all ''Mario''-related stuff is within a few minigames that do not overlap whatsoever with any of the other ones. In ''Nintendo Land'', you cannot have Mario fighting Ridley in the Lost Woods, despite (representations of) all of those things appearing in the game. In ''Smash'', anyone can interact with anything, regardless of origin, so '''''Mario'' characters can interact with anything, and anyone can interact with ''Mario'' things'''. That's why ''Smash'', the melting pot it is, gets more focus than ''Nintendo Land'', where everything's more of a side dish.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see how such a category would be useful, and I don't like that it's pretty subjective and is based on a trait shared by the articles rather than the objects themselves. Even if there was value in distinguishing these pages, I don't think a category like this is the way to do it.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Is [[History of Mario]] a catch-all article because it covers both a fictional character and [[Bob Hoskins]]? We would have to have that sort of debate for too many articles to count. This is too subjective and doesn't really accomplish anything.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Unnecessary, and the word "generic" alone is unclear whether it goes by the definition of real-life or ''Super Mario''.
#{{User|Arend}} Honestly, the inclusion of fictional items like Poison Mushroom, ! Block and ? Panel would make it more confusing for me what a "catch-all article" is supposed to be; if it's supposed to be about generic subjects, then their inclusion would definitely muddy the concept quite a bit. Not to mention that the term "catch-all article" isn't clear enough as it is.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
====Comments====
'''Deadline''': October 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT
My gut reaction is that I disagree that the Poison Mushroom and Lift articles encompass generic subjects. They are supported as discrete in the paratext for these games. But even if narrowed to articles I agree are generic, it is not inherently clear to me what the benefit of having a "catch-all category" would be. My general view is that there are quite a few subjects that we consider to be generic which really are not. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:45, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:What would be some subjects you don't consider generic? My case for the Lift is that it's an article that encompasses almost all types of flat, moving platforms (a basic platforming game object), many even with their own distinct names; I believe you could even argue for some of the versions to get their own articles. And yeah, I agree that there's no huge benefit to having this category, as it would be there mostly for the sake of acknowledgement that "this article does not describe the history of a single idea, but it's instead an aggregation of the histories of various ideas that fit under this umbrella". {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 16:25, November 10, 2024 (EST)


====Support - clarify it like this====
===Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts===
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
I'm currently contributing to ''[[Mario & Luigi: Brothership]]'' content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that [[Glohm]] enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.
#{{User|Axii}} Even though I disagree with points 6, 7, and especially 8 (''Mario''-themed minigames should be covered separately), I feel like this is the solution most would agree to compromise on.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} While we would like to do some stuff of our own (cough cough, maybe a proper solution to Smash redirects clogging categories), this is a good start, we feel. If push comes to shove, we could always revert some of these changes in another proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This is a great framework for our coverage of the series. I still would like a better handling of smaller things like trophies, stickers, spirits, and music, but I'm not sure what that would look like and we could always make that change later.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, this is a good step towards cleaning up our Smash coverage.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per proposal
#{{User|Tails777}} I’d like to see where this goes. Per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I've reconsidered my hardline stance since the previous proposal, and I can now agree with most of the points listed here. However, like others have said, I do want to revisit the coverage of massive lists like those for stickers and spirits in the future.
#{{User|Superchao}} Per the proposal. Hving the itemized list will allow for simpler debate and discussion in the future, rather than our ad-hoc coverage status built over time. Lay the groundwork, then discuss the details.
#{{User|Arend}} Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal.


====Oppose - don't clarify it like this====
This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} We might actually need to reduce the Smash coverage a bit more. We especially can't undo that proposal that reduced Pokémon. And those sticker and spirits list really should have been reduced to Mario subjects like the trophy list. The fact that the [[List of spirits in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (501–1000)|middle spirit list]] doesn't have a single Mario spirit is absurd. And maybe those fighter lists should be split back into their own character pages again. Most of them had appeared in Super Mario Maker. I have a different idea of how we should handle Smash.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} This wiki really doesn't need to cover every series that appears in Smash Bros. extensively. Would be better to limit full coverage to both Mario itself and Smash since that's the host series while minimizing exposure to others if there's some connection to Mario, like, which stickers boost tail damage for Yoshi. General info on all of the modes (Classic, collections, settings), that's fine. Characters, stages, items, Assist Trophy spawns etc., just list the Mario content, mention the totals and the proportions from Mario, and include screenshots of full selections if possible.


====Comments - clarify the clarification?====
1. '''Glohm enemies get their own articles.''' They get their own dedicated pages.
<small>(I was gonna name the options "Smash" and "Pass," but I thought that might be too dirty)</small> - [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:38, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Axii}} - I wouldn't say any of the minigames are really innately ''Mario''-themed, though. If any were, I'd have them stay separate. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:02, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
2. '''Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts.''' This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.
:As I mentioned on your talk page, Break the Targets and Board the Platforms have ''Mario''-themed stages [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 23:57, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
::Yes, and as I mentioned in the proposal, those can be separately split later if it is determined to be acceptable. The minigames themselves, however, are not ''Mario''-themed. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:19, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
:::Why not leave them out of this proposal though. Why should we merge ''Mario'' content? [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 09:29, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
::::The current articles don't actually describe the individual stages anyway, just an overview of the mode. Also, those list pages ''already'' include the ''Mario'' stages, just with a "main article" template. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:56, October 4, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I know you are familiar with my [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|crossover article draft using ''Zelda'' as a base]], but I do not think I clarified some of the intents I had with it, which I shared [[User talk:Nintendo101#In regards to Smash and crossovers|here]] with Mushzoom. I do not think it intersects with what you layout above, but I just wanted to let you know. (I also welcome other folks to check it out.) - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:45, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
Let's see what happens!
:I think both can coexist dandily. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:56, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


@SeanWheeler: Though the middle spirit list has no spirits of Mario characters, it's not irrelevant to Mario because Mario characters, stages, items, etc. appear in many spirit battles. In fact, the very first spirit on that page (Jirachi) has Mario relevance (you need Luma and Starlow to summon it). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:09, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br>
'''Deadline''': December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT


{{@|SmokedChili}} - What about non-''Mario'' characters that we cover anyway due to them crossing over outside of Smash, like Link, Isabelle, and Banjo? Surely their presence in another crossover deserves to be acknowledged. That's one of the main issues that arises with the "nuclear" mindset. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:32, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
====Create new articles for Glohm enemies====
:What ''about'' those? Them crossing over in Mario isn't the same thing as crossing over in Smash. That's where the complete selection screenshots come in, make them image maps where crossover subjects with Mario Wiki articles get image map links with necessary notes. That way lists don't have to bleed over to include anything else but Mario.
#{{User|Sparks}} My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
:On another note, shouldn't you have just waited four more weeks? You posted [[Talk:Super Smash Bros.#Oppose|here]] your concern over those two proposals stalling you further with this if they passed, but that's not how rule 7 works. It says 'any decision'. That means voting to keep status quo is also what can't be overturned for 4 weeks. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 09:28, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We give articles to [[Elite Dry Bones|other stronger]] [[Shy Guy R|RPG enemy]] [[Antasma X|and boss variants]], so why should Brothership be any different?
::My understanding is that, because those two proposals failed, neither of this proposal's outcomes would contradict that. The coverage that they were trying to remove is kept either way here. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:25, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Tails777}} They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Zootalo}} The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.


:::Honestly, I think all those points should be in their own separate proposals. I would support #1 if it was a talk page proposal for [[Talk:List of Super Smash Bros. series items]], but combined in a wiki proposal with other things I don't want, I had to oppose. {{@|Axii}} is that month really worth having #6, #7 and #8? {{@|Camwoodstock}}, sure we can revert some of these changes with another proposal, but the proposal rules state we have to wait four weeks before we have a counterproposal to a part of this proposal. And if Hewer is right about failed proposals not counting, then would opposing this be the better choice of action when you disagree with just one thing? Oh, and {{@|Hewer}}, if I make a proposal to reduce the Spirit List, I would definitely want to keep the Spirit Battles that involve Mario fighters and stages. And with stickers, I would get rid of the non-Mario stickers that don't specifically boost Mario characters. And, I definitely do not want Smash 64's page in that way. It should be as focused on Mario like how {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros.|Bulbapedia's}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. Melee|''Super Smash Bros.''}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. Brawl|series}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS/Wii U|game}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. Ultimate|pages}} focus on the Pokémon content, and how the Sonic Wiki Zone's page on {{fandom|sonic|Super Smash Bros. Brawl}} was more about Sonic. #4 is going to make our Smash game pages more comprehensive than Smash Wiki's game pages. If we're really that worried about losing stuff in our reduction of Smash coverage, why don't we talk to Smash Wiki's admins about merging the pages we don't need into Smash Wiki's articles? There's got to be some cross-wiki communication if the Donkey Kong Wiki merged into us. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 01:11, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
====Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them====
::::My long term goal is only having non-''Mario'' Smash content on the game page itself. If it means compromising to get more people on board, I'm all for it. I'm going to make a prediction that in 5 years the idea to cover Smash like a guest appearance won't be much controversial [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 02:04, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
::::As I said in the proposal, "we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that." Also Sonic is a bad example since he was only introduced in the third game, while Bulbapedia is built around the very rigid structure of the main Pokemon games anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:12, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
::::I think folks engaging with this proposal should think critically about what type of titles the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games are in relation to ''Super Mario''? Are they:
::::A. Proper ''Mario'' crossovers on par with ''[[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games]]'' and ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]''? or
::::B. Games that have some Mario material in it on par with [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'' (Wii)]], ''[[NES Remix]]'', ''[[The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening]]'', and ''[[NBA Street V3]]''? or
::::C. Neither or something in between?
::::I think part of the issue with this in particular is not only that ''Smash Bros.'' articles had seen full support on the wiki for a very long time, but many of the characters and elements in it do appear with ''Super Mario'' in completely other contexts. Almost none of the Fighter lists we have on Super Mario Wiki exclusively cover the ''Smash Bros.'' title of their respective articles and it is just odd to organize information that way. ''Super Mario'' also represents the greatest percentage of material in every ''Smash Bros.'' game.
::::I do not know if it is worth holding on to any spirit, sticker, or trophy lists, but if we did, and restricted to to ones that are not only of ''Super Mario'' subjects, but things that can be ''applied'' to ''Mario'' fighters, I would personally find lists like that so fragmented that the articles would basically be useless. What's the point of having intentionally fragmented articles and lists that no one is going to read? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 02:22, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
:::::The trophy lists already got trimmed to just Mario ones, which is easier to do there because the non-Mario ones don't interact with Mario characters like stickers and spirits do. I wouldn't want to remove Mario-relevant information, but I also agree with your "fragmented articles" comment, so I think not trimming the stickers and spirits is the best choice. Plus, in the case of spirits, they can all be used by Mario characters, so you can justify it similarly to the list of items. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:01, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
::::To be clear, failed proposals do count for the four-week no overturning rule, I was just saying that the failed outcome of those two specific proposals doesn't contradict either of this proposal's outcomes. If this proposal were to fail, it'd still be four weeks until a proposal to only do some of its changes could be made. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:43, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
:::::I'd say Smash should be something between a guest appearance and crossover. Smash is the biggest crossover ever, but to cover it as fully as Mario & Sonic, we'd be competing against Smash Wiki. But we can't treat Smash as a guest appearance because Mario is more overrepresented than Fire Emblem, and because Link's Awakening is not covered on [[Link]]'s page despite having a [[The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening|page]] for it. If we could merge with the DK Wiki, then maybe there could be some cross-wiki discussion to merge pages not relevant to Mario into Smash Wiki. Maybe we should get the {{iw|nwiki|NintendoWiki:CrossWiki Team|CrossWiki Team}} involved? I don't know how this works. I don't see the DK Wiki merge in the proposal archive. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 00:47, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I do not think this is the same situation because DK Wiki was consolidated with Super Mario Wiki due to low community activity, maintenance, and attention. (It should be noted that Super Mario Wiki was covering the ''Donkey Kong'' franchise concurrently at the time anyways, even for the many years when DK Wiki existed.) It was the Donkey Kong Wiki's admins that sought consolidation with us. Both Super Mario Wiki and Smash Wiki are in the good fortune of having dedicated communities, so there isn't exactly the same kind of pressure.
::::::At this point, I do not think there are any ''Smash Bros.'' articles on Super Mario Wiki that are not also already on Smash Wiki. In my view, what differentiates some of these articles is "tone" and how subjects are covered. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 01:13, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Well, of course there wouldn't be any ''Smash Bros.'' articles on Super Mario Wiki that isn't already on Smash Wiki. And there weren't any Donkey Kong Wiki pages that weren't already on Super Mario Wiki was there? What did we do in that merge, cut-and-paste text from DK Wiki into the Donkey Kong related pages here? I would want Smash Wiki on board so that they don't accuse us of plagiarism when merging like that. And if our tone is not compatible with theirs, or if their pages are better than ours, I wouldn't mind if we straight up delete content here. Admins can [[Special:Undelete|undelete]] them if we ever need them later. I definitely do not want this proposal to undo the Pokémon proposal. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 15:06, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Where did this whole idea of us "competing" with SmashWiki come from anyway? Even besides the fact we don't have to base what we do on other wikis, the two wikis here have vastly different coverage from one another despite some overlap (SmashWiki has a lot of separate pages that this wiki no longer does, coverage on the fanbase and players, etc., while this wiki covers the whole Mario franchise, obviously). This isn't like Donkey Kong Wiki, where the entirety of its scope was also covered by this wiki. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:51, October 7, 2024 (EDT)


==New features==
====Comments====
''None at the moment.''
{{@|Zootalo}} The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are. {{Unsigned|Nightwicked Bowser}}


==Removals==
==Removals==
Line 160: Line 175:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Shorten the disambiguation identifier for ''Yoshi's Island'' pages with the subtitle only - take two===
===Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)===
Last season, I had to cancel [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Yoshi's Island pages|my last proposal]] since I was caught plagiarizing [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages|someone else's proposal]]. This time, I've come up with another proposal that is not plagiarized.
''Mario Kart Tour'' has quite the reputation on this wiki in terms of pages, at one time nearly forming the top ten of the largest pages here in terms of bit size. However, what was glossed over was the size of Tour's template, being large enough to hold several templates within itself, and making the page, should the user click on it, almost double in length, more so with the other templates open. Using [[DS DK Pass]] as an example, a page for a race course that doesn't have a lot of information on it making for a relatively quick read, is now nearly half taken up by the monstrously large ''Mario Kart Tour'' template.  


Take the "Choose a Game" screen and the main game's title screen in ''Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3'' for example. As you see, the logo for the main game on both screens ONLY reads ''Yoshi's Island'', not ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island''.
A total of four sub templates exist within the ''Mario Kart Tour'' template: Characters (and their skins), Vehicle Parts, Courses, and Other (miscellaneous). For example, if the Courses template were split off and applied to DS DK Pass' page, it would make for a much more palatable experience for those looking for courses found in ''Tour'', rather than making the reader scroll for a centuries and looking for it amongst a sea of numerous skins and kart parts.  


The following pages will be affected:
'''Proposer''': {{User|MightyMario}}<br>
'''Deadline''':  November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT


{| class="wikitable"
====Support====
! Current name
#{{User|MightyMario}} I heartily endorse this proposal.
! Will be moved to
#{{User|Tails777}} I kinda agree with this. I feel this would be a bit more organized too, so people don't have to scroll through loads of characters, karts and other things just to find the tracks section. I have found myself on numerous occasions jumping from track articles and with ''Tour's'' template, it was rather irritating searching through massive sections of characters and tours just to find tracks. I support this idea.
|-
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} We've split navigation templates for [[Template:NSMBW levels|much less]], this makes sense for the sheer amount of content in the game.
| [[Fuzzy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|Fuzzy (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
| {{fake link|Fuzzy (''Yoshi's Island'')|Fuzzy (Yoshi's Island)}}
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Agreed with all.
|-
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
| [[King Bowser's Castle (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|King Bowser's Castle (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
#{{User|Dark Jonathan}} I didn't know Tour templates gave so many problems, but hey, that's a good proposal.
| {{fake link|King Bowser's Castle (''Yoshi's Island'')|King Bowser's Castle (Yoshi's Island)}}
#{{User|BMfan08}} I was just thinking about this the other day when I was changing tense on tour articles. It's definitely a lot to take in, and it's also overlooked because people don't put into a template quite as much as they do a page. I agree with this idea.
|-
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per all.
| [[Magnifying Glass (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|Magnifying Glass (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} This will make page-by-page navigation of MKT articles more efficient or convenient. Supporting.
| {{fake link|Magnifying Glass (''Yoshi's Island'')|Magnifying Glass (Yoshi's Island)}}
#{{User|Mario}} The size of this nav template would make Wario proud, but I'm sure this complaint has already been forwarded to a lot of aspects of Mario Kart Tour content on this wiki.
|-
| [[Spiked Fun Guy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|Spiked Fun Guy (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|Spiked Fun Guy (''Yoshi's Island'')|Spiked Fun Guy (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 1 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 1 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 1 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 1 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 2 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 2 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 2 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 2 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 3 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 3 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 3 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 3 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 4 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 4 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 4 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 4 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 5 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 5 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 5 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 5 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 6 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 6 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 6 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 6 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|}


Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to use the shorter disambiguation identifier with ONLY the subtitle for the ''Yoshi's Island'' pages.
====Oppose====
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support (''Yoshi's Island'')====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} You know what? I'm actually going to agree with this. One reason is because, according to [[Talk:Collector (Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle)|this]], [[Talk:Stretch (Shy Guy)|''this'']] has to move, and there were concerns raised with the overly long identifier that I agree with. The other reason is because ''Yoshi's Island'' is a perfectly valid shorter name for this game. Look at any of the ''Super Mario Advance 3'' materials: the ''Super Mario World 2'' portion was removed. Also, outside of ''Super Mario Advance 3'', ''Yoshi's Island'' has been used as the shorter title [[list of Wiggler profiles and statistics#Super Smash Bros. Brawl|on]] [[list of Baby Mario profiles and statistics#Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS|occasion]]. This is in keeping with other proposals about using shorter identifier titles where applicable, and it will not conflict with "(''Yoshi's Island'' series)".
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per LTL. I personally prefer to shorten it to ''Super Mario World 2'', but that's clearly not Nintendo's own preference, so that is moot.
#{{User|Altendo}} Per all.
 
====Oppose (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')====
#{{User|Hewer}} Reusing my oppose vote from last time: the remake replaces (and reorders) the subtitle rather than just removing it, so we've never had a game just called Yoshi's Island, and I don't know of any other time we've used a title for a game identifier that isn't actually a title for a game. "[[Yoshi's Island]]" also isn't quite as immediately obvious what it refers to compared to "Super Mario RPG", "Donkey Kong Country 2", or "Donkey Kong Country 3". I think this is going a bit too far and ends up a little more confusing than helpful.
#{{User|Axii}} Per Hewer
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Long titles are not a problem.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} It's funny seeing Hewer support a full name this time. And like my points against him about Fox, Sonic and Shadow, Yoshi's Island is pretty vague. But unlike those crossover characters where I'm worried about hypothetical confusion of newer readers, or new species articles in the case of Fox, ''I'' might actually think the identifier is referring to the island, not the game.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Clarifying.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Regardless of what Nintendo goes with, I'd rather it be shortened to ''Super Mario World 2'' or nothing at all. Yoshi's Island feels too broad as it's a series of games. Feels like changing the game identifier for every ''Donkey Kong Country''-specific article to just ''(Donkey Kong Country).'' Which one is it talking about? Won't know until you open the article.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} As a guy who [[Special:Contributions/83.156.220.80|became very active during the period in which i played SMW2YI a lot]], <s>so much so that i ended up registering under my current username</s>, i'd say only using "Yoshi's Island" would be counterproductive, because it would imply some enemies have made reappearances outside of the original game ([[Spiked Fun Guy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|when it isn't necessarily the case for some]]). Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all; plus, and this is a more personal thing, but we think these truncated names are particularly confusing in regards to the World names in particular, since "Yoshi's Island" is sometimes colloquially used to refer to the Yoshi platformer games (in contrast to, say, games like [[Yoshi Touch & Go]] or [[Yoshi's Cookie|those puzzle]] [[Yoshi (game)|games]]).
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
{{@|Hewer}} I respectfully disagree. "''Yoshi's Island''" is actually short for both "''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island''" and "''Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3''", so I think there's a possibility to use the "''Yoshi's Island''" disambiguation identifier for ''Yoshi's Island'' pages, even if it is confusing. {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 08:39, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
I think alternatively, they could be given different collapsible sections, like we do with the galleries template. But I agree it is overwhelmingly enormous. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:58, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:Why do it if it could be confusing? [[MarioWiki:Naming]] advises: "When naming an article, do '''not''' use game abbreviations. (e.g. use [[Bully (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)|Bully (''Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time'')]] as opposed to {{fake link|Bully (''M&L:PIT'')}})." {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:59, October 4, 2024 (EDT)


What makes this different from the prior proposals is that, officially speaking, there is no game titled "Yoshi's Island" in full; we commonly refer ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'' as such, but unlike with SMRPG or the DKC games, this isn't the full title of the game or any of its rereleases. It'd be kinda like calling ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga'' JUST "Mario & Luigi", you know? {{User:Arend/sig}} 03:44, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
We're talking about the navigation template at the bottom of these pages, right? Because that's the only Tour-related template on the DS DK Pass article (subpages notwithstanding) and it's indeed quite huge. If we do split it off into several subtemplates, I suppose it'd be comparable to various levels from specific platformer titles having a navbox template for themselves instead of sharing a primary nabvox template with the rest of that game's content (e.g. [[Super Bell Hill]] featuring {{tem|SM3DW levels}} instead of {{tem|SM3DW}}); or the existence of various navigation templates for the various microgames or minigames in specific ''WarioWare'' or ''Mario Party'' title. So while it's atypical for us to split ''Mario Kart''-specific nav templates, it's not unheard of for us to split off nav templates in the first place. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:04, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:SNES Classic lists it as "Yoshi's Island." Which got me confused when I was looking for it in the game list since that changes where it goes alphabetically... [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:33, October 7, 2024 (EDT)


@SeanWheeler: If you think me supporting full names is funny, you'll love [[Talk:The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens#Move to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before it Happens (take two)|this proposal]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:11, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
===Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading===
It's been two years since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Do not use t-posing models as infobox images|the previous proposal]] had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take [https://www.models-resource.com/resources/big_icons/4/3950.png?updated=1673644745 this image] for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:


{{@|Axii|ThePowerPlayer|Shy Guy on Wheels|Shadow2|SeanWheeler|Sdman213|TheFlameChomp|Nintendo101|OmegaRuby|FanOfYoshi}} I respectfully disagree. The term "''Super Mario World 2''" disambiguation identifier is obviously confusing, so I think you should take a look at my comment from above. Anyway, {{@|Hewer}}, I think I know why there's a possibility to use the "''Yoshi's Island''" disambiguation identifier for ''Yoshi's Island'' pages, even if it is confusing. Because it will match similarly to the ''Super Mario RPG'', ''Donkey Kong Country 2'', and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' disambiguation identifiers. {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 10:33, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
{{tem|image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}
:Confusing? No? And even if it was, it doesn't stop it from being an official name, anyway! --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 10:38, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
::I don't know of any time just "Super Mario World 2" on its own was officially used to refer to the game. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:01, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
:I already explained how this case is different from those other three in my vote. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:01, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
:To be clear, I would not support a proposal that truncated the game's name to ''Super Mario World 2''. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:20, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
::We're more of a fan of ''[[Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3|Super Mario Advance 3]]: [[List of Super Mario World pre-release and unused content#Magazine and TV previews|Super Mario Bros. 4]] [[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island|2]]: [[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island#Pre-release and unused content|Super Mario Bros. 5]]'', ourselves. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:50, October 8, 2024 (EDT)


===Separate character content for transformations in the Gallery===
That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.
The characters are all mixed up in the transformation gallery; [[Gallery:Fire Mario]]. Besides Mario, there are times when have to dig deep to find transformations for specific characters. Also, the transformations for characters other than Mario haven't been written enough. As the number of transforming characters other than Mario is increasing, I think the gallery content is necessary to separate them. A specific transformation for any characters on one page, with add content name.
<pre>
==Artwork==
===Video games===
(Listing multiple characters)
====Fire Mario====
(Listing focused character)
====Fire Luigi====
====Fire Yellow Toad====
====Fire Blue Toad====
==Sprites and models==
====Fire Mario====
====Fire Luigi====
====Fire Yellow Toad====
====Fire Blue Toad====
====Fire Toadette====
...
====Fire Mini====
==Screenshots==
====Fire Mario====
====Fire Luigi====
====Fire Yellow Toad====
====Fire Blue Toad====
==Merchandise==
====Fire Mario====
====Fire Luigi====
====Fire Yellow Toad====
====Fire Blue Toad====
</pre>


'''Proposer''': {{User|Windy}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
<s>#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots|this]] is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.</s>
====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there [[:File:PiantissimoUnmasked.png|can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models]], and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have ''if'' they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there ''are'' scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
#{{User|Mario}} Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.
====Comments====
====Comments====
This seems like a fine idea for the Fire power-up specifically, but I'm not sure for the other ones if there's enough images to justify splitting it like that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:55, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds ([https://www.models-resource.com/resources/big_icons/4/3950.png?updated=1673644745 like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl], Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)
 
Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models ''as they are''. [[:File:MLNPC.png]] is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)


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

Latest revision as of 11:23, November 22, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, November 23rd, 17:51 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • 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 autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (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 two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  5. 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.
  6. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  9. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  10. 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.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  13. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  14. 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.
  15. After a proposal or talk page proposal passes, it is added to the corresponding list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  16. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  17. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  18. 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.
  19. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  20. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  21. 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, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

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.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

  • Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Remove identifiers for Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf) and Ike (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!), Starluxe (ended November 21, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Do not surround song titles with quotes

This is a change to this section of our Manual of Style. Currently, our policy is to surround song titles with quotation marks whenever they appear. However. We are a Mario wiki, and the Mario series overwhelmingly does not do this.

The comparison arises to italics, but I feel there's quite a difference between that (an effect applied to text) and the inclusion of punctuation marks, which are text in and of themselves. Not to mention, unlike italics, which would require special programming to implement, quote marks are supported by anything that supports English text, meaning it's not a question of technical limitations — every game that names its songs is perfectly capable of listing them inside quotation marks, and yet they make the choice not to.

As such, surrounding song titles in quotes is questionable as adherence to an unofficial naming scheme over the original one. Not to mention the effects this can have on lists of song titles — their inclusion on Template:DDRMM fluffs up the width of the song section by the width of several song titles.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to mention how inconsistently these quote marks are applied across the wiki already — many entries in Category:Music do not use them in their article, none of the lists of songs from the shows or of WarioWare DIY records use them, Starring Wario! and only Starring Wario has had its article title changed to have the quotes. I take this to mean the rule is not serving the wiki as it stands.

The one exception to everything I've mentioned thus far is Paper Mario: The Origami King's music discs: "Deep, Deep Vibes", "Heartbeat Skipper", "M-A-X Power!", and "Thrills at Night". These are the only time the names of songs are formatted this way (possibly due to the items being CDs of the songs and not the songs themselves). Therefore, these will be the only exception if this proposal passes, and will keep their quote marks.

To circle back around to my original point: I think the nail in the coffin for displaying music this way is Nintendo Music. This application, specifically meant to play music, does not surround their names with quote marks. And yet this article surrounds them in quotes anyway, stringently adhering to our unofficial way of formatting these over the way Nintendo Music actually formats them. It's almost lying, frankly.

So, our options:

  • Option 1: Exclude quote marks from song titles in all cases. Our manual of style will remove the mention of song titles from the section of italicizing titles. Just for clarity, this excludes Origami King's CDs.
  • Option 2: Keep quote marks when song titles are used in a sentence, but exclude them from standalone appearances of the title. Such standalone appearances would include article titles, navboxes, infoboxes, track listings, and table entries. Just for clarity, this option, too, excludes Origami King's CDs.
  • Option 3: Do nothing. I guess this option includes Origami King's CDs.

Proposer:: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) My primary choice. I've firmly laid out my reasons why here.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) I prefer to think of each music as a work in its own right rather than a part of some "greater whole". Jump Up, Super Star! is more than just a piece of Super Mario Odyssey's OST. Therefore, song titles should be italicized like any other work and not be in quotation marks as if they were merely chapters.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, and there's precedent for following Nintendo's official formatting in spite of usual conventions. The inconsistencies described in the proposal ought to be fixed regardless of the outcome, though.
  4. Biggestman (talk) While I to a degree understand the entire thing with the songs simply being a part of a greater thing, that isn't really fair when I would make an argument some of these songs are a larger part of the series' history than those "greater" things. For example music from Yoshi's Story is still used relatively often to this very day, but Yoshi's Story as a whole is just kinda there. Per all, too.

Option 2

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) I will settle for this — part of my ire toward the quotemarks is that I find them highly unsuitable for these particular usages.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Secondary option, per my comment below in Option 3.

Option 3

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a greater whole (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in The Color of Water. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of Resident Alien. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "Gusty Garden Galaxy" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and Gusty Garden Galaxy is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) per N101. quotation marks are a writing convention! most mario games also don't have italic titles, but we italicize them anyways because it's a formal writing convention that makes sense
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Strong oppose, per all. This is a well-recognized writing convention, the fact that Nintendo doesn't typically follow it within their products is irrelevant.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. These quotes are here for a reason, no matter how remote it may seem.
  5. Ray Trace (talk) Quoting songs is from the manual of style itself, it's the same reason we italicize game titles. I would go even further and quote song titles as a display title like I did in "Starring Wario!"
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  7. Axii (talk) Per all.
  8. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - "Because game writing" is what leads to wikis encouraging jokey sarcastic writing, which I'm pretty sure is not the direction we want to go.

Comments

If this passes, how would it affect coverage of non-Mario music? Our only options are either to have two standards, or ignore established convention based on what Nintendo does for media they had no hand in actually producing. Neither seems ideal to me. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:24, November 10, 2024 (EST)

We'd treat non-Mario music the same as Mario music. Established convention doesn't mean much when we're always saying on this page that we're not other wikis and we don't necessarily need to do things the way other wikis do them. Ahemtoday (talk) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)
I don't think anyone is advocating to hold onto a convention just for the sake of it. Rather, that we should hold onto the convention because it is useful and the proposal doesn't provide persuasive reasons to abandon that usage, or at least it does not for me. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)

In addition, I wouldn't use applications such as Nintendo Music as proof that we shouldn't abide by formatting either. Neither music metadata nor files themselves quote song names, neither does Spotify nor Amazon Music. Yet Wikipedia still does because that's how it's standardized in writing articles. In addition, you pointed out how "Starring Wario!" is the outlier as your point, I've only just started working on those articles mate. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 21:01, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Even Wikipedia doesn't use the quotes in article titles though. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:17, November 11, 2024 (EST)
I would support an option that called for just removing the quotation marks in the header for articles (as done here, which should be compared to here). This is not uncommon in written books on music. But there currently is no voting option to do just that. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)

@Ray Trace I'm aware it's in the manual of style. That's why the proposal is about changing the manual of style. Ahemtoday (talk) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I'm not talking about the wiki's manual style. I'm talking about general guidelines especially MLA BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 15:41, November 11, 2024 (EST)
If it's not our manual of style, then there's no reason for us to care about it because we don't use it. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Our manual of style is based on this manual of style. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 18:11, November 11, 2024 (EST)
If it's only based on it, then it isn't it. The manual of style is ours, so this quote mark convention has to survive on its own merits, not just by virtue of being in someone else's manual of style. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:22, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Not using general formatting standard guidelines solely because "we shouldn't just because we're not them" is not a good argument. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 18:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Well, then — Nintendo doesn't do this either, so there's no reason for this wiki to pretend like they do. That's been my argument this whole time. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)
The main difference is that they're a video game, and they're inherently informal in their presentation. They're not trying to write things and bios formally, they're trying to present writing to players, so formatting like italicizing game titles is optional, because that's what it's set out to do. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, our writing formatting is far more similar to Wikipedia which observes these things and MLA writing guidelines, and how to format sourcing, and it's something we should emulate over a video game's script. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 18:47, November 11, 2024 (EST)
@Ahemtoday I don't think that is the strong argument you think it is, because almost no piece of media where it has become conventional to include quotation marks include them themselves. They are not on the back of most albums, books, or title cards for television shows. But they are all still presented with quotes arounf them in reference material like Wikipedia and physical books. What makes the Nintendo music we cover here so different that warrants unique treatment? - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:53, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Nintendo doesn't always italicize game titles either, this site does. To be honest, though, I'm not sure how consistently this wiki observes MLA. There's some superficial basis in it (mostly coming off of Wikipedia's style guide, which is sprinkled with some MLA), what with the titles of whole works being written in italics and those of constituent parts of a work being surrounded by quotes, yet the manner in which citations are formatted, arguably a priority of any academic style guide, seems rather peculiar to Wikipedia's house style. Take any citation formatted using the {{cite}} template on this wiki and compare it to how MLA proposes it is done (owl.purdue.edu). There's also been at least one attempt at explicitly adopting a standard purveyed by MLA that got shot down. Not to digress too much, I just wanted to point out that MLA is not currently as pervasive here as it's made out to be and can't be appealed to solely because of a few instances that (happen to) observe it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:20, November 11, 2024 (EST), edited 19:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
I am personally forgiving on how we structure citations in that template, because many academic journals don't adopt the MLA structure either. Everyone does something a little different from one another. The information included in a citation is more important than how it is organized, and things like ISBN are pretty helpful for an online reference like Super Mario Wiki.
But I also don't believe in supporting conventions just for the sake of them being conventions. I'd rather support them if they are beneficial. What are your thoughts on what I said in my vote above? - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:33, November 11, 2024 (EST)
I cannot argue with your vote. If a writing standard promoted by outside guides can harmonize with the needs of Mario Wiki, there's no reason not to adopt it. Quotation marks serve their purpose well in this case. so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:10, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Cool! I was just curious. I value your perspective. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:14, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I'm realizing I haven't given my full thoughts on @Nintendo101's vote yet. I agree that there are benefits to formatting song titles in this way (particularly in sentences, which is why I have the option to keep the quote marks exclusively in sentences) — but this formatting scheme misrepresents how the actual works in question are referred to by official media. I had to ask a friend who had Nintendo Music to find out whether or not the app displayed song titles in quotes, because I couldn't trust this wiki to tell me — and, like I said, Nintendo Music doesn't. Yet this article writes the song names as if it does, because apparently this convention is more important than this kind of information. I know this is a minor piece of information, but this formatting convention causes me to be unable to trust the wiki about it. No benefit can counterbalance that. Ahemtoday (talk) 20:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I am sorry that you felt mislead, but are you sure it is not because you were unfamiliar with this being a convention for music pieces in the first place? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:12, November 12, 2024 (EST)
I was well familiar with the convention and how this wiki used it at the time, which is why I knew to ask a friend instead of taking the wiki's word for it. I take such a hardline stance against it not because this untrustworthiness has personally wronged me, but because untrustworthiness is a failure of the wiki on principle. Ahemtoday (talk) 00:02, November 13, 2024 (EST)
I am sorry, I was not referring to Super Mario Wiki in isolation. I was referring to the convention at large. In books and articles on music, regardless of topic, individual pieces are placed within quotation marks. I know I myself first learned one is supposed to put quotation marks around music titles while I was taking English class in middle school. So while I am sympathetic that this bothered you, I do not agree it is misleading. Maybe the issue lies with folks who do not have a lot of experience reading or writing about music. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:05, November 13, 2024 (EST)
Whether or not readers are familiar with the convention doesn't change the fact that the convention is not reflective of what is being talked about. The only reason wiki readers know "Thrills at Night" and its ilk are actually surrounded in quotes officially is because we haven't been thorough in applying this convention. If we did, then the distinction would vanish completely, because the wiki currently considers adhering to this guideline more important than this kind of information. You can't pin that on readers being unfamiliar. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:17, November 13, 2024 (EST)
I have contacted the director of the Purdue OWL at Purdue University to ask them how one should cite music tracks that already has quotation marks rendered in their name. However, to be honest, I am still not really sure what the issue here is. How are the quotation marks any different from italicization of video games and albums? The name Paper Mario: The Origami King is not displayed anywhere in Nintendo's official material italicized, but we do it for the same reasons one puts quotation marks around music tracks - because it is a useful MLA convention. For music, it is unclear to me on what is being miscommunicated or lost when they are accurately displayed between quotation marks, especially since articles for "Thrills at Night" and other tracks are accompanied with screenshots that show how they are rendered in-game. Is this not sufficient? - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)
It is not sufficient. To begin with, not every use of song titles is accompanied by images showing that the music titles are formatted without quotes — the majority of articles in Category:Sound tests do not have such images. (Not to mention that to use these images to establish the formatting of every song title in a given game would require a comically excessive amount of images.) Furthermore, even if they did, this information would be entirely invisible to users of screen readers, raising accessibility concerns. This information can't be conveyed by images alone. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:14, November 14, 2024 (EST)
Couldn't it just be clarified in the article itself that a piece of music is displayed with quotations mark around it? It is not a very common thing to do. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)
Writing in an explicit note clarifying that this time the article is actually reflective of how the music is referred to officially is a much more convoluted way of going about this compared to just referring to them in the official way to begin with. Ahemtoday (talk) 16:50, November 14, 2024 (EST)

Biggestman: The formatting of quotes in songs aren't discussed from a cultural relevancy angle, they're in context of being part of an album. It's the same reason short poetry gets quotes, but novels get italicized, we'd quote "The Raven" but still italicize The Day My Butt Went Psycho. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 21:40, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Add identifiers to near-identical titles

Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: Mark (Mario Tennis series) and Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means Color coin (Super Mario Run) and Colored coin (Wario Land 3) do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include Secret Course 1 (Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins) and Secret Course 01 (Super Mario Run), Spyguy (Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis) and Spy Guy (Paper Mario), and Rollin' Down the River (Yoshi's Woolly World) and Rolling Down the River (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!).

This proposal aims to amend MarioWiki:Naming to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.

Note that this proposal only covers names that are semantically identical, and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. Buzzar and Buzzer have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. Balloon Boo and Boo Balloon are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.

Edit: Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include Family Basic (microgame) and Family BASIC (as ruled by a proposal), Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) and Hot-air balloon, Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame), and Avalanche (obstacle) and both Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4). If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) per.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Altendo (talk) I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with identical names, not similar names.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Altendo, this is what Template:Distinguish is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
  3. Ray Trace (talk) Per Hewer.
  4. Dine2017 (talk) Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
  5. SeanWheeler (talk) Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.

Comments

I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)

i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the Secret exit article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. Family Basic (microgame) recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from Family BASIC was deemed unreasonable. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from Hot-air balloon. Avalanche (obstacle) has an identifier to separate it from Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4), even though both of them have exclamation marks. Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame) get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. EvieMaybe (talk) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)
This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made Family Basic a redirect to Family BASIC, so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)

New features

Create a category for "catch-all articles"

By "catch-all article" (tentative term; please suggest names) I mean those that describe elements that are not related, but share an article because they boil down to the same generic, often real world object. Many of them fit what the guidelines call a "generic subject". Examples of this kind of article are:

They may also boil down to a similar fictional basic concept, which are their own distinct thing, despite all of them taking a similar form:

Compare subjects to which this category would not apply, like ? Block or P-Switch, where every reappearance of the subject is really a deliberate revisitation of a specific concept that already existed.

This category would be applied to articles on concrete subjects only (most of which, if not all, would be objects).

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Bro Hammer (talk) My proposal.

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) I don't see how such a category would be useful, and I don't like that it's pretty subjective and is based on a trait shared by the articles rather than the objects themselves. Even if there was value in distinguishing these pages, I don't think a category like this is the way to do it.
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Is History of Mario a catch-all article because it covers both a fictional character and Bob Hoskins? We would have to have that sort of debate for too many articles to count. This is too subjective and doesn't really accomplish anything.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Unnecessary, and the word "generic" alone is unclear whether it goes by the definition of real-life or Super Mario.
  4. Arend (talk) Honestly, the inclusion of fictional items like Poison Mushroom, ! Block and ? Panel would make it more confusing for me what a "catch-all article" is supposed to be; if it's supposed to be about generic subjects, then their inclusion would definitely muddy the concept quite a bit. Not to mention that the term "catch-all article" isn't clear enough as it is.

Comments

My gut reaction is that I disagree that the Poison Mushroom and Lift articles encompass generic subjects. They are supported as discrete in the paratext for these games. But even if narrowed to articles I agree are generic, it is not inherently clear to me what the benefit of having a "catch-all category" would be. My general view is that there are quite a few subjects that we consider to be generic which really are not. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:45, November 10, 2024 (EST)

What would be some subjects you don't consider generic? My case for the Lift is that it's an article that encompasses almost all types of flat, moving platforms (a basic platforming game object), many even with their own distinct names; I believe you could even argue for some of the versions to get their own articles. And yeah, I agree that there's no huge benefit to having this category, as it would be there mostly for the sake of acknowledgement that "this article does not describe the history of a single idea, but it's instead an aggregation of the histories of various ideas that fit under this umbrella". Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 16:25, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts

I'm currently contributing to Mario & Luigi: Brothership content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that Glohm enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.

This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:

1. Glohm enemies get their own articles. They get their own dedicated pages.

2. Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts. This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.

Let's see what happens!

Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create new articles for Glohm enemies

  1. Sparks (talk) My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) We give articles to other stronger RPG enemy and boss variants, so why should Brothership be any different?
  3. Tails777 (talk) They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
  4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  5. Zootalo (talk) The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
  6. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.

Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them

Comments

@Zootalo The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightwicked Bowser (talk).

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)

Mario Kart Tour has quite the reputation on this wiki in terms of pages, at one time nearly forming the top ten of the largest pages here in terms of bit size. However, what was glossed over was the size of Tour's template, being large enough to hold several templates within itself, and making the page, should the user click on it, almost double in length, more so with the other templates open. Using DS DK Pass as an example, a page for a race course that doesn't have a lot of information on it making for a relatively quick read, is now nearly half taken up by the monstrously large Mario Kart Tour template.

A total of four sub templates exist within the Mario Kart Tour template: Characters (and their skins), Vehicle Parts, Courses, and Other (miscellaneous). For example, if the Courses template were split off and applied to DS DK Pass' page, it would make for a much more palatable experience for those looking for courses found in Tour, rather than making the reader scroll for a centuries and looking for it amongst a sea of numerous skins and kart parts.

Proposer: MightyMario (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. MightyMario (talk) I heartily endorse this proposal.
  2. Tails777 (talk) I kinda agree with this. I feel this would be a bit more organized too, so people don't have to scroll through loads of characters, karts and other things just to find the tracks section. I have found myself on numerous occasions jumping from track articles and with Tour's template, it was rather irritating searching through massive sections of characters and tours just to find tracks. I support this idea.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) We've split navigation templates for much less, this makes sense for the sheer amount of content in the game.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
  5. Super Mario RPG (talk) Agreed with all.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
  7. Dark Jonathan (talk) I didn't know Tour templates gave so many problems, but hey, that's a good proposal.
  8. BMfan08 (talk) I was just thinking about this the other day when I was changing tense on tour articles. It's definitely a lot to take in, and it's also overlooked because people don't put into a template quite as much as they do a page. I agree with this idea.
  9. SeanWheeler (talk) Per all.
  10. PnnyCrygr (talk) This will make page-by-page navigation of MKT articles more efficient or convenient. Supporting.
  11. Mario (talk) The size of this nav template would make Wario proud, but I'm sure this complaint has already been forwarded to a lot of aspects of Mario Kart Tour content on this wiki.

Oppose

Comments

I think alternatively, they could be given different collapsible sections, like we do with the galleries template. But I agree it is overwhelmingly enormous. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:58, November 10, 2024 (EST)

We're talking about the navigation template at the bottom of these pages, right? Because that's the only Tour-related template on the DS DK Pass article (subpages notwithstanding) and it's indeed quite huge. If we do split it off into several subtemplates, I suppose it'd be comparable to various levels from specific platformer titles having a navbox template for themselves instead of sharing a primary nabvox template with the rest of that game's content (e.g. Super Bell Hill featuring {{SM3DW levels}} instead of {{SM3DW}}); or the existence of various navigation templates for the various microgames or minigames in specific WarioWare or Mario Party title. So while it's atypical for us to split Mario Kart-specific nav templates, it's not unheard of for us to split off nav templates in the first place. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:04, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading

It's been two years since the previous proposal had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take this image for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:

{{image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}

That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If this is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models, and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have if they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there are scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
  7. Mario (talk) Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.

Comments

Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds (like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl, Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models as they are. File:MLNPC.png is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4440797"