MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, March 24th, 22:14 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

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

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its a two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". 

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one, Jdtendo (ended March 17, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 7, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Restructure Yoshi's Island (series) into Yoshi (series), PopitTart (ended March 19, 2025)
Split Small Cosmic Clone from Cosmic Clone, Sorbetti (ended March 22, 2025)
Merge Beanbean Coin to Coin, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 22, 2025)
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Add identifiers to near-identical titles

Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: Mark (Mario Tennis series) and Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means Color coin (Super Mario Run) and Colored coin (Wario Land 3) do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include Secret Course 1 (Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins) and Secret Course 01 (Super Mario Run), Spyguy (Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis) and Spy Guy (Paper Mario), and Rollin' Down the River (Yoshi's Woolly World) and Rolling Down the River (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!).

This proposal aims to amend MarioWiki:Naming to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.

Note that this proposal only covers names that are semantically identical, and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. Buzzar and Buzzer have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. Balloon Boo and Boo Balloon are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.

Edit: Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include Family Basic (microgame) and Family BASIC (as ruled by a proposal), Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) and Hot-air balloon, Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame), and Avalanche (obstacle) and both Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4). If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) per.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Altendo (talk) I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with identical names, not similar names.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Altendo, this is what Template:Distinguish is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
  3. Ray Trace (talk) Per Hewer.
  4. Dine2017 (talk) Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
  5. SeanWheeler (talk) Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.

Comments

I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)

i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the Secret exit article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. Family Basic (microgame) recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from Family BASIC was deemed unreasonable. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from Hot-air balloon. Avalanche (obstacle) has an identifier to separate it from Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4), even though both of them have exclamation marks. Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame) get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. EvieMaybe (talk) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)
This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made Family Basic a redirect to Family BASIC, so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)

New features

Create a category for "catch-all articles"

By "catch-all article" (tentative term; please suggest names) I mean those that describe elements that are not related, but share an article because they boil down to the same generic, often real world object. Many of them fit what the guidelines call a "generic subject". Examples of this kind of article are:

They may also boil down to a similar fictional basic concept, which are their own distinct thing, despite all of them taking a similar form:

Compare subjects to which this category would not apply, like ? Block or P-Switch, where every reappearance of the subject is really a deliberate revisitation of a specific concept that already existed.

This category would be applied to articles on concrete subjects only (most of which, if not all, would be objects).

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Bro Hammer (talk) My proposal.

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) I don't see how such a category would be useful, and I don't like that it's pretty subjective and is based on a trait shared by the articles rather than the objects themselves. Even if there was value in distinguishing these pages, I don't think a category like this is the way to do it.
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Is History of Mario a catch-all article because it covers both a fictional character and Bob Hoskins? We would have to have that sort of debate for too many articles to count. This is too subjective and doesn't really accomplish anything.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Unnecessary, and the word "generic" alone is unclear whether it goes by the definition of real-life or Super Mario.
  4. Arend (talk) Honestly, the inclusion of fictional items like Poison Mushroom, ! Block and ? Panel would make it more confusing for me what a "catch-all article" is supposed to be; if it's supposed to be about generic subjects, then their inclusion would definitely muddy the concept quite a bit. Not to mention that the term "catch-all article" isn't clear enough as it is.

Comments

My gut reaction is that I disagree that the Poison Mushroom and Lift articles encompass generic subjects. They are supported as discrete in the paratext for these games. But even if narrowed to articles I agree are generic, it is not inherently clear to me what the benefit of having a "catch-all category" would be. My general view is that there are quite a few subjects that we consider to be generic which really are not. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:45, November 10, 2024 (EST)

What would be some subjects you don't consider generic? My case for the Lift is that it's an article that encompasses almost all types of flat, moving platforms (a basic platforming game object), many even with their own distinct names; I believe you could even argue for some of the versions to get their own articles. And yeah, I agree that there's no huge benefit to having this category, as it would be there mostly for the sake of acknowledgement that "this article does not describe the history of a single idea, but it's instead an aggregation of the histories of various ideas that fit under this umbrella". Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 16:25, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts

I'm currently contributing to Mario & Luigi: Brothership content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that Glohm enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.

This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:

1. Glohm enemies get their own articles. They get their own dedicated pages.

2. Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts. This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.

Let's see what happens!

Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create new articles for Glohm enemies

  1. Sparks (talk) My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) We give articles to other stronger RPG enemy and boss variants, so why should Brothership be any different?
  3. Tails777 (talk) They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
  4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  5. Zootalo (talk) The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
  6. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. Cheat-master30 (talk) Given that some of them have specific differences in attack patterns, it seems like they should probably get unique articles.

Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them

Comments

@Zootalo The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightwicked Bowser (talk).

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)

Mario Kart Tour has quite the reputation on this wiki in terms of pages, at one time nearly forming the top ten of the largest pages here in terms of bit size. However, what was glossed over was the size of Tour's template, being large enough to hold several templates within itself, and making the page, should the user click on it, almost double in length, more so with the other templates open. Using DS DK Pass as an example, a page for a race course that doesn't have a lot of information on it making for a relatively quick read, is now nearly half taken up by the monstrously large Mario Kart Tour template.

A total of four sub templates exist within the Mario Kart Tour template: Characters (and their skins), Vehicle Parts, Courses, and Other (miscellaneous). For example, if the Courses template were split off and applied to DS DK Pass' page, it would make for a much more palatable experience for those looking for courses found in Tour, rather than making the reader scroll for a centuries and looking for it amongst a sea of numerous skins and kart parts.

Proposer: MightyMario (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. MightyMario (talk) I heartily endorse this proposal.
  2. Tails777 (talk) I kinda agree with this. I feel this would be a bit more organized too, so people don't have to scroll through loads of characters, karts and other things just to find the tracks section. I have found myself on numerous occasions jumping from track articles and with Tour's template, it was rather irritating searching through massive sections of characters and tours just to find tracks. I support this idea.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) We've split navigation templates for much less, this makes sense for the sheer amount of content in the game.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
  5. Super Mario RPG (talk) Agreed with all.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
  7. Dark Jonathan (talk) I didn't know Tour templates gave so many problems, but hey, that's a good proposal.
  8. BMfan08 (talk) I was just thinking about this the other day when I was changing tense on tour articles. It's definitely a lot to take in, and it's also overlooked because people don't put into a template quite as much as they do a page. I agree with this idea.
  9. SeanWheeler (talk) Per all.
  10. PnnyCrygr (talk) This will make page-by-page navigation of MKT articles more efficient or convenient. Supporting.
  11. Mario (talk) The size of this nav template would make Wario proud, but I'm sure this complaint has already been forwarded to a lot of aspects of Mario Kart Tour content on this wiki.

Oppose

Comments

I think alternatively, they could be given different collapsible sections, like we do with the galleries template. But I agree it is overwhelmingly enormous. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:58, November 10, 2024 (EST)

We're talking about the navigation template at the bottom of these pages, right? Because that's the only Tour-related template on the DS DK Pass article (subpages notwithstanding) and it's indeed quite huge. If we do split it off into several subtemplates, I suppose it'd be comparable to various levels from specific platformer titles having a navbox template for themselves instead of sharing a primary nabvox template with the rest of that game's content (e.g. Super Bell Hill featuring {{SM3DW levels}} instead of {{SM3DW}}); or the existence of various navigation templates for the various microgames or minigames in specific WarioWare or Mario Party title. So while it's atypical for us to split Mario Kart-specific nav templates, it's not unheard of for us to split off nav templates in the first place. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:04, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading

It's been two years since the previous proposal had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take this image for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:

{{image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}

That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If this is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models, and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have if they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there are scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
  7. Mario (talk) Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.

Comments

Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds (like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl, Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models as they are. File:MLNPC.png is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4442926"