User:Archivist Toadette/Draft proposals

Split Frog and cut down on its genericness, take 2

Yes, I see the proposal directly above this one, but both the proposal and the opposition itself was flawed compared to what I'm about to propose. Essentially, what I'm proposing is that we split the Frog article by game (except the Diddy Kong Racing info; that can be covered in the Drumstick (character) article), as we already do the same for Beetle and Mole. Let me break it down for you:

• Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars: These frogs are clearly sapient, and don't behave as the other non-generic frogs do. You can also actually interact with them.
• Diddy Kong Racing: These frogs serve little purpose other than one that turns out to be a cursed Drumstick, so I think we should just delete this section as being too generic.
• Yoshi's Story: These frogs are actual enemies that attack the targeted Yoshi.
• Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon: Unlike Yoshi's Story's frogs, these frogs are red and yellow in color, and can be defeated with the Strobulb.
• Super Mario Odyssey: The most generic of the many types of frogs, these ones are more well known for their capture abilities than anything else (they're neither characters you can interact with nor are they truly enemies).

Unlike the Banana case, I don't see how these splits would be too complicated nor open up a can of worms. Each of the four non-generic Frog appearances look noticeably different from each other, and I think a split is warranted here.

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: July 5, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Identifier discussion (mostly for characters)

Yes, I know I've discussed related cases with you countless times before, but this isn't necessarily the same case. This time I'm talking about a more problematic case - one that doesn't seem to be bound by policy despite some admins saying it is.

Recently, some admins have been moving character pages with identifiers to the name of the species they identify as (such as Jerry (Bob-omb)). While that sounds perfectly normal at first glance, I think it's important to stress: Should we be consistent with this or not? The example I provided is just one of many examples of this trend...not bound by policy!

If you want my thoughts, I think it's not necessarily a good idea. I could go on and on about why I think that, but I think the problem is that not every character is of a species defined by Mario standards, which makes the cases wildly inconsistent with each other. To back up a bit, in some cases, that kind of identifier works fine, such as the aforementioned Jerry case; one is unambiguously a Bob-omb, while the other is unambiguously a Magikoopa. In other cases, the cracks begin to show, such as the Boomer case; one is clearly a Pixl, another is clearly a member of the Brothers Bear (though it has the generic "(bear)" identifier that's likely to cause problems), and another is a boss and therefore has a "(boss)" identifier (though should it have that identifier? Surely he has a bigger role than just a boss...). In yet other cases, that kind of identifier wouldn't seem to work at all, such as the Herman case; one is clearly a human, but the other appears to be a carnivorous plant of some kind (would it be "plant" or "carnivorous plant"? Even if you were to make a decree about this, I'm not sure if all of the users would agree on this.).