MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
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 <nowiki>{{user|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. '''Signing with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki> is not allowed''' due to technical issues.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==Writing guidelines==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
===Add identifiers to near-identical titles===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
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!'').  
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#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 a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].  Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).


The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights).  If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
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.


__TOC__
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.


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
'''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.


==New Features==
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
===Featured Lists===
'''Deadline''': November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
The discussion was going on over [[MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/N/List_of_Mario_Party_DS_Collection_Descriptions|here]] about making a Featured List. The List over there is generally 100% complete, however since the lack of the text count and rules of our normal FA doesn't meet that standard, it cannot become featured. So, we were thinking of making a Featured List, which could make some lists such as Allies and what not to also become Featured. Some lists are well off completed, but haven't been recognised by users, such as [[Trophy Descriptions (SSBM)]] I still don't know what the standards of a Featured List would be, I want to hear other users opinions as well. So, with all that said, what do you guys think? Yes or no?


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super-Yoshi}}<br>
====Support====
'''Deadline''': November 4th, 2008, 22:00
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal.


====Create Featured Lists====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per myself.
#{{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|Stooben Rooben}} - As long as an organized standards system that works in accordance ''on some level'' with current featured '''article''' rules, I believe this could be a wonderful addition to the MarioWiki. So, per S-Y and my comment below.
#{{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|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per S-Y.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per S-Y. However, there aren't '''that''' many Feature-worthy lists out there, so perhaps the FLs should be an occasional substitute for FAs (i.e. 4 FAs and then an FL).
#{{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.
====Don't Create Featured Lists====
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Well, here's some standards you may like:
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)
*The lists must be 100% complete, containing all required descriptions and images in order to reach such a status.
: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)
*The lists must be organized it a tidy manner, be it through a table, template, or any other means.
::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)
*The lists must contain at least 1,000 bytes of information original to the MarioWiki, thus making the Super Mario Wiki seem more official. -- (In other words, so it doesn't look like we're just copying and pasting lists.)
*The lists must be composed in a well-written manner. Grammar must be as correct as possible.
*The lists must be of adequate size (10Kb?). In other words, a list pertaining to all the items in ''[[Paper Mario]]'' would be likely insufficient, but a list pertaining to all items in the ''[[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario]]'' series would be sufficient, as long as said list were to meet all of the aforementioned requirements.


Just a thought. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
==New features==
:Sounds good. Just a little bit more, and this should be good to go. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
===Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts===
::Agreed. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
{{early notice|November 28}}
:::'''Walkazo''': That's actually a really good idea. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
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.
::::Yea, awesome idea. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
:::::Thanks! - {{User|Walkazo}}


==Removals==
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:
''None at the moment.


==Splits & Merges==
1. '''Glohm enemies get their own articles.''' They get their own dedicated pages.
===Kirby's forms===
Compared to other SSB contestant pages, Kirby's article is too long because of his Forms list. I feel we should give his forms a separate page to equal it out. But i can't do it without your permission. So what do you guys think? New page or same page?


'''Proposer''': {{User|Storm Warrior}}<br>
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.
'''Deadline''': November 8th, 2008, 20:00


====Create New page====
Let's see what happens!
#{{User|Storm Warrior}} - Per myself.


====Leave it as it is====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br>
#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Its part of Kirby's page. His forms are apart of him so it belong in his page. Moving it is a big no no.
'''Deadline''': December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Walkazo}} - While ''Mario'' forms like [[Fire Mario]] are seperate from the main character articles, ''SSB'' info is secondary on this Wiki, so ''Kirby'' forms do not merit the same treatment.
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|Iggykoopa}} WTF! per all
#{{User|Dom}} - 1. They would all be stubs. 2. That's unnecessary, especially when factoring in this Wiki's priority on Mario-stuff. 3. Kirby's page isn't too long. If you want to see long, go to [[Mario]] or [[SSBB]] - they're long.


====Comments====
====Create new articles for Glohm enemies====
#{{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.
#{{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?
#{{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.
#{{User|Cheat-master30}} Given that some of them have specific differences in attack patterns, it seems like they should probably get unique articles.


==Changes==
====Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them====
''None at the moment.''


==Miscellaneous==
====Comments====
===Article Organization Standard===
{{@|Zootalo}} The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are. {{Unsigned|Nightwicked Bowser}}
For quite some time now, we have given guidelines as to article formatting, but we have not set a single standard.  This has caused many problems for the Wiki, including the conflicts over the formatting of the [[Mario]] and [[Daisy]] articles.  Our previous formatting ideas came from the idea that certain sources were of a higher canon than others and thus should be separated from lower canon sources in the articles.  This was detailed in [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]] prior to its recent rewrite which removed that speculation.  Unfortunately, that means that our primary article organization is based off of fanon.  For example, our section on video game appearances is called “Biography,” implying that none of the sports spin-offs and alternate media sources “happened” in a character's life.  Whether we believe this to be true or not, it is not the Wiki's place to make such speculation.


This presents us with a unique opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: if we establish a standard for article organization that is not based on speculation, the speculation will be removed from our articles AND the argument as to how articles should be organized will be settled.
Kinda torn to be honest. I voted yes because some of them have specific differences from their regular counterparts (Glohm Floopfly Rs and Glohm Soreboars always explode once defeated for example), but then we've got the weird situation of trying to figure out what exactly you'd include on a page for the enemies without these things, like the Glohm Palookas (which as far as I know, look and act almost identically to their standard counterparts). --[[User:Cheat-master30|Cheat-master30]] ([[User talk:Cheat-master30|talk]]) 22:30, November 23, 2024 (EST)
:In fairness, this could also be said about many other stronger variants of enemies. The only real difference between a Goomba and Gloomba are the color schemes, in a similar way to how the only difference between a Palooka and a Glohm Palooka is the darker coloration and Glohmy aura. It's kinda just a natural thing for most stronger variants (not all mind you, but most). {{User:Tails777/sig}}


I propose that we give each individual source a section of its own.  Then, each section would be placed within its respective medium.  We would have a separate section for video games, television shows, comics, the movie, etc.  Furthermore, each of these sections would have subsections for each series.  The central ''[[Mario (series)|Mario]]'' platforming series would have a section, as would ''[[Mario Kart (series)|Mario Kart]]'', ''[[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario]]'', etc.  For titles that do not fall into a series, they would be placed in a section called "Individual Titles" or some equivalent.  Each of these sections and sub-sections will be organized by release date.  So, for Mario, you would first have the video game section, which starts with the ''[[Donkey Kong (series)|Donkey Kong]]'' series, then moves to the ''Mario'' series, and so on and so forth. However, when the events of a title has ''explicitly'' occurred prior to those released earlier in its section, such as ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' in the ''Mario'' section, it can be listed earlier.  Another example would be ''[[Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins]]'', which can be listed just after ''[[Super Mario Land]]''.
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


For those who are confused, I am willing to make a mock-up of this concept.  For those who still want to see the video game sources lined up in the way they currently are, please remember that [[MarioWiki:Chronology]] was designed just for you.
==Changes==
===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:


Why does this idea benefit the Wiki?
{{tem|image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}
#Removes speculation: Organizing by media and series is an objective concept that Nintendo often uses itself.  Compare this to our current method: trying to organize events in the order that WE believe them to have happened, something that Nintendo has never done.
#Creates a standard: now that MarioWiki:Canonicity has been rewritten, we need a new standard.  I also want us to have a standard that we all agree on, not one that a sysop back from the early days of the Wiki created before we had the proposals page.
#Frees us from having to connect storylines.  If each appearance has a different section, we do not need to speculate and claim that "After doing this, the character did that," or worry about balancing the inconsistencies such as those between ''Yoshi's Island'', ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' and the [[Nintendo Comics System]].
#Allows for expansion of alternate media appearances, such as those from ''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!''  It is very difficult to write about the entire series in a paragraph of a subsection in the alternate media sections as our current organization has us doing.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}} (with input from Cobold, Blitzwing, Ghost Jam, and Rooben Stooben among others.)<br>
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.
'''Deadline:''' November 3rd, 17:00


====Support====
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
#{{User|Stumpers}} - My reasons are detailed above.
'''Deadline''': November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Cobold}} - I think that the current way the articles are structured is rather random and not really official. The change is necessary.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Stumpers, all the way. This should finally help get articles in order &ndash; the way they should always be.
#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Stumpers.
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per Stumpers, he got inspired
#{{User|Booster}} - Per all. This seems like a really good idea.
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per Stumpers. Less arguements and stuff are going to happen this way, and our wiki will be much neater and organized.
#{{User|Mateus 23}} - Per all.
#{{User|RAP}} - Per all, per all, per all. ''Period.'' The wiki will be greatly cleaned up with easy to access information when this proposal will be effect.
#{{User|3DD}}Per Stumpers.
#{{User|Ghost Jam}} Per Stumpers.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
Thanks, Tucayo, but I gotta give credit to the other sysops as well - it was really a group effort.  I just nailed down the specifics. {{User|Stumpers}}
 
I still think dividing the video games by individual series is too much. Yes, those of us who do want to see the strictly chronological order ''can'' look on [[MarioWiki:Chronology]], but you could just as easily say the people who want to see the series' history can look on the Series' Pages (i.e. [[Mario & Luigi (series)]]). Plus, casual Users and Guests may not know enough to go searching the MarioWiki pages; whereas the Series Pages are mainspace and (should be) linked to on the articles themselves. Even then, all the Chronology page gives us is a list, and if we want to find out about what Mario does from game to game, we'd have to go from game to game; whereas the Series Pages offer a bit more up front. Plus, it's not rocket science to figure out ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'' is the sequel to ''[[Paper Mario]]''; so if someone did want to find out what Mario did in respects to the [[Paper Mario (series)|''Paper Mario'' series]] only, they'd just have to scroll down the chronologically-organized biography looking for the "Paper Mario" titles. But it doesn't go both ways: as they are now, most biography sections don't include dates; and even if they do in the future, it's harder to look around for the first thing to come after "September 1993" than the next 3-D "Super Mario...". True, that's when you'd whip out MW:Chronology; but it seems like too much hassle for half of us just to spare the other half a fraction of the time and frustration. What I'm trying to say is that we ''already have'' the option to read history by series, and we always will, so what ''need'' is there for this extra step? I agree with the proposal otherwise, so I'm not voting against it - the Wiki needs change, just not '''that''' much. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:Something that I was considering while writing this proposal was that, even if this isn't the ultimate fix we find, it's a good one for right now.  If you can think of a better way, please, PLEASE make a proposal.  We've been banging our heads trying to figure out how to not follow any fanon while still acknowledging the fact that the overall Mario series does appear to have a continuity within it, just not a very well defined one. {{User|Stumpers}}
::That's one thing that poses a big problem: Nintendo has confirmed absolutely ''no'' chronological order to their different types of media. This is one of the few tasks the MarioWiki that we have do to completely from scratch. I for one, think it's well worth it, despite any obstacles we may run across. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
:::By organizing by series, we can free ourselves of any conjecture we previously had to make when we clumped all the video games together.  Another method would be to list appearances by release date.  However, the downside of that is that you can't place past events from later released appearances earlier in the article.  For example, we know that ''Yoshi's Island'' came before ''Super Mario Bros.'', but we don't know how ''Yoshi's Island'' relates to ''Yoshi Touch & Go''. Is it before, after, during, or an alternate timeline?  By dividing into ''Mario'' and ''Yoshi'' series, we free ourselves up from that. {{User|Stumpers}}
::::MW:Chronology has already established that games explicitly set at certain points in time are exempt from the release-date-order (such as ''[[Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins]]'' coming immediately after ''[[Super Mario Land]]''; and ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' being set before all other games), so couldn't that be carried over to the articles? As for the muddled [[Yoshi (series)|''Yoshi'' series]], I don't think organizing by series would make it any easier than by date (for example, ''SMW2: Yoshi's Island'' is as closely elated to ''[[Super Mario World]]'' as it is to the later ''Yoshi'' titles, which confuses things further: where does one series end and the next begin?). ''[[Yoshi Touch & Go]]'' has no plot, but what can be gleaned from the gameplay suggests it is a "retelling" of ''Yoshi's Island'', and can therefore be listed alongside said game, like how ''[[Super Mario 64 DS]]'' is incorporated with ''[[Super Mario 64]]'' in MW:Chronology. Lumping the games together by series is invoking as much conjecture as going by release dates; and considering all the cross-series references and carry-overs, it would seem more likely Nintendo did not mean to divide the games like this. For instance, Bowser's crush for Peach was introduced in ''Paper Mario'' and then incorporated into subsequent games such as ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'', which is part of the 3-D series begun '''before''' ''Paper Mario'' was released. For this reason, listing ''SMS'' before ''PM'' would be confusing, but necessary according to ordering by series and their seniority. ''[[Super Paper Mario]]'' also references series that come after ''Paper Mario'' started (i.e. the Sammer Guy [[List of Sammer Guys#Mustard of Doom|Mustard of Doom]] named after Fawful of ''[[Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga]]''); though you ''could'' argue these are merely jokes for the player's amusement, and not as consequential as actual plot elements. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:::Actually, Bowser's love for Peach was introduced in ''[[The Great Mission to Save Princess Peach]]'' and then in ''[[Super Mario Adventures]]'' (it could also be argued that  ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' also used this concept when Bowser wanted to marry Peach, but it was largely for political reasons).  Examples of video games taking ideas from earlier alternate media are numerous, even when it comes to references and jokes for the player: the [[Pal Pills]] were a reference back to an item from ''[[Super Mario World (TV series)|Super Mario World]]'' television show episode "[[Rock TV]]" for example, and Nintendo of America openly embraced the idea of Mario coming from Brooklyn even after ''Yoshi's Island'' contradicted the ''Super Show's'' backstory.  However, since many users (including yourself) argued against the merging of video games and alternate media sources into one big appearances section, myself and the other sysops had to think of another solution.  You're arguing that video games should be blended together because each series is not presented as its own separate continuity with different characters, locations, and themes.  Yet, I can and have argued that video games and alternate media sources should be merged for the same reasons.  Remember when I implemented that idea into [[Mario]] and his [[Mario and Luigi's Parents|parents]]' articles?  As you pointed out and I agreed, it was a mess of speculation.  You also forgot something about ''[[MarioWiki:Chronology]]'': it's designed for users to ''speculate'' on how the sources fit together.  So, here's my and the other sysops' logic: if placing sources together in a chronological order requires speculation (for example, can you cite me specific proof that says ''[[Paper Mario]]'' came after ''[[Super Mario 64]]''?), then why should we do it?  We're here to write about official Nintendo material rather than to speculate about it, right?  So, how can we ''not'' speculate?  We must sort by an objective standard rather than a subjective one.  We must be able to clearly say, "This source fits this real world, non-fanon condition(s)."  Rather than, as you said, base our organization on what we "gleaned from gameplay suggests,"  One early idea of mine was to sort sources by date exclusively, and making the articles clearly historical from the point of the real world?  That was one of my first ideas, but it was denied.  What the sysops and I cooked up and I am now proposing is objective criteria, and it will organize those ridiculously long appearance pages. {{User|Stumpers}}
::::I just wanted to apologize in case my above message seemed harsh or irksome.  I reread it now, and it does seem a little arm-twisty.  So, anyone who read it, know that yes, I do believe what I said, but no, it wasn't fair to say it the way I did.  I'd like to give Walkazo credit for standing up for the removal of fanon with the Mario's parents article, and I'm very grateful for it.  Otherwise, I'd probably still be pounding away at articles, speculating like crazy trying to put all the pieces together.  So, thanks, Walkazo and I hope you weren't offended in any way! {{User|Stumpers}}
 
This Proposal is like quantum physics - it's too confusing for me. If I understood it properly, I'd have my say in this. I am extremely dumb, but it's mainly because Stumpers is too smart... {{User|Dom}}
:You, good sir, are much too kind!  But, if you can't understand it that means I wrote it badly.  Is there anything in particular you'd like me to clarify?  Is it just the reasoning for the change or would you like me to make a mock-up to show what the change will be? {{User|Stumpers}}
:::::Going back to the above conversation; to be honest, I did feel like I was being scolded for stubbornly arguing against your idea, Stumpers, but your apology was really nice - thank you! Anyway, I did find specific proof that there is some sort of inter-series continuum: [[FLUDD]]'s video analysis of Mario at the beginning of ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]''. It first shows him jumping over [[Bowser]] in ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', then battling [[Iggy Koopa]] in ''[[Super Mario World]]'', and finally him swinging Bowser around by his tail in ''[[Super Mario 64]]''. I can't guarantee FLUDD showed the videos in the order that they occurred in the Marioverse, but it would make the most sense if it did, as computers use pretty standard organization principals (the other option would be alphabetical order, but in that case, ''SM64'' would come '''before''' ''SM World''); speculation aside, it ''still'' proves the three series coexist. And unlike most cross-series references, this is an actual plot device: it shows how FLUDD identifies Mario as a Koopa-fighting crusader worthy of its assistance. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::::Aw... thanks for not being mad at me (I deserve it if you are).  I've been pretty stressed out this week, so just know that I didn't mean to scold you, and that NO one, especially NOT you deserves that.  Again, I'm really sorry about that!  I'm nearly certain we can confirm that the main ''Mario'' series is definitely in a straight-shot continuity, with the two exceptions ''Yoshi's Island'' and ''Super Mario Land 2''.  Reasons like the ones you mentioned and the continuity between the titles is pretty blatant.  Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) directly connected itself to be after Super Mario Bros. 1.  Super Mario Land would have taken place next by release date (and thus SML2 would come right after), which then explains ''Super Mario Bros. 3'''s storyline, stating that Bowser had been unactive for a very long time.  I'm not sure how official it is, but many users have told me that ''Super Mario World'' is apparently the bros. going on a vacation to celebrate the returned peace in the Mushroom World.  You can see, there's no down time in the story, really.  Then, after that they brought in the spin-off ''Super Mario Kart'' and the explanation of Mario's birth in ''Yoshi's Island''.  A lot more spin-offs ''and'' real world time passed before we got our mitts on ''Super Mario 64''.  It's between ''World'' and ''64'' we first start getting this messy video game continuity: the games with a storyline come out with much greater time between them and more spin-offs happen, none of which connect themselves ''directly'' with the plot of the others (but you should know, I totally think they are part of the continuity personally).  So, what I'm saying is this: the part of the continuity we KNOW is set in stone is the main series video games.  Their storylines always spell out the context, even if it's just connecting back in various ways (''Sunshine'' showed that Mario remembered ''Luigi's Mansion'' and that F.L.U.D.D. knew of his past exploits.)  And, I would further argue that the RPG series is married at the hip as well, which itself is a straight shot continuity between SMRPG, Paper Mario, M&L, PM2, etc. as well.  Elements have spilled over greatly, and have established that they are part of the main series continuity (Kamek remembers Baby Mario and Luigi, Beanish characters in PM2, etc.).
::::So, what my message here is this: I myself am of the theory that MarioWiki:Chronology is the closest thing we can get to a continuity, and I stand by it.  I would like to stress that article organization and continuity don't necessarily have to go together.  We may find it more advantageous to sort by series, we might not.  In any case, if this doesn't work out as well, rest assured the sysops and myself will keep trying to find a better way, and I'll be looking to you, Walkazo.  Thanks for all your help on the Wiki! {{User|Stumpers}}
'''Response to Stumpers, from Dom:''' Well, one thing that makes it confusing is that this is the biggest, wordiest proposal I've ever seen - there's so much to try and take in. And the huge amount of comments here proves it must be pretty complicated. I think I would get this if you made a mock-up of what the changes would be - I am a visual learner so yeah. Although I'll admit that I still look at the Proposal and it goes over my head. It would be great if you could demonstrate the changes... <small> Man, I feel really dumb. </small> {{User|Dom}}
:::::Sure, I'll work on it.  I'm not sure if I'll be able to get it to you before the weekend is over, though, because I'm super busy from the Saturday morning on. :O {{User|Stumpers}}
::::::In that case, I'm going to wait until I see the mock-up before I say anything else; a picture's worth a thousand words, after all. One thing is bugging me, though: italicization. So far, the game, show and movie titles are being italicized, but not the comics, which, according to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(titles)#Italics|this]], is wrong. If we're already going to be reworking most articles for the new policy, I think it would be a good opportunity to address these sorts of trivialities as well. Anyway, pertaining to your earlier response, Stumpers, you're being ''far'' to kind; we all make mistakes and holding you to one slip-up you immediately apologized for would be wrong. - {{User|Walkazo}}
&nbsp;
 
=== Poll Requirements ===
Well, I love to see all the creativity with the polls, but what bothers me is how poor some can be. A lot have extremely poor grammar and too few of choices. Others are a bit innapropriate or don't involve complete Mario-related ideas. So what I'm saying here is to stengthen the rules for poll suggestions, to make sure pointless polls are prevented. I've come up with a few sample rules to start:
#The poll must relate entirely to the Mario or other related series. (DK, Yoshi, SSB, etc.)
#Polls must have at least 3-10 choices.
#Nothing innapropriate or what others might consider offensive
.....And so on. So, who's with me on this?
 
'''Proposer''': {{user|Luigi001}}
 
'''Deadline''': November 6th, 5:00 EST


====Support====
====Support====
#{{user|Luigi001}} My reasons above and below.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|Dom}} - See my Comments below.
<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>
#{{User|Mateus 23}} - Per Luigi001 and Dom's comment below.
#{{user|iggykoopa}} Per all
#{{user|Storm Warrior}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per my comment below
#{{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|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per S-Y coment below.
#{{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====
Um I thought the Porplemontage controls the poll page and the rules. {{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}}
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)
:Well, not exactly. I mean he has more control over everything, being the founder and all. But we as users get a say in what goes in and out, otherwise this wiki would be more like a dictatorship. There's been proposals on adding/changing rules before, so I don't see the difference. {{user|Luigi001}}
::Yea but Steve set it up, and nothing bad is going on with the polls rite now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Once some polls tart becoming spammy, then we should have some rules, but everything's going fine right now. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
:::That "If it's not broken" saying doesn't exactly apply to this. I'm not saying it's broken or what not. I've seen some polls that actually ''do'' seem a bit like just spam or such, or just a way to get noticed on the wiki. I don't mean rules, more so "Guidlines" to creating a poll. Just so that spam polls and pointless ones are prevented in the near future. {{user|Luigi001}}


OK, I can see what Luigi001 is on about. Many of the poll suggestions are pathetic. The types of suggestion which should be banned are the recurring ones we've been seeing that go on the pattern of "Do you think there's gonna be...", as these sound very unprofessional, and what's the point of asking a bunch of people if they ''think'' something should or will happen? It makes no difference what people think will happen in the future, it's better to ask what they think of things that ''are'' confirmed or happening. Also the ones that go "Who's your favourite character in [insert game] ?" - They're much less beneficial than asking which character is most popular in general, as they are very restricted, and they should be replace with "Which character in [insert game] is the most useful?" or something. Also, polls with bad spelling/grammar should be deleted unless the idea behind them is worth considering. {{User|Dom}}
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)
:Well L001, if a poll seems spammy or somewhat, then don't vote for it. That's why Steve put the voting thing on there, so favourite polls get selected. If something that you don't like is on there, but something I like is on there, it's kinda unfair rite? If the "spammy" poll doesn't get voted on, then there's no need to put rules on it. Just don't vote on it. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
::Well, I'm not saying bring one-sided rules to the poll selections, I want the users to agree on some guidlines to making an appropriate poll. Those were just some samples I thought, maybe, people would agree on. But I'm no expert rule maker, so all opinions should be included. {{User|Luigi001}}
:::Perhaps with a little more clarification on the rules, you'd have more supporters. Would you like me to help create some more guidelines? {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
::::Oh, yes please, Stoobs! Those were just 3 I thought were good, but I thought that the comments would be used for edited/added rules. {{user|Luigi001}}
:::::Yea, that would help alot St00by. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}


Your three example rules are already covered, so this is currently a proposal for nothing. --{{User|Porplemontage}} 20:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
==Miscellaneous==
:Per this, Luigi001 please flesh out your proposal a bit. If after a day or so the proposal remains the same, I will invalidate it. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}}
''None at the moment.''
 
I knew it!! (The rules are stated on the page -_-) {{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}}

Latest revision as of 15:10, November 25, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, November 26th, 19:45 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 26, 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

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.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 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)
Create articles for "Ashita ni Nattara" and "Banana Tengoku" or list them in List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs, Starluxe (ended November 23, 2024)

Writing guidelines

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 articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts

Based on the early vote, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on November 28 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

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.
  8. Cheat-master30 (talk) Given that some of them have specific differences in attack patterns, it seems like they should probably get unique articles.

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).

Kinda torn to be honest. I voted yes because some of them have specific differences from their regular counterparts (Glohm Floopfly Rs and Glohm Soreboars always explode once defeated for example), but then we've got the weird situation of trying to figure out what exactly you'd include on a page for the enemies without these things, like the Glohm Palookas (which as far as I know, look and act almost identically to their standard counterparts). --Cheat-master30 (talk) 22:30, November 23, 2024 (EST)

In fairness, this could also be said about many other stronger variants of enemies. The only real difference between a Goomba and Gloomba are the color schemes, in a similar way to how the only difference between a Palooka and a Glohm Palooka is the darker coloration and Glohmy aura. It's kinda just a natural thing for most stronger variants (not all mind you, but most). Sprite of Yoshi's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Tails777 Talk to me!Sprite of Daisy's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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=4443824"