MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 13:13, December 2, 2023 by Ninja Squid (talk | contribs) (→‎Oppose)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, February 9th, 05:08 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."

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)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)
Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork, Scrooge200 (ended January 5, 2025)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 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)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 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)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Have stricter policies for one-off generic species characters

Chanterelle in The Super Mario Bros. Movie
We have an article for this one Toad with very little information. Why? Because they have a name. Yep.

What a mouthful of a title, but I don't know what to call this. This proposal concerns the articles Flaky, Jerry, and Chanterelle. I'll add more if users keep bringing in more. The gist is that these are minor characters based on their respective species, which doesn't sound like a bad idea initially. Still, their articles aren't that useful. Flaky is a terrible article that is horribly padded on a minor Flurry and even explains things not relevant to them (I'm not even sure if the character has official pronouns). It also speculates that they appear in certain scenes, which is a bad sign. Jerry's article is three sentences long and could see a merge with the regular Magikoopa article. And Chanterelle is a briefly seen Toad who appears for a few seconds. The justification for these articles is that they are named characters and should get articles unless you're Johnson.

This proposal isn't concerned about merging all these characters at this very moment; that can come in many different proposals. Instead, I suggest a policy to prevent these articles from coming into play here. With this policy, some articles that feature a rather generic representative of a species with very few character traits that would instead get a merge with their species articles or at least in a list. Currently, there doesn't seem to some policy that is against the idea of having these characters aside from the Minor NPCs policy which really only covers conjecturally named NPCs and not characters who are named but only have very few traits and not even a unique design. However, their redirects will still have categories so that users can know the different members of their species when browsing them. In a perfect world, Flaky would get a mention in Flurry's article, we put Jerry in Magikoopa, and we would merge Chanterelle with Toad (species). It's worth noting that we have recently been creating history articles so that they can go there instead. An argument users may use is that they are named characters and, therefore, must get articles no matter what. So what I want to tell you is this: How helpful are these articles? Sure, they are pretty interesting one-off characters, but are people dying to see a whole article on them?

Imagine if one Goomba was named Bob in one cutscene and had no other traits in some random Super Mario game. Then, one day, we made an article describing him and mentioning his bare-bones character traits. I don't know about you, but I learned nothing from it. We even merged Koopaphobia, a fictional phobia, with Indiana Joe because he's the kingpin for that phobia, the entire thing is played as a joke, and nothing is getting lost by integrating it with him. Our lord and savior, Pink Donkey Kong Jr., is now merged with who his counterpart was, and not everything was lost through the merge. Cowboy Jed has a son who does not get a separate article, but we mention it in his article. And all three Luigi's Mansion games have lists for each of the named Boos. We aren't missing much by merging these fellas; no offense to them, especially the pink little guy.

Note that we aren't merging these articles right now but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles. That way, we don't have to create concise articles that say nothing. After this, we can create proposals to merge certain articles that feature a named character with very little traits that make them unique from their species. It is worth noting that if they do return in a later work and have tons of new character traits, they can finally get their articles. It's the curse that set Ashley and Red free.

EDIT 12/1/23: I have some new clarifications, as well as some new additions as well. Firstly, Tuxie is yet another case of us merging a rather minor character. So there is that for you. Lastly, some new additions people have suggested:

The only one I did not include was Red Shy Guy and that's mainly because of his unique history section. Therefore, I don't think it's that big of a deal. That being said, the name is quite generic, so there's that. I admit I haven't played the RPG games, so there's that. I'm also not putting Izzy on here because he's connected to some event. Sure, his article is pretty short but to claim he's an incidental character is incorrect. At the very most, he could be merged with The Play Nintendo Show and at the very least, he could stay. On another note, I have finally made a conceptual policy for what it could look like if this proposal is a success. I'll occasionally update this when given certain suggestions.

Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk)
Deadline: December 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per proposal
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Sparks (talk) These characters, especially Jerry are just articles of very short information because they are "unique" compared to their species. Per all.
  4. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per all.
  5. Arend (talk) Per all; I've been wondering for a while why Gary from Super Paper Mario gets to stay when he's even less of a character than his unnamed Goomba friend that got merged with the prime Goomba article a while ago, also due to proposal.
  6. Super Game Gear (talk) Per Sparks and others.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, but especially Arend--why Gary (Super Paper Mario) keeps his article but we have long since merged his unnamed partner that was more substantial than him is beyond us. It just seems kinda silly to have all these full articles for one-off characters with absolutely zero distinctions to them beyond their name, and while there's a few notable exceptions that hold key relevancy to part of a game's plot (such as, say, Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King), a character where a lot of the point is that he is entirely indistinguishable but trying to be unique through his actions), they are absolutely few and far between and you can count them on basically one hand.
  8. DrippingYellow (talk) Makes total sense to me. Gary, come home... to the main Goomba article...

#FanOfYoshi (talk) I've adressed Koopa Captain not so long ago, and this proposal pretty much sums it up, so definitely up for it. Per proposed.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) Oppose mostly on technicality: there are too vague of provisions on this proposal. This proposal identifies an issue which I agree with. But it doesn't outline a clear method of action to take besides "delete articles of subjects that are too minor to justify a page". I believe deleting one-liner tiny pages of non-notable members clearly meant as a throwaway name to establish a world is already fairly standard wiki practice, but admittedly inefficient (you either hope your talk page comment gets enough replies to swiftly delete or you run a proposal that runs for two weeks that gets a pretty good consensus in like, under 24 hours). Also as this proposal mentions, several of these pages are being dealt with in talk pages more than a few times, such as named Scarescraper ghosts, "Koopaphobia", Pink Donkey Kong Jr., and whatnot. Enacting this proposal due to its vague provisions is going to be a challenge, and while the current examples are obvious, we may run into some articles that might bring up disagreements (Will the minor friendly NPCs in the Paper Mario games be affected? All? A few? Most? One example. People are already bringing up other examples in the comment section that just seems better off on case-by-case discussions) and we already have a bit of a backlog of these kinds of proposals. The proposal ends with "but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles." What policy? Can we see a draft of it? Where will it go? I'd like to see what this policy entails in before the proposal is made.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Mario. I don't have a problem with these types of articles myself, but I'd rather have an addition to MarioWiki:Minor NPCs that would allow for discretion that we can then address on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket proposal like this.
  3. Axis (talk) Even with the updated proposal, I do not believe the guidelines for which character should or shouldn't have a page are clear enough, the current policy is consistent and understandable for everyone. Would we need to go through every character and individually discuss every single minor NPC from this point on? Would minor NPCs from the Paper Mario series be merged now, and which ones should stay? I believe consistency takes precedent over redundancy.
  4. Hewer (talk) This only makes it harder to determine which characters do and don't get merged and generally has the potential to make it harder to find information. I think the logic behind the current policy that an individual name means an individual character is fine, and I don't really see what the problem is with having these articles, short or otherwise. Something being minor or obscure is a bad reason for it to not get a page in my opinion.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
  6. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  7. Tails777 (talk) I can agree to sorting out which minor, one-off characters deserve articles or not, especially with the meme in the examples, but I kinda have to agree with the opposition here. Per Mario and Axis notably.
  8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  9. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
  10. Ninja Squid (talk) Per all.

Comments

BIS also has Kuribo, instead of logically redirecting to Goomba. In my opinion, it is hands-down the worst offender of this. Another thing all have in common is being throwaway names in group scenes, so no individual plot importance. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:20, November 30, 2023 (EST)

Would Gary (Super Paper Mario) also fit? His unnamed partner with about as little story relevance was merged into Goomba (now History of Goomba) a while back. We'd barely even have to change the Super Paper Mario entry in question — just replace the link on Gary's name with bold markup. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:48, November 30, 2023 (EST)

@TheUndescribableGhost: I guess you could include Socially Awkward Piranha Plant too lol. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:53, November 30, 2023 (EST)

Oh my gosh, that one NEEDS to be on BJAODN! The title alone is already hilarious. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 15:58, November 30, 2023 (EST)
The Characters page on BJAODN is getting quite long as-is, so I'm thinking about creating a "Minor/incidental characters" page for BJAODN with every character that ends up getting merged through this proposal as well as Goomba (Super Paper Mario character) and Koopa (Mario Party DS). SolemnStormcloud (talk) 16:06, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Eh, I'd say that one's as valid as Izzy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:03, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Izzy actually co-hosted an official Nintendo show with a series of episodes, though. Socially Awkward Piranha Plant is just an obscure meme only posted on Nintendo's social media once. I'm for merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant, but Izzy can stay. Super Game Gear (talk) 16:41, November 30, 2023 (EST)
^I agree with you on merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 17:40, November 30, 2023 (EST)

Maybe also Johnson (Super Paper Mario) who was only named to be part of a running gag of the series. Mario jumping Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 15:58, November 30, 2023 (EST)

On that note, the Hammer Bro captain (whose name is conjectural) and Private Koopa could be included as well. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 09:25, December 1, 2023 (EST)

Maybe Sunset Express Shy Guy too? His article is definitely more detailed than the others mentioned, so maybe he won't be affected by this proposal. He doesn't offer much to the story though unlike Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King), so who knows? link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks December 1, 2023, 09:37 (EDT)

@Supporters: Thank you so much for the help I'm getting on the proposal! I wasn't expecting this one to get a lot of support. Special thanks to Doc von Schmeltwick, SolemnStormcloud and Koopa con Carne for helping me here. And yes arend, I would totally love a section like that. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 12:29, December 1, 2023 (EST)

@Mario: Thanks for mentioning this as I may have not made it that clear. My intent is to enforce a policy that states that if a incidental character in question doesn't have enough traits to be notable on having a wiki article, they'll be merged elsewhere. Currently, there isn't a policy on this aside from a similar one regarding Minor NPCs which judging by its description, would pretty much allow instances if that character has a name. The examples I provided where characters who don't have that many traits as of now to make an article actually useful. Keep in mind we aren't doing anything to the articles right now; that will happen if this proposal ends up being successful. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 13:34, December 1, 2023 (EST)

Isn't the scope of this proposal just kind of the general aim for this policy page anyway? There's already an implicit guideline concerning potential conjecturally-named NPCs: "if a minor NPC can be shown to have importance to the game or story" There even is an old revision to the page that might've been made to deal with these kinds of articles (although insufficient admittedly)[1] but later removed to allow for user disrection[2] (and yeah individual discretion seems like my way to go with these kinds of pages). So would this proposal effect changes to this page? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:41, December 1, 2023 (EST)
Well, that policy only mentions Minor NPCs that don't have a name. Plus, I also brought up two character are from a TV show and a movie who aren't NPCs by technically because they aren't video game characters. The Minor NPCs policy is rather vague on this and only exists to make sure Goomba (Super Paper Mario character) doesn't happen. I guess I can look into what Waluigi Time suggested. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 14:08, December 1, 2023 (EST)

I do think that NPCs in standard gameplay of the first three Paper Mario games should be exempt, as they all have tattles that provide some insight into who they are. Not so much the ones from the glorified cutscenes in Castle Bleck. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:07, December 1, 2023 (EST)

^Agreed. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:29, December 1, 2023 (EST)
Which ones are you talking about? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 16:17, December 1, 2023 (EST)
All of the named minor characters you can tattle on the field in PM, TTYD, and SPM. For instance, the people of Flipside who all have their own little personalities despite just being "talk to" characters. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:06, December 1, 2023 (EST)

@Axis Can you name character that you're confused about in regards to this proposal? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 15:36, December 1, 2023 (EST)


I'll have to address an error to one entry of the list of additional suggestions in your latest edit: "Johnson the Hammer Bro". Johnson is actually a Koopa Troopa, as stated in his article, and it's also made clear in the caption of the article image that Johnson is on the very right. The Hammer Bro on the very left of the same image is actually still the Hammer Bro captain (he's Johnson's captain, which is the reason for his conjectural name in the first place). ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 15:44, December 1, 2023 (EST)

@Hewer: "This only makes it harder to determine which characters do and don't get merged and generally has the potential to make it harder to find information." The proposal clearly mentions that it'll to be easy find certain information. For example, if one wants to find Flaky, they can type their name in the search box and be redirect to the section of the Flurry article. "and I don't really see what the problem is with having these articles, short or otherwise. Something being minor or obscure is a bad reason for it to not get a page in my opinion." The proposal is concerning articles that are so short, they aren't helpful in the slightest. Why is the Chanterelle article is totally fine to keep when they just say hi to Toad? If they were merged with the Toad species, nothing is getting lost here. Or Flaky in which the article tries speculating where they appear. I mentioned the hypothetical Bob the Goomba example. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 16:16, December 1, 2023 (EST)

Why is the Chanterelle article not fine to keep when they're a named character? If we were to merge Toad General with the Toad species, or Chef Toad, or Toad, no information would be lost. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the best choice for organisation. I don't see what the issue would be with the hypothetical Bob the Goomba - there not being much to say about a subject doesn't make it an invalid subject to have its own article. And Flaky's article should be improved to not have speculation, that's not really an argument for or against this proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:31, December 1, 2023 (EST)
Toad General is fine to keep because he actually has some unique characteristics. Ditto for Chef Toad. Really, I can't make more arguments since you think it's perfectly okay to have these articles which is fine; I just can't really refute these points. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 17:48, December 1, 2023 (EST)

I'm going to try to review the proposed policy page User:TheUndescribableGhost/Incidental characters. I'd like to add that if an incidental character/object is recurring despite of a meager role and a simple subject of a running gag (say for instance, some Toad is called Sam in a random joke and then you see someone refer to Sam again in the ending of the game, or you see Sam being mentioned again in a sequel; this is like Johnson but you see "Sam" the couple of times he's mentioned) it probably should be also worth an article. Try not to be too disappointed if this proposal fails, okey dokey? Even if this doesn't pass, it's probably worth keeping these "notability" guidelines in mind and still attempt articles for deletions and whatnot with that framework. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:30, December 1, 2023 (EST)

It's fine, Mario; I think it's really cool we're having these discussions and I can sorta see why people are hesitant because it's hard to draw the line. The Sam example I do agree with to some degree. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 10:52, December 2, 2023 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4071460"