MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 17:48, December 23, 2023 by PaperMarioGolf (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, January 3rd, 20:58 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. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is 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.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  9. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  12. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  13. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  16. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  17. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, 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}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your 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 header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
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)

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)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)
Merge Candy Block with Hard Block, Nintendo101 (ended December 31, 2024)
Merge ON/OFF Conveyor Belt with Conveyor Belt, PopitTart (ended January 1, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Rework the "lookalikes" categories

This proposal affects Category:Mario lookalikes, Category:Luigi lookalikes, Category:Bowser lookalikes, Category:Princess Peach lookalikes, and Category:Donkey Kong lookalikes. I feel these have recently become one of many category types that have started to be over-abused just because certain characters bear some slight resemblence to another which can be subjective. Recent examples include this character wearing a pink dress and blonde hair, Foreman Spike's sprite looking like Mario's, even Daisy. I'm proposing we trim down usage of these categories to use them solely on subjects that are actual copies or clones of these characters such as Dark Bowser or Dreamy Mario.

Proposer: Swallow (talk)
Deadline: December 27, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Swallow (talk) Proposal per
  2. Sparks (talk) After giving it some thought, it would be better if these categories affected characters who look exactly like who they're meant to copy. I don't know everything about the Mario franchise, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of lookalikes out there.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) I'd honestly be in favor of deleting these categories as I feel they're too broad to be useful, but as that's (currently) not an option, I can live with trimming the definition.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) These categories are at the risk of becoming way too broad to even be useful; there's a world of a difference between a robotic copy of Princess Peach that's basically just Peach with a few metal-y textures on her visually, and... an entirely different princess character from an entirely different spin-off series, that serves as the primary antagonist of a game and is capable of growing in size and changing elements, who just happens to have a superficial color resemblance to Princess Peach in her boss fight. We have to be putting down hard barriers for what counts as "resemblance" here, because otherwise, you could make an argument that in the article's current state, and due to events in Superstar Saga, that Luigi is a peach look-alike. And that is a sentence that hurts to type.
  5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This is getting ridiculous. Abuse of categories like this is why we had to get rid of Category:Villains, among others. Let's be sane, OK?
  6. OmegaRuby (talk) : Seeing these lookalike categories listing characters like Ditto or Master Shadow just for being able to copy the appearance of the character is ridiculous. There's a clear difference between characters designed to be lookalikes or copies of a character and characters that use similar design tropes as the original character, but not an exact clone or lookalike. Per all.
  7. Waluigi Time (talk) Characters happening to share some design elements isn't a useful category, it's trivia at best.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per excessive ambiguity.

Oppose

  1. Conradd (talk) This category is named lookalikes, meaning they resemble a certain character, they're not specifically clones. They are related because of certain design traits or ideas. This category hasn't been "abused", mind you. What you are asking is a different category.

Comments

Having played Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam recently, there are paper versions of pretty much every character (including Luigi, because of Paper Luigi in the music player). King Boo also temporarily turns into Paper Princess Peach and Bowser before the fight with him. It might be a stretch for King Boo, but would the Paper versions count in this proposal? link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks December 20, 2023, 7:13 (EDT)

Within Paper Jam's context at least, I would also consider the paper characters' lookalikes. It is the only game King Boo shapeshifts so I wouldn't agree with adding these categories for him either, compared to Doopliss who turns into Mario's form for quite a large amount of time. Mario jumping Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 07:19, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Okay. Is there a category of Mario/Luigi/Peach/Bowser clones? If there isn't, then many of these characters would fit that category. Conradd's oppose vote does have me on the fence about voting though, they kinda do look like Mario and Peach, but there's no way Daisy is a Peach lookalike. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks December 20, 2023, 7:22 (EDT)
Daisy was lookalike of Peach if you consider her original design from Super Mario Land. Luigi was a lookalike of Mario because, for a time, he was indistinguishable from Mario in either sprite form or promotional material. Neither of them resemble their originals design now, but Luigi is still consider a lookalike, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case for Daisy too. --Conradd (talk) 07:35, December 20, 2023 (EST)
But Peach never appeared in Super Mario Land, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 07:40, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Wasn't Daisy a reskin of Peach until she wasn't? Isn't the connection between Peach and Daisy evident enough? Luigi never appear alongside the Fury Shadow in Bowser's Fury. --Conradd (talk) 07:52, December 20, 2023 (EST)
No, I don't see it that way. The developers of Super Mario Land likely never saw it this way either. Toadette icon CTTT.pngFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 08:03, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Are you seriously arguing with me that Daisy's original design from Super Mario Land wasn't based on Peach's classic design and that this is all just coincidence? --Conradd (talk) 08:09, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Why future games keep entertain this connection if they are unrelated? The most recent example that comes to my mind being Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with the echoes fighter thing. --Conradd (talk) 08:14, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Isn't Wario appearance based on Mario? Guess what, Wario is in the Mario lookalikes category. Isn't Waluigi appearance based on Luigi? Guess what, Waluigi is in the Luigi lookalikes category. This isn't new infos guys. Come on. --Conradd (talk) 08:25, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Being a perversion of their design isn't the same as being an uncanny doppelganger. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:09, December 20, 2023 (EST)
If we go that route, we better removed Luigi, Wario, and Waluigi from the categories then. --Conradd (talk) 11:17, December 20, 2023 (EST)
I'd be good with that actually. Mario jumping Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 11:22, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Wait, they're actually in those categories? (actual pause of us checking) ... Oh my goodness. Um, no offense, but we feel like these should've been gone before this proposal even began. Mario's even has Luigi and Wario! (Somehow--thankfully--not Waluigi, though? We guess Waluigi is the result of a Ship of Theseus of Mario...) Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:29, December 20, 2023 (EST)
I could see Luigi being on there, since early on he actually was a palette swap of Mario, right down to the artwork. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:38, December 20, 2023 (EST)
No. If we are changing this to only accept clones we should remove Luigi also. I can't believe some of you are ok to include Green Mario but not Orange Peach. --Conradd (talk) 11:43, December 20, 2023 (EST)
@Doc Von: We guess? ...But given Luigi has his own category for look-alikes, we feel like having them in each others' categories is a little silly. And also, to play devil's advocate, please don't actually take this as a serious suggestion, given Luigi's debut was in Mario Bros. (Game & Watch), you could technically argue that a Luigi Look-alike (and for that matter, a Mario look-alike due to Mario's Cement Factory) is... Mr. Game & Watch. also holy cow maybe we should like. have this conversation in another part of this comments section. that is 14 colons there and our right hand's already getting carpal tunnel-themed flashbacks to a certain Dino Piranha on fire from that alone Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:52, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Daisy was never a full-on palette swap of Peach; she always had some distinct aspects of her design, even in the early art. Peach having a color swap resembling Daisy in Smash isn't the same as it being Daisy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:13, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Ok dude --Conradd (talk) 12:17, December 20, 2023 (EST)

You forgot Category:Donkey Kong lookalikes. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 09:09, December 20, 2023 (EST)

I was on the fence with including deletion on this proposal, still not sure if want to add that at the moment. Mario jumping Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 10:17, December 20, 2023 (EST)
In spite of your vouching for shapeshifter characters on these categories, such characters are actually one of my primary reasons for wanting these categories deleted. Not only is it weird to call Ditto, a creature from a completely different franchise, a "lookalike" of Mario, Luigi, etc. for example, it's also somewhat redundant with Category:Shapeshifters. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 11:53, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Honestly, I agree at that point. You all agree to rework these categories without having correctly defined what is a clone and what is not. Y'all know what's going to happen next? This proposal will likely pass, and not too long after that, someone will make another proposal requesting a new rework because they find these categories to be vague, contradictory, or nonsensical. --Conradd (talk) 12:16, December 20, 2023 (EST)
I've decided to remove that part in the proposal and focus on actual copies of characters, which I'm pretty sure we have decided on already. Mario jumping Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 12:21, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Y'all do whatever you want. I don't want to be part of this stupid conversation anymore. --Conradd (talk) 12:26, December 20, 2023 (EST)

Would Mechakoopas no longer be a sub-category to Look-alikes for Bowser if this goes through? We feel like they should, considering they hardly look like him outside of SMW and have kinda gradually become their own thing, but we feel like we should bring that one up in a formal capacity. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:54, December 20, 2023 (EST)

Mechakoopa design is almost certainly derived from Bowser's original weird sprite, so in a sense, they are. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:53, December 20, 2023 (EST)
I believe Mechakoopas are often stated to be mechanical Bowsers or something. Mario jumping Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 14:00, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Fair point. We see that on a few occasions they're even called Mecha-Bowsers. But, given the article for Mechakoopas themselves is absent, it still strikes us as weird... ;P Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:12, December 20, 2023 (EST)

Silly question that we swear is related; we're working on a huge dissertation of every article in these categories, just to sort through our thoughts on each of these and hopefully serve as a resource for where we could draw the line. The problem is that this thing is currently 10,000 characters and we haven't even covered Peach or DK's categories! We're literally giving these a sentence or two tops aside from extreme exceptions, we're trying to keep things brief for once! ...Should we, like, put these elsewhere, or what should we do so we don't completely dominate the comments section with this thing? Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:12, December 20, 2023 (EST)

Maybe a userspace page? Your dissertation probably won't change my opinion, but it should still be shared nonetheless. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 14:53, December 20, 2023 (EST)
That works for us! A 15k-character whopper of a page, a full enough description of every page in the five mentioned categories by the proposal, and if we feel the pages should stay, go, or something we could decide in a future proposal in weird edge cases. We don't expect anyone to fully read this and type up a full counter-point to everything here (and to be completely honest here, please don't; we wrote these with the idea of "if another proposal occurs, we will elaborate then" in mind, and any clarifications right now would just be us re-iterating our exact points all over again, and to be real here, our wrists are mad enough at us for this one!), but we hope you can see our through-line with this one and have a rough model of how a trim-down could look like; though, of course, nothing in this is final, this is all the opinions of one body that is very, very frazzled all things considered. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 16:52, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Nicely done! If it's worth mentioning, the current consensus on the shapeshifters is to exclude them. As for how to handle the Mechakoopas in Category:Bowser lookalikes, we could probably just include Mecha-Bowser, Bowser???, and maybe the standard Mechakoopa, but none of the Mechakoopa variants. I have no idea how to handle Eddie the Mean Old Yeti... SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:00, December 20, 2023 (EST)
We missed Mecha-Bowser and Bowser???, good eye. Those should probably also go in there, seeing as "Bowser-themed Mecha" is its own genre of Bowser look-alike (like all the weird robo-Peaches and duos that are vaguely based on the Mario brothers)... We have already reached a mini 5-stages of grief about Eddie the Mean Old Yeti, and have accepted he's probably best to exclude by default just because his article currently makes it unclear if he's a Kong or a full-on Yeti, but we should likely hold a proposal to determine if we add him in after the fact. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:06, December 20, 2023 (EST)
If "Kongs" can be gorillas, monkeys, chimpanzees, and orangutans, then they can be yetis, too. (I'm still convinced Candy is a sasquatch.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:41, December 23, 2023 (EST)

Split the "[remake title] + [completely new game title]" games

Something that's been itching on my mind for a while. In the case of games (predominantly remakes) where there is what amounts to two separate games on one pack, we cover them both on one page, despite the needless bloat and resultant detail-cutting this causes. The games I am talking about specifically are Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey, and Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, though I want this to create a precedent for any later releases to come. The respective title mentioned after the "+" is, for all intents and purposes, a completely new game that shares a pack and assets with the former (along with a storyline and setting for the M&L ones, albeit with a different focus). The gameplay itself is radically different for each, and along with being given their own titles, they are treated as a "two games in one" style multipack, like, say, Zelda's A Link to the Past + Four Swords (which were also the only way to play GBA-type ALttP and FS prior to the latter's limited-run DSiWare enhanced port, I may add).

I suppose the main reason they aren't split is that we generally discourage splitting modes from the game pages. And while that's fine in, say, Mario Party games where different modes amount to a different set dressing and order of what is done, these have radically different features and play styles, so it's not comparable. Plus, one particular mode in one Mario Party game, Super Duel Mode, is so massively different from the rest of the game it gets its own page.

I also find this to be similar to the Mario Bros. Classic included on GBA games; though of course, it has to be split considering it was on no less than five carts.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: December 28, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support + Toadsworth's Trials

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Swallow (talk) This was something I considered proposing myself a little while ago but was a bit hesitant to do so.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Proposal + Solemn's Solitude.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all + Cam & Tori's Puzzle League. We feel like these "side-modes" they keep adding in these re-releases (which, let's be real here, these are basically new full campaigns) generally go less documented just because we have to fuse them together into articles. It'd be like if every article on Inkipedia had to combine Octo Expansion with base Splatoon 2; we feel like how they handle things would be a good model for what these split articles could look like, actually.
  5. PnnyCrygr (talk) Per Everyone + Dr. Crygor's Mix-Ups

Oppose + Waluigi's Warpath

Comments + Pauline's Concerto

Just to be certain, if we split articles like Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, that means the original Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury gets to stay too, right? Of course, the relevant Bowser's Fury information would get its own article, but the game is still sold as the Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury package, and Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury also boasts several differences in the Super Mario 3D World half compared to the original Wii U release.
On another note, games like Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey are actually called Mario & Luigi RPG 1 DX and Mario & Luigi RPG 3 DX in Japan, so I think in their case, it's more appropriate to use the game mode's name for the respective latter halves' articles... which in Bowser's Minions's case, would be Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 07:30, December 23, 2023 (EST)

Merge the "Microgames" sections of WarioWare hosts into their "History" sections

This proposal will affect these articles:

Look at the "Microgames" sections in articles for WarioWare series hosts; they are basically multiple one-liner paragraphs that describe what the microgames of the host are about, and how the player can play them. It is rather un-encyclopedic for a section to have paragraphs with only one or two sentences each; moreover, the writing is blah. The general host's "microgames" section goes like this (take a long good look at Jimmy T's section for example):

[Y] comes with their own set of microgames in all games of the WarioWare series except [X].

In [X], [Y] hosts [Z] microgames, which involve [A] microgames.

[...]

In [X], [Y] hosts [Z] microgames, which involve [A] microgames.

The second sentence in the above appears repeatedly per one-liner paragraph, marking the need for these "paragraphs" to be relocated to the host's "History" section. Ideally, a paragraph corresponding to "This Game" will be relocated to the section named "This Game". And so on. Before the writing of this proposal, Mona, Dr. Crygor, and 9-Volt already had their "microgame" sections incorporated into their "history" sections.

Proposer: PnnyCrygr (talk)
Deadline: December 28, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Merge "Microgames" sections into "History" sections

  1. PnnyCrygr (talk) Per my proposal
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  3. BMfan08 (talk) I had not known about the lack of consistency about this until this proposal came up. I'm all in favor of unity.

Expand paragraphs in "Microgames" sections

Do nothing

Comments

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4088974"