MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
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==
''None at the moment.''


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==New features==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
===Create a template to crop images on-the-fly without having to tamper with the base file's dimensions===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
{{Early notice|December 4}}
#*Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
So {{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} shared this nifty template that TCRF has: [[tcrf:Template:CSS image crop]], which allows images to be displayed in mainspace at a cut-out size from how they are on the image files themselves. This has two utilities: one is shrinking to a relevant entity in group textures such as {{file link|M&SatL2012OG Wii audience.png|this one}}, and the other is to avoid blank space without having to crop the raw graphic parameters - thus allowing best-of-both-worlds for the previous proposal I attempted (and failed), as it satisfies the OCD itch of avoiding bad and/or inconsistent crops on the base files without taking up unnecessary space where the images are actually used. It also removes a lot of unnecessary work actually cropping/uncropping images since you don't have to save them to a machine/web address to upload a new version - you can just put in the parameters you want and go from there.
#*Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
#*Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#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. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#"<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.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': December 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT


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


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
====No new template====


==New Features==
====Comments on CSS image crop====
This appears to be similar to [[Template:Squared icon|a template I have made]] in order to crop images to perfectly squared off icons for uses on pages such as [[Pipe Frame]] (e.g. displaying Mii Racing Suit icons in the same table as other character icons); however, the version you're presenting seems to include more options. I'm not gonna vote yet, but so far I don't see the harm to have this other template too. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:42, November 27, 2024 (EST)


===Make bestiaries or not?===
==Removals==
===Remove video game console generations===
I would imagine most people who have discussed video games in the past have heard of {{wp|History of video_game consoles#Console generations|video game console generations}}. It is a tool to categorize video game hardware and its place in time. There is just one problem: the current video game console generation system is flawed. If you would like to further read into the specifics as to why I would recommend this [https://www.timeextension.com/features/is-wikipedia-really-to-blame-for-video-game-console-generations Time Extension article] by Jack Yarwood. But in short, the phrase "next generation" originates as a term used starting around the 1990s, as video games evolved over the many years, Wikipedia editors would create their own video game console generation system that has for the most part remained unchanged since its introduction in the early 2000s. This generation system would slowly be adopted by other sites, media, and the people who engage with video games.


Ok so users have been arguing on if there should be a bestiary for enemies or not(like a collection of all the enemies from a game in one article). Really, why do we need a bestiary? I'm not the best at explaining, but my reasons on why there shouldn't be a bestiary are below.  
Within the scope of the major [[Nintendo]] video game consoles, this is currently how the video game console generation system is categorized.


#First of all, bestiaries are worthless because you're just deleting a list of enemies from a main article , and then putting that content into a new sub-article and adding stuff, like where the enemies appear. But why don't we just keep all that in the main article and not have a whole article on enemies and where they appear? In fact, writing about where enemies appear in main articles or bestiaries, as you can just click on the link to that enemies page and read about where they come from there!
First generation: [[Color TV-Game]]<br>
#Some users made a huge table for the BiS enemies. I can tell that it took them a lot of work, and if the BiS enemies are put in a bestiary, than those tables have to be deleted! And there's no point of erasing great work!
Second generation: [[Game & Watch]]<br>
#Bestiaries can make some stubs. How? Some games such as Mario is Missing, Yoshi's Cookie, Super Mario Bros., and Mario Bros. have very few enemies. Making their list in a bestiary will make a short list, resulting in an unwanted stub.
Third generation: [[Family Computer]], [[Nintendo Entertainment System]]<br>
#Why do we need bestiaries when '''we have categories about enemies'''? You can just go to category:Paper Mario enemies or category: Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story enemies, then click on the link to their article, and read about where they appear.
Fourth generation: [[Super Famicom]], [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]], [[Game Boy]]<br>
#Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries! We may not be Wikipedia, but it is a much more experienced wiki. The users they probably know better than to put in bestiaries.
Fifth generation: [[Nintendo 64]], [[Game Boy Color]]<br>
Sixth generation: [[Nintendo GameCube]], [[Game Boy Advance]]<br>
Seventh generation: [[Wii]], [[Nintendo DS]]<br>
Eighth generation: [[Wii U]], [[Nintendo 3DS]], [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>
Ninth generation: [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>


HOWEVER, games in the [[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario series]] and [[Super Mario RPG]] SHOULD have bestiaries because their games have psychopath thoughts/tattles and bestiaries. But yeah, no need for bestiaries on those other games. Happy voting!
There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the {{wp|Xbox Series X and Series S|Xbox Series X/S}} and {{wp|PlayStation 5}} consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead. Because of this, it is not entirely clear where the Nintendo Switch is in the video game console generation system and the solution is to simply file it in both generations rather than one or the other.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Fawfulfury65}}<br>
Now the Nintendo Switch is a hybrid console, but what about portable consoles? The current video game console generation system lumps in both home and portable consoles. If the goal of the generation system was to be based on hardware specifications than it ultimately falls flat with consoles such as the 16-bit [[Super Famicom]] and [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] home consoles being in the same generation as the 8-bit [[Game Boy]] portable console. For home consoles there is absolutely nothing in the second generation, with the [[Color TV-Game]] consoles being in the first and the [[Family Computer]] and [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] consoles being in the third. Portable consoles have a similar issue with nothing in the third generation, with the [[Game & Watch]] line in the second and the [[Game Boy]] being in the fourth.
'''Deadline:''' 5, December 2009, 15:00


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


====Bestiaries should be developed for RPG game articles only; unnecessary for other genres====
Home consoles: 1. [[Color TV-Game]] 2. [[Family Computer]], [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] 3. [[Super Famicom]], [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] 4. [[Nintendo 64]] 5. [[Nintendo GameCube]], 6. [[Wii]] 7. [[Wii U]] 8. [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per above.
Portable consoles: 1. [[Game & Watch]] 2. [[Game Boy]] 3. [[Game Boy Color]] 4. [[Game Boy Advance]] 5. [[Nintendo DS]] 6. [[Nintendo 3DS]] 7. [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Keep it!!! Bestiaries are for Paper Mario and MRPG stuff, since it actually tells about the enemies in the game. The Mario & Luigi series is RPG series and hav enemies too, but don't describe them in the game. Easy choice.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} - I'd have to go with you guys on this one. I know how hard you all worked to finish the whole thing. Per FF65.
#{{User|Dry Paratroopa}} - Per BMB.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per my comments below.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Per all. Another thing really unnecessary. Most of bestiaries are small, poor and so-simple lists that can be created within main articles without any complication. Why making those simple things harder?
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} - Per all,we don't need this,they make the pages of their respective games shorter and make the pages of the "bestiaries" a stub,Really not necessary!.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Well, considering the fact that I think the gallery is stupid, at least I don't have to go to another article just to read info on the enemies.
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - No, it's all right in the game article. However, in RPG games we may put them in alphabetical order.
#{{User|Frostyfireyoshi}} - Per all. Only the Paper Mario series actually requires bestiaries.
#{{User|Redstar}} - Bestiaries are, for the purposes of this wiki, a list of enemies found in a particular game, as well as their vital statistics, locations, and a description if the game provides one. Due to the nature of bestiaries, they can be quite long and thorough, so must be split from the main article. Bestiaries, however, are not always necessary, and in fact are only really helpful for RPG games. There are currently four Mario RPG games: [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]], [[Paper Mario]], [[Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door]], and [[Super Paper Mario]]. A bestiary for each would prove legitimate and useful. I oppose this proposal because it seeks to make bestiaries unnecessary for ''all'' game articles, RPG or otherwise. I agree bestiaries are not necessary for the regular platformer and puzzle Mario games, but banning them entirely from the RPG games is simply too far.
#{{User|Rouge2}} I think the enemies of a certain evolution like Goomba and Gu Goomba, should be merged.


====Comments====
Home console example: "The [[Nintendo 64]] is the fourth [[Nintendo]] home console platform."<br>
Is this proposal supposed to delete all bestiary articles or only those pertaining the M&L series? Lists of enemies should belong on the game's article (Paper Mario games shouldn't get any special treatment). I'd support preventing all bestiary articles.--{{User|Knife}}
Portable console example: "The [[Nintendo DS]] is the fifth [[Nintendo]] portable console platform."<br>
Hybrid console example: "The [[Nintendo Switch]] is the seventh portable and eighth home [[Nintendo]] console platform."<br>


Uhm... Does this Proposal actually intent to change anything? If so, then the header of the second paragraph is misnamed. If not, then what's the point? - {{User|Edofenrir}} 20:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)
This alternative system does have flaws with the Switch being in two categories again, however that is due to the Switch being a hybrid between a home and portable console. The reason the console is in two video game generations according to Wikipedia is not as clear. Another much straightforward solution would be to simply list the predecessor and successor of each console.


:I think it's only gonna change the newly added bestiaries of M&L series. I've gotta disagree with you Knife, though. Mario and Luigi series have no bestiary, while the Paper Mario series have bestiaires (Tattles, Catch Cards, and whatever the heck they are).{{User|Gamefreak75}}
Example: "The predecessor to the [[Nintendo 64]] is the [[Super Famicom]] and [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] and the successor is the [[Nintendo GameCube]]."
::No this counts for all articles on games. Not the Mario and Luigi series. So if the most users think that there shouldn't be a bestiary, than we will only have any, unless it is really needed(like for PM games). But if the most users want there to be bestiaries, than we'll put bestiaries for all games. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}


:::I'm not really too fond of bestiaries for the M&L series, but if this proposal passes, do we have to create bestiaries for SMS and NSMBW and other games?{{User|Gamefreak75}}
This is the most likely solution if video game console generations were removed. It is easy to understand and already implemented to an extent. The work required is simply the removal process with minimal addition.


Yes but I honestly doubt we'll have to make any bestiaries. A lot of uses didn't like the idea of bestiaries, but I made this proposal to solve an argument. I hate when people fight on the internet. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro3256}}<br>
'''Deadline''': December 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT


:Yeah, but I think the bestiaires for PM games should stay.{{User|Gamefreak75}}
====Support====
::Yes, because PM has tattle info and stuff needed for bestiaries. Just for the PM series. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} console generations make more sense when comparing against several different consoles. for our use case, they're pretty irrelevant.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and EvieMaybe.
#{{User|Bro3256}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, specifically the second suggested solution of not numbering consoles at all. Saves the unnecessary confusion.
#{{User|winstein}} Per proposal.


:::Perfect! I shall vote now.{{User|Gamefreak75}}
====Oppose====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Regardless of contemporary awkwardness, it's still useful comparing the timelines for the ones of the past. I've ''still'' seen people not realize the GBC was in circulation around the same time of the N64 based on nothing but their respective bit-count.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - This feels like a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". While we've always found the "console generations" thing really, really strange (as you can expect from a metric born from ''Wikipedia itself''), we can't deny that it is still useful to a degree, and unlike, say, calling unused content "beta" content, the term "console generation" is still a term that sees active use in gaming circles, even if as of late Nintendo's side of it has gotten a bit desynced. In addition, as was pointed out in the comments, the [[Philips CD-i]] is noticeably absent, but in addition to that, so is the [[Virtual Boy]], which is even more directly Nintendo related? Not that we'd particularly like this even if both of these were accounted for, mind...
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Without the Virtual Boy in here, this numbering scheme just flat-out isn't actually true. As such, I can't support this proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Perhaps a better idea is to use <code>Cross-generation ({{tem|wp|Eighth generation of video game consoles|eighth}}—{{tem|wp|Ninth generation of video game consoles|ninth}})</code> on the Nintendo Switch page and use <code>{{tem|wp|[No.] generation of video game consoles|[No.] generation}}</code> on pages on all other systems. As such, I'm opposing this proposal.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick and Cam&woodstock.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I personally do not invoke console generations when writing about video games - it is not a classification system that has much value to me. I do not think I would support the carte blanche integration of console generations as a large systematic classification system on the wiki. If this proposal was just asking to remove generations from the system infobox, I might be on board. However, console generations are still a widely employed way to separate game media into different eras, and I do not think it is intrinsically harmful to mention them in a paragraph if the editor finds it helpful to relay a specific piece of information. I think users should still have the ability to exercise that freedom.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.


Uhm... I just want to inform you, that, should the Proposal pass in favour of the site who is leading atm, absolutely nothing will happen, because the header says "Keep as is". - {{User|Edofenrir}}
====Comments====
I disagree with the premise, since a tool that is helpful but flawed is still helpful. Moreover, we do cover a couple of devices that do not fit on a Nintendo-exclusive relative timeline, namely the [[Philips CD-i]] and the [[Triforce]] arcade boards. I guess "contemporary to the _____" works just as well, but there's a level of "semantics over broader public" thing that I'm a little iffy about if that kind of phrasing has to be used. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 13:51, November 29, 2024 (EST)


::FF65, when you mentioned the BiS table stuff, I think that one user made it, while another user fixed a grammar problem (not trying to be selfish, just stating that fact) :) - {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}


So do have to change something because the header says "keep as is"? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
Where the HECK is the [[Virtual Boy]] in all of this? Nintendo's ''actual'' third portable console and part of the fourth generation (or fifth? It was supposed to keep customers occupied while waiting for the Nintendo 64), as it was released in 1995? {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:43, November 29, 2024 (EST)
:Wait, I have a question, does that mean that the PM bestiary will cease to exist if this is heading in the direction the atm side is on? {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::The Proposal should probably be rewritten. It seems to cause much confusion.  - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:::Ok ok I fixed it a bit! Does it make more sense? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::::Well, it's more straight forward now, so I guess yes. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


There seems to be some confusion as to what a bestiary is. A bestiary is a complete list of all enemies found in a particular game, as well as the places they are located. It has absolutely nothing to do with tattle information, and in no way ends up as a stub. Really, Fawful is misleading you all as he apparently hasn't even read the current [[Paper Mario (Bestiary)|bestiary]] for the Paper Mario page. The intent of bestiaries are to avoid crowding main articles and expand on information that would otherwise be a list. Please, look at all the information before casting your votes. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:23, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:I didn't include select consoles in this proposal since my arguments mainly focused on the major [[Nintendo]] consoles. That is not to say consoles like the [[Virtual Boy]] and non-Nintendo consoles like the [[Philips CD-i]] aren't important (they are!), but I wanted to prioritize the issues present with how the video game geration system currently works with the major Nintendo consoles since these alone already present issues with the system without the additions of what was omitted for the purposes of this proposal.
:Ok forget about the stub parts. Yes, I read the bestiary for PM, a list that can be added to the main PM article but isn't. And if bestiaries don't include tattle info, than that just makes bastiaries more worthless. And putting all that in the main article won't clutter up anything, in fact, if you really want to know where certain enemies appear, than just check out their article, that simple! We don't need bestiaries, Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries on games! {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::We're not Wikipedia. If we were, we wouldn't even be covering half the article as it is. And bestiaries aren't worthless... The entire point of them is to clean-up the main article, because no one wants to read a list of enemies found in that game. It takes up space for more important information. Splitting that list off into its own page, as well as expanding it to include location information, both cleans up the main article and keeps information presented in a more specialized location. Really, the only reason ''against'' this is because it's a little more work. The only reason you brought it up is because you don't like the things needed to be done to make the Mario & Luigi page worth Featuring. Laziness does not excuse professional standards. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:46, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:::If you want to continue this discussion, then do it without accusations! Everyone, maintain a mature standard of debating please! - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::::I would like to, but I don't approve of someone going behind my back and lying about what something constitutes just so they can avoid doing it. This entire proposal is based on personal misconception, which implies Fawful didn't even ''look'' at the bestiary page as an example. I just hope we can both resolve it and get people looking at the facts. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 23:06, 29 November 2009 (EST)


CoinCollector: Bestiaries are '''not''' meant to be simple lists. They are a more thorough amount of information detailing locations in-game found, stats, and in-game tattle or player's guide information. These are things that should be there anyways, but if they were would take up too much room and so are moved. Several articles already do this and it's ''supposed'' to be done for all of them, but hasn't already. The only reason this is up for proposal is because Fawful and MATEO don't want to do the necessary work to make their articles worthy of Featuring, so are attempting to side-step it by creating a proposal to undermine current standard. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 02:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:Regarding [[Triforce]], that is a whole different category of hardware. Arcade hardware for the most part has never worked with this generation system since it was primarly designed with home and portable consoles in mind. How do you even slot in arcade hardware to begin with? Arcade games had a completely different evolution to their console counterparts and were usually cutting edge at the time before any console equivalents made it to market, and even if they did unlike consoles, arcade hardware differs depending on the game. How can you be sure what a certain arcade game is running on is in a certain generation? --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 18:04, November 29, 2024 (EST)


:Making a bestiary in that way is similar to create an article for each enemy found in the game. Adding too info for enemies in the game's article makes the enemies' articles themselves redundant and useless, even making an attachment on that issue. In other words, you would like to "merge" (or "copy" or whatever) the info seen from multiple articles into one... {{user|Coincollector}}
@Doc von Schmeltwick: I don't really see how that's an argument against this proposal. We have the release dates listed for the consoles, and the Game Boy Color article's very first sentence describes it as "the handheld counterpart of the Nintendo 64". Why is it also necessary to call them "fifth generation"? I'd argue that it's probably the least clear way of showing the connection, because I can't imagine "fifth generation" means anything to someone who doesn't know about when those consoles released. Not to mention that being in the same "generation" doesn't necessarily mean they were being sold at the same time, as the Wii U and Switch demonstrate. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:30, November 29, 2024 (EST)
::It's not similar to that at all. Enemies stats differ from game to game, so in actuality this ''splits'' that information from the main articles to the related game articles, thus saving space. There is no merging at all. The main articles, such as a Goombas, for example, shouldn't be swamped with technical information from each game. It should only cover the history of that enemy throughout the games. Stats and such is better suited for the bestiary related to each game. An example of what a basic bestiary is would be the [[Paper Mario/Bestiary]], which simply lists each enemy and the location they're found at. A more extensive bestiary is the one for [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Tattle Log)]]. This information is individual from game-to-game, specifically the RPGs, so the RPGs are the only games affected to such a degree. Other games, such as Super Mario Sunshine, only need to be filled out in the basic way. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 03:10, 30 November 2009 (EST)


:That info fits without problems in the main article, so, why move it? in fact, I see there is no official descriptions (eg: in-game info) or something like that as to fill the "missing space" for those lists, just technical information (HP, Attack, Defense, etc) and that's fairly short. Changing over the info for the character articles will look them more formal but less dynamic - and maybe is by the fact that looks like we abused the purpose of the information tables, but that's other tale. The tattle log of  Paper Mario looks like for me a walk-trough than real information... Well, that's just my opinion. {{User|Coincollector}}
@Ahemtoday: Please read above the comment I made in regards to the absence of [[Virtual Boy]]. Keep and mind that I was presenting it as one possible solution if video game console generations were removed. That is not to say it should be the solution used hence why I provided another alternative one. If the first system was implemented into the wiki than I would imagine [[Virtual Boy]] being included. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 18:25, November 29, 2024 (EST)
::It should be moved because it's ''supposed'' to have all that essential information filled out, but if it did it would take up too much space. That's why bestiary pages are warranted. The problem is that the [[Goomba]] page, for example, used the correct table for an enemy while the [[Amazy Dayzee]] page does not. It uses the box associated with the RPG game. These main character pages shouldn't have all that technical information and should focus on the history, appearances, etc. The technical information should be moved to the corresponding game bestiaries, where they provide better focus and clean up the various related articles. Also, the Paper Mario bestiary looks that way because it's unfinished... It's supposed to look like the TTYD one. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 03:53, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::Hey, I made this proposal to solve arguments you know! And stop it, Redstar, here, you're calling me and MATEO lazy, you called me a liar(which I am absolutely not!), and you're telling everyone that I'm misleading them! And now you're arguing with a sysop! Just wait until Dec. 5th when more users decide. Until then, I'm done with this, I'm going to fix up my proposal's description and wait for other users to vote on which they want. I hate arguing! {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::::It's called discussing, not arguing. I have perfectly valid reasons for believing you both lied and are lazy. For laziness, I discussed many points on why I felt the Mario & Luigi page wasn't yet ready for Feature-status, including splitting off the enemy list into a bestiary. Rather than give reasons not to do it, or simply split it (which was all I asked, was to split it and we could work on expanding it later) you came here and formed a proposal that, if passed, results in you ''not having to do it''. How is avoiding work or discussion not lazy? As for lying, your initial proposal stated that forming a bestiary would delete work already done and create nothing but a stub. Both are untrue because moving all this work to a new page as-is does not delete it, and if it would become a stub, then that's because it's ''already'' a stub. Splitting it doesn't change a single thing. It can't become something unless it already is that thing. You may not have lied, but you obfuscated the facts. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 09:02, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::::I made this proposal to stop the endless chat going around on those nomination pages. That's not lazy at all. My reasons on why we shouldn't make bestiaries are stated above. Therefore, we will wait for others user to make up their mind. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::::::That was ''not'' chatting, that was discussion on issues relating to the article that you could have easily argued there. Instead, you formed this proposal. If you didn't like the proposed work to make the article fit for Feature-status, then you should have provided legitimate reasons against it. Instead I find this proposal a means of sidestepping professional discussion for a chance to not do the work. I don't want to argue over this, but I would like you to admit to what is obvious. Wikis take compromise and collaboration, not finding ways to get around work or discussion. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 09:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)


Fawfulfury65 recently re-wrote his proposal to better explain reasons against forming bestiaries. I will now write a rebuttal to each point explaining why bestiaries are both a good idea, and why his reasons are misinformed. Here we go:
Do we really discuss console generations extensively on the wiki? I do not know of any examples offhand. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:40, November 29, 2024 (EST)


#Fawful asks why we can't just have the information on the main page. Well, truthfully, we can, but the reason why we ''shouldn't'' is because there are simply so many enemies that by naming them all, it becomes nothing more than a list. Even if they are fitted into tables, that list becomes much larger and, while more "pretty", takes up space. Splitting it to a new sub-article saves space on the main article as well as allows the information to be presented to its fullest where it won't distract from the main information. He also suggests simply clicking the enemy links to read on their main articles where they're located... Well, the problem with that is that enemies appear in more than one game. Any information on how and where they appear in ''this'' game simply won't be provided. The bestiary would provide actual locations in the game where they are found, giving far more information than can be found otherwise.
:The [[Family Computer]] and [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] articles are obvious examples but there's [[Mario%27s_Puzzle_Party#Trivia|this article's trivia section]] as an example of non-console articles.--[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 00:08, November 30, 2024 (EST)
#Fawful's second point is that the current list of enemies are presented in a table, which took "hard work". I can personally vouch that the tables are very badly-written and lack in-depth information. I cannot see much of any work having been put into them at all. Regardless, these tables won't be deleted on splitting. There's no reason to, so there's nothing to fear.
#He suggests that bestiaries would create stubs for games that don't have a large amount of enemies. This is false thinking because bestiaries are only necessary for the RPG games, which both have a large number of enemies as well as a plethora of statistics for those enemies. No game articles besides the RPG ones are affected by this, because only the RPG articles need it.
#We need bestiaries because they provide quick and easy information for enemies found in a game. Categories are not a legitimate substitute because people don't often look up categories, and categories only list articles. Categories provide just as much information as using the search-function does, which simply does not work.
#Finally, Fawful points out that Wikipedia doesn't use bestiaries, so why should we? Well, Wikipedia also doesn't create articles about specific enemies, so I think that explains why Wikipedia does not apply here.


I hope all those points explain why I feel bestiaries are both necessary and logical. Perhaps a few people will change their votes, but if not, I hope you all feel you have the correct facts and are making an informed decision. Thank you.
<blockquote>"''There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead.''"</blockquote>
:Just to point out, my proposal goes for all games. Also, be aware that I am a she, not a he. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::Sorry. I don't know how I would have known, but sorry for the presumption. To respond to the clarification of your proposal, bestiaries are currently only meant to be for RPG articles, and since your proposal is to not have bestiaries, than technically your proposal wouldn't extend past RPG games anyways. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 09:40, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::MATEO: Did you even read any of my points or look at any of the bestiaries there already are? They're nowhere near being a stub! [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)


:::BabyLuigiOnFire: What Gallery do you mean? And the [[Paper Mario/Bestiary]] isn't exactly something that can fit on its main page. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:45, 30 November 2009 (EST)
But then I have to question: what about the {{wp|SG-1000}} and the {{wp|Master System|Mark III/Master System}} releasing just shy of a few years? I know it has a very time span compared to the Wii U and Switch, but if they are bundled under the third-generation, the Switch should also be this way for the eighth, right? {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 01:00, November 30, 2024 (EST)
:There have been countless debates regarding the {{wp|SG-1000}} in particular due to it sharing nearly the exact same hardware as the {{wp|ColecoVision}} yet both consoles are in different generations despite being released within one year apart. However this side of the console generations debate is not relevant to the scope of this wiki.--[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 01:20, November 30, 2024 (EST)
:The wiki actually does currently consider the Switch to be "eighth generation", as seen in the infobox on its page. Which is a bit confusing since it puts it in the same generation as the Wii U even though the only thing making them less separate is the release timing of other consoles not covered by this wiki. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:42, November 30, 2024 (EST)
::I personally feel that is more than enough reason to remove video game console generations from this wiki. We already have "Predecessor" and "Successor" as a more straight forward tool. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 23:33, November 30, 2024 (EST)
:::I agree. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:43, December 1, 2024 (EST)


:::: I think she(BL on fire) meant the separate page of images (such as artwork and screenshot) found in articles like [[Wario]] or [[Luigi]] because I'm not too fond of it either. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
I'm only here to say that I vehemently reject the Wikipedia consensus on Switch being 8th gen console. Sure, it competed with 8th gen Playstation 4 and Xbox One, but Nintendo officially regards Switch separate from Wii U. What about Sega Genesis or Turbografx, are they 3rd gen because they were released to one-up NES? Or is Playstation 1 4th gen because of its origins as a SNES add-on? Hell, since [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/hardware/index.html Nintendo considers Game Boy Color to be just another Game Boy iteration], shouldn't that really be a 4th gen handheld that happened to be released during 5th-6th gens and trounced its competition? I don't care which way this wiki goes with this proposal, but the Switch placement is one that irks me because 3DS and Wii U already cover Nintendo's 8th gen hardware lineup. Thus Switch should be the start of 9th gen and no amount of "because Wikipedia says so" is going to convince me otherwise. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 03:12, December 1, 2024 (EST)
 
:The main reason I started this proposal to begin with was to showcase the flaws in the system which include things you've mentioned here. The video game console generation system that is currently being used has its roots as something made up by Wikipedia editors and to this day they influence what consoles are in what generation. Even if you don't use Wikipedia you've felt this influence everywhere in the video games space which does include this wiki. Therefore, removing video game console generations would be beneficial to this wiki as it would allow the contributors to this wiki be able to decide for themselves how to handle describing video game consoles. I provided two possible solutions if this proposal passes but that is not to say they are the only solutions, but removing video game console generations is the first step towards better alternatives in the long run. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 04:57, December 1, 2024 (EST)
I changed my vote because I realized this proposal changes nothing already done, and actually agrees with my initial position. It was just so badly presented I had no idea what Fawful was trying to get at, but in the end I realized we can both benefit from this proposal. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 00:55, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
Half of you need to re-vote, seeing as how this proposal is now changed to remove Paper Mario bestiaries.--{{User|Knife}} 14:20, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
I was actually thinking we could change the PM bestiary to Paper Mario/Tattle Information because most of it is tattle info. Then all the hard work going into the sub article wouldn't get deleted if the most users decide to get rid of all bestiaries. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:It's actually a bestiary that contains Tattle information. Super Mario RPG doesn't have Tattle information, but it does have Psychopath thoughts. There's a clear different, so bestiary is a broad term that works for all four games. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 15:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
@Redstar: You can't make a new option without defining it. What exactly are you opposing? Instead, make the header something specific like "Allow RPG bestiaries only". Also, since the proposal has been changed, those votes without valid reasons will be removed. {{User|Knife}}
:Okay, I'm tired. Are you telling me I need to oppose something more specific? I'll re-work my oppose just in case. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:40, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
No, you misunderstood me. I meant change the title of your section from "oppose" to an option more specific.{{User|Knife}}
 
Ok I agree that it should only be for Paper Mario games and SMRPG, but no other games, so my proposal wa, once again, edited. Hopefully, now I won't have to edit it anymore. So everyone can change their vote or whatever. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
 
==Removals==
''None at the moment.
 
==Splits & Merges==
===Merge RPG Boss Aspects With Main Boss Articles===
This proposal is for support of moving a particular type of boss minion (as explained below) in the RPG games to their related main boss article. This is because these particular minions are ''only'' encountered in battle alongside bosses, because their Tattle information suggests they are either a part of or actually are the boss, because the main boss article is lacking complete information, and finally, because the splitting of these minions has largely resulted in stubs.
 
The following are a list of which minions are proposed to be merged, to whom, and why.
 
#The four Elemental Crystals in [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]], being [[Fire Crystal]], [[Water Crystal]], [[Earth Crystal]], and [[Wind Crystal]]. All but the Wind Crystal are stubs, composed of mostly only a single sentence and an enemy template. These enemies are only ever fought alongside [[Culex]], whose article already covers most of the information these stubs have. I propose merging these articles as sections of the main Culex page and creating redirects.
#The [[Bowser???]] article to the main [[Koopa Bros.]] article as a sub-section. This enemy is not another boss, but a different round of the Koopa Bros. battle. In fact, the Bowser??? is occupied and controlled by the Koopa Bros., making it more a weapon than an actual character/enemy. It should be noted that the Koopa Bros. article contains information on all four Ninjakoopas, rather than each of them having their own page. Merging would make this article more comprehensive.
# The [[Tubba Blubba's Heart]] article to the main [[Tubba Blubba]] article as a section. Though sentient, Tubba Blubba's heart is essentially the same character as Tubba Blubba and acts as the first round to that boss fight. Dividing them gives the impression that both are bosses, despite the fact they're the ''same'' boss, as well as treats them as different characters. The heart is more like a different personality than a character. Merging with the main Tubba Blubba page completes the article and joins together the fragmented description of the two-part boss battle.
#The [[Petit Piranha]] and [[Lava Bud]] articles with the main [[Lava Piranha]] boss article. They are only ever encountered during the boss fight with the Lava Piranha. In fact, Lava Bud's Tattle description says "Lava Buds are little flower branching out from the main stem of the Lava Piranha.". This clearly points out they're only different "heads" of the same enemy. Petit Buds are spewed from Lava Buds, making them also part of the Lava Piranha. All are really the same enemy, so they should be merged to provide comprehensive information on the singular character.
#The [[Tuff Puff]] article into the main boss [[Huff N. Puff]] article. Tuff Puffs are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Huff N. Puff, and their Tattle information even says "These are the Tuff Puffs that break off when you damage Huff N. Puff." This clearly makes them the same enemy, just different "heads". Merge as a section.
#And, finally, the [[Crystal Bit]] article into the main boss [[Crystal King]] article. Just like all the previous examples, Crystal Bits are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Crystal King. Also, like some of the previous examples, their Tattle description says " This is a Crystal Bit. '''Basically, Crystal Bits are just pieces of the Crystal King.''' You can drop 'em with ease. Their Max HP is 1 and they're only dangerous when the Crystal King spews 'em out. Their defense power is 0. These guys are pretty weak. They'll keep coming, though, until you've finally beaten the Crystal King." This clearly says they are the same enemy, just different "pieces".
 
In summation, here is a quick and easy list of what this proposal will accomplish:
 
#Remove stubs by merging them with their main articles
#Create more complete articles by piecing together all the information in one place
#Remove unnecessary division of information
 
And reasons why:
 
#The information is divided. Putting it all in one place creates more complete articles as well as removes stubs
#Many of these divisions are enemies that are either different rounds of a boss, or just their weapon. Still others are just pieces of the boss, so aren't really a different enemy
 
If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to use the Comments section below. Hopefully I provided enough information to make a decision. If you agree with this proposal in general, but you don't agree with some of the merges or are wary of the reason ''why'', feel free to comment about it and we can discuss it. This is a big proposal and I don't want anyone Opposing if they don't agree with just one aspect.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Redstar|Redstar]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' December 8, 2009, 17:00
 
====Support====
#{{User|Redstar}} - Per proposal
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} First off, we'll just put their tattles in the same article. Not really any harm in that. Since those enemies are controlled of part of that enemy, they should be in the same article. So per Redstar's proposal.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - First of all for all the opposers, they are battled at the same time, asist in the battles, and has too much information linking to the bosses. Also, do we want stubs, or articles? This is too little information for both the bosses and minions to be articles beyond stubs.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - This would combine all kinds of useful information into one place - making it easier to access.
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}}- Per all, we '''need''' this!
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} These are stub-like articles that are just simply part of the bosses. I think it's ridiculous that projectiles or other stuff like that used by bosses have their very own article.
#{{User|Knife}} - Changed vote. I recently stumbled on [[Straw]], which technically is part of a boss. If this proposal fails, we would have to keep that article. We'd also have to split [[Exor]] for consistency (which is literally composed of body parts). Just because an enemy can be targeted and has a tattle, doesn't mean it needs an article.
#{{User|Vellidragon}} - Per Knife, mainly. Having individual articles for different parts of the same boss/enemy seems unnecessary; it's like devoting an individual article to [[Corkpedite]]'s body (or the Goomnut tree in the [[King Goomba]] battle for that matter, since it can be targeted). I see no reason not to merge them, all it would do is make getting information on the respective boss fights easier since it's all in one place.
# [[User:Lu-igi board|Lu-igi board]] at the very least merge the crystals with Culux
#{{User|library_girl}}  This would really help clean up and organize these articles better. It just makes sense.
 
====Oppose====
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Different tattles, different battles, different enemy, different article
#{{User|Vini64}} Per Tucayo.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Tucayo.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - The enemies you have listed there are minions of a greater boss. They are affiliated with him, they take out his orders without complaints, they even may go as far as to sacrifice themselves for him, but ther are not '''identical''' with him. We cannot just say that they are the same when there is no solid proof. On the other hand, there is evidence that they are separate beings by the different tattles! Under this circumstances, merging these articles would not be recommendable. This is why I disagree! So per me, and per Tucayo!
#{{User|FunkyK38}} - Per Tucky and Edo. They shouldn't be merged, and with all these merges, where are we going to draw a line for what needs to be merged and what doesn't?
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per Tucayo and Edo.
#{{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}} Per Tucayo and Edofenrir.
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per Tucayo and Edo.
#{{User|King Bean}} - Per Edo.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.


==Changes==
===Move {{tem|ref needed}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} to {{tem|citation needed}} and {{tem|ref needed}} respectively===
Let me tell you what: the {{tem|ref needed}} template currently reads the following:


====Comments====
<pre>
@Tucayo: Lava Piranha before and after becoming covered in fire gets a different Tattle description... Does this make the two different enemies? No, it doesn't, and many other enemies are of the same circumstances. Many of these proposed merges have Tattles that specifically say they are a part of, or the ''same'' being as the enemy. The different body parts of [[Exor]] aren't divided among different articles, even though they each have different stat-spreads and tattles (Psychopath Thoughts). Likewise, all of these "minions" or extensions of the main boss are fought in the ''same'' battle, not different ones. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)
<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''citation needed'']]&#93;</sup><includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Superscript templates]]</noinclude>
:Thanks for noticing, we should split Exor. {{user|Tucayo}}
</pre>
::Uhh, yeah. I don't think anyone's going to support splitting a character just because they have different points of attack. But if this proposal fails, I suppose it would extend to Exor. I suppose next you'll want to make individual pages for the Koopa Bros.. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:57, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:::Of course we wouldnt split Exor, that was sarcasm. Its a single enemy. {{user|Tucayo}}


Quote Edofenrir: "And next we merge Magnus Van Grapple with Lord Crump? It's the same guy, just surrounded by a load of metal." Well, yes. I go to [[Lord Crump]]'s page and see a section very vague. If I want the whole story, I have to go to the [[Magnus Van Grapple]] page. Why do I need to jump around to get all the information? Magnus Van Grapple is ''not'' a character, and is ''not'' a boss... Lord Crump piloting it is, so the experience should be told from his perspective, not from an inanimate object. This proposal changes little. All it does is move all the information to one place where it is the most productive. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 17:18, 1 December 2009 (EST)
<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''citation needed'']]&#93;</sup>


Just to be absolutely clear, are you proposing that the 8 cases listed above should be merged, or that those and all similar cases should be merged? {{user|Twentytwofiftyseven}}
I also found that the {{tem|unreferenced}} tag has its name taken from Wikipedia. I just wonder if those are errors. I humbly ask if there's a possibility to rename the templates using three options:


BMB: Yea, we dont want stubs, we want artciles, so lets ''expand'' those, merging is not a good solution. {{user|Tucayo}}
;Option 1: Move {{tem|ref needed}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} to {{tem|citation needed}} and {{tem|ref needed}} and make the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template more specific.
::I'm only proposing this for these 8 specific cases. There may be similar situations, but those won't immediately be affected. They should at least be discussed on their respective pages, though, if someone deems a similar merge necessary.
;Option 2: ONLY move <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> respectively.
;Option 3: Do NOTHING.


@FunkyK38: The line will be drawn quite cleanly. Merges will not occur all over, rendering this Wiki a copy of Wikipedia. There will still be articles dealing with a singular topic, hotlinked from main articles. The only reason these are brought up is because they are all aspects of the same enemy, just different "attack points", so to speak. Dividing them is unnecessary and only serves in spreading information which should be read in one place. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:58, 1 December 2009 (EST)
In case of option 1, the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:


After reading over my list of suggested merges, I've decided that Chompy to Tutankoopa and Shy Squad to General Guy could easily be cut. They, to a degree, are individual enemies so are more on-the-fence compared to the other examples. Would anyone change their vote in favor of this proposal if these two were removed? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:06, 1 December 2009 (EST)
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>
</pre>


Wait a sec, I'm not understanding. The Proposals page never had a ''removal of votes'' section. Why this proposal have? {{User|Vini64}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This article '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>
----


Alright, now you are fighting dirty. The rule you are refering to applies only in case of bad-faith or reasons that are so blatant that the wiki cannot support them. This rule is '''in no way''' a green card for expelling other people's opinions of their value. Tucayo's vote is valid, and mine was too! Stop this attempts to rig the Proposal! - {{User|Edofenrir}}
This reading looks too similar to the {{wp|Template:Unreferenced|unreferenced}}, {{wp|Template:More citations needed|more citations needed}}, {{wp|Template:Unreferenced section|unreferenced section}}, {{wp|Template:More citations needed section|more citations needed section}} templates on Wikipedia. However, if this proposal passes with option 1 being the most voted, guess what? in addition to the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> template being moved to <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki>, the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template will be moved to <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and will read more specifically as follows:
:The section is not simply for bad-faith votes; it is also for votes with no given reason and I'm afraid your vote falls under that category. Your vote was: And next we merge Magnus Van Grapple with Lord Crump? It's the same guy, just surrounded by a load of metal. I disagree. per Tucayo. Where is the reason in that? If you want Magnus Van Grapple merged with Lord Crump or not then say so but do not put it as a vote. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::I disagree with the removal of Tucayo's vote. Nintendo is horrendously vague about so many things ([[Bowser]] vs. [[Dry Bowser]], anyone?), so believing that a sentient heart (or whatever) is a character unto itself is a perfectly valid opinion. Tucayo belives they are separate beings - and so must the people per-ing him - and so believes they deserve separate articles; this is a perfectly valid reason to oppose this proposal. It's not misinformation, it's just one way of looking at things; you got a problem with it, take it up with him, but it's not enough to call a vote over. - {{User|Walkazo}}
Walkazo: Until further notice there is not removal of removal of support/oppose votes nominations or comments sections. If you wish to have either of these things done then propose it here or on the admin boards but don't just go ahead and do it. I disagree with the removal of Tucayo's vote but there should be no comments placed there at all. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:I'm sorry redstar, edofenrir's vote is valid as it pers tucayo's vote which is also valid so I will not be able to vote to remove it (thought the rest of the vote ''is'' invalid) {{User|Marioguy1}}
::The abuse of democratic values that were given to the users of this wiki in this Proposal is shocking. This foul display of abuse to gain personal advantages utterly disgusts me. I am disappointed. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


I believe that people should be able to vote about what they think without fear of their votes being rendered, "invalid" and getting removed. The people of this wiki should be free to vote about what they see fit, and neither Tucayo or Edofenrir's votes are invalid. {{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}}
----
:I agree ATM but unfortunately what if I added the vote GOOD IDEA, I SUPORT LULZ!!!!!!!!!!!!? That vote would have necessary removal but, as edofenrir said, this function should be reserved for that function only - that is why I have removed my vote to remove his vote. {{User|Marioguy1}}
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs at least one more citation for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
</div>
</pre>


In the past, I saw votes saying "Good idea" that were not removed. Why these are being now? {{User|Vini64}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
:The rules were changed {{User|Marioguy1}}
This article '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
::There was always a rule against votes like that, but sometimes there was simply no one around to remove them. - {{User|Walkazo}}
</div>
----


How exactly is Tucayo's vote "not specific"? He's stating the fact that they are different enemies, so they get different articles. Just because he didn't write it in a textbook fashion (i.e. "They are different enemies with different tattles, thus they should have different articles") doesn't make the vote invalid. -- {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
For example, placing the <code>more=yes</code>, <code>section=yes</code>, and <code>reason=Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources.</code> will have the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> more specifically read as follows:
:For everyone else, I don't understand what the big deal is. The option is there to remove votes, and three people voted. Obviously, two people agreed with me. That is very democratic, and Edo's vote was simply "I disagree". He should have provided a better reason then that, which he now has. As for my response to Stooben, Tucayo's vote is misleading and has two incorrect points. He states that these enemies are different, and fought in different battles. They are not. They are fought only in the same battle, and their tattles say they are part of or actually are the boss. So, he's lying. Saying their Tattles say they're different enemies is wrong. His vote has two wrong points to two valid ones, so the whole thing should be removed and, if he so chooses, re-added with entirely valid reasons. I don't want people to read his vote and think all those points are true when they're really not. If they're really such different enemies, then why do the Crystal Bits tattle say "They are pieces of the Crystal King", Tuff Puffs say "They break off from Huff N. Puff", and Petit Piranha's says "They are flowers that grow off the stem from the Lava Piranha"? Since when are pieces of my body not considering me? They also say that these different Tattles are indicative of different enemies... Well, then we should get to work splitting the different forms of Smithy and Exor, as well as any other boss that has multiple body parts and a different Tattle for each. Clearly, if my hand has a different description from my chest, they're not a part of me and different entities. They should be split for consistency. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 04:45, 5 December 2009 (EST)


I will not remove neither modify my vote, because I know it is perfectly valid. In the worst of the cases, I can just per Edo ;) {{user|Tucayo}}
----
:And yet, Edo's vote is ''still'' leaving much to wonder about. What exactly is this "solid evidence"? Likewise, how is your vote "perfectly valid"? You say they're different enemies, and different battles... Why and how? I've offered undeniable evidence supporting the contrary, while your vote simply states something and doesn't back it up. I felt Edo's vote and yours lack merit, and at least for Edo's I got two votes and that of an admin. How exactly is that "rigging" it? If MATEO and MG1 were socks, yes. But they're not. They're two people that agreed, and one person with authority-bound honor... You said that I was close-minded in that chat, but you're the one that has so far refused to offer any explanation for your opinion. I've explained my reasons and revised my proposal many times over, yet ''I'm'' the close-minded one? Please, all I'm asking is for a legitimate rebuttal, and not just a disagreement. You're biding your vote for MG1's Koopa proposal below, until the difference between Koopas and Koopa Troopas is defined, so why can't you define the difference between your own reasons? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 11:16, 5 December 2009 (EST)
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
::For the record, none of the people who voted to remove Edofenrir's vote were administrators. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter, as this does not change the weight of a vote. Also, why did you think you can remove a vote that was supported by a valid reason? The rule said that a vote has to have ''no'' merit or be cast in bad faith. You've said yourself that Tucayo's vote had some merit, so it wasn't not eligible for removal under that rule. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}}
This section '''needs at least one more citation for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. '''Specific(s):''' Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources.<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this section}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
:::He basically said that he doesn't want to merge the articles because they deal with different individuals. I got it, many other users got it, I'm sure everyone should be able to get it. Every information you need is up there, so use your eyes and read it! If you still say you don't get it then, then you probably don't want to get it to have a point to remove it. On a side note I recommend you to learn more about democratic values, and how abusing them leads the entire system to collapse. And please, don't type a respond to justify everything (once again). Use this energy to think about what other people told you, and what you attempted to do here. If you are not ready to do that, I have nothing more to say to you. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
</div>
::::@Twentytwofiftyseven: I'm fairly sure MG1 is an admin of some sort. And Tucayo's vote holds two invalid points contrasts by two valid ones, so shouldn't that make the entire vote invalid?
----


::::@Edofenrir: You and Tucayo say they're different individuals, but neither of you have provided a reason as to ''why'' while I have provided their Tattle descriptions which explicitly say they ''are'' the same individual... I also know as much about democratic values as I need to, and I in no way abused them. How did I? I used a system already in place, I put up a vote, and two people besides myself voted. If I was "abusing" it, then I wouldn't have received anything. You're the one abusing it through your position of sysop and basically changed the rule to negate true democracy and put the power to remove votes ''only'' in the hands of sysops. If sysops are voting, and sysops have votes that should be removed, then how is it democratic if no one can vote? It can only be "discussed" now... And after the discussion, then what? Is there a private vote for only sysops? I don't understand how that is any more democratic than what we already had, but you claim was somehow "rigging". [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:39, 5 December 2009 (EST)
If this proposal passes with option 2 being the most voted, we'll only move the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> templates to <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki>, respectively.
:::::Your comment just showed me that you don't care about what other people tell you. I see no point in going on, since you don't even want to reconsider. I'm not that eager to waste my time talking to someone who won't listen. Good afternoon. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
Redstar: I am not an admin of any sort unless you mean on userpedia and could we please, as Edo said, drop this subject? The admins are coming out with an advancement on rule #4 and we just have to trust them on that; wait a couple days until the rule has come out and then propose it. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:Edo, I don't even know what you're talking about. You keep accusing me of all these things and getting heated over a simple proposal. You're the one that's being rude and not listening... I mean, just look at the edit history. You say "Eat it" as the summary for editing your vote. Is that any way for a sysop to behave? You're supposed to be professional and courteous, yet you rudely attack me and accuse me of all these things. I'm just trying to help improve the wiki in ways I believe would be good. MG1, sorry, I thought you were one. On Bulbapedia, welcome templates are automated and any of that stuff is only handled by admins. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:59, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::Well, as admin it is my duty to be impartial, and that's why I didn't give you a warning for nominating my vote to be partially removed (which is btw the same as proposing to rewrite my vote, which is a ''heavy'' violation the rules). As a human being it is my right to be pissed to have my vote and the vote of a friend of mine assassinated by dubious usage of rule no. 4. I also have to ask you to quote correctly. I said "Eat this" in a joking way, when I rewrote my vote. And now, as MG1 said, this discussion should be ended. I suggest you to re-read what I said, what Walkazo said, and what Stooben Rooben said at your talk page. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


'''Redstar''': as an administrator, i '''order''' you to drop this. If you continue this you '''will''' get a warning. Thanks and have a nice day. {{user|Tucayo}}
Which option do you wish to choose?
:You're ordering me to drop something that happened six hours ago? >_> [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:38, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::Yes, '''I AM'''. {{user|Tucayo}}
:::Why is that even necessary? I've been here for the entirety of those six hours, so it should be obvious it was already discontinued. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:46, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::::Because there is no reason i could know you were here all that time. {{user|Tucayo}}
:::::The Recent changes page says which users are currently online. I'm currently online, and have been for six hours. Six hours have passed since the last comment on this page. Quite obviously, I had no intention of responding. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:52, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Just a little pointer for everyone before this discussion is ended for good: The user list at the recent changes sometimes acts buggy and does not always acurately display who is online at that time. It's not the best source. - {{user|Edofenrir}}


===What's a Koopa?===
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
I think that the pages [[Koopa]] and [[Koopa Troopa]] should be merged together because, frankly, what on earth is a Koopa? The page lists all of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas and that could be done on the page Koopa Troopa or not done at all because it is not necessary. When I think of Koopa, I think of turtle enemy-thing in Mario but this page does not describe the turtle-enemy thing, it describes its sub-species and all of those subspecies descriptions are one sentence long with {{tem|main}}! I think that Koopa=Koopa Troopa and I'm sure you will agree.
'''Deadline''': December 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br>
====Option 1====
'''Deadline:''' Friday December 11th, 2009 (8:00 EST)
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal


====Merge====
====Option 2====
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Per above
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per MG1
#{{User|4DJONG}} marioguy has made a good point also, the "koopa" article is pointless, simply pointless, because "Koopa" is just another name for Koopa Troopa.


====No Merge====
====Option 3====
#{{User|King Bean}} - No. Koopa is not the same as Koopa Troopa. Koopas are species, while Koopa Troopas are sub-species.
#{{User|Hewer}} What is the point of this? Switching around the names of those templates is unnecessary at best and confusing at worst, and I don't see how the slightly changed wording of the unreferenced template makes it in any way "more specific". This just feels like changing things for the sake of changing things.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} The [[Koopa]] article is information on other Koopas (Hammer Bros., Dry Bones, Paratroopas) and the [[Koopa Troopa]] article is about a type of Koopa, Koopa Troopa. Look over those articles again, they are about two different things.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Seems like an unnecessary change, and moving one template to the old name of an unrelated template is just asking to make an even bigger mess of old revisions. When you make proposals, you really should explain why the status quo is a problem and how your proposed solution will fix it.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Having a catch-all Koopa page is good, since [[Bowser]] and [[Lakitu]]s aren't anything like [[Koops]] or [[KP Koopas]], but there should still be a separate "Koopa Troopa" page for the species. Saying the "Troopa" just refers to them being soldiers is just splitting hairs - are all Hammer Bros. brothers? Unlike Bowser's unnamed species, at least the little guys have a title that has been applied to their kin and no one else - unlike "Koopa" which has many meanings - and ignoring that would be foolhardy in the face of all the other organization issues Nintendo forces upon us (like Bowser's species).
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Walkazo. It'd make more sense in this case (to me, anyway) to leave [[Koopa Troopa]] at it's current location, than move it to [[Koopa]] and move the current Koopa article to {{fakelink|Koopa (species)}}. Besides, "Koopas" has been used several times in Mario games to indicate the ''species'' of Koopa. (And what is "Koopas" but the plural form of "Koopa"?)
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|RAP}} - Per Walkazo, and Stooben Rooben. {{fakelink|Category:Koopas}} pretty much sums up how all the arguments as well.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Moved templates always give me headaches trying to figure out where the heck they went when I'm previewing edits.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Stooby boy and Walka girl.
#{{user|Vini64}} Per all.
#{{User|Redstar}} - Merge unnecessary. Simply re-write the [[Koopa]] article to more clearly describe the Koopa ''group'', rather than identifying them (incorrectly) as a species.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I was having a discussion on a similar topic just yesterday, concerning the Hammer Bros. I think the entire thing is sort of speculative since the page amounts to more than a cherry-picked list of various turtle-like enemies, entirely excluding other candidates. If it was truly extensive, it would list a lot more. But by the same token, it'd be speculation because who knows what a "Koopa" really is? The manual says "Koopa tribe", but the term "American" covers a lot of different races and ethnicities. Whether they meant "Koopa race" or "Koopa social-group", who knows. I feel a complete overhaul of the way we classify the enemies is in order. I really don't feel Boomerang Bro., Sumo Bro., Fire Bro., etc. should be considered "sub-species" of Hammer Bro. Related (as in similar, not blood-related) enemies, yes, but the current terms really deliver inaccurate connotations. Care to make this proposal a bit more general, MG1? If so, I'd be happy to support. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 11:56, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:Reversinator: Aren't enemies species as well? Redstar: It's easy, Koopa and Koopa Troopa are the same thing. Koopa is like an expanded <nowiki>==Sections==</nowiki> section for Koopa Troopa. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::...I guess so... Fine, I'll change my vote. {{User|Reversinator}}
[[Super Mario World]] indeed lists Koopa Troopas simply as "Koopas" in the credits, which would suggest that only those are called "Koopas" and the enemies that aren't directly related to the Troopa are not. I don't think the Koopa article can be merged with Koopa Troopa like that however, since the majority of species listed in it are, in fact, quite clearly not Koopa Troopas. What it would need is a title change, or possibly a complete removal in favour of the [[Koopa Troop]] article.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 12:28, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:As I said, cut the speculatory-fat and rename it "Koopa tribe" (as you were great to bring up). I'm sure there would still be speculation involved, but far less. The name issue needs to be resolved the two articles' subjects re-defined, anyways. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:31, 4 December 2009 (EST)
::Will someone please explain to me What a Koopa is? This is why I named the proposal what I named it, because I have no idea what a koopa is. As far as I know, Koopas don't exist and are just another name used for Koopa Troopa. Whether they're listed as Koopas or Koopa Troopas in the credits, they're still the same thing and that thing can be renamed, like redstar said, ''after'' we figure out what they are. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::I believe "Koopa", as suggested by the "Koopa tribe", is meant to encompass all the various turtle-races into a singular group. (Though, as far as we know, Piranha Plants could be Koopas as well under the "tribe") Koopa Troopas are just the catch-all, generic Koopa, which is why they can be called just Koopas. (Like in many sci-fi works, humans are so common that they're the "standard" in judging appearance and so on). I always just took the term Troopa, and thought it meant Koopa Troopas were "troopers"... Perhaps it's just a title? They're Koopas, unless they're a member of the Koopa ''Troop'', in which case they're "Troopas". Does that make sense? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:48, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:::As far as I'm aware, "Koopa" in the Japanese games has always been no more than a name; that of [[Bowser]], to be exact. The mention of a "Koopa tribe" and names like "Koopa Troopa" are afaik exclusive to the English localisation (Koopa Troopas for instance are named Noko-Noko in Japan, Koopa Paratroopas are Pata-Pata), and I don't think it has ever been officially stated what a "Koopa" would be according to the translators. The closest information we can get is the Koopa Troopas being referred to as Koopas in SMW's ending, which as Redstar pointed out may just as well mean they are the most common members of a Koopa tribe (which would include other sub-species as well) as it may indicate that Koopa and Koopa Troopa refer to the same thing. No real clarity seems to come from official sources.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 13:04, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Vellidragon: That's what [[Koopa (disambiguation)]] and {{tem|articleabout}} are for :P<br>
Redstar: All of that goes under [[Koopa Troop]]. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:The Koopa Troop is the personal army of Bowser's (hence the "Troopa" part applied to Koopas that fight for him... Not that no Koopa that isn't sided with him has the Troopa part). The Koopa ''tribe'' would be a more broad grouping covering all Koopas regardless of political alignment. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 13:49, 4 December 2009 (EST)
::I agree with you on that part but we are straying off topic here, whether Koopa Tribe should be created or not is a topic for later discussion, right now we're talking about merging two articles together and I think we should get back to that. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::King Bean: Can you elaborate on that? {{User|Marioguy1}}
Okay, how about this: Koopa is the species name for the generic-turtle enemies in the game, namely "Koopa Troopas". "Troopa", however, is a job title or position. Koopa Troopas are members of the Koopa Troop, making them troopers. This is supported by the Koopa Paratroopas, who take their name from paratroopers, or parachuting soldiers. This suggests that normal, wingless "Troopas" are also soldiers... Also take into account the RPG games, where we get most of our information. Enemy Koopa Troopas are specifically said to be working for Bowser. Compare this to Kent C. Koopa, an enemy that works alone, and note that his Tattle information calls him simply a "Koopa". No "Troopa" part. All the non-enemy Koopas in Koopa Village and, later, in Petalburg, are simply called Koopas. It seems highly likely that the difference is Koopa is species, and Troopa is title/position, much like the various "Bros." enemies carry the weapon or technique they use as a sort of job position-title. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 17:54, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:Fawfulfury: I have read the articles over again, again and again and, whether you like it or not, Koopas and Koopa Troopas are the same thing; just because the article is a list of different types of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas doesn't make it a valid article in the slightest. I could very well put {{tem|sectionstub}} under almost every single one of those sections! The article has many tiny sections displaying stuff that, if it should be here at all, should be under {{fakelink|List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies}}. If you still believe in your cause; what's a koopa? I'll tell you what it is, it's a Koopa Troopa; that article was obviously made by someone who didn't know we had an article on Koopa Troopas already. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::What makes that so "obvious"? I'd rather say the article was made by someone who believed "Koopa" to be a collective term for all the turtle-like enemies in the Mario games, which may or may not be true, since the games are rather vague on that.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 12:57, 5 December 2009 (EST)
:::Walkazo: Would you consent to having these articles merged but a "List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies" made? Because I think most people that type in "Koopa" are looking for a Koopa Troopa and not a list of their subspecies. We could add the list of subspecies to [[Koopa (disambiguation)]]. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::::No, because calling anything a "subspecies" is pure speculation: we can justify calling things like [[Chargin' Chuck]]s "species" on the Koopa page because of their unique biology, but that's not the case with things like [[KP Koopa]]s, [[Dark Koopa]]s, [[Shady Koopa]]s, [[Mask Koopa]]s, [[Koopatrol]s and many other variations of Koopa Troopas Mario has encountered. (See [[User:Walkazo/Essays#Koopa_Taxonomy|here]] for why this is the case; it's a long essay,  but I tried to make it interesting for all you non-biologists.) Why should we create a speculatively titled List page when the [[Koopa]] page is a perfectly good platform to list not only the types of Koopa Troopas, but of ''all'' Koopas, which, unlike the list-template {{tem|Koopa Troopas}}, hasn't been done yet? The same goes for adding a list to the disambiguation page. There's a link to [[Koopa Troopa]] in the first paragraph of the general Koopa page, as well as a link to the disambiguation page, and making one extra click of the mouse is not going to inconvenience anyone looking for the Troopas. It might even teach them something about Koopas in general if they choose to read the Koopas page first - especially if we clean it up a bit. The potential value of an annotated list of Koopa species far outweighs the benefits of saving that space with a merge and using templates and categories to list things instead; my reasons why are included in the essay I linked to above (primarily in the last two paragraphs), which also has [[User:Walkazo/Essays#Lakitu|an example]] of what the page could look like with a little expansion. - {{User|Walkazo}}
Can we at least establish that Koopa is ''not'' a species and that [[Bowser]]'s article should not be classified as having the species [[Koopa]]? That is the real reason I made this proposal anyways...{{User|Marioguy1}}
:Well, the Koopa page has been re-written and expanded a bit. "Koopa" is no longer presented as a species. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 00:52, 6 December 2009 (EST)
::It's ''not'' a species. It is (IMO) a fan-made subject used to describe the generic creatures carrying shells on their backs. I have no idea why we have [[Bowser|someone]] categorized as one but I plan to change that. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::I didn't say they were a species.
:::@KingBean: Koopa Troopas aren't sub-species. They're simply Koopas working as soldiers (troopers) for Bowser. This is supported by the Paper Mario Tattle descriptions.
:::@Walkazo: It's not splitting hairs, it's fact. And ''none'' of the Bros. enemies are brothers; it's a title. The comparison to Troopas is moot. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 18:59, 6 December 2009 (EST)
==Changes==


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''
<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
&nbsp;

Latest revision as of 23:10, December 2, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, December 3rd, 05:25 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  9. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  12. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  13. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  16. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  17. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

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

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "December 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

  • Move Kolorado's father to Richard (discuss) Deadline: December 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Move Mysterious Cloud to either Hat cloud or Cap cloud (discuss) Deadline: December 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Split and trim the Vine article (discuss) Deadline: December 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Move Bomb (species) to Bomb (Final Fantasy) (discuss) Deadline: December 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Split the Yoshi's Island teeter-totter from Seesaw (discuss) Deadline: December 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Create articles for "Ashita ni Nattara" and "Banana Tengoku" or list them in List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs, Starluxe (ended November 23, 2024)
Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

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

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

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

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

C-S-Yes

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

No new template

Comments on CSS image crop

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

Removals

Remove video game console generations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes

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

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

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

[citation needed]

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

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

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

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

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

This reading looks too similar to the unreferenced, more citations needed, unreferenced section, more citations needed section templates on Wikipedia. However, if this proposal passes with option 1 being the most voted, guess what? in addition to the {{ref needed}} template being moved to {{citation needed}}, the {{unreferenced}} template will be moved to {{ref needed}} and will read more specifically as follows: 

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

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

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

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

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

Which option do you wish to choose?

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

Option 1

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Option 2

Option 3

  1. Hewer (talk) What is the point of this? Switching around the names of those templates is unnecessary at best and confusing at worst, and I don't see how the slightly changed wording of the unreferenced template makes it in any way "more specific". This just feels like changing things for the sake of changing things.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Seems like an unnecessary change, and moving one template to the old name of an unrelated template is just asking to make an even bigger mess of old revisions. When you make proposals, you really should explain why the status quo is a problem and how your proposed solution will fix it.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  4. Technetium (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Moved templates always give me headaches trying to figure out where the heck they went when I'm previewing edits.

Comments

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4450747"