MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Support: WTF?)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg</center>
{{/Header}}
<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>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==Writing guidelines==


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
''None at the moment.''
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
#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.
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#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.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Sysop]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#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]].
#If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.


The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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==
''None at the moment.''


__TOC__
==Removals==
===Remove ''Zelda''-Exclusive Pages===
There are several pages in [[:Category:The_Legend_of_Zelda_series]] that I believe should be deleted from the wiki.  There are many pages in the category that should clearly remain on the wiki, like [[Ancient Tires]], [[Hyrule Castle]] and [[Deku Baba]], which appear in ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]''; [[8-Bit Hero]], a [[microgame]] in ''[[WarioWare: Touched!]]''; [[Recorder]], an item that has appeared in both series; or [[Link]] and [[Master Sword]], which have appeared in multiple ''Mario'' games.  Then there are pages that have no connection to the ''Mario'' series at all.
 
We have the [[List of references in Nintendo video games]] to cover topics such as these. I fail to see why they need their own pages.  Even some of the links for these articles on the references page link to their equivalent articles on [https://zeldawiki.wiki/wiki/Main%20Page Zelda Wiki], our [[MarioWiki:Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance|NIWA affiliate]], because editors on our own wiki likely assume we don't have pages for ''Zelda''-exclusive content. For example, why is [[Stone Elevator]] covered as a separate page but we don’t have a page for [https://nookipedia.com/wiki/Gulliver Gulliver], who references [[Toad Town]] and [[the Overthere]] in ''Animal Crossing'', giving Gulliver, who has apparently visited places in the ''Mario'' series, a more direct connection than Stone Elevator, which just shares visual similarities to Thwomps? To be clear, I '''don’t''' think we should have a page for Gulliver for the reason that he '''does not appear in a ''Mario'' series game'''.  Perhaps a more potent example is [https://wikirby.com/wiki/Togezo Togezo] from ''Kirby’s Adventure'', which is clearly a Kirbified version of a [[Spiny]] and even shares the same Japanese name.  Why is there a page for [[Manhandla]] from ''Zelda'', a variant of [[Piranha Plant]], but not Togezo?  There just doesn’t seem to be consistency.
 
For some reason, these pages seem to be disproportionally related to ''The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening'' compared to other ''Zelda'' games.  Perhaps that is because there’s more profound references in ''Link’s Awakening'', but as someone not familiar with the ''Zelda'' series, it strikes me as very odd that there’s favoritism for references in that game but there aren't independent pages any other ''Zelda''-exclusive references on the page. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine_The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Link.27s_Awakening_and_its_reissues_as_a_guest_appearance_and_create_an_article_covering_all_three_versions_and.2For_its_Mario-related_subjects|This proposal]] from 2022 permits the creation of non-''Mario'' series pages, but they seem out of place on '''Mario Wiki''', so I think we should explore undoing the consequences of this proposal.
 
Furthermore, pages like [[Keese]] only cover the enemies’ appearance in ''Mario'' games, whereas Manhandla covers the extensive history of Mandhala throughout the ''Zelda'' series.  Again, notably, Manhandla doesn’t have any appearances in ''Mario'' games, so I suppose it has to cover everything it does in ''Zelda'' since otherwise the page would be blank.
 
If [[Yoshi doll]] exists as an independent page, then shouldn’t every [https://nookipedia.com/wiki/Mario%20Theme ''Animal Crossing'' furniture series] and [https://nookipedia.com/wiki/Item:Big_bro%27s_hat_(New_Leaf) clothing from the ''Animal Crossing'' series like the Big Bro's Hat] that references the ''Mario'' series also be given its own page? I just fail to see the difference. It’s more of the disproportionate coverage of ''Link’s Awakening''.
 
Perhaps the worst offender is [[Bombite]], which has no confirmed connection to the ''Mario'' series whatsoever.  Per the page, “They '''appear''' to be based on Bob-ombs.”  That alone is sufficient to be given a page on the wiki?


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
To be fair, there is [https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Iwata-Asks/Iwata-Asks-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Spirit-Tracks/Iwata-Asks-Zelda-Handheld-History-/2-Kirby-and-Chomps-in-Zelda/2-Kirby-and-Chomps-in-Zelda-233781.html developer commentary] about some of the ''Mario''-inspired features in ''Zelda'' games affirming they were, indeed, inspired by ''Mario'' equivalents (not including Bombite), but is our threshold going to become developer confirmation for significance enough to the ''Mario'' series to have an independent page?  I'm sure that similar commentary could be found for much listed on [[List of references in Nintendo video games]].  If that's our threshold, then shouldn't we create pages for everything confirmed to be inspired by anything to do with the ''Mario'' series?  That would be a tidal wave of new pages. If not, why is ''Link's Awakening'' being treated differently from everything else?


==New Features==
Something of a middle-ground solution is to create a page on our wiki for ''Link's Awakening''. Though I do not favor this idea, there is precedence for the creation of pages for games that pay significant homage to the ''Mario'' series but aren't in the series themselves, including ''but not limited to'' ''[[Captain Rainbow]]'', ''[[Fortune Street]]'', and, of course, the entire [[Super Smash Bros. (series)]].  I don't favor this option given the roles of ''Mario'' characters in ''Link's Awakening'' are much more minor compared to something like [[Birdo]] having a mildly significant role in ''Captain Rainbow'', but there seems to be a lot of love for ''Link's Awakening'' on this wiki, so maybe this could be a middle ground solution. This page would house the information for Bombite, Mega Thowmp, Spiked Thowmp, Stone Elevator, and Yoshi doll, but it would remove the independent pages for Manhandla (''The Legend of Zelda'') and Head Thwomp (''Oracle of Ages'') and just confine them to the references page.
===User Highlights===
I know Mario Wiki isn't Userpedia, but I feel guilty when I find out somebody's prrromotion to a higher user rank just happened and I didn't congratulate them is an annoyance. The same with birthdays. Yes, I am a Userpedia user, but I'm thinking more about people limited to only Mario Wiki.<br>
It could just be a small box showing something, (sorry about putting myself in this, but oh well: "Hyper Guy's Birthday is coming up on___" or "User___ has reached Sysop rank) just a small box with a bit of information about the users, who could be recognized for their efforts on Mario Wiki, might make our community look much, much better by giving users credit, no matter how small the alert is. (NOTE: I'm not talking about edits! Just marking important moments for our brilliant users) THANKS FOR READING THIS! <br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Hyper Guy|Hyper Guy}}<br>
'''Deadline''':
====Support====
#{{User|Hyper Guy|Hyper Guy}}
====Oppose====
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} If you mean a box on the Main Page, it isn't necessary. For the promotion issue you stated, the promotion is usually listed in the Pipe Plaza, usually as, "'''*Insert User Name Here* has been promoted to *insert rank here*! Congratulations!'''" And the problem with the birthdays can be solved with the 'Shroom (we have the calendar, one of the sections is for birthdays). If anybody is not content with what we have, then that is too bad for them.
#{{User|Cobold}} The wiki isn't a forum, so we will not have a database for something like birthdays - creating an automatic system or handling it manual sounds like too much work for me. If you want to congratulate certain users, write down those users' birthdays on your own list. SysOp promotions are noted on the Pipe Plaza.


'''Pages that would be deleted:'''
*[[Bombite]] - no connection to ''Mario'' series whatsoever other than looking like Bob-ombs
*[[Head Thwomp]] - never appeared in a ''Mario'' game but is related to Thwomp
*[[Mega Thwomp]] - same as above
*[[Spiked Thwomp]] - same as above
*[[Stone Elevator]] - same as above
*[[Yoshi doll]] - just a reference to Yoshi in ''Link’s Awakening''


====Comments====
'''Options breakdown'''
===Make a to- do list on the main page===
I’ve drafted nine options to address the inconsistencies or excess coverage.
Over on Bulbapedia, they have a specific box on their main page that tells users what needs to be done, what are some featured stubs, and articles that need to be created. I think we should have something like this that everyone can use. I am proposing this because I am noticing lots of articles that have big pieces of information missing or needed, and some of their talk pages haven't been used for so long, it would be silly to put something there when nobody checks them regularly. The to-do list would tell everyone that visits the main page what we need and I think it would be a big help finding everyone something to do. (For those of you that are reading this, please check out SMB's proposal below mine.)


'''Proposer''': [[User:FunkyK38|FunkyK38]]<br>
*'''Option 1''' deletes the pages I’ve highlights and incorporates relevant parts of the information on those pages elsewhere. In the case of the Thwomps, there is already a section referencing them on [[Thwomp]].
'''Deadline''': August 24, 2009, 17:00


====Support====
*'''Option 2''' takes the converse approach and adds exhaustive information about ''Zelda'' series pages on the wiki to bridge the gap between [[Manhandla]] and [[Keese]] and similar pages.
#{{User|Itachi 96}} I think its a good idea because its will more accessible to poeple. Some people doesn't know about pipe plaza, so the wiki will be better, faster.
:<span style="font-size:12px">''^ Note that no equivalent option for Option 2 exists that would simply remove the bulk of the information from the highlighted pages as there would be nothing to put on the pages other than "X is a variant of X", e.g. "Manhandla is a variant of Piranha Plant that appears in ''The Legend of Zelda'' series", since these enemies have no relation to the ''Mario'' series other than being inspired by enemies in the series.''
#{{User|Hate the N64DD}} I agree with Itachi, putting a to do list or at least a more visible link to the pipe plaza will make it more accessible to people.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} I've told you my reasons above.
#{{User|Ralphfan}} Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} The way the Main Page looks now is what both FunkyK38's and my proposal will have permanantly done to it. It looks nice and organized.


====Oppose====
*'''Option 3''' implements Option 2 but also creates new pages for obvious inspirations from the ''Mario'' series like [https://wikirby.com/wiki/Togezo Togezo], ''Animal Crossing'' furniture and clothing, and similar examples.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - So, you want us to make [[Mariowiki:Pipe Plaza|this article]]? Maybe instead you should propose to link to the Pipe Plaza better. I'm going to update the to-do list soon I hope. I just don't think we need two to-do lists!
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} Sorry FunkyK38, but I have to agree that we already have the Pipe Plaza. Also, we don't need unnecessary things cluttering the main page more.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} - Per all.


====Comments====
*'''Option 4''' keeps the Thwomp-related pages since they have a more potent connection to the ''Mario'' series, though I believe that if we do this we should create a page on the wiki for Togezo and every other enemy from a different franchise that is based on something from the ''Mario'' series, which I don’t think is necessary but becomes appropriate if we have pages for the Thwomp-relations and Manhandla. [[Yoshi doll]] is also kept in this option if people want that for whatever reason, but I again suggest that if we have a page for Yoshi doll, then we should have a page for all the similar furniture items from the ''Animal Crossing'' series and other series. I strongly believe all this information is best confined to [[List of references in Nintendo video games]] instead. If we're taking this option but not Option 3, I just see it as giving a lot of preferential coverage to ''Link's Awakening''.
No, I'm not proposing we make the pipe plaza, I'm just saying we should make a place where users can look quickly to see what needs to be done. Check it out on Bulbapedia- they've gotten a lot of work done with this system. --[[User:FunkyK38|FunkyK38]] 16:21, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
:Yeah, that idea sounds good, a mini featured stub/wanted article template on the main page should do. {{User|Timmy Tim}}
::So basically you want us to copy [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net this]? I don't think Bulbapedia will like that. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::True but we could tweak it here and there, make it more orginal, add stuff like images not found on pages and a link to the maintenance page. {{User|Timmy Tim}}
:::We already have a [[MarioWiki:Pipe Plaza#Todo|To do list]]. We don't need to copy another one off of another website when we already have one of our own. Also, under the announcements section, there is a list of articles that need to be rewritten, under collaborations is a list of Featured Article nominations and articles nominated to be unfeatured (which means we can work on those articles, helping them earn/keep FA status). Our to do list covers another major portion of what needs to be done, so I don't think we need another to do list when we have one.
::Also, Timmy Tim, why should we put a to do list on the Main Page? We are supposed to show some of our best features on the main page, not the articles and such that needs help. Let's just stick with the Pipe Plaza. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
:To answer you question, SMB, if we are supposed to be putting things on the main page that look nice and attract people to our wiki, what is the proposals box doing up there? Also, a visible box for what we need could help attract members with the information that we need to make our wiki better. {{User|FunkyK38}}
::Ok, we do have a visible box. It is a template in the Pipe Plaza. And your arguement is very flawed about the proposals box (it shows what is going on in the wiki and possible changes that might occur), and I'm sorry to say that I don't think that moving a to-do list to the Main Page would improve the quality of the wiki or the Main Page itself. We have too many boxes on the Main Page as it is, and it would look unattractive if any more boxes were added. Do you even have a sample of what the Main Page would look like? I think you should show us an example so that we know what the Main Page would look like after this possible change. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
:::FunkyK38. I would like to see a version of your main page. I need to see how it would look if we did that! Who knows, the main page may not be able to fit it. If you provide a satisfactory example, I will change my vote. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::I'm just adding that I will probably '''not''' change my vote. The Main Page is too cluttered as it is, and adding more unnecessary information is not the best thing to do. We need to ''get rid'' of some of the Main Page content. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
:::Okay, SMB, I can respect that you aren't going to change your vote, but maybe you could come up with some ideas for a less cluttered main page? And Marioguy1, here's your link: [[User:FunkyK38/Proposal]]. Take a look, and tell me if you think something needs to be changed. {{User|FunkyK38}}
::I have tried, (I proposed to remove the Featured Images and move them to the 'Shroom, but that didn't work). I will also propose to have that tournaments box removed pretty soon, as we can easily list tournaments in the Pipe Plaza '''and''' it has its own section in the 'Shroom. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
:Hey, I'm fine with being flexible. Like HTN64DD and Itachi said, we could make it a clear, visible link to the pipe plaza.{{User|FunkyK38}}
::Hey, [[User:Super Mario Bros./Main Page 2|here]] is one way that we could make the Main Page less cluttered. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}


==Removals==
*'''Option 5''' keeps Yoshi doll but deletes the Thwomp-related pages and Bombite. See argument against this in Option 4's description.
===Remove Some Templates From the Main Page===
Ok, I finally thought this through. I think we should remove the tourney template and the poll template. The tourney thing is more of something we should find in the [[MarioWiki:Pipe Plaza|Pipe Plaza]], and we already have a poll section in the Fake News of [[MarioWiki:The 'Shroom|The 'Shroom]] managed by, *gasp* [[User:Stooben Rooben|Stooben Rooben]], the same person who is supposed to update the polls on the Main Page! The only thing is that the polls would come out once a month, but I don't see that as much of a difference as the weekly polls aren't really even updated once a week, and usually sit for a long time. So, what I'm initially saying is: Move the tourneys to the Pipe Plaza (NOT in template form), and get rid of the Main Page polls because we have polls on the 'Shroom. This proposal will work in conjunction with FunkyK38's proposal above (she now only wants to add a link on the Main Page that leads to the Pipe Plaza), and an example of how it would look after all of the changes can be found [[User:Super Mario Bros./Main Page 2|here]].<br>
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} ''(with ideas from {{User|FunkyK38}})''<br>
'''Deadline:''' Thursday, August 27<sup>th</sup>, 2009, 17:00


====Support====
*'''Option 6''' keeps all other pages but deletes [[Bombite]] since it is the least related to the ''Mario'' series and would suggest we should have pages for any enemy from any Nintendo game that resembles a [[Bob-omb]], which, given their design, would be basically any sapient bomb enemy.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} This will make the Main Page less cluttered, something a lot of users have wanted for a while.
#{{User|Paper Yoshi}} Just great. Porplemontage's Main Page is really good. Also per SMB.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} The new main page looks awesome. It looks better than it did before, and that is a good thing. Less clutter= nicer Main Page!
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} I been waiting for this proposal! It would help us a lot if you got rid of some templates.


====Oppose====
*'''Option 7''' creates a page for ''Link's Awakening'' and deletes the highlighted pages. This gives a place for all the highlighted pages on the wiki to exist outside of the references list, minus Manhandla and Head Thwomp.
#{{User|WarioLoaf}} I just went through the arduous task of getting that tourney template just a few weeks back! take it down, yes. But until an actual tourney comes up! hell man, you even supported the template.
#{{User|Itachi 96}} Per WarioLoaf.


====Comments====
*'''Option 8''' creates a page for ''Link's Awakening'' but keeps Manhandla and Head Thwomp as independent pages.
This does not violate the 1-month rule, as the rule really states 28 days (it has been 29 days since the tourney proposal passed). {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}


You need something else on the right because I balance the two columns. {{User|Porplemontage}}
*'''Option 9''', the do nothing option, would consider all of this as a non-issue and leave things as they are now.
:The main page example that you are creating looks good, to tell you the truth. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
::Yes, [[User:Porplemontage/main|this]] is my solution. The Pipe Plaza section could contain any snippet from the Pipe Plaza; I just copied in some text from News and Maintenance as an example. {{User|Porplemontage}}
:That's a good solution, indeed. I would have to say yes, this would be good for our Main Page. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
{{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}}I like the polls, but I don't even know what the tourneys are so I'd say remove tourneys and keep polls. But if there's a poll section on the 'Shroom, I don't know what to say, because I never go to the 'Shroom.
::WarioLoaf, what you call an "arduous task" was actually a proposal that everybody supported and a sysyops putting up the template for you. Besides, this is more of a community thing. In the Pipe Plaza template, you can put that you have a tourney going on, who is organizing it, and the date. There is also a "Tournament Central" in ''[[MarioWiki:The 'Shroom|The 'Shroom]]'', which isn't being used right now. Perhaps you should sign up for it. The thing is, when that thing is empty like it has been for a week, and probably longer, it adds to the clutter. At least the way it is now we can announce tourneys ''and'' other things going on in the community part of the wiki. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}


I renamed Pipe Plaza so it's a little more vague and could include any type of community happenings as well as maintenance and such. So Tourneys could easily be announced in there. I don't think a tourney deserves its own section on the main page every time we have one. {{User|Porplemontage}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|DrBaskerville}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 08, 2024, 23:59 GMT


==Splits & Merges==
==== Option 1: Remove the highlighted pages as independent pages, add information about them to Trivia on other pages where applicable, and ensure they are referenced on List of references in Nintendo video games ====
===Merge all the game and watch games===
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal.
I was looking at the game and watch articles, when I realized something, they SUCK. Seriously. They are all undescriptive stubs that don't even deserve their own articles. I propose we merge them all.<br>
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer. It's a good way of acknowledging these entities exist while not treating them as having the same amount of integration within the ''Super Mario'' franchise as [[Thwimp]]s, for example.
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Vyro}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' September 14 2009, 17:00


====Support====
==== Option 2: Keep all pages and add exhaustive information from the ''Zelda'' series to any ''Zelda'' pages on the wiki, e.g. Keese, Deku Baba, Master Sword, etc. ====
#{{User|Vyro}} - Read above proposal.


====Oppose====
==== Option 3: Keep all pages, add exhaustive information from the ''Zeldra'' series to any ''Zelda'' pages on the wiki, and create pages for ''Mario''-inspired content, like Togezo and ''Animal Crossing'' references ====
#{{User|Arend}} Oh, come on! Then {{tem|Game & Watch}} is nothing good anymore! Just look at it! Most of the template is all Game & Watch games. And then to think about it that the list hasn't even every game! Plus, Most articles about Game & Watch games are long enough to get an article.
#{{User|Itachi 96}} Per Arend.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} Ouch, aren't you being a bit harsh? The articles don't "suck". Per all.


====Comments====
==== Option 4: Keep Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Yoshi doll, but remove Bombite ====
When you learn how to organize a proposal, you '''may''' get supporters. {{User|Paper Yoshi}}
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Second choice.


===Merge Keys Articles===
==== Option 5: Keep Yoshi doll, but remove Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Bombite ====
Yeah, I was just looking at the articles linked to this [[Template:Key|template]], and most of them are stubs. That is why I am suggesting that the community allows me to go ahead and merge them, as well as turn the original articles into redirects and changing the links so that they lead to the merged article. An example can be found [[User:Super Mario Bros./Key|here]], and the [[User talk:Super Mario Bros./Key|discussion page]] will be a replica at first, but it will be so that users can change it as opposed to suggesting changes to me (such as moving images, sections, fixing links, etc.). So, to reiterate, if you want to suggest a change to my example, do the change on the talk page. If you have other comments, put them below on this page. '''NO COMMENTS GO ON THE TALK PAGE!'''<br>
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Third choice.
''Note: A change in the proposed article has been made. See my large comment below.''<br>
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' Saturday, 22 August 2009, 20:00


====Support====
==== Option 6: Keep all other pages, but remove Bombite ====
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} I think this will improve the articles. Per Time Q's, Walkazo's, and Twentytwofiftyseven's concerns below (I hope they were addressed).
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Fourth choice.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I like your article. It's long and combines a bunch of stubs. To Time Q below, the need would be that there are currently too many stubs. <s>but I saw a problem. There is only supposed to be one image requested tag at the top if you have multiple sections because at the top it says "It has been requested that image'''(s)''' be added to this '''article'''/section" See what I mean (it says image'''s''').</s>
#{{User|Random User}} Per SMB.
#{{User|Vyro}} Yeah, what's with all the keys anyway? The articles are terrible!
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per my comments below. Supplementing the nameless key list in [[Key]] with "List of Keys in the Paper Mario series" and  "List of Keys in Super Mario 64 DS" pages in place of numerous stubs seems a more organized way of doing things. Use <nowiki><br clear=all></nowiki> (and {{tem|Main}} in the sections for the few keys who merit full articles) to make the lists presentable.


====Oppose====
==== Option 7: Create page for ''Link's Awakening'' and remove highlighted independent pages ====
#{{User|Time Q}}: I see no need for doing this change. Those keys are unrelated to each other, they all deserve their own articles (or at least some of them, which means we can't merge them all together). If they're stubs, we should expand them rather than cramming them all together in a rather unattractive list.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Fifth choice.
#{{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}}: Per Time Q. Additionally, as you have it set up, all the categories and navboxes are applied to the article as a whole, which is rather imprecise. To someone who's unfamiliar with what's going on, it may seem that (e.g.) [[:Category:Animate Objects]] applies to ''all'' of the items on that list. In fact, it applies to just two. And having some items under the subheader "key" when the article itself is also called "key" is redundant.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}: Per All!
#{{user|Yoshario}} - Per all.
#{{User|Itachi 96}} - Per all
#{{User|Ralphfan}} Per all.
#{{user|Arend}} per all.


====Comments====
==== Option 8: Create page for ''Link's Awakening'' and keep Manhandla and Head Thwomp pages ====
Marioguy1, I fixed the problem. Does it look good now? {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
:Yup, I was there when you fixed it. I'll <s>strike</s> that point in my article. {{User|Marioguy1}}


I think the [[Key]] article itself should stay (and the introduction should be expanded a bit to explain more about the essense of ''Mario'' keys), with the rest of the keys going into a "List of Keys" page. [[Yakkey]] should keep his seperate page, since he's a character, not just an item. [[Skeleton Key]] also has enough appearances and information (plus, its animate) to merit its own article as well. The list entries for Key, Skeleton Key and Yakkey would all use {{tem|main}} to link to the separate articles. - {{User|Walkazo}}
==== Option 9: Do nothing ====
# {{User|Axis}} The proposal fails to understand why these pages have been created in the first place. ''The Legend of Zelda'' series is considered a guest appearance, meaning anything ''Mario'' themed or derived from the ''Mario'' franchise gets a page. While [[Bombite]] and [[Stone Elevator]] have no direct connection to the ''Mario'' series (someone should dig up ''Player's Guide'' and ''Nintendo Power'' for these), other entries clearly do, and therefore should stay as independent pages ([[MarioWiki:Coverage]]). I believe Bombite and Stone Elevator should be handled seperately on their own respective talk pages (there is an ongoing discussion on Stone Elevator's talk page). The reason items from ''Animal Crossing'' don't get their own pages is because noone made a proposal to classify the series as guest appearance yet (unlike the ''Zelda'' series, the items in ''Animal Crossing'' are purely decorational. I doubt anyone would make a proposal).
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Axis. It seems to me that this proposal underestimates just how much of a guest appearance Link’s Awakening is for the Mario series—there really are a lot of crossover enemies.
#{{User|Hewer}} Leaning towards this for now, partly because the proposer seems to have been unaware that Link's Awakening is already classified as a guest appearance with [[The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening|its own page]], but mostly because this seems a bit too much for a single proposal. If there are issues with our current handling of this, it'd be better to solve them individually than in a giant, sweeping proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} The fact that Options 7 and 8 involves creating an article for ''Link's Awakening'' when [[The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening|we already have an article for such a thing]] makes it apparent that the proposer has not done enough research before setting up this proposal - and thus is in need for some retooling. It reminds me of [[Template talk:Themes#Composers subsection|this one proposal]] in which the proposer wanted to add a Composers subsection to [[Template:Themes|the Recurring themes nav template]] (which would be rather unfitting) and was pitching an idea about dedicated articles for composers as if we did not have those yet (even though we already have [[:Category:Composers|several of those]], and all of them, plus the ones we don't have yet, are already included in the Composers subsection of the [[Template:People|People]] nav template, rendering the whole point of the proposal redundant).


I think Marioguy1's vote is invalid. The only reason he states is "I like your article", which is not enough. Why would it be a change for the better? Please expand your vote, otherwise I vote for its removal. {{User|Time Q}}
==== Comments ====
I apologize for the length of this proposal and the number of options, but I wanted to ensure as many approaches as possible were offered. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)


Ok, hopefully I fixed most of the problems. The minor Paper Mario keys would all be merged, as well as a few of the other ''[[Super Mario 64 DS]]'' keys ([[Mario Key]], [[Luigi Key]], [[Wario Key]]). The bigger [[Key]] article, as well as the [[Skeleton Key]] article and the [[Yakkey]] article would be left alone as seperate articles. This would allow {{tem|Key}} to stay, and the [[:Category:Keys|Keys category]] to remain as well. Any more suggestions? {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
It's possible that there are other pages exclusively related to other series on the wiki as well outside of the ''Zelda'' pages that I've highlighted.  Their exclusion from this proposal is not due to me believing they should remain but instead being ignorant of their existence. If similar pages exist from other franchises, please feel free to note them in reply to this comment and, ''if this proposal passes'', I'll explore deletion proposals for them as well depending on the strength of their relationship to the ''Mario'' series. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)


:That still suggests that (eg) "Wario Key" falls under "Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Special Items," which is wrong. And the fact that there's really no simple way to get to [[Key]], [[Skeleton Key]], or [[Yakkey]] from that article is also inconvenient. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}}
Uh, there is a [[The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening|Link's Awakening]] page. It was classified as a guest appearance (i.e. page-worthy) by that 2022 proposal you linked to, and [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] tells us that "if a subject is unique to [a guest appearance] while also being clearly derived from the ''Super Mario'' franchise, they can receive individual articles", so all the Link's Awakening Mario-inspired enemies are therefore eligible to get articles. Admittedly though, I'm not sure about pages for the Mario-inspired enemies from other games that we don't consider guest appearances, as while it was technically decided by that 2022 proposal, it was only clarified in a comment that it would extend to all Zelda games rather than just Link's Awakening, and it's less supported by policy. And yeah, some of them (like Bombite) do kinda seem to be stretches, but that's probably better handled on its own rather than in a giant proposal like this. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:19, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
::What? We have the {{tem|Key}} to link to [[Key]], [[Skeleton Key]], and [[Yakkey]]. So, should we split the list into two lists (one for the ''Super Mario 64 DS'' keys and one for the ''Paper Mario'' keys)? We could still have the ''Paper Mario series'' keys on one article, even though they would share categories, I think it would be easy to tell due to the beginning of each paragraph having the game it appears in. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
:::Actually, there's been talk that templates like {{tem|Key}} should be scrapped, seeing as they're just categories in template form, and are often based on "common sense" as opposed to canon (i.e. {{tem|undead}} vs. {{tem|LM}} and {{tem|Boos}}). But that's beside the point: as I said before, those other independent articles should be linked to via {{tem|main}} in the list, though with the two lists idea, that'd only be needed for [[Yakkey]], since [[Skeleton Key]]  has a series unto itself (barring the conspicuously pageless [[Bowser Key]]s). Considering how the three ''SM64DS'' Keys can almost be combined as-is, I think the two list idea is good. I'm always a fan of combining stubs and saving space; all that can be done to expand those key articles is writing their ''exact'' locations (Walkthrough fare, IMO) and maybe some more context - but after a point, it starts to look off-topic and/or reachy. Also, the "if it's named it gets an article" mantra seems to be an underlying part of this discussion; to be frank, I've always felt that ideal was misguided. The keys in ''Luigi's Mansion'' essentially play the same role as the [[Fortress Key]]s and [[Ruins Key]]s, except the named ''PM'' keys get stubs while the plain ''LM'' key merely gets a [[Key#Luigi's Mansion|section of the Key article]]. If the "Key"s from ''LM'', ''SMB2'', ''SMW'', ''SMW2:YI'', ''SM64'' and ''SSBB'' are shoved together, why not the "___ Key"s from the ''Paper Mario'' series? It's a double-standard born of the desire to not have dozens of "Key (game X)" pages, which is understandable, but also fixable if we weren't so bent on having dozens of "___ Key" pages instead. The list(s) just needs some fixing-up; with proper retooling, it won't look so bad. - {{User|Walkazo}}


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Create poll to determine North American vs. PAL names===
===Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary===
It seems that people are regularly debating over if North American or PAL names should be used when discussing games. I think we should make a final, permanent decision by advertising a poll in the Main Page info bar and leave the poll up for a month. This way, we could find the demographics of the users and determine this annoying question.
An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch)]], as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, ''very'' long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the ''TTYD'' remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and ''then'' go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?
 
I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'']] or ''TTYD'' remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'', but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)
 
My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.
 
I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land|Kirby's Return to Dream Land]]'' and ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe|Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe]]'' that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.
 
This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long ''TTYD'' section might, but something like ''Super Mario Advance'' could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Ralphfan}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 27, 2009, 17:00
'''Deadline''': <s>June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Ralphfan}} - Per above.  We won't have to put up with this crap anymore.
#{{User|DryKirby64}} As proposer.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} - It's a good idea. It's dumb to keep arguing about something like this. This will help settle it.
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I agree with this proposal.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Per all, I have nothing more to say.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea.
#{{User|Itachi 96}} Why does Mario Strikers Charged and Super Mario Strikers have their PAL name and not the others games? Its either completely NA or completely PAL.
#{{User|Parayoshi}} Per Itachi 96. It's not exactly consistent from article to article, and while I don't really care whether its NA or PAL, the wiki needs to make a decision again.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} No, you should make a proposal about what you want directly, not to make a poll to put on the main page for something that was already decided. Stick to a proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
#{{User|Cobold}} It's been confirmed a long time ago by Steve that oveer 90% of the wiki's userbase is American - the real point of the name discussion is that while the name "Super Mario Strikers" it not very important to American users, as they rarely own the game, European users are much more likely to have it and care about it. For the football/soccer games we should definitely keep the current names - I agree that it's a bit more controversial for WarioWare and Yoshi's Universial Gravitation.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
#{{User|Arend}} As Cobold said, there are 90% American Users on this wiki. So, if we do a poll to decide, I'm sure that American names will win, because of such big group, and those Americans of course vote for their own continent! That would actually a bit unfair for a small percent of Europeans, and even less percent of Australians. Also, a poll is completely for '''having it about the (Mario) game mechanics''', not about problems on the wiki how games must be named. There are the proposals for.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I don't think WiKirby is a good example -- of anything. I would be interested in something else to improve the remake pages though.
#{{User|Arend}} I get the concern of this proposal, but I'm not sure if repeating much of the same information over and over is the ideal solution.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Comments====
====Comments====
With this, we'll never have to worry about it again! - {{User|Ralphfan}}
This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
:Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. [[User:DryKirby64|DryKirby64]] ([[User talk:DryKirby64|talk]]) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
::It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
 
I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in ''Super Mario 3D All-Stars'' would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for ''three'' games. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
 
In my eyes, the change list for ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)
 
Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in [[Mario Sports Superstars]] article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
 
Just for reference, the current size of the ''TTYD'' remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Split ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' bosses into boss levels===
This proposal is similar to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/41#Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levels|the one that passed]]. As you see, we have [[Motley Bossblob]] and [[Hisstocrat]] boss levels from ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'', the boss levels from the [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|''Donkey Kong Country'' series]], even boss levels ''[[Yoshi's Crafted World]]'' where each boss guards a [[Dream Gem]]. Right now, you might be wondering how we can create separate articles for the ''[[Wario Land: Shake It!]]'' boss levels.
 
According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split:


I have the demographics. If that's the only purpose of the poll, then there's no need. {{User|Porplemontage}}
*[[Rollanratl]] → [[Rollanratl Battle]]
:Check [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_12#Use_First_Official_English_Title_for_Articles|this]]. A (quite controversial) decision was already made a while back, that is, whichever region it was released in first is what name it gets. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
*[[Hot Roderick]] → [[Hot Roderick Race]]
::We should settle it, but not with a poll, WITH A PROPOSAL {{user|Tucayo}}
*[[Chortlebot]] → [[Chortlebot Challenge]]
*[[Bloomsday]] → [[Bloomsday Blowout]]
*[[Large Fry]] → [[Large Fry Cook-Off]]
*[[Shake King]] → [[VS the Shake King]]


===Revert First English Title proposal===
Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' boss levels.
Some good time ago, we had [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_12#Use_First_Official_English_Title_for_Articles|this]] proposal that made us use many Europen names, which mariowikians are not used to, so I propose we use American titles for all the pages, indiferent of their first name


'''Proposer:'''{{User|Tucayo}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}} (banned)<br>
'''Deadline:''' Thursday, August 27th, 17:00 EDT
'''Deadline''': <s>June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per me
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
#{{User|Itachi 96}} Per Tucayo
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
#{{User|Timmy Tim}} I'm from Australia, where we use European and American names (I think) and it's basically a fuss over nothing. I say, give them the American names, we have redirects for other names.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see [[Bowser's Sourpuss Bread]], which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)
#{{user|Arend}} I suppose that makes sense. Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
<s>#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal</s>


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} - Basically, per the reasoning of [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_12#Use_First_Official_English_Title_for_Articles|the proposal that did this in the first place.]] Additionally, it's not as simple as using "many European names," it's about not supporting one localization of the (Japanese) Mario games over another. Nintendo of Europe's product is just as valid as Nintendo of America's, so we need an unbiased way to decide which to support. Release date is the most obvious of the possible criteria.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} While there is precedence, I just don't see this as necessary given the information is currently detailed on the existing pages without overcrowding them.
#{{user|Yoshario}} &ndash; Per 2257
#{{User|Arend}} per 2257
#{{User|Cobold}} per my oppose in the proposal above: It's been confirmed a long time ago by Steve that oveer 90% of the wiki's userbase is American - the real point of the name discussion is that while the name "Super Mario Strikers" it not very important to American users, as they rarely own the game, European users are much more likely to have it and care about it. For the football/soccer games we should definitely keep the current names - I agree that it's a bit more controversial for WarioWare and Yoshi's Universial Gravitation.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Well, I was just reading the original proposal, it seems very controversial. I myself am abstaining from voting as I understand both points of view. I will admit I'm an American, and I'm proud of it, too. But I feel there is no "wrong" in whichever decision is made. I would go as far as to say that Porplemontage should decide, he is the owner of the wiki and should make '''all''' monumental decisions, I just feel that this is too big of an action for the regular community to decide on, as it is mostly probably going to be bias that fuels a lot of the votes. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
:Looking at "[[Special:ShortPages|Short Pages]], when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP]]'' items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split ''[[Speed Mario Bros.]]''. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when [[Pesky Billboard]] is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
:Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Standardize sectioning for ''Super Mario'' series game articles===
I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the ''[[Super Mario (series)|Super Mario]]'' series on and off for the past few years. I think presenting information in a shared, unified way is beneficial for readers and passively communicates that these games are part of a shared series, something I think is helpful for a franchise covering so many genres and series. Game articles in the ''[[Yoshi's Island (series)|Yoshi's Island]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country (series)|Donkey Kong Country]]'' series are similarly organized to one another. It is easy to jump from one article to another, information is where I'd expect it to be, and they look nice. Good stuff.


'''To Cobold:''' Great you voted on the same as me, but '''is''' the only thing the Mario Football/Strikers series? Have you actually realized that the European names of some cars in [[Mario Kart Wii]] are better than the American names? Take for example B-Dasher Mk. 2. in NA it's just Sprinter. And Bowser Bike is called Flame Runner in NA. I liked both European Names better. B-Dasher Mk. 2: Mario's version looks indeed like the original, but because in the Wii Screen of the Mario Kart Channel, it got Bowser Jr.'s theme, i's called in NA Sprinter. Bowser Bike: You see directly: that's from Bowser, because of the face. But Flame Runner... It has indeed to fit in Bowser, but I don't see any flames. At The Flame Flyer (the car), I DO see flames, even that they are just printed on the car, but they're still flames. {{User|Arend}}
At present, some ''Super Mario'' game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare ''[[Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins]]'' to ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]''.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents.


==Miscellaneous==
The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is:
===Regularly Update News Page===
 
Every time I log onto the wiki, one of the first things I do is check the News section of the Main Page, along with the rest of the page. As I write this, on the 14th of August, the top headline is '''''[[Mario Clock]]'' and ''[[Mario Calculator (DSiWare)|Mario Calculator]]'' were released for [[DSiWare]] in Europe and Australia on July 3 and in North America on June 15, 2009.''' Wow, that sure was helpful, forty days ago! On other wikis, even minor news such as tidbits of info about upcoming games/shows/movies etc. is placed in the News template, yet we're stuck with information about a DSi feature released in July. I propose that minor news, such as information relating to an event in ''Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games'' or another trailer for ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' being released, for example, be placed in the News template before it becomes a joke.
'''Characters''': living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm
* '''Playable characters''': characters controlled
* '''Non-playable characters''': characters that aren’t controlled
'''Enemies and obstacles''': subjects that damage or inhibit the player character
* '''Enemies''': living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment
* '''Obstacles''': abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement
* '''Bosses''': subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression
'''Items and objects''': beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic
* '''Items''': subjects that are absorbable/collectible, holdable, or health-restoring
* '''Power-ups''': items that transform the player character’s appearance and grant unique abilities
* '''Objects''': interactable subjects in the environment that are not items
 
This sectioning arrangement has been integrated on the ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels]]'', ''[[Super Mario Land]]'', ''[[Super Mario 64]]'', ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'', ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'', ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]'', ''[[Super Mario 3D Land]]'', ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' articles.
 
Because of the tactile nature of platformers, I like organizing subjects based on their mechanical relationship to the player character, so I keep bosses organized with enemies and obstacles because they all hurt the player. It is also thematically appropriate, because at least some bosses are usually rulers of an enemy species in the same section. I do not like using terms that have strong connotations outside of gaming like "cast" or "antagonist". (I particularly do not like using "antagonist" here because these platformers are not chiefly driven by narrative, so the fact that some bosses also serve antagonistic narrative roles is of lesser importance to their tactile roles as bosses.) "Characters" is more neutral, I think. I also do not separate "returning enemies" from "new ones". I'd rather delineate that information in one shared table, [[Super Mario Galaxy#Enemies|like so]]. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new.
 
I don't envision this sectioning being applied rigidly, and this is apparent in some of the articles I linked to above. There aren't really enough items in ''Super Mario Land'' for them to be severed from power-ups, so I lumped them together in one table there. Both ''Super Mario Sunshine'' and ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' include a "rideable characters" section, and there is a "clothing" section between "Items" and "objects" in ''Super Mario Odyssey''. Rather, I would like this sectioning to be a jumping off point, from which users can manipulate and change things as needed. No two games are exactly the same, after all.
 
I offer four options.
 
#'''Support: I like this! Let's do it''' (if this passes, this sectioning arrangement will be integrated into the remaining ''Super Mario'' game articles)
#'''Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently''' (if this one passes, a second proposal would be raised by the voters that outline their preferred organizational scheme)
#'''Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy''' (this option is basically the "do nothing" option)
#'''Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed'''
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: I like this! Let's do it====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Consistency is never a bad thing.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess if this ought to be a proposal, then sure, per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per proposal
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} Per proposal.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per all. Consistency is good.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Timmy Tim}}<br>
====Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently====
'''Deadline:''' August 21, 2009, 20:00


====Support====
====Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy====
#{{User|Timmy Tim}} per my reasons above.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - I see page layouts as an organically changing thing, it's best to not create guidelines where they needn't exist. I'm fine with the pages being changed to follow this pattern, but it shouldn't require an additional proposal to change further.
#{{User|Booman}} Per Timmy Tim.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} Makes a lot sense. Tired of it being all the same.
#{{User|Clarkmaster}} Doesn't do us much good with yesterdays news.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I don't expect you know who will update this? Will it be you? Per above.
#{{User|Egg Yoshi}} Iv'e been waiting for that thing to change for 2 months
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Per all, although I do agree with Time Q. that this proposal is rather useless.
#{{User|Randoman123456789}} - Par all.
#{{User|Platitudinous}} I get annoyed with it too. We must approve!
#{{User|Yoshi Boo 118}} Per all.
#{{User|Joshazilla23}} Per all, though, who's going to oppose?
#{{User|Noahp89}}  Yeah, we need more news than that. I agree.
#{{User|Random User}} Per all. However, I agree with Marioguy, who do expect to update it?
#{{User|4DJONG}} Summer is almost over and those came out during the beginning of the summer, and the info there should be updated right away!!!!
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per all.
#{{User|Hate the N64DD}}Per all
#{{User|Vyro}} Per Timmy Tim
#{{User|Itachi 96}} Per all
#{{user|Jdrowlands}} Per all, but I agree with SMB and Time Q.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} Per all. That news isn't helping anyone anymore. We need regular updates.
#{{User|Ralphfan}} Per all.
#{{User|Mr. Br Mario}} Per all.
#{{User|MechaWave}} Yes it was very helpful and notable when it became released, but that's pretty stale if the news keeps the same for about forty-five days or so. The title says "Mario & Nintendo News," there's plenty to add in my opinion, others can think otherwise. Per TimmyTim.
#{{User|Supermario6449}} Per all.
#{{user|Para Yoshi}} Per Timmy TIm. This has been bothering me for months.


====Oppose====
====Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed====


====Comments====
====Comments on standardize sectioning for ''Super Mario'' series game articles====
Your proposal isn't really specific. I don't think the template is "a joke", or is becoming one. It has only the most important news - releases and announcements of games. If there's no news, we can't just make up some. I do agree, though, that we should also add the most important news on upcoming games. For example, when new characters in ''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games'' are confirmed, we should list that. But have any been confirmed lately? I don't know. Of course we could also add less important news to the template. The problem would be that the ''really'' important info would be gone from the template too early, at least in my opinion. So, to cut a long story short: Could you please specify what you mean by "minor news"? IMO, new trailers are ''too'' minor, but new characters are ok. {{User|Time Q}}
These sound like good ideas, but do they need a proposal? Proposal rule 15: "Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages." {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:39, June 26, 2024 (EDT)
:Well what about if a trailer was released for SMG2 which showed several new features and characters, would something like, '''A new trailer has revealed more information about the upcoming game [[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]?''' Or is that too minor in your opinion? We could also move the Tourney template to below the Proposal one, move the Poll Template and Did You Know Template down so they're next to the Tourney one and expand the News template. {{User|Timmy Tim}}
:I originally did not plan on doing so, but {{User|EvieMaybe}} recommended I raise one. I supposed it was a good way to assess how other folks think game articles should be organized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:45, June 26, 2024 (EDT)
::I say after today, we should get rid of the tourney template, and any user can edit that te,plate, I believe, so you can update it yourself :) {{User|Tucayo}}
:::That would violate the rules, as a proposal cannot be reversed until a month later (I would suggest a rule that if the administrators think a passed proposal is not good anymore, they could reverse it). {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
::::Well, there is a rule saying we can remove proposals "at any time", which doesn't ''have'' to mean any time during the voting week ;) I actually meant to suggest an extension to that rule that would legitimately (i.e. not using a loophole in the phraseology) allow us to retroactively veto proposals (i.e. if one passed and immediately started causing major problems we had not foreseen), but I didn't get around to it... Maybe another Tourney Template Proposal could be made anyway, seeing as the circumstances have changed a fair bit (and so it's not just flip-flopping on an issue, which is what the one month waiting time is meant to prevent). - {{User|Walkazo}}


Guys, I think most of you have invalid reasons. "I want teh template to be updated!" isn't really valid. If there's no relevant news, we can't add some, it's as easy as that. And as far as I remember, there haven't been any important Mario news lately. So I vote for the removal of Baby Mario Bloops's, Egg Yoshi's, Platitudinous's, Noahp89's, and 4DJONG's votes. Timmy Tim, what would this proposal, if passed, change specifically? As for your question above, I think such trailers could be mentioned, but IMO it should be put as "X and Y are confirmed to appear in game Z" rather than "A new trailer for game Z was released". That's just my opinion, though. {{User|Time Q}}
==Miscellaneous==
:Well, we have a number of new games on the way and information relating to their progress could be treated as news. If a new trailer for game Z is released revealing items X and Y, why not have an article in the news template stating '''Items X and Y have been revealed for game Z''' or '''A new trailer had revealed additional info about game Z'''? I suppose that would work for both you and I, as well as the supporters of this proposal who are sick of hearing about Mario Clock and Mario Calculator but wouldn't mind knowing if new content in NSMB Wii, for example is released. {{User|Timmy Tim}}
''None at the moment.''
::Okay. Still, I don't think this proposal would really change anything. If there is relevant news, feel free to add it. I don't think anyone would revert that, even if it's "only" about new characters or items. Oh, and as for your example news "A new trailer had revealed additional info about game Z": We should definitely say ''what'' kind of info it is. You probably meant that though, I just wanted to clarify. {{User|Time Q}}
:::I support TimeQ, this proposal is pointless, we do not need proposals about this kind of stuff. {{User|Tucayo}}
::::He's not really saying it's pointless really, just what it will accomplish if this is passed, or just clarifying some... things. {{User|MechaWave}}
Here's a new idea, why not rename it '''News''' as opposed to '''Mario and Nintendo News''' and add in wiki-realted news such as ''UserX has been promoted to Patroller'' or ''The latest issue of '''The 'Shroom''' has been released?'' that could work. Also, there's finally some new news, after over a month of now useless info! {{User|Timmy Tim}}
:We have the announcement template for that. --{{User|Yoshario}}
::Yeah, but we never use that much anyway and we could kill two birds with one stone. {{User|Timmy Tim}}
:::We have [[Template:Notices]], its not protected, so anyone can update it {{user|Tucayo}}
<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
&nbsp;

Latest revision as of 12:44, July 1, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, July 1st, 17:49 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

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

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

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Get rid of the "Subject origin" parameter on the species infobox, DrippingYellow (ended June 25, 2024)
Trim the list of Snake's codec conversations and list of Palutena's Guidance conversations, Dive Rocket Launcher (ended June 26, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
^ NOTE: Currently the subject of an active proposal.
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove Zelda-Exclusive Pages

There are several pages in Category:The_Legend_of_Zelda_series that I believe should be deleted from the wiki. There are many pages in the category that should clearly remain on the wiki, like Ancient Tires, Hyrule Castle and Deku Baba, which appear in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe; 8-Bit Hero, a microgame in WarioWare: Touched!; Recorder, an item that has appeared in both series; or Link and Master Sword, which have appeared in multiple Mario games. Then there are pages that have no connection to the Mario series at all.

We have the List of references in Nintendo video games to cover topics such as these. I fail to see why they need their own pages. Even some of the links for these articles on the references page link to their equivalent articles on Zelda Wiki, our NIWA affiliate, because editors on our own wiki likely assume we don't have pages for Zelda-exclusive content. For example, why is Stone Elevator covered as a separate page but we don’t have a page for Gulliver, who references Toad Town and the Overthere in Animal Crossing, giving Gulliver, who has apparently visited places in the Mario series, a more direct connection than Stone Elevator, which just shares visual similarities to Thwomps? To be clear, I don’t think we should have a page for Gulliver for the reason that he does not appear in a Mario series game. Perhaps a more potent example is Togezo from Kirby’s Adventure, which is clearly a Kirbified version of a Spiny and even shares the same Japanese name. Why is there a page for Manhandla from Zelda, a variant of Piranha Plant, but not Togezo? There just doesn’t seem to be consistency.

For some reason, these pages seem to be disproportionally related to The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening compared to other Zelda games. Perhaps that is because there’s more profound references in Link’s Awakening, but as someone not familiar with the Zelda series, it strikes me as very odd that there’s favoritism for references in that game but there aren't independent pages any other Zelda-exclusive references on the page. This proposal from 2022 permits the creation of non-Mario series pages, but they seem out of place on Mario Wiki, so I think we should explore undoing the consequences of this proposal.

Furthermore, pages like Keese only cover the enemies’ appearance in Mario games, whereas Manhandla covers the extensive history of Mandhala throughout the Zelda series. Again, notably, Manhandla doesn’t have any appearances in Mario games, so I suppose it has to cover everything it does in Zelda since otherwise the page would be blank.

If Yoshi doll exists as an independent page, then shouldn’t every Animal Crossing furniture series and clothing from the Animal Crossing series like the Big Bro's Hat that references the Mario series also be given its own page? I just fail to see the difference. It’s more of the disproportionate coverage of Link’s Awakening.

Perhaps the worst offender is Bombite, which has no confirmed connection to the Mario series whatsoever. Per the page, “They appear to be based on Bob-ombs.” That alone is sufficient to be given a page on the wiki?

To be fair, there is developer commentary about some of the Mario-inspired features in Zelda games affirming they were, indeed, inspired by Mario equivalents (not including Bombite), but is our threshold going to become developer confirmation for significance enough to the Mario series to have an independent page? I'm sure that similar commentary could be found for much listed on List of references in Nintendo video games. If that's our threshold, then shouldn't we create pages for everything confirmed to be inspired by anything to do with the Mario series? That would be a tidal wave of new pages. If not, why is Link's Awakening being treated differently from everything else?

Something of a middle-ground solution is to create a page on our wiki for Link's Awakening. Though I do not favor this idea, there is precedence for the creation of pages for games that pay significant homage to the Mario series but aren't in the series themselves, including but not limited to Captain Rainbow, Fortune Street, and, of course, the entire Super Smash Bros. (series). I don't favor this option given the roles of Mario characters in Link's Awakening are much more minor compared to something like Birdo having a mildly significant role in Captain Rainbow, but there seems to be a lot of love for Link's Awakening on this wiki, so maybe this could be a middle ground solution. This page would house the information for Bombite, Mega Thowmp, Spiked Thowmp, Stone Elevator, and Yoshi doll, but it would remove the independent pages for Manhandla (The Legend of Zelda) and Head Thwomp (Oracle of Ages) and just confine them to the references page.

Pages that would be deleted:

Options breakdown I’ve drafted nine options to address the inconsistencies or excess coverage.

  • Option 1 deletes the pages I’ve highlights and incorporates relevant parts of the information on those pages elsewhere. In the case of the Thwomps, there is already a section referencing them on Thwomp.
  • Option 2 takes the converse approach and adds exhaustive information about Zelda series pages on the wiki to bridge the gap between Manhandla and Keese and similar pages.
^ Note that no equivalent option for Option 2 exists that would simply remove the bulk of the information from the highlighted pages as there would be nothing to put on the pages other than "X is a variant of X", e.g. "Manhandla is a variant of Piranha Plant that appears in The Legend of Zelda series", since these enemies have no relation to the Mario series other than being inspired by enemies in the series.
  • Option 3 implements Option 2 but also creates new pages for obvious inspirations from the Mario series like Togezo, Animal Crossing furniture and clothing, and similar examples.
  • Option 4 keeps the Thwomp-related pages since they have a more potent connection to the Mario series, though I believe that if we do this we should create a page on the wiki for Togezo and every other enemy from a different franchise that is based on something from the Mario series, which I don’t think is necessary but becomes appropriate if we have pages for the Thwomp-relations and Manhandla. Yoshi doll is also kept in this option if people want that for whatever reason, but I again suggest that if we have a page for Yoshi doll, then we should have a page for all the similar furniture items from the Animal Crossing series and other series. I strongly believe all this information is best confined to List of references in Nintendo video games instead. If we're taking this option but not Option 3, I just see it as giving a lot of preferential coverage to Link's Awakening.
  • Option 5 keeps Yoshi doll but deletes the Thwomp-related pages and Bombite. See argument against this in Option 4's description.
  • Option 6 keeps all other pages but deletes Bombite since it is the least related to the Mario series and would suggest we should have pages for any enemy from any Nintendo game that resembles a Bob-omb, which, given their design, would be basically any sapient bomb enemy.
  • Option 7 creates a page for Link's Awakening and deletes the highlighted pages. This gives a place for all the highlighted pages on the wiki to exist outside of the references list, minus Manhandla and Head Thwomp.
  • Option 8 creates a page for Link's Awakening but keeps Manhandla and Head Thwomp as independent pages.
  • Option 9, the do nothing option, would consider all of this as a non-issue and leave things as they are now.

Proposer: DrBaskerville (talk)
Deadline: July 08, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Remove the highlighted pages as independent pages, add information about them to Trivia on other pages where applicable, and ensure they are referenced on List of references in Nintendo video games

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer. It's a good way of acknowledging these entities exist while not treating them as having the same amount of integration within the Super Mario franchise as Thwimps, for example.

Option 2: Keep all pages and add exhaustive information from the Zelda series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, e.g. Keese, Deku Baba, Master Sword, etc.

Option 3: Keep all pages, add exhaustive information from the Zeldra series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, and create pages for Mario-inspired content, like Togezo and Animal Crossing references

Option 4: Keep Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Yoshi doll, but remove Bombite

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Second choice.

Option 5: Keep Yoshi doll, but remove Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Bombite

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Third choice.

Option 6: Keep all other pages, but remove Bombite

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Fourth choice.

Option 7: Create page for Link's Awakening and remove highlighted independent pages

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Fifth choice.

Option 8: Create page for Link's Awakening and keep Manhandla and Head Thwomp pages

Option 9: Do nothing

  1. Axis (talk) The proposal fails to understand why these pages have been created in the first place. The Legend of Zelda series is considered a guest appearance, meaning anything Mario themed or derived from the Mario franchise gets a page. While Bombite and Stone Elevator have no direct connection to the Mario series (someone should dig up Player's Guide and Nintendo Power for these), other entries clearly do, and therefore should stay as independent pages (MarioWiki:Coverage). I believe Bombite and Stone Elevator should be handled seperately on their own respective talk pages (there is an ongoing discussion on Stone Elevator's talk page). The reason items from Animal Crossing don't get their own pages is because noone made a proposal to classify the series as guest appearance yet (unlike the Zelda series, the items in Animal Crossing are purely decorational. I doubt anyone would make a proposal).
  2. Pseudo (talk) Per Axis. It seems to me that this proposal underestimates just how much of a guest appearance Link’s Awakening is for the Mario series—there really are a lot of crossover enemies.
  3. Hewer (talk) Leaning towards this for now, partly because the proposer seems to have been unaware that Link's Awakening is already classified as a guest appearance with its own page, but mostly because this seems a bit too much for a single proposal. If there are issues with our current handling of this, it'd be better to solve them individually than in a giant, sweeping proposal.
  4. Arend (talk) The fact that Options 7 and 8 involves creating an article for Link's Awakening when we already have an article for such a thing makes it apparent that the proposer has not done enough research before setting up this proposal - and thus is in need for some retooling. It reminds me of this one proposal in which the proposer wanted to add a Composers subsection to the Recurring themes nav template (which would be rather unfitting) and was pitching an idea about dedicated articles for composers as if we did not have those yet (even though we already have several of those, and all of them, plus the ones we don't have yet, are already included in the Composers subsection of the People nav template, rendering the whole point of the proposal redundant).

Comments

I apologize for the length of this proposal and the number of options, but I wanted to ensure as many approaches as possible were offered. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

It's possible that there are other pages exclusively related to other series on the wiki as well outside of the Zelda pages that I've highlighted. Their exclusion from this proposal is not due to me believing they should remain but instead being ignorant of their existence. If similar pages exist from other franchises, please feel free to note them in reply to this comment and, if this proposal passes, I'll explore deletion proposals for them as well depending on the strength of their relationship to the Mario series. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Uh, there is a Link's Awakening page. It was classified as a guest appearance (i.e. page-worthy) by that 2022 proposal you linked to, and MarioWiki:Coverage tells us that "if a subject is unique to [a guest appearance] while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise, they can receive individual articles", so all the Link's Awakening Mario-inspired enemies are therefore eligible to get articles. Admittedly though, I'm not sure about pages for the Mario-inspired enemies from other games that we don't consider guest appearances, as while it was technically decided by that 2022 proposal, it was only clarified in a comment that it would extend to all Zelda games rather than just Link's Awakening, and it's less supported by policy. And yeah, some of them (like Bombite) do kinda seem to be stretches, but that's probably better handled on its own rather than in a giant proposal like this. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:19, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Changes

Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary

An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?

I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)

My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.

I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.

This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.

Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk)
Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer.
  2. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I agree with this proposal.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
  2. DrBaskerville (talk) Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
  3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all.
  4. Scrooge200 (talk) I don't think WiKirby is a good example -- of anything. I would be interested in something else to improve the remake pages though.
  5. Arend (talk) I get the concern of this proposal, but I'm not sure if repeating much of the same information over and over is the ideal solution.
  6. Jazama (talk) Per all

Comments

This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. BabyLuigiFire.png Ray Trace(T|C) 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in Super Mario 3D All-Stars would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for three games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)

In my eyes, the change list for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. DandelionSprout (talk) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)

Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in Mario Sports Superstars article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). BabyLuigiFire.png Ray Trace(T|C) 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

Just for reference, the current size of the TTYD remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). Scrooge200 (talk) PMCS Mustard Cafe Sign.png 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

Split Wario Land: Shake It! bosses into boss levels

This proposal is similar to the one that passed. As you see, we have Motley Bossblob and Hisstocrat boss levels from Super Mario 3D World, the boss levels from the Donkey Kong Country series, even boss levels Yoshi's Crafted World where each boss guards a Dream Gem. Right now, you might be wondering how we can create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split:

Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk) (banned)
Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Hewer (talk) I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
  3. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see Bowser's Sourpuss Bread, which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)
  4. Arend (talk) I suppose that makes sense. Per all.
  5. Jazama (talk) Per all

#GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) While there is precedence, I just don't see this as necessary given the information is currently detailed on the existing pages without overcrowding them.

Comments

Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

Looking at "Short Pages, when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or Mario Kart Arcade GP items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split Speed Mario Bros.. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when Pesky Billboard is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles

I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the Super Mario series on and off for the past few years. I think presenting information in a shared, unified way is beneficial for readers and passively communicates that these games are part of a shared series, something I think is helpful for a franchise covering so many genres and series. Game articles in the Yoshi's Island and Donkey Kong Country series are similarly organized to one another. It is easy to jump from one article to another, information is where I'd expect it to be, and they look nice. Good stuff.

At present, some Super Mario game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins to New Super Mario Bros. U and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents.

The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is:

Characters: living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm

  • Playable characters: characters controlled
  • Non-playable characters: characters that aren’t controlled

Enemies and obstacles: subjects that damage or inhibit the player character

  • Enemies: living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment
  • Obstacles: abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement
  • Bosses: subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression

Items and objects: beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic

  • Items: subjects that are absorbable/collectible, holdable, or health-restoring
  • Power-ups: items that transform the player character’s appearance and grant unique abilities
  • Objects: interactable subjects in the environment that are not items

This sectioning arrangement has been integrated on the Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, Super Mario Land, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario 3D Land, Super Mario 3D World, and Super Mario Odyssey articles.

Because of the tactile nature of platformers, I like organizing subjects based on their mechanical relationship to the player character, so I keep bosses organized with enemies and obstacles because they all hurt the player. It is also thematically appropriate, because at least some bosses are usually rulers of an enemy species in the same section. I do not like using terms that have strong connotations outside of gaming like "cast" or "antagonist". (I particularly do not like using "antagonist" here because these platformers are not chiefly driven by narrative, so the fact that some bosses also serve antagonistic narrative roles is of lesser importance to their tactile roles as bosses.) "Characters" is more neutral, I think. I also do not separate "returning enemies" from "new ones". I'd rather delineate that information in one shared table, like so. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new.

I don't envision this sectioning being applied rigidly, and this is apparent in some of the articles I linked to above. There aren't really enough items in Super Mario Land for them to be severed from power-ups, so I lumped them together in one table there. Both Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy 2 include a "rideable characters" section, and there is a "clothing" section between "Items" and "objects" in Super Mario Odyssey. Rather, I would like this sectioning to be a jumping off point, from which users can manipulate and change things as needed. No two games are exactly the same, after all.

I offer four options.

  1. Support: I like this! Let's do it (if this passes, this sectioning arrangement will be integrated into the remaining Super Mario game articles)
  2. Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently (if this one passes, a second proposal would be raised by the voters that outline their preferred organizational scheme)
  3. Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy (this option is basically the "do nothing" option)
  4. Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: I like this! Let's do it

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Consistency is never a bad thing.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Hewer (talk) I guess if this ought to be a proposal, then sure, per proposal.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal
  6. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) Per proposal.
  7. DrBaskerville (talk) Per all. Consistency is good.
  8. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.
  9. Jazama (talk) Per all

Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently

Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I see page layouts as an organically changing thing, it's best to not create guidelines where they needn't exist. I'm fine with the pages being changed to follow this pattern, but it shouldn't require an additional proposal to change further.
  2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.

Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed

Comments on standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles

These sound like good ideas, but do they need a proposal? Proposal rule 15: "Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:39, June 26, 2024 (EDT)

I originally did not plan on doing so, but EvieMaybe (talk) recommended I raise one. I supposed it was a good way to assess how other folks think game articles should be organized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:45, June 26, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4282777"