Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA ''Zelda'' games, which themselves heavily borrow from ''Link's Awakening'' - particularly ''Four Swords Anniversary Edition'' having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA ''Zelda'' games, which themselves heavily borrow from ''Link's Awakening'' - particularly ''Four Swords Anniversary Edition'' having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 14:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 14:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
===Decide how to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link===
{{Proposal outcome|canceled}}
Since there are articles about subjects from the ''Final Fantasy'' series that have appeared in ''[[Mario Hoops 3-on-3]]'', ''[[Mario Sports Mix]]'', and/or certain ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' games (''[[Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS|Nintendo 3DS]]'' / ''[[Super Smash Bros. for Wii U|Wii U]]'' and/or ''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate|Ultimate]]''), I'm looking forward to add the {{plain link|https://finalfantasywiki.com/wiki/Main_Page|Final Fantasy Wiki}} as an interwiki link. The issue is that there is also a wiki from Fandom (powered by Wikia) that is also named {{fandom|finalfantasy|Final Fantasy Wiki}}. The good news, I've come up with three options:
;Option 1: Change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages AND add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link.
;Option 2: ONLY add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link (even if confusing).
;Option 3: Do NOTHING.
Here is an example on the use of the interwiki link for the Final Fantasy Wiki:
That way, we'll be able to use the Final Fantasy Wiki interwiki link once it gets added right after either Option 1 or Option 2 passes, as well as change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages right after only Option 1 passes.
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Option 1====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} My primary choice
====Option 2====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} My secondary choice
====Option 3====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} The independant Final Fantasy Wiki is full of red links and is incomplete compared to FANDOM's wiki.
====Comments====
The Fandom wiki is not actually called "Final Fantasy Wiki'''a'''", not to mention that Fandom not even refers to itself as "Wikia" anymore, to the point that they also dropped that "Powered by Wikia" tagline. Wouldn't it be better to instead refer to it as "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" to differentiate the two wikis? {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:40, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
:Also, what even is the "text" being referred to in the proposal that needs changing? When do we need to refer to the Fandom Final Fantasy Wiki? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:43, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
::I'm pretty sure they may be referring to External link sections, e.g. [[Moogle#External links|here]]. Currently, the Super Mario Wiki links to specifically the Fandom wiki when it comes to anything Final Fantasy (even outside External link sections), since we don't have an interwiki link for an independent Final Fantasy Wiki yet. I imagine they wouldn't simply replace the Fandom wiki link with the independent wiki link and rather include both wikis. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:50, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::Last week, I replaced "Wikia" with "Wiki (Fandom)." How do you think the proposal looks? {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 10:00, August 1, 2024 (EDT)
::::Why are you saying this ''a literal week after'' making the change, instead of (nearly) ''immediately after''? Wouldn't that make more sense? Or are you asking this only now, because you're either subtly asking me to vote [[Template talk:Fandom#Comments 2|again]], or trying to drum up more engagement [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66#Comments 19|again]], because your proposal did not get any votes?<br>Either way, while it's good that you applied the change, I'm still abstaining because I'm unsure which option is better. And in case I need to make it clear, I'm NOT obligated to vote, and NOT obligated to say why I'm not voting, and I should NOT be obligated about either option JUST because I engaged in the comment section. As I said before: "no one is forced to vote for an option, even if they're joining in the conversation, so I'd appreciate it if I'm not being pressed into voting for something." And this feels like teetering into just that again.<br>I'm sorry if this was a genuine question, but after two previous times where you tried to drum up engagement (either by asking commenters to vote, or by bargaining other changes when people weren't disagreeing at all) after no one voted or commented on it, this feels like another feeble attempt to get more votes, and I personally think this vote-bargaining thing is getting really annoying. You probably should've said and asked this "How'd you think the proposal looks now" thing a LOT sooner, and/or at the very least answer Hewer's question (by corroborating what I told him, for example). That way I could suggest what could be added BEFORE the 3-day deadline of being able to change the proposal has reached, AND would've drummed up engagement in a more natural way. NOW, it feels like you're asking people to vote, and [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|someone]] had gotten blocked for doing just that. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:59, August 1, 2024 (EDT)
Revision as of 17:44, August 1, 2024
All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
We have the List of references in Nintendo video games to cover topics such as these. I fail to see why they need their own pages. Even some of the links for these articles on the references page link to their equivalent articles on Zelda Wiki, our NIWA affiliate, because editors on our own wiki likely assume we don't have pages for Zelda-exclusive content. For example, why is Stone Elevator covered as a separate page but we don’t have a page for Gulliver, who references Toad Town and the Overthere in Animal Crossing, giving Gulliver, who has apparently visited places in the Mario series, a more direct connection than Stone Elevator, which just shares visual similarities to Thwomps? To be clear, I don’t think we should have a page for Gulliver for the reason that he does not appear in a Mario series game. Perhaps a more potent example is Togezo from Kirby’s Adventure, which is clearly a Kirbified version of a Spiny and even shares the same Japanese name. Why is there a page for Manhandla from Zelda, a variant of Piranha Plant, but not Togezo? There just doesn’t seem to be consistency.
For some reason, these pages seem to be disproportionally related to The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening compared to other Zelda games. Perhaps that is because there’s more profound references in Link’s Awakening, but as someone not familiar with the Zelda series, it strikes me as very odd that there’s favoritism for references in that game but there aren't independent pages any other Zelda-exclusive references on the page. This proposal from 2022 permits the creation of non-Mario series pages, but they seem out of place on Mario Wiki, so I think we should explore undoing the consequences of this proposal.
Furthermore, pages like Keese only cover the enemies’ appearance in Mario games, whereas Manhandla covers the extensive history of Mandhala throughout the Zelda series. Again, notably, Manhandla doesn’t have any appearances in Mario games, so I suppose it has to cover everything it does in Zelda since otherwise the page would be blank.
Perhaps the worst offender is Bombite, which has no confirmed connection to the Mario series whatsoever. Per the page, “They appear to be based on Bob-ombs.” That alone is sufficient to be given a page on the wiki?
To be fair, there is developer commentary about some of the Mario-inspired features in Zelda games affirming they were, indeed, inspired by Mario equivalents (not including Bombite), but is our threshold going to become developer confirmation for significance enough to the Mario series to have an independent page? I'm sure that similar commentary could be found for much listed on List of references in Nintendo video games. If that's our threshold, then shouldn't we create pages for everything confirmed to be inspired by anything to do with the Mario series? That would be a tidal wave of new pages. If not, why is Link's Awakening being treated differently from everything else?
Something of a middle-ground solution is to create a page on our wiki for Link's Awakening. Though I do not favor this idea, there is precedence for the creation of pages for games that pay significant homage to the Mario series but aren't in the series themselves, including but not limited toCaptain Rainbow, Fortune Street, and, of course, the entire Super Smash Bros. (series). I don't favor this option given the roles of Mario characters in Link's Awakening are much more minor compared to something like Birdo having a mildly significant role in Captain Rainbow, but there seems to be a lot of love for Link's Awakening on this wiki, so maybe this could be a middle ground solution. This page would house the information for Bombite, Mega Thowmp, Spiked Thowmp, Stone Elevator, and Yoshi doll, but it would remove the independent pages for Manhandla (The Legend of Zelda) and Head Thwomp (Oracle of Ages) and just confine them to the references page.
Pages that would be deleted:
Bombite - no connection to Mario series whatsoever other than looking like Bob-ombs
Head Thwomp - never appeared in a Mario game but is related to Thwomp
Yoshi doll - just a reference to Yoshi in Link’s Awakening
Options breakdown
I’ve drafted nine options to address the inconsistencies or excess coverage.
Option 1 deletes the pages I’ve highlights and incorporates relevant parts of the information on those pages elsewhere. In the case of the Thwomps, there is already a section referencing them on Thwomp.
Option 2 takes the converse approach and adds exhaustive information about Zelda series pages on the wiki to bridge the gap between Manhandla and Keese and similar pages.
^ Note that no equivalent option for Option 2 exists that would simply remove the bulk of the information from the highlighted pages as there would be nothing to put on the pages other than "X is a variant of X", e.g. "Manhandla is a variant of Piranha Plant that appears in The Legend of Zelda series", since these enemies have no relation to the Mario series other than being inspired by enemies in the series.
Option 3 implements Option 2 but also creates new pages for obvious inspirations from the Mario series like Togezo, Animal Crossing furniture and clothing, and similar examples.
Option 4 keeps the Thwomp-related pages since they have a more potent connection to the Mario series, though I believe that if we do this we should create a page on the wiki for Togezo and every other enemy from a different franchise that is based on something from the Mario series, which I don’t think is necessary but becomes appropriate if we have pages for the Thwomp-relations and Manhandla. Yoshi doll is also kept in this option if people want that for whatever reason, but I again suggest that if we have a page for Yoshi doll, then we should have a page for all the similar furniture items from the Animal Crossing series and other series. I strongly believe all this information is best confined to List of references in Nintendo video games instead. If we're taking this option but not Option 3, I just see it as giving a lot of preferential coverage to Link's Awakening.
Option 5 keeps Yoshi doll but deletes the Thwomp-related pages and Bombite. See argument against this in Option 4's description.
Option 6 keeps all other pages but deletes Bombite since it is the least related to the Mario series and would suggest we should have pages for any enemy from any Nintendo game that resembles a Bob-omb, which, given their design, would be basically any sapient bomb enemy.
Option 7 creates a page for Link's Awakening and deletes the highlighted pages. This gives a place for all the highlighted pages on the wiki to exist outside of the references list, minus Manhandla and Head Thwomp.
Option 8 creates a page for Link's Awakening but keeps Manhandla and Head Thwomp as independent pages.
Option 9, the do nothing option, would consider all of this as a non-issue and leave things as they are now.
Proposer: DrBaskerville (talk) Deadline: July 08, 2024, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: July 01, 2024
Option 1: Remove the highlighted pages as independent pages, add information about them to Trivia on other pages where applicable, and ensure they are referenced on List of references in Nintendo video games
Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer. It's a good way of acknowledging these entities exist while not treating them as having the same amount of integration within the Super Mario franchise as Thwimps, for example.
Option 2: Keep all pages and add exhaustive information from the Zelda series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, e.g. Keese, Deku Baba, Master Sword, etc.
Option 3: Keep all pages, add exhaustive information from the Zeldra series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, and create pages for Mario-inspired content, like Togezo and Animal Crossing references
Option 4: Keep Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Yoshi doll, but remove Bombite
Option 8: Create page for Link's Awakening and keep Manhandla and Head Thwomp pages
Option 9: Do nothing
Axis (talk) The proposal fails to understand why these pages have been created in the first place. The Legend of Zelda series is considered a guest appearance, meaning anything Mario themed or derived from the Mario franchise gets a page. While Bombite and Stone Elevator have no direct connection to the Mario series (someone should dig up Player's Guide and Nintendo Power for these), other entries clearly do, and therefore should stay as independent pages (MarioWiki:Coverage). I believe Bombite and Stone Elevator should be handled seperately on their own respective talk pages (there is an ongoing discussion on Stone Elevator's talk page). The reason items from Animal Crossing don't get their own pages is because noone made a proposal to classify the series as guest appearance yet (unlike the Zelda series, the items in Animal Crossing are purely decorational. I doubt anyone would make a proposal).
Pseudo (talk) Per Axis. It seems to me that this proposal underestimates just how much of a guest appearance Link’s Awakening is for the Mario series—there really are a lot of crossover enemies.
Hewer (talk) Leaning towards this for now, partly because the proposer seems to have been unaware that Link's Awakening is already classified as a guest appearance with its own page, but mostly because this seems a bit too much for a single proposal. If there are issues with our current handling of this, it'd be better to solve them individually than in a giant, sweeping proposal.
Arend (talk) The fact that Options 7 and 8 involves creating an article for Link's Awakening when we already have an article for such a thing makes it apparent that the proposer has not done enough research before setting up this proposal - and thus is in need for some retooling. It reminds me of this one proposal in which the proposer wanted to add a Composers subsection to the Recurring themes nav template (which would be rather unfitting) and was pitching an idea about dedicated articles for composers as if we did not have those yet (even though we already have several of those, and all of them, plus the ones we don't have yet, are already included in the Composers subsection of the People nav template, rendering the whole point of the proposal redundant).
Comments
I apologize for the length of this proposal and the number of options, but I wanted to ensure as many approaches as possible were offered. Dr. Baskerville 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
It's possible that there are other pages exclusively related to other series on the wiki as well outside of the Zelda pages that I've highlighted. Their exclusion from this proposal is not due to me believing they should remain but instead being ignorant of their existence. If similar pages exist from other franchises, please feel free to note them in reply to this comment and, if this proposal passes, I'll explore deletion proposals for them as well depending on the strength of their relationship to the Mario series. Dr. Baskerville 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
Uh, there is a Link's Awakening page. It was classified as a guest appearance (i.e. page-worthy) by that 2022 proposal you linked to, and MarioWiki:Coverage tells us that "if a subject is unique to [a guest appearance] while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise, they can receive individual articles", so all the Link's Awakening Mario-inspired enemies are therefore eligible to get articles. Admittedly though, I'm not sure about pages for the Mario-inspired enemies from other games that we don't consider guest appearances, as while it was technically decided by that 2022 proposal, it was only clarified in a comment that it would extend to all Zelda games rather than just Link's Awakening, and it's less supported by policy. And yeah, some of them (like Bombite) do kinda seem to be stretches, but that's probably better handled on its own rather than in a giant proposal like this. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:19, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary
Do not include 3-6
An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?
I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)
My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.
I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.
This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.
Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk) Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMTExtended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Nintendo101 (talk) I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
DrBaskerville (talk) Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. Dr. Baskerville 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Dr. Baskerville 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. Ray Trace(T|C) 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in Super Mario 3D All-Stars would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for three games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
In my eyes, the change list for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. DandelionSprout (talk) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)
Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in Mario Sports Superstars article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). Ray Trace(T|C) 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Just for reference, the current size of the TTYD remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). Scrooge200 (talk) 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
Split Wario Land: Shake It! bosses into boss levels
Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.
Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk) (banned) Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
Hewer (talk) I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see Bowser's Sourpuss Bread, which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)
DrBaskerville (talk) While there is precedence, I just don't see this as necessary given the information is currently detailed on the existing pages without overcrowding them.
Comments
Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? Dr. Baskerville 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
Looking at "Short Pages, when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or Mario Kart Arcade GP items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split Speed Mario Bros.. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when Pesky Billboard is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles
standardize 11-0-2-0
I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the Super Mario series on and off for the past few years. I think presenting information in a shared, unified way is beneficial for readers and passively communicates that these games are part of a shared series, something I think is helpful for a franchise covering so many genres and series. Game articles in the Yoshi's Island and Donkey Kong Country series are similarly organized to one another. It is easy to jump from one article to another, information is where I'd expect it to be, and they look nice. Good stuff.
At present, some Super Mario game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins to New Super Mario Bros. U and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents.
The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is:
Characters: living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm
Playable characters: characters controlled
Non-playable characters: characters that aren’t controlled
Enemies and obstacles: subjects that damage or inhibit the player character
Enemies: living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment
Obstacles: abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement
Bosses: subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression
Items and objects: beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic
Items: subjects that are absorbable/collectible, holdable, or health-restoring
Power-ups: items that transform the player character’s appearance and grant unique abilities
Objects: interactable subjects in the environment that are not items
Because of the tactile nature of platformers, I like organizing subjects based on their mechanical relationship to the player character, so I keep bosses organized with enemies and obstacles because they all hurt the player. It is also thematically appropriate, because at least some bosses are usually rulers of an enemy species in the same section. I do not like using terms that have strong connotations outside of gaming like "cast" or "antagonist". (I particularly do not like using "antagonist" here because these platformers are not chiefly driven by narrative, so the fact that some bosses also serve antagonistic narrative roles is of lesser importance to their tactile roles as bosses.) "Characters" is more neutral, I think. I also do not separate "returning enemies" from "new ones". I'd rather delineate that information in one shared table, like so. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new.
I don't envision this sectioning being applied rigidly, and this is apparent in some of the articles I linked to above. There aren't really enough items in Super Mario Land for them to be severed from power-ups, so I lumped them together in one table there. Both Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy 2 include a "rideable characters" section, and there is a "clothing" section between "Items" and "objects" in Super Mario Odyssey. Rather, I would like this sectioning to be a jumping off point, from which users can manipulate and change things as needed. No two games are exactly the same, after all.
I offer four options.
Support: I like this! Let's do it (if this passes, this sectioning arrangement will be integrated into the remaining Super Mario game articles)
Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently (if this one passes, a second proposal would be raised by the voters that outline their preferred organizational scheme)
Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy (this option is basically the "do nothing" option)
Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed
Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk) Deadline: July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently
Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I see page layouts as an organically changing thing, it's best to not create guidelines where they needn't exist. I'm fine with the pages being changed to follow this pattern, but it shouldn't require an additional proposal to change further.
Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed
Comments on standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles
These sound like good ideas, but do they need a proposal? Proposal rule 15: "Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:39, June 26, 2024 (EDT)
I originally did not plan on doing so, but EvieMaybe (talk) recommended I raise one. I supposed it was a good way to assess how other folks think game articles should be organized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:45, June 26, 2024 (EDT)
Allow colorful tables again
allow 16-0
Recently, there's been an update to follow Help:Table that standardizes all the colorful tables into boring, white-and-gray ones. I personally don't like this: not only is it removing a bit of charm from the site, the colored boxes are legitimately helpful at a glance and make it easier to distinguish individual sections in these large chunks of data.
A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes.
The only concern I can see is that black-on-blue text might be a bit hard to read, but we can change the text color to white, like some articles already do. It's a lot easier to tell with the colored header. If someone is just scrolling through the article to find the levels, the blue and green will catch their eye and they can easily know which game is which. The specific blue and green are distinctly featured on the games' logos and boxes:
The standardization of the templates also really harms articles like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island: compare the colored navbox revision to the current, and it looks more inconsistent because the levels section is still using a unique format and color. Also compare Pi'illo, an item list: colored revision vs. standardized revision. I don't mind that the colors aren't official wiki standard because they're not arbitrary: they clearly correspond to the area, and lists for this game use the same colors for the same areas. Even so, it's still useful to have different colors because you can scroll through the article and easily know when one list ends and another begins.
Some lists are also heavily dependent on color to distinguish areas with colors specifically used in-game, such as List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: The Origami King or List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: Color Splash. Standardizing these would make them much less usable. I don't care if we need to make the colors specifically approved or consistent on a per-game basis, I just want them back. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:51, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk) Deadline: July 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal. Not only is it more aesthetically pleasing, but it is also easier to read. I do, however, agree we should look into somehow standardizing colors, like what we do with MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Just because they weren't standardized heavily isn't a very good reason to default to "plain ol' gray". In addition, while this is admittedly an "us" issue, we do find it annoying how similar the two grays actually are when we're scrolling quickly--the higher contrast provided by the colors helps to quell that issue.
Tails777 (talk) I am a very simple man; I enjoy colorful things. But in all seriousness, I feel it helps make sections stand out and could make them easier to identify when reading. Per proposal.
Nintendo101 (talk) Fun and look nice. It's also nice to give users some breathing room with what they want to try integrating into the articles they work on.
Arend (talk) TBH I always found it odd why only the Donkey Kong games get to have the colored tables... is it a remnant of the DK Wiki? In any case, it'd be nice to have some color (not sure if everything should have similar standardized colors or if it should be a case-by-case basis though)
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. This makes the tables easier to read, and it's also easier to find specific sections. I do think we should standardize the colors, though. Order above all.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. I am not sure what caused this recent trend of table bleaching, but it drained all appeal from them. I don't think we need to standardize colors for specific purposes, either. Just give each game or topic a color that is fitting for that particular case. Not everything needs to be set to rigorous standards, live a little.
Yook Bab-imba (talk) We should embrace colors in the Mario wiki. I think the DKC games are some of our best looking articles, the tables playing a huge part. I do think some consistency is needed, though (a light yellow row next to a dark purple row with white text for example is just garish).
Super Mario RPG (talk) Actually, I can see some use for this, but I still feel they should be table classes each used under select circumstances.
Oppose: Prioritize gray
#Super Mario RPG (talk) Colors are based on arbitrary choice and not by official merit. I think there can be a system where there are exceptions to allow for certain colored tables on a case by case basis, but allowing it in absolutely every single case is overdoing it.
To be fair, even the older revisions didn't acknowledge the color styling of the former table format, so that part wasn't erased to begin with. It's just the design, and colors work with the wikitable class as well (see here, for example). Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:50, July 1, 2024 (EDT)
I think I'd like a little standardization, just so we don't end up with complete chaos. Maybe standardize alternating-color cells of the same color as the header? And as for the colors themselves — outside of when they're used to separate levels, which is by necessity a case-by-case basis — maybe we could do something similar to or based on the standardized navbox color schemes? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahemtoday (talk).
@Ahemtoday Yeah, perhaps something like the navboxes could work. The problem with the proposal title is that it's misleading in a certain sense since there already has been one custom styling for the wikitables -- "dk" , which is for Donkey Kong content. I think what it's trying to get at is allowing more standardized wikitable options, and this way there would be less likelihood of conflict if, let's say, someone else were to overhaul an entire page and how it looks. I still think colors should be reserved in specialized circumstances. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:34, July 2, 2024 (EDT)
Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full names
A. F. H. Bro to... nothing in particular, actually, they're already included on the same page as the SMW one. More on that later.
We have a few reasons for wanting this, and a few justifications, but for the sake of putting everything out on the table, I'll start with our immediate emotional feelings.
In Super Princess Peach, a lot of returning enemies with existing official names are given "emotional" variants. When English names are said in full, these are exclusively referred to as "Glad", "Mad", "Sad", or "Calm" versions of the original enemies. Additionally, to my understanding, the Japanese version of the game universally modifies names for emotional variants by appending 喜(Ki), 怒(Do), 哀(Ai), and 楽(Raku) respectively to preexisting official names for all enemies which have them. With this in mind, we feel it is, if nothing else, a bit silly to present these enemies as if we don't know what their names are supposed to be abbreviating.
That being said, of course, we're aware of the reasons why. Despite this feeling, we would have begrudgingly respected the former name of friend of the wiki Bombshell Bill Blaster had she not decided to change it, and we were certainly in support of keeping The O. P. L. W. T. E. E. W. R. F. A. K. E. B. I. Happens faithful to the source material. There are many cases like this, where something awkward needs to be the name of a page because, well, that's just what it's called.
But this bothers us anyway, and I think that hinges on the contention that these names are definitive official names for unique enemies.
Super Princess Peach presents these names in exactly one context, which is the in-game glossary section. In Japanese, none of the names are abbreviated, and all names of returning enemies are shared with previous official names for those enemies, with the variants having the relevant emotion appended. Meanwhile, in English, a number of emotional variant enemy names (and A. F. H. Bro, but we'll get to him later) are abbreviated when the addition of the extra words would make them excessively long. While the names are able to scroll to display more, the display column for their names in-game is quite small, and none of the abbreviated names are longer than 15 characters. This implies that, regardless of how the localizers may have wanted to change these names, they had a hard character limit.
The Naming policy actually has something that I think expresses our feelings here. It's for name changes, but given that these are all variants of preexisting enemies, I think it applies. Quote: "...the newer name will replace the older one with certain exceptions. Exceptions include naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames ... It is up to the users to find and determine what the naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames are. When mentioning subjects whose names have changed overtime, the newest name generally takes greater priority, except in the context of older media where they went by previous names, in which case those are used instead."
So, if we're in a situation where an enemy is agreed to be a variant of a preexisting enemy (the pages of these enemies will generally confidently state this, because it's obviously the case), and that enemy uses a variant of the same name as that preexisting enemy in Japanese, but then is shortened in English in a manner that would have been impossible to not do... Isn't that just a forced translation error? Or at the very least, some kind of alias? Can we really consider these to be official English names for these enemies if it was physically impossible to translate them in accordance with the Japanese naming scheme? And furthermore, when we can see that literally every name in the game that wouldn't have been over 15 characters was translated that way?
Personally, I think this is a pretty compelling explanation of why we feel this should be an exception to the usual rules, so I wanted to raise it. With all this in mind, it feels sort of disingenuously literal to take an alias that the localizers had no choice but to use and which doesn't reflect the Japanese name at all as more official than a name which actually describes all of the properties of the enemy as depicted in the game. But it's up to you guys.
Though, I will say, if we're going to take the stance that the literal in-game name is all that matters... Why are A. F. H. Bros still using their old name from 1991? Super Princess Peach was their last in-game appearance, and therefore has the most modern official English name.
DrBaskerville (talk) Though Pseudo makes compelling points, I don't see how there could be anything else but the names the pages all already say are "presumably" their actual names. If necessary, we can add the conjuncture disclaimer at the top of the articles. The main reason I support this change is because the abbreviations do not make it immediately obvious to someone who is browsing all Paratroopa variants (something I was actually doing recently) what "G. R. P-Troopa" is. This is true for all of the enemies and their base species. Moving them to the full names makes it clear what they are without having to click on the page.
Ahemtoday (talk) My vote seems unlikely to sway things at this stage, but I find the argument that these are forced abbreviations we are divorcing from their original context compelling.
Oppose
Pseudo (talk) These names are simply not these enemies' official names. We can certainly read between the lines regarding their names and come to reasonable conclusions about what they stand for and why their names are abbreviated, and this is currently done on all of these articles by mentioning what each title is presumably short for. Despite that, the unabbreviated names aren’t actually used in the game itself nor in any other extant official material, so I’m not comfortable moving these pages unless a source can be found explicitly backing up the enemies' full names (and, for the record, I am not staunchly opposed to moving Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother to A. F. H. Bro despite its strangeness, since it's the more common name in recent sources, though I'm not really certain I'd support it, either, but it's a conversation for another day and another proposal anyway).
Hewer (talk) I'd rather we didn't move official names to unofficial ones because we don't like the official names. Thereisplentyofprecedentnow for using shortened names if they're what official sources use, but in all of those cases, the long names were at least also official names - here, they're not.
JanMisali (talk) Per all. Using the official in-game names takes priority over using "full names".
To clarify the end of my vote regarding Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother, it was brought up a while ago on Talk:Volcano Lotus that the English version of the Mario Portal’s Super Mario World page surprisingly refers to this enemy as an A. F. H. Bro despite the original game using the full name in the end credits. While there has been understandable concern about citogenesis on the Mario Portal, this still can be taken to suggest that A. F. H. Bro became the main official name starting with Super Princess Peach, especially since this enemy’s article wasn’t moved on this wiki at the time for the Mario Portal localizers to cross-reference. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 01:15, July 3, 2024 (EDT)
Abstaining for now, but the very reason why we haven't moved these Super Princess Peach enemies to the full name is also the exact same reason why hadn't moved B. Bill Blaster to Bombshell Bill Blaster for so long until the Nintendo Switch remake of TTYD. There simply hasn't been an official record of these enemies' full names. This is due to character limitations, of course, but it should be noted that the original GCN version of TTYD still never even referred to the B. Bill Blaster by its full name in the Tattle, which should be exempt from character limitations, as can be seen with H. S. Goomba; it was only until the Nintendo Switch remake when the full name of Bombshell Bill Blaster has finally been used, hence we finally moved that article then. But the full names for all these Super Princess Peach enemies have still never been in use before in an official sense (at least Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother's full name had been implemented in its debut game's cast roll). rend(talk)(edits) 05:47, July 3, 2024 (EDT)
Not just in TTYD, but also in the first Paper Mario they're also called B. Bill Blasters in the tattle. Nightwicked Bowser 06:27, July 3, 2024 (EDT)
The tattle log thing is the exact reason why I'm fine with B. Bill Blasters. They had ample opportunity to give a full name, and didn't. In TTYD, they even make something of a joke out of it. Plus, I think it isn't truly unbelievable that they could be, like, "Buff Bill Blasters" or whatever. Meanwhile, Super Princess Peach had nowhere to clarify this, and all of the abbreviated enemies save AFH Bro are variants of enemies that do have official names in the exact same menu. Therefore, I don't think it's reasonable to treat these aliases as official names in this one specific case. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:29, July 3, 2024 (EDT)
Contextually speaking, "Buff Bill Blaster" should not make any sense. Given the Japanese names for this (スーパーキラーたいほう/スーパーキラー大砲 Super Killer Taihō) matching with that of Bombshell Bill (スーパーキラー Super Killer), one can easily determine that the "B." stands for "Bombshell". Yet, we did not rename this to Bombshell Bill Blaster until the TTYD remake, because the full name hadn't been recorded in an official game until now. And we should treat these Super Princess Peach enemies the same. rend(talk)(edits) 14:14, July 6, 2024 (EDT)
The Japanese name certainly heavily implies this, but the localization team is under no obligation to accurately reflect that, and had ample room to make clear that the enemy was deliberately, officially localized this way. Additionally, unlike SPP, there aren't twenty other enemies in the game referred to officially in full as "Bombshell" variants, all with similar aesthetics and mechanics, in a game where the central gimmick is that both you and your enemies have undergone "Bombshellification". It's just a one off that they could've localized more accurately but decided not to for whatever reason. I get where you're coming from, but I think SPP is in a very unique situation. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 19:49, July 8, 2024 (EDT)
Wanted to add a couple comments since it's been a day:
I think that DrBaskerville raised a significant point here that I overlooked. Insisting that these literal names are official is fine if you already know what they're supposed to be short for, as we all do, but if you're just a random person browsing variants of Goomba then "M. Red P-Goomba" tells you absolutely nothing. Frankly, it looks like it could just be some guy's real name.
I think a lot of the opposition votes aren't contending with our central point here. To be clear: We don't think that the official names should be discounted. We simply think that these should not be considered official names, because they are obvious nicknames describing variants of enemies which themselves have official names in the exact same menu. I don't think there's any real reason to take these names as definitive or official, because they're mistranslations, aliases, and nicknames all at once and there's nothing in the game which goes against this.
"We don't think that the official names should be discounted. We simply think that these should not be considered official names" ...What? That is discounting the official names. If no official sources back up a name, then it's simply not an official name, no matter how much you think it ought to be. And even if we did have a source for these full names, see the proposals I linked to in my vote - do you disagree with the recent Baby DK rename, for instance? If a shortened name is used significantly more often than a full name, the shortened one is what should take priority. In this case, we've got a usage of the shortened names vs. no usage of the longer names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:48, July 4, 2024 (EDT)
What we're saying is that, because these enemies are only referenced via a name that is a forced translation error, they effectively do not have official names. Comparatively, every letter in each acronym (save AFH Bro) has an official indication of what it's supposed to be short for in other official enemy names in the same menu. So, in lieu of an official name, we resort to a conjectural one based on an immense amount of official information. And as a bonus, it also more clearly describes at a glance what an enemy is. As for Baby DK et al, we agree with the change. The SPP enemies are pretty much the only case in which we would want to make an exception. Honestly, we've even pretty much turned around on AFH Bro at this point, though it's too late to edit the proposal now. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 12:15, July 6, 2024 (EDT)
They are officially referred to using names. Thus, whether you like them or not, they have official names. Conjectural names should be an absolute last resort when there is no official name at all, not just a way to get out of using official names we don't like - technically, even if they did have no official English name, we'd first have to fall back on the Japanese names before making anything conjectural. It doesn't matter whether we know what the letters stand for, we know what the DK in Baby DK stands for too. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:21, July 6, 2024 (EDT)
These are official names, erroneous or not. The wiki still refers to Goobles as Swoopin' Stus in regard of their Super Mario Sunshine appearance, even if them being given the name "Swoopin' Stu" in the Player's Guide is most likely in error as well and might've been for Winged Strollin' Stu instead, as "Swoopin' Stu" fits that enemy much better than it does to Gooble. Besides, most of the names listed aren't even translation errors. Things like Mecha-Spike Top, Volcano Plant and Boss P. Plant certainly are, but G. R. P-Troopa is not given in error, but as I said before, due to character limitations. Do you honestly think that officially given acronyms and shortenings because the full name could not fit in the given space, is an honest-to-god translation error? rend(talk)(edits) 14:05, July 6, 2024 (EDT)
I concede that calling it an "error" implies a degree of judgement that I don't really intend to direct toward the localizers here. I'm pretty much just using that term because it's what the naming policy uses, but I think terms like "alias" or "nickname" are more accurate to my feelings. The central point to me is that the truncation was completely forced, which makes me chafe at the idea that it should be considered "official". I understand that that's the string of text that's in the game, but I truly believe that presenting it in lists and links and so forth as an abbreviated name without the context of those space limitations is sacrificing accuracy in the name of precision. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:06, July 8, 2024 (EDT)
Decide how to handle identifiers for non-Mario characters
Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one 0-8-3-0
Some subjects that pertain to the Mario series share names with characters from outside franchises that have articles here. The wiki's had a bit of an inconsistency in how these characters are identified in article titles, signalled as far back as when Steve Minecraft was added to Smash Ultimate: on the one hand, the character Big from the Sonic series uses the "character" identifier, whereas the obstacle from Wario Land named "Big" lacks any identifier whatsoever, reason being that the latter pertains to the Mario series (specifically, the Wario branch) and should consequently be prioritized on a wiki titled after Mario; on the other hand, you have the case of Steve from NES Open Tournament Golf (a game billed as part of the Mario franchise) using an identifier to separate himself from Steve the Minecraft avatar, who punches Mario in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. Let's make up our mind on one universal course for all such instances.
This proposal concerns two parties:
one subject that is considered a part of Super Mario or any other franchise that receives full coverage according to the MarioWiki:Coverage policy; hereafter called "Mario-adjacent";
any subjects considered a part of franchises outside of the wiki's scope, who share the same name as the aforementioned Mario-adjacent subject and, for one reason or another, have an article or redirect on this wiki.
I chose to consider only one subject on the Mario side because, given two or more Mario-adjacent subjects of the same name, these would already require identifiers as dictated by current policy and thus shouldn't be affected by this proposal's outcome.
With these parties so delineated, I propose three options:
Option 1: Both parties, including the Mario-adjacent party, use an identifier.
Example: Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf) and Steve (Minecraft) retain this naming scheme.
Option 2: Identifiers are added or omitted depending on how prominent a subject is deemed to be. Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one.*
Example: Knuckles (Saturday Supercade) is an obscure character from one episode in a very early Donkey Kong show that is currently in large part considered what kids today call "lost media". Contrarily, Knuckles (Sonic the Hedgehog) is a significant character from one of the biggest video game franchises on the planet for the past 3 decades. It doesn't matter who is Mario-adjacent or not; the Sonic character is more prominent and would be prioritized by dropping his identifier, while the Saturday Supercade character retains his. The Sonic character will contain an {{about}} tag linking to the Mario-adjacent Knuckles, and if an additional three or more non-prominent things named "Knuckles" surface on the wiki, that "about" tag is superseded by a "Knuckles (disambiguation)" page.**
Option 3: Do not use an identifier for the Mario-adjacent party, but use identifier(s) for the outside parties, without respect to how prominent one is over the other.
Example: Ike (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!) drops the identifier and takes over the current Ike disambiguation page because the character comes from a Mario cartoon, while Ike (Fire Emblem) retains his identifier due to pertaining to the Fire Emblem games. The Mario-adjacent Ike will contain an "about" tag linking to the Fire Emblem character, and if an additional three or more non-Mario things named "Ike" surface on the wiki, that "about" tag is superseded by an "Ike (disambiguation)" page.**
In any case, the nature of the identifier(s) and the disambiguations that may result from these changes are subject to current naming policy.
* - Whether one subject is more prominent over another may be up to editors to decide on case-by-case basis, though the majority of the cases I've seen are pretty cut and dry, like the one related to the two Knuckles. Use common sense. ** - Per MarioWiki:Naming: "If there are five or more pages sharing the same name, a disambiguation page must be used, although it may be given a "(disambiguation)" qualifier if one of the articles has the plain title."
Option 1: Both Mario-adjacent and crossover subjects use identifiers
Option 2: Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one
Hewer (talk) Per naming policy, "if there is one subject that is clearly more popular than the others, the popular subject will keep the original title while the others use identifiers". I don't see much of a reason to make an exception for crossover characters. Sure, they're not from Mario originally, but they are related to Mario, otherwise they wouldn't be covered here. People who search "Knuckles" are extraordinarily more likely to be looking for the echidna, and they have every reason to be since we give full coverage to the Mario & Sonic series of six games (more if you count the paired releases individually) where he is a fully playable character in every installment, compared to a one-off supporting character in an ancient and highly obscure show that we only cover the DK and DK Jr. segments of. I don't really see why being a non-Mario character by origin is a reason to be excluded from the usual identifier rules, since it doesn't really correlate to the likelihood of them being searched for (which is what identifier rules are based on).
JanMisali (talk) Per Hewer. If we were to make a ruling for which subject with a shared title has priority as the primary subject, prioritizing subjects based on how often they appear in Super Mario-related media makes more sense than prioritizing subjects based on how closely connected to the greater Super Mario franchise their origins are.
Arend (talk) Personally, I think which subject gets prioritized should be based on in how many (relevant) Mario titles it has appeared (e.g. Knuckles the Echidna has appeared as a main playable character in a ton of Mario & Sonic titles, while Knuckles the gangster only appeared in a single Saturday Supercade episode), but this is close enough.
Option 3: Use identifiers only for the crossover subjects, prioritize the Mario-adjacent subject
LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm with Koopa con Carne. It makes sense to give priority to core-franchise characters over off-franchise ones, and I don't see this as anything that well-placed "about" templates can't solve.
SeanWheeler (talk) I think this proposal that had use removing the crossover character's surnames was the reason that we're having this problem. And I would like that overturned, especially with other proposals shortening character names failing. And even for crossover characters with just one name that weren't shortened by that proposal, it would be good to have an identifier to distinguish them from Mario subjects. Popularity is subjective. People would come here for information about the Mario games, so Mario subjects should get the simplified names while the crossover subjects should have more specific titles. That way, people looking up obscure Mario characters won't be taken to a Sonic or Smash article.
It doesn't matter
Comments
For the record, if the "most prominent subject" option passes I'd be interested in generalizing that into a formal policy, replacing the "clearly more popular" clause in MarioWiki:NAME. "Popularity" is difficult to define and cases where it's "clear" which subject is more popular are somewhat rare, but prominence is a somewhat more straightforward concept. Neither the Super Paper Mario character named Red nor the WarioWare character named Red are "clearly more popular" than Red from Pokémon (who doesn't have a dedicated article, and when he did it wasn't at "Red"), but the WarioWare character is clearly the most "prominent" in Super Mario-related media of the subjects named "Red" that have dedicated articles. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:12, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
The proposal mentions the concept of prominence in a cultural sense, less so in reference to gameplay or story. Let's say Pokemon Trainer is renamed "Red" in future Smash Bros games and the wiki uses that name on List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl; under option 2 of this proposal, the page Red (no identifier) would redirect to that character, because he is decidedly so much more culturally significant than anything else on the current disambig for Red (he was the playable avatar in the games that kicked off the biggest media franchise on the planet). -- KOOPACONCARNE 12:22, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
To be clear, I do think relevance and significance to the Mario franchise should be considered, I just don't think that's as simple as everything that wasn't originally Mario automatically being less significant. Despite Supercade Knuckles being originally Mario, he's ended up less prominent in the franchise than the echidna. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:31, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, I suppose that isn't exactly what I would want, but I do think that's preferable to the alternatives given here at least. Prioritizing Super Mario-ness could run into a different hypothetical future where a Mario RPG has some key item called a "link" (as in part of a chain), which would mean moving Link to "Link (character)". Or, in a contrived more extreme example, if a new character named "Wart" is introduced in a Mario-branded game, that would take priority over Wart, a character from Doki Doki Panic (which the wiki covers but does not give complete coverage, as the proposal suggests). jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:36, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
I've been interpreting "most prominent" here to be used with the same meaning as "most popular" in the naming policy. Regardless of what the literal definitions of the words may be, the point is that the subject without the identifier should be the one people who search the name are most likely to be looking for, hence the policy advises considering which page is more "likely to be linked to or searched for". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:25, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
@Everyone: Would you consider it relevant if I split option 2 into an option that includes redirects (e.g. Ike (Fire Emblem)) and one that excludes them? I personally think this action would be more thorough, but I'd like to know your opinions first. -- KOOPACONCARNE 12:39, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
I don't think we need to vote on making redirects, they feel like they should generally be a given. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
I guess my question was poorly formulated. Should redirects to a non-Mario subject be prioritized if the corresponding subject is the most prominent, or not? For instance, the page "Ike", currently a disambig page, would be repurposed to redirect to the Fire Emblem fighter. -- KOOPACONCARNE 13:05, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
Generally a subject not even significant enough to have its own page is unlikely to be the one without the identifier, but sure, I say we should continue handling that case-by-case in the same way as with articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:15, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
I guess the point would be if we really can't decide which subject should get the identifier, e.g. if they were roughly equal in likelihood of being searched for (but I'm not sure that applies to Ike). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:48, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler: Popularity is how we determine what gets identifiers across the whole wiki, and that won't be changed by this proposal - option 2 passing would just make that consistent for crossover subjects as well. The idea that people are automatically less likely to be looking for something on this wiki because it didn't originate from Mario is simply incorrect - we're only covering crossover subjects because of their relevance to the Mario franchise, and I feel like barely anyone searching "Knuckles" is really looking for the Saturday Supercade character rather than the Sonic character. I also disagree that the proposal you link to is relevant to this one, especially since I specifically made it so that no crossover characters would take priority over Mario characters after being told to in the comments and not really thinking to question it at the time. Also, as an aside, I'm unsure what "other proposals shortening character names failing" you're referring to - I can only think of the Koopalings one from a couple years ago, which has since been outnumbered by successful shortenings like Professor E. Gadd, Baby DK, etc. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:48, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
From King Boo article, the section is named as "Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon / Luigi's Mansion 2 HD". The HD version and the name are different, adding to the complexity and confusion. Now that HD is out, the article name must be unified into one name.
Should the names in the articles be unified by number "2"?
Category:Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon locations → Category:Luigi's Mansion 2 locations
Proposer: Windy (talk) Deadline: July 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support 1: Rename everything
LinkTheLefty (talk) I was actually going to bring up this idea as possibly being supported by this proposal, but the HD release date slipped my mind. I'm all for keeping them consistent, especially since most players will know the game as Luigi's Mansion 2 now.
Support 2: Rename if have two names in the article
Windy (talk) Semi-support. Category won't be renamed, but I want to unified into "Luigi's Mansion 2" in each articles if listed as "Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon / Luigi's Mansion 2 HD".
LinkTheLefty (talk) Personally, I think this is better for a broader discussion since it would be nice to have it streamlined in general, but I'll take it.
Hewer (talk) Per MarioWiki:Naming, we always prioritise the North American names for games. While that does cause some inconsistencies in this case, it's simply a reflection of the official naming inconsistency, so by all means it should be inconsistent. It's our job to report the facts, not to "fix" the official naming. In fact, the Nintendo Direct that announced Luigi's Mansion 2 HD called it "a visually enhanced version of Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon", so it's not like they've erased the "Dark Moon" name. Also, what about this is different to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, which is called just "Super Mario RPG" in Japan and was then named as such worldwide with the remake?
Shadow2 (talk) The 3DS version is entitled "Dark Moon"
SeanWheeler (talk) If we do this, would we have to rename Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels as Super Mario Bros. 2? We already got a Super Mario Bros. 2, the one called "Super Mario Bros. USA" that Mariofied the Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic game. I don't want to cause confusion over Super Mario Bros. 2 or any games that were retitled outside of Japan just because of a proposal changing Dark Moon to Luigi's Mansion 2. It's good to prioritize names from this website's home country.
Shouldn't the proposer weigh in? LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:42, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
Slightly off-topic, but I've been thinking about making a proposal for changing the (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) disambiguation identifier to (Luigi's Mansion 2), in lieu to previousproposals about shortening identifiers, now that Luigi's Mansion 2 HD is out. The problem, however, that the American name does not contain a single 2 in the title, unlike its name in most other regions, and it's the American names that must be prioritized according to MarioWiki:Naming. Should I still make a proposal about this or just drop it? rend(talk)(edits) 07:46, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure this proposal passing would achieve that anyway, so you should probably at least wait until this one's over before making that proposal. I'd likely oppose it for the reasons you mentioned, though. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:52, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer: Super Mario RPG has a different precedent that would have to be set by a separate proposal - the Japanese title is the one favored by the reissue worldwide (there's no telling if the PAL version would've kept the North American subtitle since it was canceled). In contrast, most of the world knows Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon as Luigi/Luigi's Mansion 2, and it's an existing title for English audiences. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:07, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
But it's not the one used in the part of the world prioritised by this wiki's naming policy (and often by Nintendo), and I'd rather stay consistent with that preference. This isn't the only time the American name is the odd one out - DK Summit, for example, is "DK Snowboard Cross" in Japan and "DK's Snowboard Cross" in Europe. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:41, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
Yes, we know things can differ for different English audiences (although I don't know enough about Mario Kart courses to say if your example is a consistent difference between the American and British English versions in each game or if the latter localization eventually got discontinued later on). The part I want to underline is "most commonly used English name". Historically, Nintendo generally prefers North America for reissues for brand unification when the British English material differs; for example, Star Fox 64's reissue is Star Fox 64 3D instead of Lylat Wars 3D in terrorities where the original sold as Lylat Wars; Fire Emblem titles after Shadow Dragon for DS use American English localization terms where the British English versions differed; etc. What happened with Luigi's Mansion 2 is a deviation from expected norms, and so, it makes sense to respect that deviation. Yes, a preview called it Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon in the North American version of the Direct before the final title was revealed at a later point, but I don't think there were any more references to that subtitle. It was, effectively, cleaned up by Nintendo themselves, likely so there was no casual mistaking that it was 3's predecessor in a Switch collection. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:24, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
DK Summit's regional naming difference remains in the Booster Course Pass, released only last year (there are a few other courses with similar regional naming differences, but usually the American name is the one that matches the Japanese more closely while the European name deviates, whereas it's the other way round for DK Summit). Anyway, the "most commonly used English name" bit in the naming policy is in the same sentence as the stipulation that we must use North American names, that's what it refers to. We are respecting Nintendo's deviation by calling Luigi's Mansion 2 HD as such, not by retroactively changing the name of the original 3DS version, which matches neither Nintendo's handling nor our own naming policy. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:40, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
A recent blurb from NoA (the only Nintendo apparently) for the launch trailer states the following: "You may notice that the Luigi’s Mansion™ 2 HD game looks a bit familiar. That’s because this classic adventure from the Nintendo 3DS™ system is returning in style!" No, it doesn't explicitly refer to the original as such, but it is strongly implicit in the wording as a returning classic. I don't see anything wrong with this; it makes things easier to follow for everyone, and makes identifiers and categories more navigatable. We're not removing the old name; it will just be acknowledged as the North American name of the original. There was probably an expectation that the final NA title might've been along the lines of Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon HD, but that didn't happen. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:04, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
I'm not denying that the game is a re-release, that doesn't have anything to do with its different title. As much as I'm glad Nintendo removed this regional difference for the re-release, I think us retroactively applying that to the original game is the wrong move. It only makes things more confusing for every game covered on the wiki that was released in North America to use its name from that region except for this particular one, and due only to a re-release of it from years later. While I don't normally like using examples from different series, Kirby's Return to Dream Land feels like a similar enough case here: it was called "Kirby's Adventure Wii" in Europe, then the remake had its English name standardised to "Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe" worldwide, yet European promotional material refers to a game titled "Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe" as "a deluxe version of Kirby's Adventure Wii", showing that Nintendo doesn't necessarily consider a changed name for a re-release to mean that the original game's name for that region has changed as well, so we can follow suit here. Also, a bit of an aside, but what box art do we prioritise for the game's article if this proposal passes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:30, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
I'd look to Kirby's Fun Pak (EU), which has been re-released as Kirby Super Star Ultra on DS and then as Kirby Super Star (NA) eversince the Super NES Classic Mini in 2017 (I think Star Fox, too, which was Starwing in the same territories). It seems like Nintendo of Europe is intent on using those releases going forward, and yes, this is relevant as it's the same publisher and we can see a break of pattern. I think we can throw a bone when the tables have turned. (As for box art: does that even need to change when Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels's article captions the original unaltered title screen showing Super Mario Bros. 2 as Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels? Clean key artwork might be best, but I guess you can make it the European or Australian one.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:45, July 10, 2024 (EDT)
Super Star is simply a different case to Return to Dream Land, which still shows that they can give a game's re-release a different name without retroactively changing the name of the original too (my European version of Kirby Star Allies demonstrates this - in the pause screen text that references previous games, Kirby Super Star is named as such, but Squeak Squad and Return to Dream Land still use their European names of Mouse Attack and Adventure Wii respectively). Therefore, a differently named re-release isn't grounds to assume that the original got renamed too (since that did happen with Super Star but didn't with Return to Dream Land). In this case, I don't know of any North American sources about Luigi's Mansion 2 HD that directly refer to the original as "Luigi's Mansion 2", with the only source I know of relating to the game that does refer to original by name still calling it "Dark Moon", so there isn't enough evidence here that the original game also got renamed (though to be honest even if there were American sources for "Luigi's Mansion 2" I'm still not sure if that should override the name that the game was actually released under). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:02, July 11, 2024 (EDT)
Star Allies released before Return to Dream Land Deluxe, though, so it's not really a good indicator. LinkTheLefty (talk) 04:14, July 11, 2024 (EDT)
Right, but like I mentioned before, European promotional material says that Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe is "a deluxe version of Kirby's Adventure Wii" (quoted from its page on Nintendo eShop). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:17, July 11, 2024 (EDT)
Also, shouldn't this be a talk page proposal, not a "main" proposal? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:09, July 12, 2024 (EDT)
Because E. Gadd, King Boo and other articles have two names in a section. Windy (talk) 15:37, July 13, 2024 (EDT)
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class
Allow usage in sprite galleries 12-4
So Porple helped me with creating a method to keep sprites at their raw size in galleries (yay!), which replaces the somewhat awkward way I previously did it for mostly-consistently-sized sprites (see the page history for Gallery:Golf (Game Boy), which is what I specifically directed him towards while doing it), and it's also highly useful for icons (especially when we don't have the raw parameters already, like the car icons for Mario Kart Wii), and cases where a size comparison is useful (like Bigger Boo's growth). In general, it's a good way to keep them from looking bloated and crusty with inconsistently-sized pixels, which I feel looks bad and degrades their quality, while keeping an upper limit on size so "huge" sprites don't take up all the space (and shrunken large sprites are preferable to bloated small sprites, in my opinion).
Now what I want to see consensus on, is whether this concept should be expanded to more common usage for sprite galleries, so that people can actually see the size difference between these entities. For example:
Fat rat
Pixel snake
Frying my eyes
Is this the crusty crab?
Lots of warts, all square
compared to
Rat's all, folks!
Snake me wanna shout
Pretty fly for a Fry Guy
I'm NOT a crusty crab!
The frog is coming!
or
This is a big sprite
Onward, bumpy Chomp!
Is this the crusty Koop?
I'm blue, dabba dee dabba died
Everything's so blurrrrrrrrrrry...
...and everything's so fake...
compared to
This is still a lot bigger than this box
Onward, small Chomp!
I'm not a crusty Koop!
I'm small, dabba dee dabbadied
Everything's so big...
...and I'm trapped in this white box!
Now, you'll notice, that on ones where there is difference in size, the smaller ones will appear just that: small, but their bounding boxes are the same as the others (which is an issue my old "give separate galleries with different widths and heights as well as inline-block display" strategy didn't have, but costed a lot more HTML data). I can see how some people may have issues with that, though speaking as a spriter, I find it preferable to blown up pixels. Also, you may notice some stretched captions there, that of course won't be much of an issue with the usually short captions sprites in galleries have.
Super Mario RPG (talk) - I don't like the argument of "it doesn't look good." This provides the immediate benefit of showing the reader the original sizes of the sprites without having to click on each and every file link. Per proposer.
LinkTheLefty (talk) I always found the size discrepancy to be an eyesore.
Ahemtoday (talk) The inconsistent pixel sizes on the SMB2 examples are very apparent to me — you highlight Clawgrip, but I think Tryclyde has it the worst, personally. Now that we have the ability to upscale these by consistent amounts to keep them at reasonable sizes while not introducing nearest-neighbor weirdness, that takes me off the fence in voting for it provided we do that. I still don't really see the issue with the MP6 renders, though. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:23, July 14, 2024 (EDT)
Mario (talk) Cautious support after the option to scale sprites was implemented. I'd like to see this implemented in some galleries, such as Super Mario Bros. 2, as it's much easier to ascertain the scale of these sprites and it's more attractive to see them in this kind of array vs all being scaled to the same portion. Certainly not a fan of how the current method scales some sprites; Wart and Tricylyde's sprite do have inconsistent pixelation when scaled up due to the scale factor not evenly affecting all pixels, and forcing scales at factors seems to be a feasible solution. I don't think it needs to be applied in other galleries, however; Mario Party 6 doesn't really need to preserve pixel display, and the large Mario sprite has to be scaled down, so kind of defeating the purpose of keeping these scaled down to show relative scales (imo).
Hewer (talk) Don't see why not to allow this on a case-by-case basis.
Nintendo101 (talk) The examples above look a lot nicer than they did first time around. As long as users still have some curatorial discretion with how galleries are laid out, I think this is a nice tool to have available.
Shokora (talk) – Per all. If galleries are more presentable with this option, it's worth doing.
Waluigi Time (talk) Porple's changes fix the issues I had with implementing this, so I'm good with moving forward. I don't think this needs to be used for every sprite gallery though, per Mario.
Oppose - leave it exclusive to consistent sized icons and other special cases
#LadySophie17 (talk) None of the pixels look blurry or blown out to me, they're just larger, which is generally how they would appear on any modern screen displaying them anyway. Displaying them in their original size makes details harder to see (important!), and the empty space around the boxes is just unappealing. As long as the wiki has these images saved at their true resolution, I see no issue in displaying them at a larger scale for clarity and convenience.
#Nintendo101 (talk) I think a nice benefit in supporting reference material or an encyclopedia is in allowing readers to view subjects in contexts otherwise tough to see, especially for galleries that are intended to support visual material. I have a number of books on small artefacts or organisms (insects, microbes, etc.) where they are not displayed to scale. I know and have seen users change the scaling of individual subcategories on galleries, but I'd rather that was up to their discretion rather than blanket policy. As long as the true dimensions of the uploaded files have not been messed with, I do not think there is much harm in allowing users to scale assets on the gallery pages.
#Pseudo (talk) Per Lady Sophie. The point of a gallery is to allow wiki visitors to look at the images therein, and leaving them too tiny to inspect closely feels counterintuitive, even if it’s not the original state of the images.
#Waluigi Time (talk) Per Lady Sophie. I'd rather sacrifice a little bit of quality than have these be too tiny to tell what anything is.
Comments
Regarding "detail," when it's all the same pixels anyway with no "zoom and enhance" going on, making them larger doesn't add any detail. That's why we upload sprites in their native res to begin with. The only "detail" you're going to see is how any dithering looks when it's not blending as intended, which is what "crusty" generally means in this case. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:46, July 13, 2024 (EDT)
I am perfectly aware that making an image larger does not create pixels out of nowhere, thank you very much. What it does is make small pixels (and therefore details) larger and easier to see.— Lady Sophie(T|C) 13:11, July 13, 2024 (EDT)
Problem is that the ruined dithering actually makes detail harder to see. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:38, July 13, 2024 (EDT)
I'm not opposed to its implementation entirely; I think you can have a case for it. For instance Gallery:Mario Kart Wii#Mugshots already uses a version of it to scale all those 64x64 sprites consistently. Gallery:Super_Smash_Bros.#Icons can also use a more consistent scaling scheme, but using class="rawsize" in the Smash Bros. example is not the solution, as it makes the icons much more difficult to ascertain especially on desktop monitors where zooming is not as easy vs a touchscreen finger swipe.
The reasoning for the proposal I also do not agree with and I believe it's based off trying to preserve how an asset to the perceived display from a game, which I argue is flawed reasoning as we are a wiki with different set of ideal ways and constrictions in how we can display information. This is not to mention that these sprites are often scaled in the games themselves and display differently based on the monitors. Paper Mario sprites for instance, are likely not even intended to be viewed at the resolution they're in; they're scaled up from camera, the game itself, and TV displays (CRT TVs are much less lower-resolution than the monitors we have today, so the original experience on these older games tend to show very blown-up scales), so sometimes details and text screenshots using the native resolution actually appear quite difficult to ascertain, see File:PM Koopa Bros Introducing Themselves Screenshot.png. The games themselves also scale these sprites often; using Smash Bros. 64 again as an example, the stock icon scales from an emulator screenshot in File:SSBStockmatch.png are increased and are filtered applied to blur out the pixels.
Finally, the examples used are flawed. At least from my display, Triclyde and Wart appear to be slightly scaled down, which undermines the point that not not applying scales to sprites maintains the desired factor of 2 that galleries autoscales fail to do (which perhaps the proposal can resolve and should address right away). The solution for this is either applying a consistent scale factor to all sprites, which means scaling them up, increasing the field size that the sprites occupy themselves in, or just going in one-by-one to maintain a consistent look (is this even feasible?). I do recommend trying to apply a scale factor to some low-resolution sprites including the NES/SNES era ones so the pixels display properly. I also recommend the terminologies, for clarity, is resolution (which is referred to as "raw size") vs scale.
So anyway, this proposal I understand where it's coming from but there are better solutions to address scale factor in galleries, and the practice appears to have already been employed in some galleries, particularly concerning higher resolution UI elements from games that maintain consistent aspect ratios like Mario Kart Wii's 64x64 sprites; these are high enough resolution that displaying them at no scale shows enough detail, but not high enough to occupy too much space for galleries. There might be more cases where this noscale parameter applies well, but I think we have to comb through them due to the amount of specifications Mario Kart Wii had going for it, which likely many galleries won't. Scale differences may be useful, such as in Big Boo's case and perhaps in the Super Mario Bros. 2 case but there is a downside of shrinking sprites too much, especially for variable games like Super Mario RPG that has zoomed out Luigi and big monsters like (??? i haven't played that game lol), which leaves behind empty space in galleries It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:52, July 13, 2024 (EDT)
I put the wrong parameters for the SMB2 one when I made the proposal, it's fixed now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:58, July 13, 2024 (EDT)
Ok. Struck out that part. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:59, July 13, 2024 (EDT)
@FOY Oi, don't use a proposer's own joke against them. That's rude. :( Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:30, July 14, 2024 (EDT)
I guess i could say "Right Back at Ya!", right now.:D --FanOfYoshi 05:49, July 17, 2024 (EDT)
Is there possibly a way to have scale factors for the galleries? Such as the ability to increase these by 200%. It could be a way to display more easily viewed sprites while maintain relative sizes of sprites. I need to see if it'll work for larger sprites. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:43, July 14, 2024 (EDT)
As it is, we can't even do that with normal images, unfortunately, I've tried for tables many times for 200% or 50%, depending on the type, doesn't work for either. Guess that's a thing we can ask Porple. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:41, July 14, 2024 (EDT)
Okay, using a parameter Steve has put in your talk page[1], I've previewed the Super Mario Bros. 2 sprite array with a x2 scale factor. I like it more (not going to show it here; might be subject to change). I wonder what other people think of it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk)
Well, as that is an update to the rawsize amount, it works about the same for the purposes of this proposal. So long as there's a consistent scale, it's better than what we've had historically. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:18, July 14, 2024 (EDT)
I was actually thinking to myself "I might back this proposal if we scaled up the sprites by consistent round-number amounts". Ahemtoday (talk) 22:23, July 14, 2024 (EDT)
There has been an update to the parameters which allow scaling of these sprites to larger iterations, which should alleviate concerns about small sprites. Here is what I'm putting out:
Original
Fat rat
Pixel snake
Frying my eyes
Is this the crusty crab?
Lots of warts, all square
No scale
Rat's all, folks!
Snake me wanna shout
Pretty fly for a Fry Guy
I'm NOT a crusty crab!
The frog is coming!
2x scale
I smell a rat
Wingless Ghidorah
Not a Shy Guy
I ain't done counting me moneh. NOOO
Amphibious Bowser
And here's the 4x which I think is too big but it's just proof of concept (set width to 120px, causes sprite to leak out but technical restrictions mean we can't go beyond this)
Yeah as long as the pixels are squares and not inconsistent near-square rectangles to mess with my OCD (and are relatively consistent between image groups), it's OK by me. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:01, July 18, 2024 (EDT)
Please do not increase the size of the widths/heights value beyond the default 120px to make room for scaled images (but going smaller is fine). Doing so can cause overflowing on mobile Minerva. Here are a couple more options:
Create list of Mario-related hashtags 0-4-0
This proposal targets the creation of an index for social media hashtags that:
relate to the Mario series;
were used or otherwise disseminated by Nintendo, a representative, or any other official partner in the context of a Mario product.
If a hashtag meets these two criteria, it's eligible for inclusion no matter which social media network it's used on. It could be YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, you name it.
These hashtags count as official content, so I figured what's not to gain from having them gathered up in a historical record? I haven't seen anyone complain about the current list of fonts, which has a similarly huge scope and I assume is currently inexhaustive.
You can see how I envision the list's appearance in my sandbox, but this aspect is not enforced by the proposal and I am open to feedback. As you can see here, the list explains the context of each hashtag, cites references, and includes imagery appended to the hashtags upon use when applicable.
Create a list of official hashtags, including those relate to both Mario (e.g. "#MarioParty", "#DonkeyKong") and Nintendo in general (e.g. "#NintendoSwitch")
Create a list of official hashtags that only relate to Mario specifically
Mario (talk) Weak support. Seems really particular and niche, but if someone is willing to do the motions for this, okay. I guess someone will find this useful, but I'm not really a social media user.
I think we're underestimating just how often Play Nintendo uses hashtags. I wouldn't be surprised if a big portion of them are one-offs. Axis (talk) 08:38, July 14, 2024 (EDT)
I don't really see the problem there. I like the idea of being as comprehensive as possible with our coverage. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:43, July 17, 2024 (EDT)
The only thing I fear is that eventually people will stop maintaining this list, really. Axis (talk) 09:31, July 19, 2024 (EDT)
TBH that was mostly maintained by me, Axis, and LuigiMaster123 lol -- KOOPACONCARNE 10:34, July 19, 2024 (EDT)
As I'm looking for hashtags to fill up that page, I discover that Nintendo has seemingly only ever made one tweet with the hashtag "#Waluigi" across all of their Twitter accounts with "Nintendo" in the name. Just throwing this out there. -- KOOPACONCARNE 17:11, July 19, 2024 (EDT)
Standardize the coverage of elements from guest appearance titles
Do not use similar appearance to justify an article 7-0-0
As brought up by an earlier cancelled proposal, the current coverage of The Legend of Zelda series is very inconsistent, and the worst offender is Bombite. Unlike Spiked Thwomp, Stone Elevator or Mega Thwomp, it has no direct or implied connection to the Mario franchise, but has an article anyway, solely based on its appearance.
MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest_appearances permits giving individual articles for subjects "unique to the [guest appearance] game while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise". I propose to more clearly define on MarioWiki:Coverage what elements from guest appearance titles should be given their own pages:
The subject is clearly derived from or based on the Super Mario franchise, as confirmed by Nintendo. (Nintendo Land minigames, Thwomp types exclusive to The Legend of Zelda, etc.)
The subject is distinct enough to justify its own article. (Cannot be merged with an existing page. BowWows or Cheep-Sheeps don't get individual articles because they're not distinct enough from their Mario counterparts)
If the subject derived from the Mario franchise appears in a Nintendo-published or endorsed media that isn't considered guest appearance, a proposal is required before creating a page. (If Nintendo ever releases a game with a unique Mario subject that can't otherwise be considered a guest appearance title, wiki editors have an option to consider if it's worth covering anyway)
This is where Bombite comes into play:
Option 1: Similar appearance isn't enough to justify creating a new article. This option would result in the deletion of Bombite, its contents will be merged with the Zelda section of Bob-omb's article
Option 2: Similar appearance is a good justification for creating a new article for a distinct enemy. Bombite's page remains
Proposer: Axis (talk) Deadline: July 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Arend (talk) As I already stated here, Bombite being covered here with its own article is really strange, even if it does resemble Bob-omb, and the game it's from references Mario a lot. Rest of the proposed guidelines also check out, per all.
7feetunder (talk) I really have no idea why Bombites even exist when they could've just put Bob-ombs in Link's Awakening. Regardless, per proposal.
How is "Option 2" any different from "Oppose"? Doesn't this proposal just decide whether Bombite stays or goes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
It's about standardizing it so there's something to refer to in case something like this comes up again. Both options support the new standart, the difference is whether or not visual similary qualifies as a connection Axis (talk) 08:31, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
A somewhat recent proposal about the coverage of the Rhythm Heaven series decided that Rhythm Heaven minigames with WarioWare characters in them (including Kung Fu Ball from Rhythm Heaven Fever, the debut of Cicada) should not get dedicated articles. Would this new definition overturn that decision? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 08:33, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
It is not within the scope of this proposal, no Axis (talk) 08:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Relatedly, though I did vote against Monita having a page a couple years ago, I have started to reconsider a bit. She's a bit of an edge case, but not having a page on her creates a gap in our otherwise full coverage for Luigi's Ghost Mansion. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:56, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Side note, would Togezo also be affected by the scope of the proposal? It's currently being covered on the Spiny article as if it's the same thing, even though it only vaguely resembles a Spiny (read: it's a black ball with two Kirby feet, dot eyes and a Spiny Shell helmet), and even had the Japanese and English name for Spiny swapped at first. Even with Doc's explanation in this discussion, I'm still unsure if Togezo was meant to be the same creature as Spiny, or anything more than a simple reference to Spiny (it honestly looks more like Spiky, or even Bumbleprod). The Spiked Beetle, in comparison, resembles Spiny much more, especially in the Switch version of Link's Awakening. rend(talk)(edits) 12:09, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Whether part of this proposal or not, we should absolutely stop considering Togezo to be Spiny, it's patent speculation and the enemies don't even look alike besides having spiky shells. For all we know, they could've been created entirely separately from each other and coincidentally ended up with the same spike-based names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I agree with Hewer, unless any of the guides say otherwise. Either way, it should be handled by a different proposal. (Also, I don't think any of the Kirby games are considered guest appearance anyway? So it isn't related, really) Axis (talk) 14:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Y'all keep neglecting to bring up the "rolling into ball" bit as well as Spiny having the same black face in their prior appearances in SMB3 and SMW. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I really don't see how that changes anything. Neither aspect is uncommon among Kirby characters. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:18, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Later Kirby characters. Remember, Spinies were introduced to Kirby in that series' second game, and those attributes didn't become "common" to that series until after it was suspiciously phased out for the remake and onward... not unlike how Capsule J was phased out for being a Twinbee clone. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I still think it's too much of a stretch based entirely on conjecture. We have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes with Kirby enemy designs over the years, we weren't there with the developers, and even if they did base it on Spiny, that doesn't mean it has to be literally the same character. And I don't see what's "suspicious" about it no longer appearing (which is yet another trait not uncommon among Kirby enemies), or why its vague Spiny resemblance would have anything to do with that fact. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:34, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
(ec) Not particularly convinced we should have the Kirby enemy Togezo lumped with the Mario enemy in the Spiny article and in the gallery for the Spiny. Differences are too significant. The dark face in a sprite seems to just be a coloration quirk; they're not dark in official art and the whole rolling up into ball is just probably just a coincidence since they're both round enemies anyway. How they become a ball is so vastly different; in the original games, Spinys are balls while being thrown out; Togezo patrols areas, rolls into a ball, bounces, and spins around like a hedgehog. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Later games give Spiny the ability to roll on a whim, like Paper Mario and NSMB. And I find it too unlikely that they'd happen to share both a name and basic appearance plan with an iconic creature from their creator's parent company's primary money-maker - especially when Kirby Super Star from the same dev team as Kirby's Adventure (ie, the Sakurai-headed one rather than the other one the so-called "Dark Matter saga" games had) went all-out on Nintendo cameos. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Later Spiny abilities (and in games with no relation to Kirby). And was Spiny really that iconic as of Kirby's Adventure, to the point that there's no way they could've made their own separate spiked-shelled enemy? At best Togezo warrants a mention in trivia or something on Spiny's page for possibly being inspired by the Mario character. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:54, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Any SMB1 enemy I'd count as fair game, to be frank. Granted, last I checked Sakurai was fairly open on social media so I suppose someone could ask him if it was an intentional cameo. Either way, we both know that if that ever gets a proposal itself, we'll have forgotten (conveniently or otherwise) each other's points by that point, so no point wasting our keystrokes here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
A friend once asked this very question, Doc, but all we got was a curious like from the programmer of Gimmick!LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:00, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Gimmick also had a similar-looking enemy (in fact, it looked right in between those designs), but its only deal was flipping over when hit and having the feet function as a tiny conveyor belt. And that game was entirely 3rd party, and the enemies in that game seem to be unnamed. Here it is.Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:05, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA Zelda games, which themselves heavily borrow from Link's Awakening - particularly Four Swords Anniversary Edition having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. Axis (talk) 14:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Decide how to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link
canceled by proposer
Since there are articles about subjects from the Final Fantasy series that have appeared in Mario Hoops 3-on-3, Mario Sports Mix, and/or certain Super Smash Bros. games (Nintendo 3DS / Wii U and/or Ultimate), I'm looking forward to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link. The issue is that there is also a wiki from Fandom (powered by Wikia) that is also named Final Fantasy Wiki. The good news, I've come up with three options:
Option 1
Change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages AND add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link.
Option 2
ONLY add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link (even if confusing).
Option 3
Do NOTHING.
Here is an example on the use of the interwiki link for the Final Fantasy Wiki:
That way, we'll be able to use the Final Fantasy Wiki interwiki link once it gets added right after either Option 1 or Option 2 passes, as well as change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages right after only Option 1 passes.
SeanWheeler (talk) The independant Final Fantasy Wiki is full of red links and is incomplete compared to FANDOM's wiki.
Comments
The Fandom wiki is not actually called "Final Fantasy Wikia", not to mention that Fandom not even refers to itself as "Wikia" anymore, to the point that they also dropped that "Powered by Wikia" tagline. Wouldn't it be better to instead refer to it as "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" to differentiate the two wikis? rend(talk)(edits) 17:40, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
Also, what even is the "text" being referred to in the proposal that needs changing? When do we need to refer to the Fandom Final Fantasy Wiki? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:43, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure they may be referring to External link sections, e.g. here. Currently, the Super Mario Wiki links to specifically the Fandom wiki when it comes to anything Final Fantasy (even outside External link sections), since we don't have an interwiki link for an independent Final Fantasy Wiki yet. I imagine they wouldn't simply replace the Fandom wiki link with the independent wiki link and rather include both wikis. rend(talk)(edits) 17:50, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
Last week, I replaced "Wikia" with "Wiki (Fandom)." How do you think the proposal looks? GuntherBayBeee 10:00, August 1, 2024 (EDT)
Why are you saying this a literal week after making the change, instead of (nearly) immediately after? Wouldn't that make more sense? Or are you asking this only now, because you're either subtly asking me to vote again, or trying to drum up more engagement again, because your proposal did not get any votes? Either way, while it's good that you applied the change, I'm still abstaining because I'm unsure which option is better. And in case I need to make it clear, I'm NOT obligated to vote, and NOT obligated to say why I'm not voting, and I should NOT be obligated about either option JUST because I engaged in the comment section. As I said before: "no one is forced to vote for an option, even if they're joining in the conversation, so I'd appreciate it if I'm not being pressed into voting for something." And this feels like teetering into just that again. I'm sorry if this was a genuine question, but after two previous times where you tried to drum up engagement (either by asking commenters to vote, or by bargaining other changes when people weren't disagreeing at all) after no one voted or commented on it, this feels like another feeble attempt to get more votes, and I personally think this vote-bargaining thing is getting really annoying. You probably should've said and asked this "How'd you think the proposal looks now" thing a LOT sooner, and/or at the very least answer Hewer's question (by corroborating what I told him, for example). That way I could suggest what could be added BEFORE the 3-day deadline of being able to change the proposal has reached, AND would've drummed up engagement in a more natural way. NOW, it feels like you're asking people to vote, and someone had gotten blocked for doing just that. rend(talk)(edits) 11:59, August 1, 2024 (EDT)
