MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Slash 'Em: I hate these sections)
 
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.
''None at the moment.''
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
##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.
#Proposals can not be made about [[MarioWiki:Administrators|System Operator]] promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].


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.
==New features==
===Create a template to crop images on-the-fly without having to tamper with the base file's dimensions===
{{Early notice|December 4}}
So {{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} shared this nifty template that TCRF has: [[tcrf:Template:CSS image crop]], which allows images to be displayed in mainspace at a cut-out size from how they are on the image files themselves. This has two utilities: one is shrinking to a relevant entity in group textures such as {{file link|M&SatL2012OG Wii audience.png|this one}}, and the other is to avoid blank space without having to crop the raw graphic parameters - thus allowing best-of-both-worlds for the previous proposal I attempted (and failed), as it satisfies the OCD itch of avoiding bad and/or inconsistent crops on the base files without taking up unnecessary space where the images are actually used. It also removes a lot of unnecessary work actually cropping/uncropping images since you don't have to save them to a machine/web address to upload a new version - you can just put in the parameters you want and go from there.


__TOC__
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': December 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EST)'''</span></center>
====C-S-Yes====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Goes without saying I think this is a good idea.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} It's better to crop an existing image programmatically than having to upload a cropped version for a specific use case.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems useful.
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} Sometimes I just find random things on other Wikis and remember a previously failed proposal. I hope this helps out!
#{{user|EvieMaybe}} per Jdtendo! this seems very useful
#{{User|Axii}} Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} I guess this could lead to less image editing which is definitely a positive.


==New Features==
====No new template====
''None at the moment.
 
====Comments on CSS image crop====
This appears to be similar to [[Template:Squared icon|a template I have made]] in order to crop images to perfectly squared off icons for uses on pages such as [[Pipe Frame]] (e.g. displaying Mii Racing Suit icons in the same table as other character icons); however, the version you're presenting seems to include more options. I'm not gonna vote yet, but so far I don't see the harm to have this other template too. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:42, November 27, 2024 (EST)


==Removals==
==Removals==
==="Relationship with other characters" sections===
===Remove video game console generations===
I would imagine most people who have discussed video games in the past have heard of {{wp|History of video_game consoles#Console generations|video game console generations}}. It is a tool to categorize video game hardware and its place in time. There is just one problem: the current video game console generation system is flawed. If you would like to further read into the specifics as to why I would recommend this [https://www.timeextension.com/features/is-wikipedia-really-to-blame-for-video-game-console-generations Time Extension article] by Jack Yarwood. But in short, the phrase "next generation" originates as a term used starting around the 1990s, as video games evolved over the many years, Wikipedia editors would create their own video game console generation system that has for the most part remained unchanged since its introduction in the early 2000s. This generation system would slowly be adopted by other sites, media, and the people who engage with video games.


Most (All?) of our articles about major characters have sections detailing how they interacts with other major characters, I could do a tl:dr rant explaining why these sections irks me, but I will be short here:
Within the scope of the major [[Nintendo]] video game consoles, this is currently how the video game console generation system is categorized.


*They're poorly written. ([[Mariowiki:BJAODN|"In Mario Party 6, Wario and Toadette's team name is named Secret Friends. This may refer that Wario and Toadette were once friends, secretly.']])
First generation: [[Color TV-Game]]<br>
*They're unneeded. The Mario sub-section on the [[Bowser]] page could be basically summed up as "Bowser really hates Mario but team-up with him anyway"... something that anyone with half-a-neuron could have learned from reading the article. Beside, do you think anyone come on this site thinking "I'm a So wanting to read about Peach being friend with Toadette!"?
Second generation: [[Game & Watch]]<br>
*They're the perfect breeding ground for speculations (X and Y have [Z] team name in Mario Party! THEY'RE MUST BE A DEEPER CONNECTION!!!) and idiot wars ("Daisy is Lugi ture luv!!!" "NO ROSALINA IS!!!!!")
Third generation: [[Family Computer]], [[Nintendo Entertainment System]]<br>
Fourth generation: [[Super Famicom]], [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]], [[Game Boy]]<br>
Fifth generation: [[Nintendo 64]], [[Game Boy Color]]<br>
Sixth generation: [[Nintendo GameCube]], [[Game Boy Advance]]<br>
Seventh generation: [[Wii]], [[Nintendo DS]]<br>
Eighth generation: [[Wii U]], [[Nintendo 3DS]], [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>
Ninth generation: [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>


In short, Relationships Sections are an embarrassing poorly-written mess of informations rehashed from the Biography. Let's kill them, '''WITH FIRE'''.  
There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the {{wp|Xbox Series X and Series S|Xbox Series X/S}} and {{wp|PlayStation 5}} consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead. Because of this, it is not entirely clear where the Nintendo Switch is in the video game console generation system and the solution is to simply file it in both generations rather than one or the other.


'''Proposer''': {{user|Blitzwing}} <br>
Now the Nintendo Switch is a hybrid console, but what about portable consoles? The current video game console generation system lumps in both home and portable consoles. If the goal of the generation system was to be based on hardware specifications than it ultimately falls flat with consoles such as the 16-bit [[Super Famicom]] and [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] home consoles being in the same generation as the 8-bit [[Game Boy]] portable console. For home consoles there is absolutely nothing in the second generation, with the [[Color TV-Game]] consoles being in the first and the [[Family Computer]] and [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] consoles being in the third. Portable consoles have a similar issue with nothing in the third generation, with the [[Game & Watch]] line in the second and the [[Game Boy]] being in the fourth.
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2009 17:00'''


====Slash 'Em====
For these reasons, I think it should be considered to remove video game console generations from this wiki. It is ultimately a flawed tool that originates as something made up by various Wikipedia editors that stuck around for far too long without real consideration of its flaws. If video game console generations are removed, we should gravitate towards more factual descriptions that better represent the consoles.
#{{user|Blitzwing}} - Because I'm a totally voting against my own proposal.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Blitz
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per Blitz, let's burn them '''AGGRESIVELY''' =3
#{{User|Uniju :D}} I always wondered why those exist...
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Blitzwing, 99% of these sections are a waste of time. For the other 1%, just add the information as a stand-alone section: to use Son of Sun's example, I'm sure a Mario-Peach Relationship section wouldn't seem out-of-place in either of their articles.


====Keep 'Em====
Home consoles: 1. [[Color TV-Game]] 2. [[Family Computer]], [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] 3. [[Super Famicom]], [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] 4. [[Nintendo 64]] 5. [[Nintendo GameCube]], 6. [[Wii]] 7. [[Wii U]] 8. [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>
#{{User|CrystalYoshi}}Why can't we just keep them and make sure that they're free of nonsense? I think the sections are good information about the character.
Portable consoles: 1. [[Game & Watch]] 2. [[Game Boy]] 3. [[Game Boy Color]] 4. [[Game Boy Advance]] 5. [[Nintendo DS]] 6. [[Nintendo 3DS]] 7. [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>
#{{User|Son of Suns}} - Some of the official comments from Nintendo placed in those sections would not make sense anywhere else (such as commentary on Mario and Peach's relationship). It does not make sense to outright delete them, but instead work (re-writing, cutting, editing, etc.) on them to make them better. If we just deleted things because they are poorly written, we should probably delete most of the articles on this wiki.
#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per Son of Suns.
#{{User|Snack}} Sorry Blitzwing, I think I have to vote with Son of Suns on this. Perhaps the poorly written ones should be improved and/or deleted, but I think that there is enough conflicting and supporting information for various viewpoints for the better sections to be kept.


====Comments====
Home console example: "The [[Nintendo 64]] is the fourth [[Nintendo]] home console platform."<br>
While most of these sections I run across seem to be poorly-written, speculative, and sometimes way too extended (I hear rumors there was a Diddy Kong entry in the Mario relationships section?), that does not mean they cannot (in the future) be well-written, informative, and kept to a close circle of important character relationships.  It could be a great place to provide all the official connections between two specific characters.  For example, the [[Mario#Princess Peach|Princess Peach section in the Mario article]] does a decent job of listing all those comments made by Nintendo about their ambiguous relationship. I found it to be very helpful, and I would not want that information to suddenly disappear.  If it could just listed under a general "Relationships" section (instead of one sub-divided into many sections about individual characters) we could focus on a few key relationships - relationships Nintendo has provided a lot of commentary on, such as the Mario-Peach relationship, as opposed to the [[Mario#Rosalina|Mario-Rosalina relationship]] listed in the article, which is basically a plot summary of ''Super Mario Galaxy'', but doesn't tell us anything about their relationship. So basically, I don't think we should completely delete these sections, but find a way to highlight those specific relationships Nintendo has actually offered commentary on. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
Portable console example: "The [[Nintendo DS]] is the fifth [[Nintendo]] portable console platform."<br>
:Then we can place the good informations in a note in the relevant game or in a Trivia section. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 19:22, 29 December 2008 (EST)
Hybrid console example: "The [[Nintendo Switch]] is the seventh portable and eighth home [[Nintendo]] console platform."<br>


:So that means the Mario-Peach information would be unorganized and scattered throughout the article, or a three paragraph entry in the Trivia section?? -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
This alternative system does have flaws with the Switch being in two categories again, however that is due to the Switch being a hybrid between a home and portable console. The reason the console is in two video game generations according to Wikipedia is not as clear. Another much straightforward solution would be to simply list the predecessor and successor of each console.
::THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)


==Splits & Merges==
Example: "The predecessor to the [[Nintendo 64]] is the [[Super Famicom]] and [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] and the successor is the [[Nintendo GameCube]]."
''None at the moment.


==Changes==
This is the most likely solution if video game console generations were removed. It is easy to understand and already implemented to an extent. The work required is simply the removal process with minimal addition.
===Replace the current Importance Policy===


This proposal would replace the current Importance Policy with a less hierarchical, more inclusive policy based on [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]]. The proposed new policy can be found here: [[User:Son of Suns/Sandbox#MarioWiki: Importance Policy|'''New''' Importance Policy]]. This would serve as the basis for the new policy and could be revised as necessary.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro3256}}<br>
 
'''Deadline''': December 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
As you can tell, the [[MarioWiki: Importance Policy|'''current''' Importance Policy]] is extremely convoluted, as we are trying to base our wiki on levels of connections between series, which itself is a highly speculative act.  Based on the chart, series such as ''Mario Kart'' may actually be of "secondary" importance, as it is a spin-off of the main ''Mario'' series, while ''WarioWare'' would be of "tertiary" importance, as it is a spin-off of a spin-off (''Mario'' series to ''Wario Land'' series to ''WarioWare'' series), and the new ''Pyoro'' series would be of "quaternary" importance, as it would be a spin-off of a spin-off of a spin-off.  As you can tell, this gets extremely subjective based on your own personal point of view.  We should have a more flexible policy that does not establish superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance.  Just as there is no recognized canon, we should not have a hierarchy of supposed importance.  Instead this new policy establishes what is and what is not allowed based on all official sources approved by Nintendo, and also allows for "less connected" subjects to be merged, organized, etc. as deemed necessary by the community. Ultimately I feel this new policy makes more logical sense than our old policy.
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Son of Suns}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' December 30, 2008, 17:00


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Son of Suns}} -- Per my reasons stated above.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Daniel Webster}} - Per SoS (now I wish I hadn't revised that Importance Policy image since it's outdated, but oh well).
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} console generations make more sense when comparing against several different consoles. for our use case, they're pretty irrelevant.
#{{User|Tucayo}} Per SoS
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and EvieMaybe.
#{{User|Cobold}} - should remove more speculation on "canon"
#{{User|Bro3256}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per SoS and Cobold. As long as this won't flood the place with ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' articles, I'm fine with it (series pages are just fine).
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, specifically the second suggested solution of not numbering consoles at all. Saves the unnecessary confusion.
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - Per Walkazo. And if it clears anything up about my vocality on this matter, I'm not new user. I'm InfectedShroom who got a name change.
#{{User|winstein}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per SoS, we need new importance policy. It lasted us 3 years, almost, I guess, it's time for a change.
#{{User|Jaffffey}} - Per SoS, the current policy is just plain ridiculous (okay, not everything, but you know what I mean). This new one looks much better.
#{{User|Paperphailurethemariomonster99}} - SOS, Look at the weather! Partly cloudy with a chance of good ideas!
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Son of Suns. A lot of sections in the Importance Policy are either highly outdated, or conflicts with statements made earlier in that page, or in other rules enforced throughout the site. If we change the Importance Policy to be more explanatory, and more accepting to partner series, writing will be much clearer for new users, as well as older ones that have seen big changes.
#{{User|White Knight}} - Per SoS


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Regardless of contemporary awkwardness, it's still useful comparing the timelines for the ones of the past. I've ''still'' seen people not realize the GBC was in circulation around the same time of the N64 based on nothing but their respective bit-count.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - This feels like a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". While we've always found the "console generations" thing really, really strange (as you can expect from a metric born from ''Wikipedia itself''), we can't deny that it is still useful to a degree, and unlike, say, calling unused content "beta" content, the term "console generation" is still a term that sees active use in gaming circles, even if as of late Nintendo's side of it has gotten a bit desynced. In addition, as was pointed out in the comments, the [[Philips CD-i]] is noticeably absent, but in addition to that, so is the [[Virtual Boy]], which is even more directly Nintendo related? Not that we'd particularly like this even if both of these were accounted for, mind...
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Without the Virtual Boy in here, this numbering scheme just flat-out isn't actually true. As such, I can't support this proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Perhaps a better idea is to use <code>Cross-generation ({{tem|wp|Eighth generation of video game consoles|eighth}}—{{tem|wp|Ninth generation of video game consoles|ninth}})</code> on the Nintendo Switch page and use <code>{{tem|wp|[No.] generation of video game consoles|[No.] generation}}</code> on pages on all other systems. As such, I'm opposing this proposal.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick and Cam&woodstock.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I personally do not invoke console generations when writing about video games - it is not a classification system that has much value to me. I do not think I would support the carte blanche integration of console generations as a large systematic classification system on the wiki. If this proposal was just asking to remove generations from the system infobox, I might be on board. However, console generations are still a widely employed way to separate game media into different eras, and I do not think it is intrinsically harmful to mention them in a paragraph if the editor finds it helpful to relay a specific piece of information. I think users should still have the ability to exercise that freedom.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that this proposal breaks one of the rules for proposals.  Your New Importance Policy says "...we cover all franchises, series, games, etc. that have emerged from or spun-off from the original Donkey Kong arcade game, Mario's first appearance in any media. This includes all Nintendo-authorized video games about Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario, Yoshi, '''Banjo, Conker'''...." The last rule for proposals says "...no proposals calling for the creation of '''Banjo, Conker''', or Sonic series articles are allowed..." So, doesn't this need to be changed? {{User|White Knight}}
I disagree with the premise, since a tool that is helpful but flawed is still helpful. Moreover, we do cover a couple of devices that do not fit on a Nintendo-exclusive relative timeline, namely the [[Philips CD-i]] and the [[Triforce]] arcade boards. I guess "contemporary to the _____" works just as well, but there's a level of "semantics over broader public" thing that I'm a little iffy about if that kind of phrasing has to be used. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 13:51, November 29, 2024 (EST)


:This proposal is not calling for the creation of ''Banjo'' or ''Conker'' content, as such content is already allowed under [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] and is available on the wiki.  This proposal would only clarify the rules regarding such content. Personally I feel that rule should be eliminated, but this proposal is ''not'' calling for the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles, which is banned by the rule based on previous failed proposals. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}


Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me.  I will still have to think my vote over for a bit though. {{User|White Knight}}
Where the HECK is the [[Virtual Boy]] in all of this? Nintendo's ''actual'' third portable console and part of the fourth generation (or fifth? It was supposed to keep customers occupied while waiting for the Nintendo 64), as it was released in 1995? {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:43, November 29, 2024 (EST)


I would like suggest that the Importance Policy should be moved to MarioWiki:Coverage if this passes since the phrase "Importance Policy" seems to call upon classes and rankings, and coverage implies more of classless, equal information (which is what we're going for here). {{User|Daniel Webster}} 12:40, 23 December 2008 (EST)
:I didn't include select consoles in this proposal since my arguments mainly focused on the major [[Nintendo]] consoles. That is not to say consoles like the [[Virtual Boy]] and non-Nintendo consoles like the [[Philips CD-i]] aren't important (they are!), but I wanted to prioritize the issues present with how the video game geration system currently works with the major Nintendo consoles since these alone already present issues with the system without the additions of what was omitted for the purposes of this proposal.
:Soooo.... Please excuse my stupidity; would this proposal allow the "...mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles..." on the wiki? It seems to me that it would. [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]] says nothing particular about Banjo and Conker. Or maybe I'm completely missing the point, which is entirely possible. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
::It would allow individual articles on the ''Mario'', ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', ''Wario'', ''Banjo'', ''Conker'', and ''Pyoro'' series equally, so, yes it would. However, the Banjo and Conker articles can only be ones that Nintendo authorized, so ''Conker: Live and Reloaded'' and ''Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts'' would have no place here other than some mentions in other articles. {{User|Daniel Webster}} 13:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)
:::Got it. So, just trying to clarify here, but we would include information on Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, and Conker: Bad Fur Day, among others. Is this correct? {{user|Bloc Partier}}


Actually we already have articles about the [[Banjo (series)]] and the [[Conker (series)]], which is the minimum requirement that can be allowed under the new [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] (which was re-written after the former proposals passed).  Any content from an officially licensed Nintendo game (Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Banjo-Pilot, Banjo-Kazooie: Grunty's Revenge, Conker's Pocket Tales, and Conker's Bad Fur Day) is allowed, but not content from Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts - those would count as unofficial appearances, but would be notable enough for some mention in a trivia section or a summary at the end of the series articles or something like that. And this proposal '''would not explicitly''' allow the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles. We can add as much official '''content''' to the wiki, but that does not mean the creation of '''articles'''.  So if this passes, separating the merged Banjo series and Conker series may require a seperate proposal, or a discussion on their respective talk pages. This proposal only reinforces that such content is allowed, but not the form it takes (i.e. merged series article vs. individual articles), as the last section in the new policy discusses.  Basically, content is okay, but whether everything in the series gets individual articles, categories and templates is a matter that will have to be resolved later. At the very minimum we would have the general series page with individual entries on characters, items, etc. -- {{User|Son of Suns}} P.S. And yes, "Coverage" is a better term than "Importance Policy."
:Regarding [[Triforce]], that is a whole different category of hardware. Arcade hardware for the most part has never worked with this generation system since it was primarly designed with home and portable consoles in mind. How do you even slot in arcade hardware to begin with? Arcade games had a completely different evolution to their console counterparts and were usually cutting edge at the time before any console equivalents made it to market, and even if they did unlike consoles, arcade hardware differs depending on the game. How can you be sure what a certain arcade game is running on is in a certain generation? --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 18:04, November 29, 2024 (EST)
:Alright. It's clear now. Thank you. {{user|Bloc Partier}}


'''Son of Suns''': there's a couple holes in your argument against the [[:Image:Importancetree.png|Importance Policy Chart]]. As explained in the text of the [[MarioWiki:Importance_Policy#Primary_Focus|Importance Policy Page]], "Mario" meant everything that had "Mario" in the title (including ''Mario Kart'', etc.,) not just the mainstream ''Mario'' titles; it also infers ''WarioWare'' is covered under ''Wario'', so in that case, ''Pyoro'' would still be a tertiary game. I'd also like to point out something that no one (to my knowledge) has addressed: Banjo and Conker ''aren't'' from a "Donkey Kong" title, but from ''[[Diddy Kong Racing|'''Diddy Kong''' Racing]]''; so by your argument, they'd be quaternary, just like ''Pyoro'' (though I'm still siding with the Importance Page and saying they're tertiary, and ''Diddy Kong Racing'' secondary). However, I totally agree that the "Importance Levels" are a bad way to try and organize the Wiki (I especially don't like how the crossovers are quaternary, as they are at least as important at the spin-spin-offs (''Banjo'', et al.), in my opinion). I think this would be a better way to go about things, but I also think the ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Pyoro'' aspect should be clarified a bit more. The aforementioned chart had much to be desired, but the nebulous nature of this new policy means it is wide open to interpretation, which we do not want; if we're going to enact a new policy, we should know ''exactly'' what will happen and what ''will'' or ''will not'' be created. I'm all for series pages and ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Pyoro'' content therein, but this opens a back-door to creating individual articles down the road - something I'm against. My reasoning, and my own suggested "Coverage Chart" can be seen [[User:Walkazo/Essays#How I'd Organize the Content of the Super Mario Wiki|here]]. There are no levels of importance, but ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Pyoro'' are allotted less coverage on the grounds that they aren't as interconnected with the other ''Mario'' series. I also discuss an enhanced coverage of crossovers, but I am fine with your own suggested method - my only beef is with the uncertain future of ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Pyoro''  content. - {{User|Walkazo}}
@Doc von Schmeltwick: I don't really see how that's an argument against this proposal. We have the release dates listed for the consoles, and the Game Boy Color article's very first sentence describes it as "the handheld counterpart of the Nintendo 64". Why is it also necessary to call them "fifth generation"? I'd argue that it's probably the least clear way of showing the connection, because I can't imagine "fifth generation" means anything to someone who doesn't know about when those consoles released. Not to mention that being in the same "generation" doesn't necessarily mean they were being sold at the same time, as the Wii U and Switch demonstrate. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:30, November 29, 2024 (EST)
:OK, just a small interjection here: why are we thinking so much into the Pyoro "series?" The so called series is simply a recurring minigame of the ''WarioWare'' series. Yes, I do know that it will soon have it's own game in the DSi Ware thing (for, what, 300 points?), but I still don't think that it will ever become it's own freely standing series. We are thinking way too far into the future, if you ask me. Also, I think that, as a recurring minigame and not a series, we should include as much information on it as we can. I mean, what other wiki will have information on it? Just my thoughts.


:Also, I removed my vote because I'm having trouble deciding. I actually like the "...extremely convoluted...superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance..." and the "...hierarchy of supposed importance..." Call me an idiot or whatever, but I'll decide later. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
@Ahemtoday: Please read above the comment I made in regards to the absence of [[Virtual Boy]]. Keep and mind that I was presenting it as one possible solution if video game console generations were removed. That is not to say it should be the solution used hence why I provided another alternative one. If the first system was implemented into the wiki than I would imagine [[Virtual Boy]] being included. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 18:25, November 29, 2024 (EST)
::I think the real issue is about (as always) ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'', but this whole thing was brought up again when an issue about the ''Pyoro'' game was brought-up, [[Talk:Main Page#Pyoro and Paper Plane|here]]. Since they're all in the same boat as far as spin-spin-offs go, we're now including ''Pyoro'' when we discuss ''Banjo'' and ''Conker''. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 19:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)


I feel we (or at least I) do want interpretation.  I do want flexibility.  I do want the ability to change the wiki as needed by the community without recreating policies every couple months.  The problem with a few past proposals and policies is that they dictate a certain way articles must be created/organized based on random criteria.  This proposal is more flexible in order to accomodate the needs of the changing community.  This proposal would only reinforce the Banjo and Conker series pages - if a majority of users would later want to create individual articles, so be it.  That '''should not be denied''' because you personally feel they should not be created.  The matter should be subject to a democratic vote, not a dictatorial policy. As we have not had any proposals on Pyoro, as many articles about that mini-series can be created, unless the communty decides otherwise.  Perhaps they will be merged on day.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps Banjo will be unmerged and Conker will stay merged.  I feel it should be for the wiki to decide on an individual basis, not based on a strict policy, which leads to assuming certain series are more important than others (which your Coverage Chart does on some level by placing series under other series and thus should not have more artcles - it is very similar to the current speculative Importance Policy).  The decision for article creation should not be part of an official policy, but community decision (based on proposals, talk pages, etc.). Personally I feel Banjo and Conker should have more articles than WarioWare, because there are clear geographic and historical links between Donkey Kong, Banjo, Conker, Diddy Kong, Squawks, and Mario; the same can not be said for WarioWare (besides Wario). Banjo and Conker are more interconnected with the greater Mario franchise than WarioWare, and thus should have as many articles or more than the WarioWare series.  But that's my personal opinion, and should not be reflected in an official policy, just as your opinion about them having less importance should not be used to justify less articles for Banjo and Conker content.  By offering flexibility, we can change the wiki based on new circumstances, instead of being stuck in stasis. -- {{User|Son of Suns}} P.S. To Bloc Partier, we'll still have hierarchies of sorts, but they will be established by the community, not by a subjective overarching policy in place for all time.  I added a section about our [[User:Son of Suns/Sandbox#Current Regulations|current regulations]] to the new policy.  This policy will not destroy barriers between Mario and other series - it only removes the speculation of what is more canonical.  The wiki can still decide what the wiki's focus is collectively while keeping official information.
Do we really discuss console generations extensively on the wiki? I do not know of any examples offhand. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:40, November 29, 2024 (EST)


To Walkazo, perhaps that was too harsh wording.  Your essay seems open to change as well, which is why I feel we should just keep the policy open.  Perhaps at the bottom of the policy we could list major proposals that have passed to provide the specifics regarding each series, but also note these rules is subject to change (but must be obeyed until they are changed).  In regards to Banjo and Conker content, they are to remain on their individual series pages unless the wiki decides otherwise at a later date.  Again, Pyoro is up in the air, as there has been no proposal about it.  A section keeping track of proposals regarding article creation would give explicit instructions without affecting the main policy. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
:The [[Family Computer]] and [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] articles are obvious examples but there's [[Mario%27s_Puzzle_Party#Trivia|this article's trivia section]] as an example of non-console articles.--[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 00:08, November 30, 2024 (EST)


Also, this policy would not mean we couldn't create series articles based on other franchises.  Again, as long as the content is retained, it can be organized any way we agree upon.  So your Star Fox and Sonic series articles are a definite possibility, although I think the main series of Itadaki Street is actually Dragon Warrior. =D -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
<blockquote>"''There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead.''"</blockquote>
:Yeah, of course we'll decide how much coverage ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' get democratically (and if we ''were'' a dictatorship, '''''I'''''<nowiki>'</nowiki>d hardly be the one making the rules); I was merely voicing my concerns, just as this proposal is ''you'' voicing ''your'' ideas. Personal pronouns have a nasty habit of making one seem like an egomaniac who only cares about what ''they themselves'' want, but it's hard to not use them in response to certain types of proposals - I don't know if people share my view: I can only speak for myself. Now, about my Coverage Chart: it's based on a web I drew (on a piece of paper) showing how the series branch off from each other. Wiki syntax makes 2D representations kinda hard, so I compromised with the indenting on the chart - it's meant to represent a family tree, not a hierarchy. Moving on... You raise a good point about ''WarioWare'' being less connected to the other games as ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' as far as in-game aspects go (if you ignore all the ''Mario''-themed [[microgames]]), however ''WarioWare'' is trademarked by Nintendo, whereas ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' were never directly owned by Nintendo - they were, and still are, [[Rare]]'s creations. That's why they went with Rare when it was bought-out by Microsoft (whereas things like ''Donkey Kong'' remained with Nintendo), which is another source of problems surrounding the inclusion of ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' material. You say ''Conker: Live & Reloaded'' and ''Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts'' aren't "official" because they were made during Microsoft's ownership of Rare, but I ask you, why? They aren't fangames or black-market swag, they're legal, valid aspects of the ''Banjo'' and ''Kazooie'' series. My opinion on this matter is solely a result of reading [[Wikipedia:Rare_(company)|this article]], so I could be way-off, but as I see it now, whether it's Nintendo's fish by way or Rare, or Microsoft's fish by way of Rare doesn't matter, it's still a fish, and it's still Rare's catch. The whole thing confuses the issue of what is and isn't official (one of the reasons I'd just as soon stay away from ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' for now), but most people don't actually care about who owns what, and would just notice the lack of recent ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' information...  - {{User|Walkazo}}


I'm currently neutral on this proposal, but are the ''Banjo'' and ''Kazooie'' series really spin-offs of ''Diddy Kong Racing''? As far as I know, the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' games were already in development before ''Diddy Kong Racing'''s release, and the two characters were put in for advertising the future games. Would anyone call ''Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi'' a spin-off of ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'' because [[Roy (SSBM)|Roy]] appeared first in the latter game? [[Banjo]]'s article also tells that he starred in ''Diddy Kong Racing'' for advertising ''Banjo-Kazooie''. The user [[User:KingMario|KingMario]] pointed that out. Not that this would change something to this proposal, just wanted to tell, since the series articles say they are spin-offs which might be incorrect. --{{User|Grandy02}}
But then I have to question: what about the {{wp|SG-1000}} and the {{wp|Master System|Mark III/Master System}} releasing just shy of a few years? I know it has a very time span compared to the Wii U and Switch, but if they are bundled under the third-generation, the Switch should also be this way for the eighth, right? {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 01:00, November 30, 2024 (EST)
:There have been countless debates regarding the {{wp|SG-1000}} in particular due to it sharing nearly the exact same hardware as the {{wp|ColecoVision}} yet both consoles are in different generations despite being released within one year apart. However this side of the console generations debate is not relevant to the scope of this wiki.--[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 01:20, November 30, 2024 (EST)
:The wiki actually does currently consider the Switch to be "eighth generation", as seen in the infobox on its page. Which is a bit confusing since it puts it in the same generation as the Wii U even though the only thing making them less separate is the release timing of other consoles not covered by this wiki. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:42, November 30, 2024 (EST)
::I personally feel that is more than enough reason to remove video game console generations from this wiki. We already have "Predecessor" and "Successor" as a more straight forward tool. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 23:33, November 30, 2024 (EST)
:::I agree. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:43, December 1, 2024 (EST)


Who knows if someone from Warioware isn't going to appear in the DSI Pyoro game?
I'm only here to say that I vehemently reject the Wikipedia consensus on Switch being 8th gen console. Sure, it competed with 8th gen Playstation 4 and Xbox One, but Nintendo officially regards Switch separate from Wii U. What about Sega Genesis or Turbografx, are they 3rd gen because they were released to one-up NES? Or is Playstation 1 4th gen because of its origins as a SNES add-on? Hell, since [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/hardware/index.html Nintendo considers Game Boy Color to be just another Game Boy iteration], shouldn't that really be a 4th gen handheld that happened to be released during 5th-6th gens and trounced its competition? I don't care which way this wiki goes with this proposal, but the Switch placement is one that irks me because 3DS and Wii U already cover Nintendo's 8th gen hardware lineup. Thus Switch should be the start of 9th gen and no amount of "because Wikipedia says so" is going to convince me otherwise. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 03:12, December 1, 2024 (EST)
:The main reason I started this proposal to begin with was to showcase the flaws in the system which include things you've mentioned here. The video game console generation system that is currently being used has its roots as something made up by Wikipedia editors and to this day they influence what consoles are in what generation. Even if you don't use Wikipedia you've felt this influence everywhere in the video games space which does include this wiki. Therefore, removing video game console generations would be beneficial to this wiki as it would allow the contributors to this wiki be able to decide for themselves how to handle describing video game consoles. I provided two possible solutions if this proposal passes but that is not to say they are the only solutions, but removing video game console generations is the first step towards better alternatives in the long run. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 04:57, December 1, 2024 (EST)


And as Bloc Partier pointed out above, Pyoro was alway a recuring character in Warioware (Storyline-wise, he's even the reason the series exist), meanwhile, Banjo and Conker were only two guys put in a spin-off of a spin-off to advertise their own games and who were taken out of the remake. The Pyoro\BanjoConker comparison is full of holes. --{{User|Blitzwing}}
==Changes==
===Move {{tem|ref needed}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} to {{tem|citation needed}} and {{tem|ref needed}} respectively===
Let me tell you what: the {{tem|ref needed}} template currently reads the following:
 
<pre>
<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''citation needed'']]&#93;</sup><includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Superscript templates]]</noinclude>
</pre>
 
<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''citation needed'']]&#93;</sup>


Some responses:
I also found that the {{tem|unreferenced}} tag has its name taken from Wikipedia. I just wonder if those are errors. I humbly ask if there's a possibility to rename the templates using three options:


1) This proposal is not about Banjo and Conker, which cannot be denied under the current [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] policy (this would have to be changed to make Banjo and Conker content from official Nintendo games illegitimate).  This new Importance Policy will instead ensure such content is placed in two articles (in a database of close to 9000) instead of hundreds of articles being created and Banjo content being placed in Mario categories, etc. This policy serves as clarification - a place where the rules developed in proposals can be seen and thus followed.
;Option 1: Move {{tem|ref needed}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} to {{tem|citation needed}} and {{tem|ref needed}} and make the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template more specific.
;Option 2: ONLY move <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> respectively.
;Option 3: Do NOTHING.


2) Actually Banjo and Conker were "owned" by Nintendo at one time, just as Mario was "owned" by Philips at one time.  Rare was a second party owned by Nintendo and was given official approval to create Diddy Kong Racing, the Banjo series, and the Conker series and were allowed to create those connections, establishing a clear link between all three.  Similarly, Philips was allowed by Nintendo to create Mario games such as Hotel Mario. If we decide to base articles ''solely on the present'' instead of actions in the past, we would have to eliminate most of the articles on Super Mario RPG, as the characters are now owned by Square-Enix (a third party company), not Nintendo. This is shown by Geno's inclusion in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. He is a copyright of Square-Enix, and thus should not have an article if we include only characters "owned" by Nintendo.  Nuts & Bolts and Live & Reloaded would not be included here based on [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]], which only allows content from licensed Nintendo products, which those two games clearly are not.
In case of option 1, the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:


3) I'm not actually sure where the Pyoro "comparison" came in, as it is not part of the proposal but part of the old Importance Policy which this proposal is trying to change.  Again, Banjo and Conker have established connections both in the games and in the fictional universes, and thus have a "label" of "spin-off" (which is as artificial as calling Mario Kart a "spin-off" - it's just a label).  What is important is that there are clear connections between the three series as established by Diddy Kong Racing.  Based on [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] and [[MarioWiki: Chronology]], remakes are no more "true" than the original, so just because Banjo and Conker were not in Diddy Kong Racing DS makes no difference to their relative importance (but may be important for how we organize such content). Just as we don't get rid of connections made in Super Mario 64 because it has been remade, the same applies to Diddy Kong Racing DS.  And the label of "spin-off" does make some sense based on the clear connections made in the fictional universe.  This is made explicit in the story of Diddy Kong Racing (as described by the official instruction booklet).  When Wizpig attacks Timber’s Island, Timber sends a letter to Diddy Kong asking for help.  Diddy Kong responds by writing letters to his friends Banjo and Conker, asking then to come along on his adventure.  Diddy Kong then has Squawks personally deliver the handwritten letters to Banjo and Conker.  This establishes a clear historical and geographical connection between Diddy Kong, Banjo and Conker.  They don’t simply meet for the first time in this game, they have been friends for a some amount of time before.  Also, the parrot Squawks is able to fly to Banjo and Conker, establishing that they all live relatively close together.
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>
</pre>


Also consider the official profiles for these characters.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This article '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>
----


'''Banjo''' (page 24): "Even before the start of his future partnership with Kazooie, Banjo isn’t one to turn down the chance of an adventure.  So when Squawks brings the message from his pal Diddy Kong, the Honey Bear stuffs a few things into his trusty backpack and takes to his heels."
However, if this proposal passes with option 1 being the most voted, guess what? in addition to the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> template being moved to <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki>, the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template will be moved to <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and will read more specifically as follows:


As above, this establishes a connection between Banjo, Diddy Kong, and Squawks. This references also indicates that Diddy Kong Racing chronologically takes place before Banjo-Kazooie, that this part of the Donkey Kong series is a part of the same continuum as Banjo’s timeline.
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs at least one more citation for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
</div>
</pre>


'''Conker''' (page 24):
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
"Another friend made by Diddy Kong on one of his endless adventures with Donkey Kong.  Conker is also an exploration nut who’ll jump at any chance to break free of a squirrel’s less than exciting routine.  He’s eager to join up with Banjo as the bear passes through."
This article '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
</div>
----


Conker not only has an explicit connection with Diddy Kong and Banjo, he is also connected to Donkey Kong himself.  All four of these characters met before the events of the game, establishing the geographical and historical connections made above.
For example, placing the <code>more=yes</code>, <code>section=yes</code>, and <code>reason=Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources.</code> will have the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> more specifically read as follows:


There are also some more minor references that not only establish links between the worlds of Donkey Kong, Banjo, and Conker, but to Mario’s world as well.
----
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This section '''needs at least one more citation for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. '''Specific(s):''' Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources.<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this section}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
</div>
----


*The character Tiptup is in both Diddy Kong Racing and Diddy Kong Racing DS, as well as Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie.  Tiptup and Banjo first met in Diddy Kong Racing, and would chronologically later meet up again twice in the Banjo series.  His relatively major presence in all these games indicates a strong link between all four titles, even if Banjo and Conker were not included in Diddy Kong Racing DS.
If this proposal passes with option 2 being the most voted, we'll only move the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> templates to <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki>, respectively.
*In Banjo-Kazooie, the character "Gnawty the Beaver" looks exactly like the Gnawty enemy from Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong 64.  Gnawty could be considered a representative member of his species, just as Yoshi is to the Yoshis and Toad is to the Toads.
*In Banjo-Kazooie, a picture of Conker’s girlfriend Berri can be found in Rusty Bucket Bay.  Gruntilda also mentions Conker the Squirrel in her quiz at the end of the game.  Additionally, not only Donkey Kong but the original Donkey Kong Mario battled, Cranky Kong, is mentioned by Gruntilda.
*In Banjo-Tooie, the character Goggles has a Donkey Kong doll.
*In Banjo-Tooie, the toilet character Loggo is clogged up with paper.  Kazooie tells him to call a plumber, then suggests that Mario might be free.  Loggo then states he doesn’t think Mario is in that line of work anymore.  This conversation indicates that it would be possible for Mario to travel to Loggo’s location if needed, and that there is awareness in Banjo’s world that Mario’s profession has changed throughout his many adventures in the Mushroom Kingdom.


4) The last point is, regardless if Banjo and Conker were in development, Nintendo '''did not have to release the games.'''  They owned Rare and did not have to license their products nor did they have to create connections between Donkey Kong, Banjo, Conker, Diddy Kong and Mario.  New characters are always being created to promote new franchises.  Wario was created and placed in a Mario game then immediately had his own series, just like Banjo and Conker. Ultimately Nintendo '''made a choice''' and established this connection and approved the continuation of the Banjo and Conker series.  We should respect that choice, just as we respect Nintendo's choice to make a game about a jumping carpenter and a stubborn ape instead of a game about Popeye and Bluto. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
Which option do you wish to choose?


I agree that ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' have more connections story-wise to the main ''DK/Mario'' series we cover than ''WarioWare''. But also ''WarioWare'' has some, the by far strongest one being Wario himself, who is a very important recurring character in the ''Mario'' series (that can't be said about Banjo and Conker), but Diamond City and the Wario Bike have also appeared in the ''Mario Kart'' series. In terms of story-unrelated references, ''WarioWare'' surely has more content (all those ''Mario''-related microgames and mini-games and the ''Mario Paint'' content). Anyway, if I understand this proposal right, it does '''not''' mean that we create articles on everything in ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'', but can also have just one article per series instead? I'd go with the latter one, because of the lack of appearances of Banjo and Conker in the ''Mario/DK'' series, unlike Wario, who is a recurring character in the ''Mario'' series (and Pyoro being a recurring character in ''WarioWare'' again). But then it should also include the Microsoft-published titles, even if they aren't authorized by Nintendo, they are still official for the two named series. So, please tell if understand this proposal right. --{{User|Grandy02}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
:I think you understand the proposal (and if you don't, then I don't either), and I also agree that the Microsoft games should be included. After all, by allowing the trademarks for ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' to remain with Rare, in a way, Nintendo ''was'' sanctioning the creation of future ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' titles. Nintendo leases out its characters all the time (i.e. the aforementioned ''Hotel Mario''), and this time it sold its characters instead. As for the ''Super Mario RPG'' example, that sounds more like a double-standard than a justification of keeping the Microsoft content out: if the ''SMRPG'' characters owned by the third-party company Square Enix are still "official", why not the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' characters now owned by Microsoft? If we include those series at all, we're making a judgement call concerning canonicity: the characters started out in a ''Mario'' (spin-off) game, therefore they are canon, and everything they do is canon. "Everything" includes ''Conker: Live & Reloaded'' and ''Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts'' - if we're dealing with canonicity (and have already established these games are legal commodities, not fan creations), why bring Real World economics into it at all? Also, the [http://banjokazooie.wikia.com/wiki/Banjo-Kazooie_Series ''Banjo-Kazooie'' Wiki] doesn't discriminate between the pre- and post-Microsoft games, so why should we? Moving on, most of the cross-references between the ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Mario'' series that Son of Suns kindly provided us, seem, to me, no more major than the many [[Video game references|''Zelda''-''Mario'' connections]]. Video game companies like to establish links between their franchises - it's fun (and it's free advertising), but compared to Grandy02's ''WarioWare'' appearances in ''Mario Kart'', it's not very significant. - {{User|Walkazo}}
'''Deadline''': December 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT


::I am afraid that this proposal will go too far, which is why I hove not yet voted. It seems to me (currently, my opinion could possibly change) that it is just a quite complex mask to bring back ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' articles. I don't want that to happen. I love ''Banjo-Kazooie'' and its sequels, but I do not want articles about them here. And I ''really'' don't want ''Conker'' stuff here, for the same and different reasons. I believe that the series articles are fine, but this proposal seems to hint that the wiki will go much further than just the series articles if it passes.
====Option 1====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal


::Also, I don't see why we can't cover more ''WarioWare'' stuff. To me, Mario and WarioWare are clearly related, and only by complicated, legalistic logic can we deduce that Mario, Conker, and Banjo are somewhat related. Yeah, I understand the tier thing, with Mario at the top, then Yoshi, Wario, DK, then Banjo/Conker and WarioWare, but if anything, that's screwed up. You can argue that the Wario series are spin-offs of Mario, and the WarioWare series is a spin-off of Wario, but I fail to see how that puts the WarioWare series on the same tier as the Banjo & Conker series because the former is clearly closer related to the Mario series than the latter. So yeah, that's just my opinions and reasoning. Please excuse my lack of italics. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
====Option 2====


I think all three of you stated things perfectly.  Banjo and Conker are '''definitely''' less related than WarioWare, and that's why they are only allocated series pages (as listed in the [[User:Son of Suns/Sandbox#Current Regulations|regulations section]]).  They aren't that important, but that does not mean they are completely un-important to the Mario franchise and thus should be left out.  The Banjo and Conker series pages are good compromises - providing coverage of a connected series but preventing the creation of hundreds of Banjo and Conker articles (this is stated in the policy, based on the comments provided by Walkazo).  Addressing Bloc Partier's concerns, this policy would do away with complicated degrees or tiers of seperation and connection between series, which is very speculative.  So while Banjo, Conker, and WarioWare may be on the same "tier" (based on certain interpretations), we can say Banjo and Conker are less important than WarioWare, which means all Banjo and Conker content gets stuck in two articles, whereas WarioWare are given individual articles, showing their greater importance to the Mario franchise. As far as Microsoft titles are concerned, the series pages features sections about games for Microsoft systems, but under [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] it would be hard to say whether the two Microsoft-only titles could be represented here, as they are not directly licensed by Nintendo nor was the production of the games approved, as Microsoft can do whatever it wants with Banjo and Conker (probably), whereas I am sure Phillips had restrictions on what it could do with Mario (i.e., couldn't make a game about Mario shooting up drugs or something). So those games would have some mention, but MarioWiki: Canonicity would likely prevent complete coverage, as the Mario franchise is controlled by Nintendo and Nintendo has no say in what Microsoft does. -- {{User|Son of Suns}} P.S. Looking over [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]], information from the two Microsoft games could count as ''notable mainstream appearances'' of Banjo and Conker, and thus such content could be allowed on the series pages.  However, such content would not be completely protected - if the wiki agrees the content is not notable enough for inclusion, then the content may be dropped.  The other games are licensed by Nintendo, and thus their inclusion is allowed under MarioWiki: Canonicity.  What is "notable" outside Nintendo's licensing is subject to debate.
====Option 3====
:Sounds good. You're earlier comment stating that the proposal "would not '''explicitly''' allow the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles" and that that "'''may''' require a separate proposal" (emphases my own) particularly worried me ("weasel words", and all that), but now that you've clarified they will ''only'' have series pages, I'm fine with the policy. Perhaps we can make another Proposal concerning the Microsoft games, so they're not floating around in the limbo of uncertain notability (once this one runs its course and tells us exactly what policy we'd be building upon, that is). - {{User|Walkazo}}
#{{User|Hewer}} What is the point of this? Switching around the names of those templates is unnecessary at best and confusing at worst, and I don't see how the slightly changed wording of the unreferenced template makes it in any way "more specific". This just feels like changing things for the sake of changing things.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Seems like an unnecessary change, and moving one template to the old name of an unrelated template is just asking to make an even bigger mess of old revisions. When you make proposals, you really should explain why the status quo is a problem and how your proposed solution will fix it.


::Right.  Bad choice of words on my part.  This policy is only about content, not articles.  As stated at the end of the policy, article creation would be dependent on proposals, then listed at the end of the policy so everyone has quick access to decisions regarding what the community has determined deserves articles and what does not deserve articles. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
====Comments====
:::Alright! Thank you so much for the second clarification. It cleared it up a lot. Cheers! {{user|Bloc Partier}}


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

Latest revision as of 12:00, December 2, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, December 2nd, 19:17 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

If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. 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}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. Proposals conclude 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.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(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.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. 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.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  9. 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.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. 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: "December 2, 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. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. 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)
Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Create a template to crop images on-the-fly without having to tamper with the base file's dimensions

Based on the early vote, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on December 4 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

So Wildgoosespeeder (talk) shared this nifty template that TCRF has: tcrf:Template:CSS image crop, which allows images to be displayed in mainspace at a cut-out size from how they are on the image files themselves. This has two utilities: one is shrinking to a relevant entity in group textures such as this oneMedia:M&SatL2012OG Wii audience.png, and the other is to avoid blank space without having to crop the raw graphic parameters - thus allowing best-of-both-worlds for the previous proposal I attempted (and failed), as it satisfies the OCD itch of avoiding bad and/or inconsistent crops on the base files without taking up unnecessary space where the images are actually used. It also removes a lot of unnecessary work actually cropping/uncropping images since you don't have to save them to a machine/web address to upload a new version - you can just put in the parameters you want and go from there.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: December 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT

C-S-Yes

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Goes without saying I think this is a good idea.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
  3. Jdtendo (talk) It's better to crop an existing image programmatically than having to upload a cropped version for a specific use case.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Pseudo (talk) Seems useful.
  6. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Sometimes I just find random things on other Wikis and remember a previously failed proposal. I hope this helps out!
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Jdtendo! this seems very useful
  8. Axii (talk) Per proposal.
  9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Mister Wu (talk) I guess this could lead to less image editing which is definitely a positive.

No new template

Comments on CSS image crop

This appears to be similar to a template I have made in order to crop images to perfectly squared off icons for uses on pages such as Pipe Frame (e.g. displaying Mii Racing Suit icons in the same table as other character icons); however, the version you're presenting seems to include more options. I'm not gonna vote yet, but so far I don't see the harm to have this other template too. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 06:42, November 27, 2024 (EST)

Removals

Remove video game console generations

I would imagine most people who have discussed video games in the past have heard of video game console generations. It is a tool to categorize video game hardware and its place in time. There is just one problem: the current video game console generation system is flawed. If you would like to further read into the specifics as to why I would recommend this Time Extension article by Jack Yarwood. But in short, the phrase "next generation" originates as a term used starting around the 1990s, as video games evolved over the many years, Wikipedia editors would create their own video game console generation system that has for the most part remained unchanged since its introduction in the early 2000s. This generation system would slowly be adopted by other sites, media, and the people who engage with video games.

Within the scope of the major Nintendo video game consoles, this is currently how the video game console generation system is categorized.

First generation: Color TV-Game
Second generation: Game & Watch
Third generation: Family Computer, Nintendo Entertainment System
Fourth generation: Super Famicom, Super Nintendo Entertainment System, Game Boy
Fifth generation: Nintendo 64, Game Boy Color
Sixth generation: Nintendo GameCube, Game Boy Advance
Seventh generation: Wii, Nintendo DS
Eighth generation: Wii U, Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo Switch
Ninth generation: Nintendo Switch

There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead. Because of this, it is not entirely clear where the Nintendo Switch is in the video game console generation system and the solution is to simply file it in both generations rather than one or the other.

Now the Nintendo Switch is a hybrid console, but what about portable consoles? The current video game console generation system lumps in both home and portable consoles. If the goal of the generation system was to be based on hardware specifications than it ultimately falls flat with consoles such as the 16-bit Super Famicom and Super Nintendo Entertainment System home consoles being in the same generation as the 8-bit Game Boy portable console. For home consoles there is absolutely nothing in the second generation, with the Color TV-Game consoles being in the first and the Family Computer and Nintendo Entertainment System consoles being in the third. Portable consoles have a similar issue with nothing in the third generation, with the Game & Watch line in the second and the Game Boy being in the fourth.

For these reasons, I think it should be considered to remove video game console generations from this wiki. It is ultimately a flawed tool that originates as something made up by various Wikipedia editors that stuck around for far too long without real consideration of its flaws. If video game console generations are removed, we should gravitate towards more factual descriptions that better represent the consoles.

Home consoles: 1. Color TV-Game 2. Family Computer, Nintendo Entertainment System 3. Super Famicom, Super Nintendo Entertainment System 4. Nintendo 64 5. Nintendo GameCube, 6. Wii 7. Wii U 8. Nintendo Switch
Portable consoles: 1. Game & Watch 2. Game Boy 3. Game Boy Color 4. Game Boy Advance 5. Nintendo DS 6. Nintendo 3DS 7. Nintendo Switch

Home console example: "The Nintendo 64 is the fourth Nintendo home console platform."
Portable console example: "The Nintendo DS is the fifth Nintendo portable console platform."
Hybrid console example: "The Nintendo Switch is the seventh portable and eighth home Nintendo console platform."

This alternative system does have flaws with the Switch being in two categories again, however that is due to the Switch being a hybrid between a home and portable console. The reason the console is in two video game generations according to Wikipedia is not as clear. Another much straightforward solution would be to simply list the predecessor and successor of each console.

Example: "The predecessor to the Nintendo 64 is the Super Famicom and Super Nintendo Entertainment System and the successor is the Nintendo GameCube."

This is the most likely solution if video game console generations were removed. It is easy to understand and already implemented to an extent. The work required is simply the removal process with minimal addition.

Proposer: Bro3256 (talk)
Deadline: December 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) console generations make more sense when comparing against several different consoles. for our use case, they're pretty irrelevant.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer and EvieMaybe.
  4. Bro3256 (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, specifically the second suggested solution of not numbering consoles at all. Saves the unnecessary confusion.
  6. winstein (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Regardless of contemporary awkwardness, it's still useful comparing the timelines for the ones of the past. I've still seen people not realize the GBC was in circulation around the same time of the N64 based on nothing but their respective bit-count.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) - This feels like a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". While we've always found the "console generations" thing really, really strange (as you can expect from a metric born from Wikipedia itself), we can't deny that it is still useful to a degree, and unlike, say, calling unused content "beta" content, the term "console generation" is still a term that sees active use in gaming circles, even if as of late Nintendo's side of it has gotten a bit desynced. In addition, as was pointed out in the comments, the Philips CD-i is noticeably absent, but in addition to that, so is the Virtual Boy, which is even more directly Nintendo related? Not that we'd particularly like this even if both of these were accounted for, mind...
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Without the Virtual Boy in here, this numbering scheme just flat-out isn't actually true. As such, I can't support this proposal.
  4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Perhaps a better idea is to use Cross-generation ({{wp|Eighth generation of video game consoles|eighth}}—{{wp|Ninth generation of video game consoles|ninth}}) on the Nintendo Switch page and use {{wp|[No.] generation of video game consoles|[No.] generation}} on pages on all other systems. As such, I'm opposing this proposal.
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick and Cam&woodstock.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) I personally do not invoke console generations when writing about video games - it is not a classification system that has much value to me. I do not think I would support the carte blanche integration of console generations as a large systematic classification system on the wiki. If this proposal was just asking to remove generations from the system infobox, I might be on board. However, console generations are still a widely employed way to separate game media into different eras, and I do not think it is intrinsically harmful to mention them in a paragraph if the editor finds it helpful to relay a specific piece of information. I think users should still have the ability to exercise that freedom.
  7. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.

Comments

I disagree with the premise, since a tool that is helpful but flawed is still helpful. Moreover, we do cover a couple of devices that do not fit on a Nintendo-exclusive relative timeline, namely the Philips CD-i and the Triforce arcade boards. I guess "contemporary to the _____" works just as well, but there's a level of "semantics over broader public" thing that I'm a little iffy about if that kind of phrasing has to be used. Salmancer (talk) 13:51, November 29, 2024 (EST)


Where the HECK is the Virtual Boy in all of this? Nintendo's actual third portable console and part of the fourth generation (or fifth? It was supposed to keep customers occupied while waiting for the Nintendo 64), as it was released in 1995? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 15:43, November 29, 2024 (EST)

I didn't include select consoles in this proposal since my arguments mainly focused on the major Nintendo consoles. That is not to say consoles like the Virtual Boy and non-Nintendo consoles like the Philips CD-i aren't important (they are!), but I wanted to prioritize the issues present with how the video game geration system currently works with the major Nintendo consoles since these alone already present issues with the system without the additions of what was omitted for the purposes of this proposal.
Regarding Triforce, that is a whole different category of hardware. Arcade hardware for the most part has never worked with this generation system since it was primarly designed with home and portable consoles in mind. How do you even slot in arcade hardware to begin with? Arcade games had a completely different evolution to their console counterparts and were usually cutting edge at the time before any console equivalents made it to market, and even if they did unlike consoles, arcade hardware differs depending on the game. How can you be sure what a certain arcade game is running on is in a certain generation? --Bro3256 (talk) 18:04, November 29, 2024 (EST)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: I don't really see how that's an argument against this proposal. We have the release dates listed for the consoles, and the Game Boy Color article's very first sentence describes it as "the handheld counterpart of the Nintendo 64". Why is it also necessary to call them "fifth generation"? I'd argue that it's probably the least clear way of showing the connection, because I can't imagine "fifth generation" means anything to someone who doesn't know about when those consoles released. Not to mention that being in the same "generation" doesn't necessarily mean they were being sold at the same time, as the Wii U and Switch demonstrate. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:30, November 29, 2024 (EST)

@Ahemtoday: Please read above the comment I made in regards to the absence of Virtual Boy. Keep and mind that I was presenting it as one possible solution if video game console generations were removed. That is not to say it should be the solution used hence why I provided another alternative one. If the first system was implemented into the wiki than I would imagine Virtual Boy being included. --Bro3256 (talk) 18:25, November 29, 2024 (EST)

Do we really discuss console generations extensively on the wiki? I do not know of any examples offhand. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:40, November 29, 2024 (EST)

The Family Computer and Nintendo Entertainment System articles are obvious examples but there's this article's trivia section as an example of non-console articles.--Bro3256 (talk) 00:08, November 30, 2024 (EST)

"There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead."

But then I have to question: what about the SG-1000 and the Mark III/Master System releasing just shy of a few years? I know it has a very time span compared to the Wii U and Switch, but if they are bundled under the third-generation, the Switch should also be this way for the eighth, right? -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 01:00, November 30, 2024 (EST)

There have been countless debates regarding the SG-1000 in particular due to it sharing nearly the exact same hardware as the ColecoVision yet both consoles are in different generations despite being released within one year apart. However this side of the console generations debate is not relevant to the scope of this wiki.--Bro3256 (talk) 01:20, November 30, 2024 (EST)
The wiki actually does currently consider the Switch to be "eighth generation", as seen in the infobox on its page. Which is a bit confusing since it puts it in the same generation as the Wii U even though the only thing making them less separate is the release timing of other consoles not covered by this wiki. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:42, November 30, 2024 (EST)
I personally feel that is more than enough reason to remove video game console generations from this wiki. We already have "Predecessor" and "Successor" as a more straight forward tool. --Bro3256 (talk) 23:33, November 30, 2024 (EST)
I agree. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:43, December 1, 2024 (EST)

I'm only here to say that I vehemently reject the Wikipedia consensus on Switch being 8th gen console. Sure, it competed with 8th gen Playstation 4 and Xbox One, but Nintendo officially regards Switch separate from Wii U. What about Sega Genesis or Turbografx, are they 3rd gen because they were released to one-up NES? Or is Playstation 1 4th gen because of its origins as a SNES add-on? Hell, since Nintendo considers Game Boy Color to be just another Game Boy iteration, shouldn't that really be a 4th gen handheld that happened to be released during 5th-6th gens and trounced its competition? I don't care which way this wiki goes with this proposal, but the Switch placement is one that irks me because 3DS and Wii U already cover Nintendo's 8th gen hardware lineup. Thus Switch should be the start of 9th gen and no amount of "because Wikipedia says so" is going to convince me otherwise. SmokedChili (talk) 03:12, December 1, 2024 (EST)

The main reason I started this proposal to begin with was to showcase the flaws in the system which include things you've mentioned here. The video game console generation system that is currently being used has its roots as something made up by Wikipedia editors and to this day they influence what consoles are in what generation. Even if you don't use Wikipedia you've felt this influence everywhere in the video games space which does include this wiki. Therefore, removing video game console generations would be beneficial to this wiki as it would allow the contributors to this wiki be able to decide for themselves how to handle describing video game consoles. I provided two possible solutions if this proposal passes but that is not to say they are the only solutions, but removing video game console generations is the first step towards better alternatives in the long run. --Bro3256 (talk) 04:57, December 1, 2024 (EST)

Changes

Move {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} to {{citation needed}} and {{ref needed}} respectively

Let me tell you what: the {{ref needed}} template currently reads the following: 

<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">[[[MarioWiki:Citations|''citation needed'']]]</sup><includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Superscript templates]]</noinclude>

[citation needed]

I also found that the {{unreferenced}} tag has its name taken from Wikipedia. I just wonder if those are errors. I humbly ask if there's a possibility to rename the templates using three options:

Option 1
Move {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} to {{citation needed}} and {{ref needed}} and make the {{unreferenced}} template more specific.
Option 2
ONLY move {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} to {{citation needed}} and {{ref needed}} respectively.
Option 3
Do NOTHING.

In case of option 1, the {{unreferenced}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>

This article does not cite any sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Please help improve this article by adding citations from reliable sources.

However, if this proposal passes with option 1 being the most voted, guess what? in addition to the {{ref needed}} template being moved to {{citation needed}}, the {{unreferenced}} template will be moved to {{ref needed}} and will read more specifically as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs at least one more citation for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
</div>

This article does not cite any sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
If you would like to help improve this article, please add citations from reliable sources to it.

For example, placing the more=yes, section=yes, and reason=Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources. will have the {{unreferenced}} more specifically read as follows:

This section needs at least one more citation for verification. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Specific(s): Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources.
If you would like to help improve this section, please add citations from reliable sources to it.

If this proposal passes with option 2 being the most voted, we'll only move the {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} templates to {{citation needed}} and {{ref needed}}, respectively.

Which option do you wish to choose?

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: December 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Option 2

Option 3

  1. Hewer (talk) What is the point of this? Switching around the names of those templates is unnecessary at best and confusing at worst, and I don't see how the slightly changed wording of the unreferenced template makes it in any way "more specific". This just feels like changing things for the sake of changing things.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Seems like an unnecessary change, and moving one template to the old name of an unrelated template is just asking to make an even bigger mess of old revisions. When you make proposals, you really should explain why the status quo is a problem and how your proposed solution will fix it.

Comments

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4450421"