MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65: Difference between revisions
Power Flotzo (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(Already has twenty archived proposals) |
||
(12 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
Line 597: | Line 597: | ||
Maybe a "if it can be neatly summarized" should've been a key qualifying part. Linking to the wiki shouldn't be a crutch to being opaque about information. If something like a Scuttlebug can be like "Replaces spiders. They make webs and scare Steve." go for it. I kind of doubt ALL replaced assets in Minecraft are so incredibly complex affairs that we have to link to a wiki to satisfactorily cover all bases. {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:27, February 7, 2024 (EST) | Maybe a "if it can be neatly summarized" should've been a key qualifying part. Linking to the wiki shouldn't be a crutch to being opaque about information. If something like a Scuttlebug can be like "Replaces spiders. They make webs and scare Steve." go for it. I kind of doubt ALL replaced assets in Minecraft are so incredibly complex affairs that we have to link to a wiki to satisfactorily cover all bases. {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:27, February 7, 2024 (EST) | ||
:The point isn't that Minecraft assets are too complex to explain, it's the principle of the matter that information peculiar to a non-Mario subject, in a non-Mario game, is best left in the hands of a website dedicated to that game. The Mario textures applied to existing assets are in the same realm as cameos and don't affect gameplay per se, i.e. the "Scuttlebug-skin" spider doesn't do anything different from the default-skin spider. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:36, February 9, 2024 (EST) | :The point isn't that Minecraft assets are too complex to explain, it's the principle of the matter that information peculiar to a non-Mario subject, in a non-Mario game, is best left in the hands of a website dedicated to that game. The Mario textures applied to existing assets are in the same realm as cameos and don't affect gameplay per se, i.e. the "Scuttlebug-skin" spider doesn't do anything different from the default-skin spider. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:36, February 9, 2024 (EST) | ||
===Rename [[:Category:Twitter images]] and [[:Category:Twitter media files]] to {{fake link|Category:X images}} and {{fake link|Category:X media files}} respectively=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|13-1|Rename}} | |||
This proposal is simple. Twitter has been renamed to "X" several months back, and people have become increasingly adjusted to the change over time. On Wikipedia, it even says that "{{wp|Twitter}}" is both the former and the colloquial name. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer. | |||
#{{User|Somethingone}} I don't see why not. Most recent name, becomes current page name. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Prefer the old name, but this is really inevitable when websites now use the new name | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Per Twitter's Organization XIII treatment (though it was dumb as hell) | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Reluctantly supporting this (since I prefer the old name and still call it Twitter to this day), but it would only be fair because of a similar proposal of renaming the Wikia template to [[Template:Fandom|Fandom]], which I also supported. | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I'm also reluctant to support this, but it sounds like the right change. | |||
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} I'm used to the name Twitter as well, but times change, and so must we. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all, because Elon Musk is dumb i guess | |||
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Personally I dislike the new name and still call it "Twitter". Still, we can't ignore reality and we should adopt the current name. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all. We ''guess.'' | |||
#{{User|ExoRosalina}} Ok so prior to re-run of Halloween 2022, it says Twitter but now it's X. So I can support the change because Twitter changed the name for no reason. | |||
#{{User|BMfan08}} I as well am reluctant, but on top of the aforementioned Fandom proposal, our own main page has "Follow us on X" now, so it would only stand to reason that this template should follow. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} FINALLY now we can actually call it by its actual name. idk why everybody is still holding on to Twitter smh | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} X is such a generic name. There's a good reason why Wikipedia still calls it Twitter. Many news sites still have to clarify that X was formerly Twitter. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Would it be outrageous if we gave this the wiki's "name at the time" treatment and established a cutoff date where we can still refer to "X" as "Twitter" for historical purposes? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:35, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Well, we do [[List of fan-made Super Mario Maker 2 courses highlighted by Nintendo#Twitter|seem]] [[List of controversies#Wigger Wednesday|to]] [[Mario Ambassador|use]] [[Ricco Harbor#Trivia|both]] in articles, and I've definitely seen both names used in citations. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:04, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
::That would be a little out of the scope for this proposal--this is about renaming the templates themselves--but we think you could possibly make a proposal to do that. It'd probably help a lot especially since, as mentioned, a few of these articles do already link to or mention Twitter/X. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:16, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::I would only use "Twitter" if it's used WITHIN ''Super Mario'' media itself. For example, if it talks about someone adding an "X" post at a time before the rebrand (like [[Gregg Mayles]]), I'd say for the first mention "X" (then known as Twitter), because this wouldn't count as appearing in ''Super Mario'' media itself. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:19, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
:I agree to do so in an article's body, but IMO in citations, the name of the site should depend on the date a link to a tweet was retrieved: if the link was retrieved before {{wp|Timeline of Twitter|the fateful day of July 23, 2023}}, then the site is called "Twitter"; if the link was retrieved after that day, the site is called "X". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:46, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
{{@|SeanWheeler}}<br> | |||
"''X is such a generic name.''" - That's not up to us to decide. And no other platforms have a name similar to that. | |||
"''There's a good reason why Wikipedia still calls it Twitter.''" - Because Wikipedia uses a policy that prioritizes the most commonly used name by English speakers as the page name. We don't do that, we use the most recent official name. | |||
"''Many news sites still have to clarify that X was formerly Twitter.''" - Isn't that an inside joke? And it's been almost a year, I think most people know that X = Twitter. | |||
- {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 21:43, February 14, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Rename <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki> and [[:Category:Promotional photos]] to <nowiki>{{photo}}</nowiki> and {{fake link|Category:Photos}} respectively=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|Rename}} | |||
Now that [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Broaden_the_scope_of_the_.7B.7Bpromo-photo.7D.7D_template|this proposal]] has passed, which broadens the scope of [[:Template:Promo-photo]] to cover more than just promotional photographs, the name of the template and its corresponding category should be updated accordingly. | |||
'''EDIT:''' Just to make sure this proposal covers all its bases, when configuring the file description on the [[Special:Upload]] page, the name on the "Licensing:" list should also be changed from "Promotional photo" to "Photo". | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|ThePowerPlayer}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} Sure | |||
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Yes, let's keep this consistent. Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Kinda thought this would be an obvious enough choice to not need a proposal but per proposal. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} "Photos" is much a more general term than "promotional photos" which suggests that only photos that pertain to press releases should be featured in this wiki, e.g. Fils-Aime looking at a 3DS in the reveal trailer of said console. Just "photos" the name alone will suggest that - any - photo can be included in this wiki, like soft toy and obscure merches photos. I repeat now: per all. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per all – it was a concern I had from the previous proposal about the promo-photo template, after all. | |||
#{{User|BMfan08}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
===Standardize a "Cameo appearances" section=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-4|do not standardize}} | |||
Following in the footsteps of [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/57#Define_the_scope_of_.22Other_appearances.22_sections|this proposal]], I'm creating another to standardize a "Cameo appearances" subsection of a History section of instances when something ONLY cameos or is referenced within ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|Super Mario]]'' media. If there's an existing "Other appearances" subsection, the "Cameo appearances" one would precede it, as this is a ''Super Mario'' wiki. | |||
I feel that when reading a History section, one would mainly expect to read about games or media where something has a physical role, including if it's a minor one. And a cameo doesn't really constitute equally as much as contributing to a subject's history so much as it merely being a footnote. Besides, when the cameos are all together in a single section (or subsections if there's enough to say, but usually cameos don't have more than one or two sentences), then it's easier to refer to every time a subject made a cameo throughout the course of its appearances. | |||
For example, in ''[[Mario Golf: World Tour]]'', the only form of an appearance that [[Reznor]] has is their name is sometimes shown on the scoreboard. This is a recurring instance for several other characters and species throughout the ''Mario Golf'' series, such as [[Phantamanta]] in ''Toadstool Tour'' and ''Advance Tour''. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} "History" suggests just that: a history of the subject across Mario media. Any cameos and mentions are obligately part of that history and should be treated on the same level as the physical appearances. The extent of an appearance is not relevant to how a subject's coverage is organized; if Toad makes a cameo in game X, that's still a given role which deserves a section of its own among Toad's other roles instead of being lumped together with other perceived minor roles which may lead to textual bloat. (The following string of sentences isn't extraordinarily readable: "Toad makes a cameo in game X, where he is seen in A level. He also appears briefly in game Y. Toad is also mentioned in game Z on the scoreboard. He also makes a cameo on game board B of game XY.") | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Koopa con Carne, and I'd also rather avoid basing organisation on subjective classifications like cameos where possible. | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} If it's a game that's fully within our coverage, then it should still be in the main history section. What does and doesn't count as a cameo to go into another section could get subjective too. | |||
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
So this proposal is meant to get the cameo appearances of something to their own section rather than having them spread out over the article? If that's the case, it can help provide the main information while listing the minor information at the very bottom or something. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 18:14, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
:No, this proposal is only for media where something only cameos and has no further role. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:16, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
::Okay. Thanks for the clarification! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 18:19, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
I also made a proposal to include non-''Smash'' appearance more than a year ago, but failed. [[User:Windy|Windy]] ([[User talk:Windy|talk]]) 17:22, February 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Wasn't that one about the "latest appearance" in infoboxes? Because I'm pretty sure this one is about organisation of history sections. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:55, February 17, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Standardize the "Other appearances" scope to include anything that's not a ''Super Mario'' game=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-4|do not standardize}} | |||
This proposal adds on to my "Cameo appearances" proposal. This proposal aims to standardize an increased scope of the "Other appearances" subsection to include anything that isn't a ''Super Mario'' game. It helps affirm the idea that this is a ''Super Mario'' wiki and helps the non-''Super Mario'' appearances stand out to readers more easily. | |||
For example, if this proposal passes, any [[Super Smash Bros. (series)|''Super Smash Bros.'' series]] section, along with possible subsections, will be a sub-section of "Other appearances." Also, I've seen already five equal sign headings for Classic Mode route for ''Ultimate'' fighters and sometimes Subspace Emissary. I don't think MediaWiki supports six equal signs, but those could be summarized and included in the section for the game itself, if a decision has to be made. | |||
Sidenote, but if the subject in question makes only trophy, sticker, spirit cameos, the standard would still be to keep them under "Other appearances," because, as stated in my preceding proposal, the "Cameo appearances" subsection would be for ''Super Mario'' media only. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} The other appearances section is currently used for games that aren't given their own articles on the wiki, and I think it should stay that way - the whole reason we have pages for some non-Mario games is because they feature significant Mario content. "This is a Super Mario Wiki" as an argument is getting old - we're only covering this stuff in the first place because it's relevant to Super Mario, so the implication it falls out of the wiki's scope in some way feels incorrect. No matter where you stand on the Smash Bros. coverage debate, I don't think there's much room to argue that the appearances of Mario characters in the games aren't major (and your description of how big the Smash sections already are isn't really helping your argument that we should shove them under another subsection). | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Per Hewer | |||
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Hewer. | |||
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Sorry for more questions, but games like the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, ''Fortune Street'', and ''Nintendo Land'' would count as "other appearances"? Would spin-offs like the ''Mario & Sonic'' and ''Mario + Rabbids'' series count in this proposal? I feel the latter two I mentioned focus on Mario characters, but I agree that the former three I mentioned are "other appearances" for them. I'm leaning on the "support" option, but I want to think about this first. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 18:34, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Well, Mario's in the title of the latter two you mentioned, so it's clearly a part of the Super Mario franchise (whether partial or entirely is up for debate). As for SSB, Fortune Street, and Nintendo Land, those would definitely count as "other appearances." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:36, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
::That's what I was thinking, but Hewer makes a good point. I now feel conflicted to vote and I think it would be better off if I didn't vote at all. In the past I have supported proposals because I thought my reasoning was good but then others had information of their own, which convinced me to change sides or remove my vote entirely. I don't want this to be another instance of that. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 18:40, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
@Hewer: They definitely are major, no doubt, but they're not ''Super Mario''. There's already an issue where people think SSB is a ''Super Mario'' spinoff, and seeing it under "Other appearances" would better show that it's not part of it. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:43, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Would it, though? "Other appearances" sections had Super Mario games in them for years before that 2021 proposal finally established a consistent usage for them, so it's clearly not immediately obvious to a reader what they're for. And the wiki doesn't call SSB a Mario spinoff anywhere to my knowledge, so it seems to already be doing its part in helping this "issue". I don't see much of a reason to get so hung up about whether they're Super Mario or not when they're still major appearances in the history of the character. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:51, February 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Decide how to incorporate Wonder Effects in ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' course articles=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-1-0|Implement Wonder Effects into "layout" section of articles}} | |||
With more and more course articles being created for ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'' (hooray!), there’s a consistency issue going on - how the [[Wonder Effect]]s are incorporated into the articles. Some articles have them in the "layout" section of the article, while others have their own section dedicated to the Wonder Effect of the course. | |||
Compare these two courses with each other to see what I mean: | |||
* [[Gnawsher Lair]] (has the Wonder Effect described in the layout section) | |||
* [[Pole Block Passage]] (has a section dedicated to the Wonder Effect) | |||
What this proposal is meant to accomplish is to keep consistency throughout the course articles for ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''. That’s why I have three options to vote on: | |||
1. '''Have the Wonder Effect be described in the "layout" section of the course articles''' | |||
2. '''Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the course articles''' | |||
3. '''Do nothing (leave everything as is)''' | |||
Having a section dedicated to the Wonder Effect will make it easier to find, so that's something. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Have the Wonder Effect described in the "layout" section of the course articles==== | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} Personally I think including the Wonder Effect in the "layout" section is better because it’s part of the course and usually changes the layout of the course. The articles I have created for ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' have this feature. | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Primary choice because there are a few levels (particularly the Special World levels) where the Wonder Effect lasts pretty much the whole level; the Wonder Flower is collected near the start and Wonder Seed is collected near the end. I'm not sure the second option would work too well for these kind of levels. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all. Articles will be easier to read this way. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Dark-Boy-1up}} Per Swallow. | |||
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all. We're admittedly not that familiar with Mario Wonder--we've yet to play it--but this definitely makes the most sense seeing as Wonder Effects are all done on a stage-by-stage basis as far as we can tell. | |||
====Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the articles==== | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} Personally speaking, given how just about every level has a Wonder Effect and how the Wonder Effects are basically the main gimmick of the game, I see no problem with giving them their own section. Whether it be a sub-section of the layout or a section overall, anything providing proper info on what the Wonder Effect is will do. Honestly, I could go either way on this, but the importance and notability of the Wonder Effects make me lean more to giving them their own sections. | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
===Decide how to handle the toy enemies from across the ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' series=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0-0-1|merge all applicable articles}} | |||
The remake of ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' redesigned a number of enemies from the original release, namely Thwomps, Thwimps, and Boos, to have a toy-like appearance, while giving the [[Bird (toy)|Bird]] enemy an organic appearance in contrast to its clockwork incarnations from the series. The wiki is currently set up such that the series' toy enemies are split from their original counterparts, though, seemingly, this is less due to gameplay and identification reasons and more to have a consistency with how the playable [[Mini]] toys are handled in relation to their base characters. While there have been proposals here and there on handling particular ''Mario vs. DK'' toys in certain ways, the consensus on their general set-up seems to be pieced together from these smaller discussions rather than something formal. It would therefore be consistent with the current status quo to give the remake's redesigns their own pages solely on the basis that they're now toys rather than the real deal. | |||
This would be a bit silly, though. Enemy redesigns happen all the time, often they alternate between games, and may even fulfil their own gameplay role; yet, none of these was enough to have Thwomp's page split between its spiked and non-spiked variants. The spinning-drum Thwomps in the ''Mario vs. DK'' remake are simply an interpretation of the base Thwomp that plays into the game's theme; mechanically, they're the exact same as the Thwomps in the original release. That said, one particular enemy, [[Boo (toy)]], has significant enough differences from its base enemy to perhaps warrant a separate article; details on that, shortly. | |||
What this proposal aims to do is decide upon a more strict guideline for the coverage of these toy enemies opposite of their originals. Please note: the toy variants regarded by this proposal are those who have minimal to zero mechanical differences from their base counterparts and are (mostly) identified the same way. Toy enemies who are derivative of a ''Super Mario'' species, but have their own special mechanics and are clearly identified as though they are a separate thing, '''are excluded from this proposal'''. There's a list of excluded enemies at the end of the proposal. | |||
For this proposal, I came up with these options: | |||
#'''Merge all the toy enemies with their base counterparts, where applicable.''' | |||
#'''Merge most toy enemies, but keep Boo (toy) and any future similar cases split, according to the explanations in the "Enemies included by the proposal" list below.''' | |||
#'''Split all the toy enemies from their base counterparts, including mere redesigns.''' | |||
#'''Do nothing.''' | |||
<div style="float:left; border:1px solid #f5d3b0;background:#fffdd0;padding:2px; width:50%; margin: 0 auto;"> | |||
;Enemies included by the proposal | |||
---- | |||
Should be (kept) merged if option 2 wins: | |||
*[[Bird (toy)]] - in its organic ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' remake appearance, it acts the exact same as its toy appearances throughout the series. '''Its page should be renamed "Bird (''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' series)".''' | |||
*[[Fly Guy (toy)]] - pretty much just Fly Guys in everything but the toy appearance. ''[[Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move]]'', their sole appearance to date, identifies color variants as "[color] Mini Fly Guy", but overall they are not given a distinction. '''Should be merged with [[Fly Guy]].''' | |||
*[[Monchee]] - conceptually and nomenclaturally the same thing as the long-tailed monkey from [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|GB ''Donkey Kong'']], except it's a toy. '''Merge with [[Monkikki]].''' | |||
*[[Ninji (toy)]] - jumps up and down like a Ninji. Is a Ninji by name. '''Merge with [[Ninji]].''' | |||
*[[Pokey (toy)]] - It moves from side to side like an actual Pokey. It's true that you can destroy one through moves that require direct contact, something that you wouldn't expect to do with regular Pokeys, but ''Mario Kart Tour'' [[Pokey#Mario Kart Tour|puts that notion to rest]]. '''Merge with [[Pokey]].''' | |||
*[[Shy Guy (toy)]] - In the original game as well as its remake, they are mechanically identical to the Shy Guys in ''Super Mario Bros. 2''. ''Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move'' calls color variants "[color] Mini Shy Guys", but they're overall just referred to as "Shy Guys". '''Merge with [[Shy Guy]].''' | |||
*Snapjaw (toy) (added at request): It has a plasticky, "Crocodile Dentist"-style appearance in this series, but is mechanically identical to the bear-trap Snapjaws from ''[[Donkey Kong Jr. (game)|Donkey Kong Jr.]]''. '''Keep merged with [[Snapjaw]].''' | |||
*[[Snifit (toy)]] - same thing as the Snifit from ''Super Mario Bros. 2''. In ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again!]]'', they have spikes on their heads, but that's just a visual indicator that you can't stand on them like in the [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis|game's predecessor]]. '''Should be merged with [[Snifit]].''' | |||
*Thwomp (toy) - appears in the ''Mario vs. DK'' remake as a redesign of the original Thwomp. It otherwise acts the exact same. '''Keep merged with [[Thwomp]].''' | |||
*Thwimp (toy) - similar case to Thwomp (toy). '''Keep merged with [[Thwimp]].''' | |||
Should be (kept) split if option 2 wins: | |||
*[[Boo (toy)]] - though nigh on undistinguishable from regular Boos in the ''Mario vs. DK'' remake, the ones in ''[[Mini Mario & Friends: amiibo Challenge]]'' display different behavior: they only stop in place when they enter a bright area, not when you look at them, and allow you to pass through them in this state. I'd say '''this page should be left intact, with the remake appearance covered here for legacy purposes.''' | |||
*Any future enemy in the series with a gameplay function which is peculiar to it and not the base enemy. (Given option 2 wins, if any of the toy enemies in the "should be merged" list gain a special role in a future ''Mario vs. DK'' game, '''they'll be (re-)split as a whole.''') | |||
</div> | |||
{{br}} | |||
<div style="float:left; border:1px solid #f5d3b0;background:#fffdd0;padding:2px; width:50%; margin: 0 auto;"> | |||
;Enemies excluded by the proposal | |||
---- | |||
Shy Guys | |||
*[[Katakata Spanner Heihō]] | |||
*[[Katakata Kaen Heihō]] | |||
*[[Katakata Yarihō]] | |||
*[[Mummy Guy]] | |||
*[[Polterguy]] | |||
*[[Spy Guy]] | |||
Others | |||
*[[Bob-omb Fish]] | |||
*[[Tane Pakkun]] | |||
*[[Robokikki]] | |||
*Any [[monkey robot]] | |||
</div> | |||
{{br}} | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Option 1==== | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} This feels comparable to how we don't split enemies from the Paper Mario games just for being made of paper when they're otherwise presented as the same enemy in a different style. And Boos having a weakness to light isn't exclusive to the toys, so that doesn't feel like a good reason to make an exception for them. The same enemies can and do have functional differences between completely different games. | |||
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal and Hewer. | |||
#{{User|Somethingone}} I always found these splits a bit weird. Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|ReeceeYT}} Per proposal and Hewer. | |||
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all; this has kinda been long overdue, now that you mention it... | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} I like this idea! | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. | |||
====Option 2==== | |||
====Option 3==== | |||
====Option 4 (do nothing)==== | |||
#{{User|Qyzxf}} — I think this proposal is completely overlooking why these pages exist in the first place. It's because they are identified differently; in both Japanese and English (though not always in the latter) these enemies are NAMED differently. They are mechanical toys based on live creatures but they are distinctly named entities with consistent designs (besides Boo) separate from their live counterparts. The Thwomp and Thwimp question is of course relevant in this case, but it's hard to say whether or not they should count unless we get names for the enemies in this game. This also applies to Tane Pakkun and Katakata Kaen Heihou which are redesigned into completely different enemies altogether. Snapjaw being included additionally doesn't make sense because it is already in the correct page and isn't named differently in any game. Splitting or merging pages purely based on design elements feels counterproductive and like willfully ignoring their naming schemes being different, which is normally used as a standard for enemy sub-species being split. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
There's also [[Snapjaw]]'s plastic design in the series, which is currently merged despite being different from the metal bear trap enemies. Also, why are Yariho and Polterguy excluded? According to the JP names, they are counterparts to Spear Guy and Boo Guy. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 10:05, February 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Added Snapjaw. As for the others, that's getting into discussions about lang-of-origin, author's intent etc. and I figured these would be best left for another time. Yariho and Polterguy's JP names listed on the wiki come from licensed guides, and even if they ''are'' present somewhere in-game, the series of games themselves were largely developed by an American division. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 10:39, February 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
@Qyzxf: Snapjaw is included for the same reason as Thwomp, Thwimp, and Bird: it will be split if option 3 passes and kept merged if option 1 or 2 pass. Tane Pakkun and Katakata Kaen Heihō are excluded from the proposal. And, uh, are the enemies consistently named differently? Because I'd probably also oppose this if they were, but they aren't in English, and if the names in other languages sections are anything to go by, they don't seem to be in Japanese either. That leaves the toy design as the only potential reason to keep these split, which you yourself already denounced as counterproductive...after using it as an argument a few sentences earlier. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:21, February 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Auxiliary Japanese material for the original release of ''MvDK'' has a trend give toy enemies the qualifier ''katakata'', which loosely translates to "mechanical"; you have Shy Guy toys being called "Mechanical Shy Guys" in the [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/data/software/manual/man_PAGJ_00.pdf instruction manual], and Ninji toys being called "Mechanical Ninjis" in the {{media link|Mvsdk_book_ii.jpg|Shogakukan guide}}. With that said, mechanical Shy Guys went on to be consistently referred to as simply "Shy Guys" (''Heiho'') in future games, and mechanical Ninjis hadn't reappeared until the recent remake, meaning that whether their original "katakana" qualifier is meant to truly distinguish them conceptually from live Ninjis is pretty moot in my opinion. Worth noting is that said Japanese material for the GBA release isn't even consistent with itself, as [[Monchee]], the toy version of [[Monkikki]], is simply named after its live counterpart, rather than something like ''katakata Monkikki''. Point being, I don't personally think we should let those one-off qualifiers decide how these enemies are handled on this wiki. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 08:32, February 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
::Upon more extensive research they have been consistently named as such in the Japanese releases but not the English ones. The main Japanese release that differs is MvDK2 in which none of them have unique names. Additionally the "katakata" denominator is used in the Switch remake as well, which is the most recent release, and could therefore be seen as a "current stance" on Nintendo's part as you could indeed argue that old third party guides are somewhat unreliable sources... but the Katakata Heihou name (the Japanese name for Mini Shy Guys) being used officially in the latest game is already an argument in favour of keeping it in my opinion, or we'd be counteracting something that official material has just clarified for us. [[User:Qyzxf|Qyzxf]] ([[User talk:Qyzxf|talk]]) 12:44, February 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::"The main Japanese release that differs is MvDK2 in which none of them have unique names." Did you check the other games in the series as well? "Additionally the 'katakata' denominator is used in the Switch remake." Even if that's true (a source would help), remember that the Switch remake, just like all the other MvDK games in the series, was developed in the US, not in Japan, and the [[List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong (Nintendo Switch) staff|in-game credits]] don't seem to make clear which localization team drafted the game's script. You can make a point about Japanese names only if the original script is Japanese; that's when they lend clues to the creative intent and development behind a subject, and can be used here as a pointer towards how info on that subject is organized. With Mini Shy Guys, literally all games save for one, as well as their extra material, have called them "Shy Guys" in non-Japanese languages, with English being presumed to be the "source" language of the games; at that point, whether or not Japanese localizations truly push their own interpretation of the character isn't decisive in the matter just by virtue of being the Japanese interpretation. Anyway, [https://twitter.com/NintendoAmerica/status/1758521869760659520 here's an ad for the remake] (twitter.com) that plainly makes reference to "Shy Guys" and "Thwomps" without referring to them as toys. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:12, February 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
::::I understand the point about the language of development, and fair enough. I do think in the modern era Nintendo is more controlling of its Mario brand that the Japanese version is a relevant point to the conversation. For what it's worth, [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/switch/a97pa/assets/img/top/stage_slide_idea_pic_heiho.png this graphic] from the official website of the remake for example states Katakata Heihō for the toy Mini Shy Guy if it's worth considering, but as you said since the game is presumed written in English originally I don't know how much weight that should hold now. Either way it's evident this proposal will pass and when it does I do think we should add these Japanese names to their respective pages in the foreign names section to denote their different names in the MvDK games where applicable. [[User:Qyzxf|Qyzxf]] ([[User talk:Qyzxf|talk]]) 23:50, February 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Add the "Talk page proposal and support/oppose format" to the "Talk page proposals" section=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-9|keep as is}} | |||
The "[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Header#Talk page proposals|Talk page proposals]]" section in the header is missing a talk page proposal and support/oppose format, and that is confusing. I was just wondering if there is a possibility to add the format to the talk page proposals section. | |||
This header will be placed after the talk page proposal rules: | |||
<nowiki><h3 style="color:#000">Talk page proposal and support/oppose format</h3></nowiki> | |||
The first paragraph will read as follows: | |||
{{quote2|This is an example of what your talk page proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following after starting a new fitting section and paste it into that section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your talk page proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to <u>replace the whole variable ''including'' the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Talk page proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept ''to a minimum'', and if something comes up in the comments, the talk page proposal can be amended as necessary.|First paragraph}} | |||
This is what the example placed after the first paragraph will be as follows: | |||
----- | |||
<nowiki>{{TPP}}</nowiki><br> | |||
<nowiki>[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]</nowiki> | |||
<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br> | |||
<nowiki>'''Deadline''':</nowiki> [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the talk page proposal was created), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "August 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT"] | |||
<nowiki>===Support===</nowiki><br> | |||
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki> | |||
<nowiki>===Oppose===</nowiki> | |||
<nowiki>===Comments===</nowiki> | |||
----- | |||
The paragraph placed after the example will read as follows: | |||
{{quote2|Users will now be able to vote on your talk page proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own talk page proposal just like the others.|Paragraph placed after the example}} | |||
The final paragraph will read as follows: | |||
{{quote2|To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki>" 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 talk proposal. If you are voting on your own talk proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".|Final paragraph}} | |||
And that's what the new section for the talk page proposal and support/oppose format will look like. In addition, a parenthesized reading from the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Header#Basic proposal and support/oppose format|basic proposal and support/oppose format section]] will be changed from "14 for [[MarioWiki:Writing guidelines|writing guidelines]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Talk page proposals|talk page proposals]]" to "14 for [[MarioWiki:Writing guidelines|writing guidelines]]". Would that example be a better idea when making talk page proposals? | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBB}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per proposal | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} [[MarioWiki:Once and only once|Why is it necessary to copy the exact same text from the section immediately above]]? It's already made clear that talk page proposals are a type of proposal that work like a proposal would, so this feels completely unnecessary and I'm confused who would be helped by it. | |||
#{{User|ExoRosalina}} Per Hewer. | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} It is basically the same as the previous section just with the TPP template and saying the proposal ends in 14 days instead of 7. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Hewer; this is incredibly redundant, and while I could maybe see merit in a sentence or two clarifying "remember to change it to end in 14 days, remember to change the header levels", this... this isn't that, this is just the same template (albeit with those changes), twice. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per all, this is about as redundant as copypasting all the proposal rules in the TPP rules section when TPP rule 2 already states that the rules are nearly the same anyway with only a few exceptions. Just copy the mainspace proposal template, make sure the deadline ends in two weeks and to include {{tem|TPP}}; no need for repetition. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all. We don't need to be redundant. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all, this proposal is stupidly pointless. | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Do we really need the full explanation if the code is the same as regular proposals except for the first line? [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 19:42, February 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
So, I disagree with including the whole section twice on the same page, but would it not be helpful to explain how to use the TPP template? [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 11:07, February 17, 2024 (EST) | |||
:The final sentence of [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Rules 2|TPP rule 1]] already explains where to place {{tem|TPP}}, and also states to replace it with {{tem|SettledTPP}} when the proposal is over, so that's also already covered. The most we can add without being too redundant is to simply copy the code if you don't know how to include a template, but I think the wiki trusts a novice proposer that they'd know how templates work... {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:35, February 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
:: Ah, I see. In that case, we've got pretty much everything covered already, so yeah this is definitely unnecessary. [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 18:20, February 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Trim or remove various ''Smash'' franchise-specific subcategories=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|1-4-0-1|prune all Smash-related redirects, delete all categories except for the given exceptions}} | |||
This is what I'd consider part one to a few proposals I'd like to hopefully make later down the road. This is about the following categories, and if you'd like to humor us for a second, pick one of these at random and take a look at them: | |||
*[[:Category:Animal Crossing series]] | |||
*[[:Category:ARMS series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Banjo-Kazooie series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Bayonetta series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Castlevania series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Dragon Quest series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Duck Hunt]] | |||
*[[:Category:EarthBound series]] | |||
*[[:Category:F-Zero series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Fatal Fury series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Final Fantasy series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Fire Emblem series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Game & Watch series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Ice Climber]] | |||
*[[:Category:Kid Icarus series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Kirby series]] | |||
*[[:Category:The Legend of Zelda series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Mega Man series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Metal Gear Solid series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Metroid series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Minecraft series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Pac-Man series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Persona series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Pikmin series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Pokémon series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Legendary Pokémon]] | |||
*[[:Category:Poké Ball Pokémon]] | |||
*[[:Category:Punch-Out!! series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Rhythm Heaven series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Sonic the Hedgehog series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Splatoon series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Star Fox series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Street Fighter series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Tekken series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Wii Fit series]] | |||
*[[:Category:Xenoblade series]] | |||
If you played along with our request up above, odds are, unless you picked Rhythm Heaven specifically, you picked a category that has a large amount of Smash-related redirects and occasional disambiguation pages cluttering them--and potentially, if you clicked a category like Bayonetta or Tekken, you just saw a category with only redirects or disambiguation pages--literally zero unique articles to their name. The real loser has to be Pokemon, who not only has only a few disambiguation pages (that all only lead to redirects) to its name once all the redirects are pruned, but it has [[:Category:Legendary Pokémon|two]] [[:Category:Poké Ball Pokémon|subcategories]] that are literally all redirects--and the only relevant information to the Mario series is provided not by the wiki, but via ''a now dead external-link in the main category's description that '''currently leads to a domain registration page.''''' | |||
So... Genuine question; who do the majority of these categories help? These are all vestiges of an era of the wiki that has long since passed where Smash was given its own coverage; nowadays, in the era of merged list articles and the dedicated Smash wiki, these are all just kind of linking to the same couple of articles. And on the off-chance you're looking for actual information related to non-Smash crossovers, the redirects completely flood those out. | |||
Now, that's not to say ''every'' one of these categories is entirely worthless and without merit. We vaguely alluded to Rhythm Heaven in the opening, but in specific, here are a few exceptions to potentially retain (albeit after pruning their various Smash redirects), rather than deleting them: | |||
* Duck Hunt, Fire Emblem, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, and Star Fox all have the same reason--they make regular enough appearances (e.g. 3 or more) in WarioWare microgames. | |||
* Animal Crossing makes sense due to the [[Animal Crossing × Mario Kart 8|Mario Kart 8 DLC]] and subsequent [[Animal Crossing|full Mario Kart track]]. | |||
* Dragon Quest makes sense due to the various crossovers in the form of [[Itadaki Street DS]] and [[Fortune Street]]. | |||
* Game & Watch makes sense for the Game & Watch Gallery articles, as well as [[Mr. Game & Watch]]. | |||
* Final Fantasy makes sense for [[Mario Hoops 3-on-3]]. | |||
* Ice Climber not only has the WarioWare microgames, but [[Nitpicker]]s make an appearance in that game. | |||
* The Legend of Zelda has the most compelling argument to exist, in our eyes--not only does Mario regularly reference it leading to [[Hyrule Circuit|another Mario Kart track]], the Zelda series regularly references the Mario series; this culminates in stuff like the [[Head Thwomp|two Thwomps exclusive]] [[Mega Thwomp|to ''Zelda'' games]]. | |||
* Pac-Man makes sense because of the crossovers in the [[Mario Kart Arcade GP]] games. | |||
* Rhythm Heaven has probably the most spotless track record; we give [[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]] coverage, it has a WarioWare minigame, and [[Alien Bunny|alien bunnies]] and [[Cicada]] both appear in Rhythm Heaven alongside their WarioWare appearances; in fact, the latter is a character who ''started out'' as a Rhythm Heaven character before becoming a WarioWare character later on. | |||
* Sonic the Hedgehog makes sense because of the various Olympic Games games. | |||
* Splatoon makes sense because of the presence of [[Inkling]]s and [[Urchin Underpass]] in [[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]. | |||
* Street Fighter makes sense because of [[Super Mario Klemp-Won-Do: Muskeln sind nicht alles!|one of the German Club Nintendo comics]]. | |||
When all that's said and done, we can think of three main things to do here: | |||
* '''Prune all Smash-related redirects, and then delete categories that don't have enough articles left afterwards:''' For the sake of argument, let's say the cutoff is that you need 3 articles; thusly, Mega Man would stay for [[Dr. Light]], [[Dr. Wily]], and [[Mega Man]], whereas Minecraft is deleted because its presence is just [[Minecraft|the video game itself]]. As a warning, this could result in weirdness--for instance, we saw that the Kirby category could stay because of [[Kirby]], [[Star Rod (Kirby)]], and [[Whispy Woods]]. | |||
* '''Prune all Smash-related redirects, and delete all categories except for our previously-stated exceptions:''' Pretty self-explanatory. If we didn't decide personally it was good to keep, it gets deleted outright; and then we remove the redirects. We think our judgements were fair enough, but if push comes to shove, we could re-instate a category after the proposal--after all, [[Mr. Game & Watch|it's happened before with these Smash proposals]]. | |||
* '''NUCLEAR OPTION: DELETE ALL THE SMASH SERIES SUBCATEGORIES''': The obligatory extreme option, but as we've mentioned, while the state these are in is very suboptimal, there are at least some categories here that have merit and could be used for non-Smash purposes. | |||
* '''Do nothing:''' We're obligated to include this, and while we are strictly opposed to keeping stuff like the Fatal Fury category around, we aren't going to exclude this just because we personally dislike this choice. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete categories that have 0-2 articles left==== | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our secondary option. While we're a little put-off by the idea of a category with only 3 articles, it doesn't hurt as much as these categories in their current state. | |||
====Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete all categories except for the exceptions mentioned above==== | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} This is our preferred choice. We think these categories all have merit due to their aforementioned non-Smash crossovers, and have all got substantial enough appearances to merit keeping their respective categories. While we understand potentially wanting to retain a few more, that can come in a future proposal--for now, we'd like to just keep these ones and work off of that. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Per proposal. | |||
====NUCLEAR OPTION: Delete all the Smash series subcategories, period==== | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Smash ''is'' still given its own coverage. It's in the form of list articles now, but we are still dedicating articles to talking about subjects that only cross over with Mario in Smash, so having categories reflect that feels fine. I agree with deleting the two Pokémon subcategories since a list of redirects that all go to the same list page is pretty useless, but the others I feel like can be kept for as long as we're still covering Smash stuff. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
===Reserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new section=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-5-11|Do nothing}} | |||
I'm working on the assumption that joke proposals aren't actually banned entirely and are allowed on April Fools. | |||
I'm not against the concept, however, I feel like there should be a specialized area for these things. Easy as it may be to tell such jokes from serious matters (ymmv on how serious of a pursuit you find editing a Mario fansite to be), the fact of the matter is that they have no business mingling with each other. April Fools content, at large, is already being separated from the rest of the wiki, albeit seamlessly so (it's being directly presented on the home page, but not linked from the mainspace), and you're still not allowed to vandalize actual articles on that day--shouldn't a similar restriction be applied to proposals? This here proposal aims to introduce a brand-new section on this very page (alongside "Writing guidelines", "New features" etc.) that will only be instated on April Fools day and will be reserved for joke proposals. (To clarify: it won't be a permanent part of this page, just on that day of the year.) | |||
Option 1 of this proposal is to name this section the "April Fools' Day proposals" section. Prim, proper, self-explanatory. Option 2 is to give it a more jokey title, to which I raise "Extremely important proposals". Option 3 is to not add a section and let joke proposals wander about the page. | |||
Neither of the first two options would actually "kill" any joke. The entire "punchline" of these joke proposals is the silly interactions between users, and, looking at their history, these proposals tend to be so clearly frivolous that they're easy to tell from the actual proposals. There's no surprise to ruin by putting these in their own section, but it's beneficial in actually drawing a line between them and the actual wiki discussion, and minimizing potential spillover into the latter. | |||
TLDR [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=2418254 having genuine stuff crammed with jokey stuff looks bad] | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': March 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Option 1 (add section, name it "April Fools' Day proposals")==== | |||
<del>#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} A more straight forward and formal title. Makes sense in context.</del> | |||
====Option 2 (add section, name it "Extremely important proposals")==== | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Fuck pies | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, non-agresivelly. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} SolemnStormcloud's Vote is a vote made by SolemnStormcloud. (Per all.) | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} Honestly, I agree the most with the statement of being a means of preserving the humorous interactions between the users. We put in a lot of work on this site, giving it an air of profession as we strive to gather and show as much information on the Mario series. I like the idea that it's less about preserving the jokes and more for preserving the, shall we call it, off-stage behavior of the users. So let us have our <s>pie</s> fun <small>(I'm still waiting for the pie though... it's been years).</small> In short: Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Axis}} Per proposal | |||
<del>#{{User|BMfan08}} While the other option does make more logical sense, I think this option would be fitting for the joke-filled nature of the proposals. <small>Now can someone help me with my comic project on [[N Gang]] and [[Club Nintendo (magazine)|Club Nintendo]]?</small><del> | |||
====Option 3 (do nothing)==== | |||
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - It's April Fools. Having to preface it's a joke, kills the joke. | |||
#{{User|Nintendo101}} - Per above. | |||
#{{User|MCD}} - Per Glowsquid. It's one day a year. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Stating that it's a non-serious, jokish proposal <i>before</i> adding in the funny April Fool (which is only once per year) proposal itself obviously, leaves the humor out of the bag. Captain Obvious kills the cat's humor. So forth, per the glow squid. | |||
#{{User|YoYo}} per Glowsquid | |||
#{{User|BMfan08}} Glowsquid and PnnyCrygr have a good point, so I'm changing my vote. <small>I still need help with the comic project on [[N Gang]] and [[Club Nintendo (magazine)|Club Nintendo]] by the way</small> | |||
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Drago}} Per Glowsquid. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} Nah. This isn't a big deal. | |||
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
<s>KCC if you don't make an april fool's proposal this year we're gonna be so sad</s> We'd honestly prefer if there was no section, but it was disclosed to an admin that yes, it is indeed a joke or is an actually serious proposal--that way, the joke doesn't get "ruined" for most people, but there's at least someone who's able to, y'know, make sure if things get out of hand for what's meant to be a serious proposal/if things get too serious for what's meant to be a joke proposal, they can intervene. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:09, February 25, 2024 (EST) | |||
@Glowsquid @Camwoodstock, option 2 directly addresses that issue. Either way, the point of joke proposals is less the "joke" itself and more to get others in on the play house and goof around. The "punchline" is the entire community interaction itself. That kind of stuff should not share a corner with Very Serious wiki discussion, the same way the wiki's April Fools campaigns should not be a part of the actual knowledge repository. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:59, February 25, 2024 (EST) | |||
:I don't think Option 2 actually addresses the issue because nearly everyone who sees something titled "extremely important proposals" would immediately know it is anything but. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:36, February 25, 2024 (EST) | |||
::Sure but the point of a joke proposal isn't to ''actually fool people into thinking it's a real proposal''. It's to goof around something outlandish. The "Extremely important proposals" title does not ruin that goal, especially since looking at the history of these proposals, they tend to be obvious jokes from the onset ("Remove removals", "Pie for everyone", "Create SUPREME rank" etc.) {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST) | |||
Just a quick question; has the issue this proposal intends to address (joke proposals appearing simultaneously with real ones on April 1st) actually occurred before? I've only been on here since late spring of 2021, so my perspective is rather limited, but I don't think that's been the case since at least then. Last year (2023) when I made my 「ウィキを青にしてマフィンを焼く」joke proposal, it was the only one up on the Proposal page that entire day; and the year before that (2022), there weren't any joke proposals made, and serious ones were on the page. {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 19:41, February 25, 2024 (EST) | |||
:[[Special:Diff/2418295|2018]], [[Special:Diff/2630774|2019]], [[Special:Diff/3162423|2021]] had them. I only just skimmed the revision log, though, so there should be more instances. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST) | |||
I take it the opposition didn't read my comments or what I added to the proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:27, February 28, 2024 (EST) | |||
:We saw, we just personally don't really agree; we personally feel the element of surprise is, indeed, part of the joke. Hence, while we'd still prefer our option of "tell an admin and nobody else", we abstained from both any form of support as well as a direct oppose for the time being. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} | |||
::Is this supposed element of surprise (whose existence is debatable) really [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=2418254 worth bogging down actual discussion]? As I said, moving these to their own section could help minimize these jokes spilling over into the real deal. Even if it's only one day a year, that's enough time to have a joke vote or something to that degree worm its way where it shouldn't be and go undetected. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:27, February 28, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::I read it. I don't think the problem being identified is a problem and I don't think the solutions being offered is necessary. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:37, February 29, 2024 (EST) | |||
To be honest, I misunderstood the proposal and assumed these proposals would be added to BJAODN <s>if you couldn't tell by my quick-edit</s>. I wouldn't mind having these proposals there instead, as some of them already are, though admittedly it should be considered whether to differentiate from the other joke proposals there or not. [[User:BMfan08|BMfan08]] ([[User talk:BMfan08|talk]]) 00:27, February 29, 2024 (EST) | |||
:To be honest, it IS kinda weird why we don't do that already. We preserve April Fool's Day main pages as well as funnily bad proposals at BJAODN, so why not the April Fool's proposals? Would it violate the "don't write badly on purpose" rule? Then why are the April Fool's pages preserved there anyway?<br> To me, it certainly would be less of a hassle to just find them at BJAODN than manually going through countless pages of revision history. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:20, February 29, 2024 (EST) | |||
::I agree that we should do that. Perhaps we could create a subpage for [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals]] similar to the three [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/DK Wiki|DK Wiki]] subpages? [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 19:26, February 29, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::[[MarioWiki talk:BJAODN#Allow section(s) for certain April Fools' proposals|There was this proposal about it]], but to be honest I also agree that it would be good to archive the April Fools' proposals in BJAODN. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:44, February 29, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Split game series articles into sub-series articles=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-12|Do not split}} | |||
My [[Talk:Super Mario (series)#Move this page to "Super Mario Bros. (series)"|proposal]] to move the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]] article to the name of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series has been declined last year, so I had to make a follow-up proposal after five months since the last proposal was declined. | |||
The following pages being split are as follows: | |||
*[[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' (series)]] will be split into the {{fake link|''Super Mario Bros.'' (sub-series)|Super Mario Bros. (sub-series)}}. | |||
*[[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'' (series)]] will be split into {{fake link|''Mario Kart Arcade GP'' (sub-series)|Mario Kart Arcade GP (sub-series)}}. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBB}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': March 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per proposal | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} While I did support the idea of the ''New Super Mario Bros. series'' getting it's own sub-series article, I can understand why it isn't. And if that series can't get a sub-series article, I fail to see how the ''Super Mario Galaxy'' games can. They're all apart of the same overall series so I don't see why we need to divide things up further. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} I previously supported New Super Mario Bros. getting an article because I thought it would be the most eligible sub-series at four([[New Super Luigi U|ish]]) entries. But since then, Super Mario Land had its article merged, and now that we have all these sub-series merged (Super Mario Advance gets to stay the only exception since it covers Yoshi's Island as well), I feel like this is a much better choice for organisation when they're all just part of one series, splitting them all out would feel messy and [[MarioWiki:Once and only once|redundant]]. It also calls into question the criteria for splitting sub-series - if Mario Galaxy is eligible, why not "Super Mario 3D" which also has two games? Or the aforementioned New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Land? Better to avoid the headache and stay consistent by merging all of them. | |||
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} I may support splitting just Super Mario Bros. since with Wonder it's been given further distinction from the 3D games as a series, however if supporting that here means splitting Galaxy and Maker as well, then I'm gonna have to oppose per all. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nightwicked Bowser. Splitting the ''Maker'' and ''Galaxy'' games in specific when they are strictly duologies is especially overkill to us. | |||
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all. | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per NwB's comment below and my response. | |||
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Nightwicked Bowser and Doc von Schmeltwick. Maybe individual "subseries" articles could be raised ''alongside'' the main series article, but not at the expense of breaking up the understanding of this as a discrete series of platform games. ''Super Mario Bros.'', ''Super Mario Galaxy'', ''Super Mario Maker'', and ''New Super Mario Bros. 2'' are all part of the mainline ''Super Mario'' series and it artificially dilutes their cohesion by suggesting they are unrelated to one another. | |||
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} This is just too vague on all fronts. What does and doesn't classify as a subseries? That's the question that must be answered before any discussion can happen. Per all. | |||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Way too vague. Per all. | |||
#{{User|ExoRosalina}} Per all, and yeah it will be unquestionable. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
This should really be either a case-by-case or have multiple options rather than all-at-once or none at all. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 19:16, February 29, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Indeed. I have draft pages with empty tables for [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario Bros. (series)|''Super Mario Bros.'' series]] (including the NSMB games) and [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario 3D (series)|''Super Mario 3D'' series]] (including the SMG games), but I think it needs more thought and discussion rather than trying to rush it through without any prior planning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:22, February 29, 2024 (EST) | |||
This proposal has now been updated to not split the Galaxy and Maker games into a subseries, however there's still the matter of Super Mario Bros and the Mario Kart Arcade games both being split if the proposal is supported with no one-or-the-other. These especially should be entirely seperate cases. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 11:26, March 1, 2024 (EST) | |||
:I think this changes the scope of the original proposal too much. I would not have changed it. But I fail to understand the rationale of this new one anyways. Why ''Super Mario Bros.'' (sub-series)? Why not ''Super Mario Bros.'' (series)? Why change the name in the first place? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:32, March 1, 2024 (EST) | |||
Hmmm... I'm not opposed to splitting into sub-series, the definition of sub-series is "a series that is part of a larger series." So, we could still have sub-series articles. We wouldn't be saying that ''[[Super Mario 64]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'' aren't part of the same series, they are. But I do get some of the reasoning used by the opposition. Redundancy would be a problem, as would criteria, though we would need a limit to how many games can constitute a series of sub-series, though ''[[Super Mario Land|Super]] [[Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins|Mario]] [[Wario Land (series)|Land]]'' could be a ''[[Super Mario Advance (series)|Super Mario Advance]]''-esque situation, because of the ''[[Wario Land (series)|Wario Land series]]''. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 08:58, March 4, 2024 (CST) | |||
:The Super Mario Land series used to have its own article that got merged by [[Talk:Super Mario Land (series)#Merge to the main series page|this proposal]]. We do have a page for [[Mario + Rabbids (series)|Mario + Rabbids]] despite only having two games, so it could get arbitrary if we do decide on the number of games a series would need for it to have a page. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 10:13, March 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
::Ok, you have a point. *Makes mental note to make proposal on April 4th* {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 07:23, March 5, 2024 (CST) | |||
:::Hey, I was looking through here, this "comment thread" or something (I don't know the exact name, but you might know), and when I went to the ''[[Super Mario Advance (series)|Super Mario Advance (series)]]'' page, I saw that it said, "The '''''Super Mario Advance''''' series is a [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'']] '''''subseries''''' which consists of video game [[reissue]]s released only on the [[Game Boy Advance]]. It is a successor to ''[[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]]'' on the [[Game Boy Color]], itself an indirect successor to ''[[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|Donkey Kong]]'' on the [[Game Boy]]." That's right, '''''subseries'''''. So we already have a sub-series article. So what's going to happen to that article? Will it stay, or not? Even if this proposal fails (I'll probably make a successor to that proposal that is better than this one, there will be multiple options), I think it should stay, because of ''[[Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3|Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3]]''. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 07:32, March 6, 2024 (CST) | |||
::::I think it should stay, might as well. [[File:Bowsersm64.png|35px]] [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) [[File:BowserNSMBU.png|35px]] 10:42, March 6, 2024 (EST) |
Revision as of 06:26, March 9, 2024
Rewrite cited quotes into a new styleDo not change 4-7 <ref>[[Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development|Nintendo EAD Tokyo]] (November 1, 2007). ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' ([[Wii]]). [[Nintendo]]. Level/area: [[Bubble Blastoff]]. "'''[[Captain Toad]]''': 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'"</ref> = Nintendo EAD Tokyo (November 1, 2007). Super Mario Galaxy (Wii). Nintendo. Level/area: Bubble Blastoff. "Captain Toad: 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'" <ref>Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "[[Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas]]". ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]''. Episode 1. "'''Royal Parrot''': 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'"</ref> = Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas". The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. Episode 1. "Royal Parrot: 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'" <ref>Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). ''{{wp|Despicable Me 3}}'' (Motion picture). "'''Bratt''': 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'"</ref> = Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). Despicable Me 3 (Motion picture). "Bratt: 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'" Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWill this proposal allow for the aforementioned citation templates to be created? I'm not completely clear on what this proposal is aiming to accomplish, but I would support citation templates, to help create a consistency around the use of the references tags. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:39, January 20, 2024 (EST)
The idea of making citations of all kinds more streamlined and standardized has actually been on my mind for a while now, but I haven't made a proposal yet because I don't know exactly how to go about it. Like I said in my reasoning for opposing this proposal, some citation formats are just too complicated for most users to bother following them, which is why finding the right format for a citation can make all the difference towards that format being agreed upon collectively as an improvement; that's why this proposal failed and this one unanimously succeeded. ThePowerPlayer 20:52, January 21, 2024 (EST) So, why this proposal? Citations should follow a certain standard, which I believe is illustrated in MarioWiki:Citations ("What to put as references") but perhaps not clearly, due to information on how citations should be formatted just mushed in a paragraph with no citation templates to work off, only examples. That being said, the proposal aims to change the citation style for quotes, referencing a talk page proposal for a deleted template, see Template talk:Ref quote; why was this deleted? Some people interpreted this as a proposal to create a general citation template, which I don't believe so since this proposal seems to strictly concern with quotations from fictional characters. If so, the comment by Ahemtoday is a reason to oppose: the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me." That being said, I think it's appropriate to cite some direct gameplay videos for evidence of claims in the articles. I've done this for Metal Mario's page, particularly the part where Wario yells when falling underwater; it's for my own sake in properly recalling something trivial (but amusing) and possible to forget later on. But this proposal aims to cite video games themselves for quotes, which I don't even think it's the best way to do it versus a time stamped video. If not, questions remain. What's the issue with the old system? Are we currently not even citing quotes? How are we doing citations for quotes currently? What's even the scope of this proposal, is it fictional characters or quotations from publications? What examples are there to show issues of the current citation method that led to the creation of this proposal? What do the changes even look like; what's "before" and "after"? Why should we match Wikipedia's system? It's not clear from this proposal. I've re-read the thing a few times carefully. I'm still left with confusion. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:57, January 22, 2024 (EST) Create two specific citation templatesCreate one template for all types of citations 3-5-1 I've seen inconsistently formatted citations all over the wiki (e.g. some add a comma, followed by "pg. 7" when it should be a period, followed by "Page 7.") and templates would be perfect for making sure the citations are formatted consistently all over the wiki. I'm proposing the two following citation templates for the following purposes:
I don't expect them to be strictly enforced, but should this proposal pass, MarioWiki:Citations and probably the Manual of Style should be updated accordingly. Edit: Added an option for a single citation template (i.e. {{cite}}) that would cover for web links and publications alike, though I personally still prefer the two separately. Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Create both
Create one citation template for all types of citations
Oppose
CommentsOne template for all citations would do just fine, no need for three. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:04, January 21, 2024 (EST)
I would like to know what each template would look like before voting on it. I'm confused by what the document one means, for example. — Lady Sophie (T|C) 07:10, January 21, 2024 (EST)
As Sophie asked, what will these templates look like? Are we going to use content from Wikipedia? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:03, January 22, 2024 (EST)
The proposal is probably going to pass but I'm going to abstain from opposing because at least the community seems to agree on creation of the thing. The design of the thing is definitely another issue for another day, and it's something I think we can work with after the proposal. That being said, if you want more confidence for a support of your proposal, illustrate praxis. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki linkAdd 11-0 Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsIf this proposal succeeds, I think we could as well try a proposal for adding the RayWiki (e.g. [[raymanpc:]]) next, due to the Rayman series' relevance in Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope via the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC. Casual reminder that we have interwiki for Kovopedia (even though the Magical Vacation series has little to no relevance to the Super Mario franchise yet, even while taking Super Smash Bros into account) purely because it's a NIWA affiliate, so adding a Rayman wiki as an interwiki link would only be fair, and that's double as much so for adding a Minecraft one. rend (talk) (edits) 11:39, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Allow staff warnings to be appealedAllow 18-0 Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: "Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed." The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in MarioWiki:Administrators:
This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see a discussion questioning the validity of it) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged. People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our MarioWiki:Courtesy; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between who gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special. Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change):
Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like any bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes. Proposer: Mario (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsDoc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in MarioWiki talk:Warning policy or MarioWiki talk:Courtesy. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST) Koopa con Carne, Drago: Yeah I'm not expecting appeals on these decisions to be successful, since staff members already have good judgement most of the time, but I think it helps to at least signal to users that we give them a chance for a fair hearing first. There is always a chance they have a point or so which would be valuable feedback. We don't want to bar opportunity like that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, January 27, 2024 (EST) You know, it's kinda funny: the policies keep specifying that you cannot appeal a reminder or warning given by patrollers or administrators, but for the longest time, I could've sworn that reminders and warnings could've only been given by patrollers or administrators anyway, because they have been given the authority to block you and thus should also know when someone is breaking the rules. I, at least, hadn't really noticed a time that a normal registered user has given a warning to another normal registered user before, even though the current warning policy states they can do so (a detail, I should stress, I discovered just today). rend (talk) (edits) 11:55, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Hewer: There actually has been like several attempts from the past couple of years, but have been removed due to rule 1.[1] Sure, they probably should've read the warning templates first before proceeding but it doesn't mean the rule itself is valid IMO. If you were the one issuing the exact same kind of warning and reminder, these cases would've been heard and decided; kind of easily shows the useless distinction. Besides, I add: it would certainly help to get second opinion of another staff member too, like another perspective, so it would still be beneficial for staff if we removed Rule 1. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST) Create interwiki link for RayWikicreate 11-0 Since this wiki has interwiki link support to wikis that are part of NIWA, but which series otherwise have little to no relevance to Super Mario in general (e.g. Kovopedia, a Magical Vacation wiki), I think it would be fair to have interwiki link support to wikis about franchises that are relevant to Super Mario in some way. As for the interwiki link code, it could be something like Proposer: Arend (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsMake a YouTube Disambiguation(!!!) pageCreate YouTube category 1-8-0 Before you hit "Oppose (edit)" and scream "NOT AGAIN", hear us out here. YouTube, as a whole, almost certainly does not deserve an article to itself. Unless we were to make a sweeping move to create pages for every Social Media page associated with the Mario brand, or every video distribution platform that's released a Mario video on it, it would be very silly to do that... But that's not to say YouTube holds zero relevance to the Mario brand, and that having a page of some sort for it is a doomed concept. No, what we're thinking is more along the lines of a disambiguation page, a-la our proposal for Starfy. There are some things that we could be linking to via a catch-all YouTube article, and while we don't want to claim this list is comprehensive--Play Nintendo on its own is a massive rabbit hole--we do want to hopefully illustrate roughly what we could do with that, as well as acknowledge a few counter-arguments. We make no claims that this is comprehensive, we know for a fact we left a few out, be it out of brevity, us not knowing about them, or good ol' fashioned laziness. But this is merely to illustrate just some of the YouTube videos with articles:
...Look, you get the idea. There's a lot of YouTube videos related to Mario that we have articles for, and even more that we, as of proposal, don't. This would be both a good resource for quickly finding these without having to plunder the rat's nest of Play Nintendo articles, as well as hopefully bring more attention to the videos that currently do not have articles. This list isn't even comprehensive, mind you, and the scope itself could honestly be increased to even include various promotional pieces that were hosted on YouTube for games like Wario Land: Shake It! or Super Mario Galaxy 2; though this is definitely something for a future proposal, so let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet and say we'll leave it exclusively to videos made for YouTube, by Nintendo, about Mario. We're also hoping this could potentially instigate better preservation for these videos; already, stuff like Virus Vid is vanishing from YouTube, only existing via Twitter and unofficial re-uploads since Nintendo privated the videos after Dr. Mario World went belly-up. And on the one hand, we get it--Play Nintendo isn't exactly the zenith of Nintendo's marketing. But it also makes us a little upset knowing we might only have a limited time to cover these things, and what's more is that there's possibly even stuff we've already missed out on that's lost to time. Addendum: As a few people have pointed out, a category may also suffice--so we've added an option for that as well. We think this'd also suffice, personally. Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Support (make a YouTube disambiguation page)
Support (make a YouTube category)
OpposeCommentsHow would this be preferred over, say, creating a category for YouTube? What will this accomplish that Category:Videos cannot? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:05, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I understand why a list of videos like this might be useful to have, but I don't get why it's being called a "disambiguation" here. This wouldn't be a list of things that the term YouTube could refer to, it would be a list of YouTube videos. Why not make it an article called "List of official YouTube videos" or something along those lines? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I see the new option. How will Category:Videos be affected? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:18, January 29, 2024 (EST)
Broaden the scope of the {{promo-photo}} templateBroaden the scope 7-0 I'm convinced that {{promo-photo}} is simply the equivalent of Wikipedia's Template:Non-free promotional, which went largely unchanged when it was copied to the Super Mario Wiki. However, the wikis are significantly different in their media policies: Wikipedia is far more strict on usage of copyrighted media than this wiki, which is centered around a copyrighted franchise. More importantly, it just doesn't feel right that {{promo-photo}}'s description doesn't match the majority of images which use it. I was originally thinking of creating a separate template to address this, but I realized that the issue could be entirely solved without needing to update the template used by hundreds of photos: instead, just change the description of the existing template to more accurately describe the images which use it. This is what the {{promo-photo}} template currently looks like: {| class="notice-template copyright" | [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]] | This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is '''known to have come from a press kit''' or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]]. |}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
If this proposal passes, this is what the template would be changed to: {| class="notice-template copyright" | [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]] | This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' photograph of a person, product, or event that either '''originates from a press kit''' or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise '''illustrates a copyrighted work'''. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]]. |}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
This description would be substantially broad enough so that the template could continue being used for photos of copyrighted merchandise, as well as photos illustrating miscellaneous copyrighted works that cannot be categorized by other templates, such as this statue of Mario (which is not a product, as it was never for sale), all while describing the content of the images truthfully. Please feel free to comment if you have a better idea for a new description for the template. Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsDon't forget the parameters of you starting the proposal and putting a deadline for it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:38, January 28, 2024 (EST) Anyway I use promotional photo for some merchandise images because the recent images are official stock photos meant to be put in online storefronts or in catalogues and whatnot, e.g. "promoted". I wasn't aware there was supposed to be a stricter definition applied to it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:40, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Is there a possibility to rename the template from
Decide how to format the {{cite}} template and update citation guidelines accordinglyUpdate citation guidelines 7-0 In my opinion, for this citation template to be the most effective and convenient for users, it should match existing policy on the MarioWiki:Citations page as closely as possible. This is for two reasons:
Remember, the goal of this template in the first place is to make it more convenient for users to follow citation guidelines. That being said, to do so requires that such guidelines are outlined clearly, and the current state of the MarioWiki:Citations page is highly ambiguous in some places. For example, one significant issue I have with the page is that the first citation of a physical book (which is supposedly from the Super Mario Sunshine manual) is completely different from the later citation of a Super Mario RPG guidebook:
I see this template as an opportunity to clarify these inconsistenties once and for all, so if this proposal passes, I'm imposing the condition that not only should the MarioWiki:Citations page be updated to include an explanation on how to use the {{cite}} template, but all of the citation examples on that page should be updated to fit the format described below, for consistency's sake. Here's exactly what I think the templates should look like in MediaWiki code, as well as descriptions of each of the parameters: {{cite | author = | date = | title = | publisher = | isbn = | page = | accessdate = | quote = | archive = | archivedate = }} Parameters for all citations:
Parameters for a specific citation type:
Optional parameters:
Here is what the citations on MarioWiki:Citations should look like, with the template code followed by what is displayed on the page (note that an advantage of using a template is that as long as the parameter names are specified, they can be typed in any order): {{cite |date=August 26, 2002 |title=''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' North American instruction booklet |publisher=Nintendo |page=7 |quote=It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites.}}
(Note: I updated this specific citation to an actual, verifiable quote from the text, because the irony of using a fabricated quote for citation guidelines doesn't sit right with me.) {{cite |author=Campbell, Evan |date=July 17, 2014 |title=[http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/17/the-cat-mario-show-announced The Cat Mario Show Announced] |publisher=IGN |accessdate=July 22, 2014}}
{{cite |author=Nintendo |date=January 14, 2015 |title=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L69Z39bgdU4 Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer] |publisher=YouTube |accessdate=April 26, 2015}}
{{cite |title=[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!] |publisher=Nintendo |accessdate=June 14, 2010}}
{{cite |author=Nintendo |date=1985 |title=[https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf ''Super Mario Bros.'' Instruction Booklet |accessdate=July 28, 2021 |archive=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309100159/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf |archivedate=20210309100159}}
{{cite |author=Miller, Kent |date=1996 |title=''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide'' |page=13}}
Here is what a citation that uses the ISBN parameter would look like, with the ISBN placed in between the publisher and the page number, in order to distinguish the book uniquely before stating the page number within that book: {{cite |author=Wessel, Craig |title=''Warioland 4'' |publisher=Scholastic |isbn=0-439-36711-5 |page=63 |quote=I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!}}
I can think of one exception where standardized formatting beyond this may or may not be optimal, that being citing Twitter / X posts, but that warrants its own proposal; I have such a proposal in the works, but I'll only release it after a consensus is reached here. When actually using this template in an article, it should be included within the <ref></ref> tags, to ensure that naming the references works as always per the "How to add references" section of the citation guidelines. Finally, I want to conclude by emphasizing that this is not a required template; it's simply a method of making citations easier and more standardized. If this proposal passes, a disclaimer should be added to MarioWiki:Citations stating that using the {{cite}} template is encouraged, but not required, and if a citation is better expressed without the template, then just manually typing something within the <ref> tags is completely okay. Please feel free to comment on this proposal if you have any recommendations of your own. EDIT: Per Super Mario RPG's recommendation, added the ISBN parameter. Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI know it may seem unnecessary, but can an ISBN be added as an (obviously optional) parameter to the template? Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:10, January 29, 2024 (EST)
Just realized that perhaps this template also state the language of the source if, let's say, we're citing Japanese websites. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:25, February 5, 2024 (EST) Consistent formatting for the Other Languages sectionSecond option 0-5 1. "name" (meaning) Now, almost all the pages on the wiki already have Option 1 for their formatting, but for some reason some other users think that they should all be changed to look like Option 2, even though Option 1 already works just fine and there's no point in putting asterisks between one single word if it's already in between paragraphs. But, what do you guys think, which way of displaying the Other Names section do you think would be better? Proposer: Annalisa10 (talk) (banned) Keep the formatting of Option 1Change all Other Languages sections to Option 2
CommentsSo, for clarification, what vote is the oppose part of the proposal? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:07, January 30, 2024 (EST)
I'm also far less motivated to vote given that this proposal about a naming style was made way too soon after the creator's block expired, which the block was from edit warring and general hostility to other users on the Wow Bud (history) page over naming style. That this proposal includes taking swipes at users that disputed the edits on that page does not help convince me that this proposal was made in good faith. Please maintain your conduct. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:26, January 30, 2024 (EST)
I'm just gonna say it again: a "Do Nothing" option would just give way to more pointless edit wars. That concern is also what guided much of the opposition in a previous proposal that sought to loosen restrictions for British English spellings in wiki text. Regarding the subject of the current proposal, there is a conventional, widespread way to format words depending on their nature and purpose: foreign words should be in italics to make it clear they're foreign, and words that are being separated from the rest of the others for an explanatory purpose should be in quotation marks. Regardless of that, the idea that articles can be consistent only within themselves and not across the entire wiki is a questionable point of view to have; having an ambiguous outlook for a medium that's supposed to be encyclopedic is anything but encyclopedic. In the words of 7feetunder (concerning the aforementioned proposal on British English spelling): "how do we decide who's right and who's wrong if we don't have a preference? If the answer is 'first come, first serve', the worst solution ever to anything on a wiki, then no thanks". Let's settle on one formatting option or another. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:06, February 2, 2024 (EST) Provide more context as to Mario entities' roles in Minecraftdo nothing 7-13 Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Camwoodstock "this has the potential to kill a section's pacing stone-cold dead" - The Minecraft appearances get their own sections anyway though. I don't think that "In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, pandas are replaced by Shiverians." has any pacing to kill in the first place. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:20, February 4, 2024 (EST)
This certainly is an interesting proposal. On the one hand, a little more context on how the (Mariofied) mobs act would be nice, so expanding the info a little bit with a short, one-sentence summary would be appreciated... but on the other hand, since the mobs aren't necessarily Mario-related and don't have additional behavioral differences in the Mario Mash-Up pack, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to talk more about regular Minecraft mobs on a Mario wiki, and simply linking to the Minecraft wiki would also solve the issue. I do get Ray Trace's concern though, and since it would make sense to link to the Minecraft wiki anyway, regardless of the proposal's outcome; really, it's boiling down to whether we should add a bit more context on what the Minecraft mobs do on each of our pages, or if it's too irrelevant for this wiki. rend (talk) (edits) 17:07, February 4, 2024 (EST) Maybe a "if it can be neatly summarized" should've been a key qualifying part. Linking to the wiki shouldn't be a crutch to being opaque about information. If something like a Scuttlebug can be like "Replaces spiders. They make webs and scare Steve." go for it. I kind of doubt ALL replaced assets in Minecraft are so incredibly complex affairs that we have to link to a wiki to satisfactorily cover all bases. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:27, February 7, 2024 (EST)
Rename Category:Twitter images and Category:Twitter media files to Category:X images and Category:X media files respectivelyRename 13-1 Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsWould it be outrageous if we gave this the wiki's "name at the time" treatment and established a cutoff date where we can still refer to "X" as "Twitter" for historical purposes? LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:35, February 9, 2024 (EST)
@SeanWheeler "There's a good reason why Wikipedia still calls it Twitter." - Because Wikipedia uses a policy that prioritizes the most commonly used name by English speakers as the page name. We don't do that, we use the most recent official name. "Many news sites still have to clarify that X was formerly Twitter." - Isn't that an inside joke? And it's been almost a year, I think most people know that X = Twitter. - S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 21:43, February 14, 2024 (EST) Rename {{promo-photo}} and Category:Promotional photos to {{photo}} and Category:Photos respectivelyRename 7-0 EDIT: Just to make sure this proposal covers all its bases, when configuring the file description on the Special:Upload page, the name on the "Licensing:" list should also be changed from "Promotional photo" to "Photo". Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsStandardize a "Cameo appearances" sectiondo not standardize 1-4 I feel that when reading a History section, one would mainly expect to read about games or media where something has a physical role, including if it's a minor one. And a cameo doesn't really constitute equally as much as contributing to a subject's history so much as it merely being a footnote. Besides, when the cameos are all together in a single section (or subsections if there's enough to say, but usually cameos don't have more than one or two sentences), then it's easier to refer to every time a subject made a cameo throughout the course of its appearances. For example, in Mario Golf: World Tour, the only form of an appearance that Reznor has is their name is sometimes shown on the scoreboard. This is a recurring instance for several other characters and species throughout the Mario Golf series, such as Phantamanta in Toadstool Tour and Advance Tour. Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSo this proposal is meant to get the cameo appearances of something to their own section rather than having them spread out over the article? If that's the case, it can help provide the main information while listing the minor information at the very bottom or something. Sparks (talk) 18:14, February 9, 2024 (EST)
I also made a proposal to include non-Smash appearance more than a year ago, but failed. Windy (talk) 17:22, February 16, 2024 (EST)
Standardize the "Other appearances" scope to include anything that's not a Super Mario gamedo not standardize 1-4 For example, if this proposal passes, any Super Smash Bros. series section, along with possible subsections, will be a sub-section of "Other appearances." Also, I've seen already five equal sign headings for Classic Mode route for Ultimate fighters and sometimes Subspace Emissary. I don't think MediaWiki supports six equal signs, but those could be summarized and included in the section for the game itself, if a decision has to be made. Sidenote, but if the subject in question makes only trophy, sticker, spirit cameos, the standard would still be to keep them under "Other appearances," because, as stated in my preceding proposal, the "Cameo appearances" subsection would be for Super Mario media only. Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsSorry for more questions, but games like the Super Smash Bros. series, Fortune Street, and Nintendo Land would count as "other appearances"? Would spin-offs like the Mario & Sonic and Mario + Rabbids series count in this proposal? I feel the latter two I mentioned focus on Mario characters, but I agree that the former three I mentioned are "other appearances" for them. I'm leaning on the "support" option, but I want to think about this first. Sparks (talk) 18:34, February 9, 2024 (EST)
@Hewer: They definitely are major, no doubt, but they're not Super Mario. There's already an issue where people think SSB is a Super Mario spinoff, and seeing it under "Other appearances" would better show that it's not part of it. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:43, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Decide how to incorporate Wonder Effects in Super Mario Bros. Wonder course articlesImplement Wonder Effects into "layout" section of articles 8-1-0 Compare these two courses with each other to see what I mean:
What this proposal is meant to accomplish is to keep consistency throughout the course articles for Super Mario Bros. Wonder. That’s why I have three options to vote on: 1. Have the Wonder Effect be described in the "layout" section of the course articles 2. Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the course articles 3. Do nothing (leave everything as is) Having a section dedicated to the Wonder Effect will make it easier to find, so that's something. Proposer: Sparks (talk) Have the Wonder Effect described in the "layout" section of the course articles
Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the articles
Do nothingCommentsDecide how to handle the toy enemies from across the Mario vs. Donkey Kong seriesmerge all applicable articles 11-0-0-1 This would be a bit silly, though. Enemy redesigns happen all the time, often they alternate between games, and may even fulfil their own gameplay role; yet, none of these was enough to have Thwomp's page split between its spiked and non-spiked variants. The spinning-drum Thwomps in the Mario vs. DK remake are simply an interpretation of the base Thwomp that plays into the game's theme; mechanically, they're the exact same as the Thwomps in the original release. That said, one particular enemy, Boo (toy), has significant enough differences from its base enemy to perhaps warrant a separate article; details on that, shortly. What this proposal aims to do is decide upon a more strict guideline for the coverage of these toy enemies opposite of their originals. Please note: the toy variants regarded by this proposal are those who have minimal to zero mechanical differences from their base counterparts and are (mostly) identified the same way. Toy enemies who are derivative of a Super Mario species, but have their own special mechanics and are clearly identified as though they are a separate thing, are excluded from this proposal. There's a list of excluded enemies at the end of the proposal. For this proposal, I came up with these options:
Should be (kept) merged if option 2 wins:
Should be (kept) split if option 2 wins:
Shy Guys Others Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Option 1
Option 2Option 3Option 4 (do nothing)
CommentsThere's also Snapjaw's plastic design in the series, which is currently merged despite being different from the metal bear trap enemies. Also, why are Yariho and Polterguy excluded? According to the JP names, they are counterparts to Spear Guy and Boo Guy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:05, February 16, 2024 (EST)
@Qyzxf: Snapjaw is included for the same reason as Thwomp, Thwimp, and Bird: it will be split if option 3 passes and kept merged if option 1 or 2 pass. Tane Pakkun and Katakata Kaen Heihō are excluded from the proposal. And, uh, are the enemies consistently named differently? Because I'd probably also oppose this if they were, but they aren't in English, and if the names in other languages sections are anything to go by, they don't seem to be in Japanese either. That leaves the toy design as the only potential reason to keep these split, which you yourself already denounced as counterproductive...after using it as an argument a few sentences earlier. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:21, February 18, 2024 (EST)
Add the "Talk page proposal and support/oppose format" to the "Talk page proposals" sectionkeep as is 1-9 This header will be placed after the talk page proposal rules: <h3 style="color:#000">Talk page proposal and support/oppose format</h3> The first paragraph will read as follows: This is what the example placed after the first paragraph will be as follows: {{TPP}} '''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br> ===Support=== ===Oppose=== ===Comments=== The paragraph placed after the example will read as follows: Template:Quote2 The final paragraph will read as follows: And that's what the new section for the talk page proposal and support/oppose format will look like. In addition, a parenthesized reading from the basic proposal and support/oppose format section will be changed from "14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals" to "14 for writing guidelines". Would that example be a better idea when making talk page proposals? Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsDo we really need the full explanation if the code is the same as regular proposals except for the first line? MegaBowser64 (talk) 19:42, February 16, 2024 (EST) So, I disagree with including the whole section twice on the same page, but would it not be helpful to explain how to use the TPP template? MegaBowser64 (talk) 11:07, February 17, 2024 (EST)
Trim or remove various Smash franchise-specific subcategoriesprune all Smash-related redirects, delete all categories except for the given exceptions 1-4-0-1
If you played along with our request up above, odds are, unless you picked Rhythm Heaven specifically, you picked a category that has a large amount of Smash-related redirects and occasional disambiguation pages cluttering them--and potentially, if you clicked a category like Bayonetta or Tekken, you just saw a category with only redirects or disambiguation pages--literally zero unique articles to their name. The real loser has to be Pokemon, who not only has only a few disambiguation pages (that all only lead to redirects) to its name once all the redirects are pruned, but it has two subcategories that are literally all redirects--and the only relevant information to the Mario series is provided not by the wiki, but via a now dead external-link in the main category's description that currently leads to a domain registration page. So... Genuine question; who do the majority of these categories help? These are all vestiges of an era of the wiki that has long since passed where Smash was given its own coverage; nowadays, in the era of merged list articles and the dedicated Smash wiki, these are all just kind of linking to the same couple of articles. And on the off-chance you're looking for actual information related to non-Smash crossovers, the redirects completely flood those out. Now, that's not to say every one of these categories is entirely worthless and without merit. We vaguely alluded to Rhythm Heaven in the opening, but in specific, here are a few exceptions to potentially retain (albeit after pruning their various Smash redirects), rather than deleting them:
When all that's said and done, we can think of three main things to do here:
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
NUCLEAR OPTION: Delete all the Smash series subcategories, periodDo nothing
CommentsReserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new sectionDo nothing 0-5-11 I'm not against the concept, however, I feel like there should be a specialized area for these things. Easy as it may be to tell such jokes from serious matters (ymmv on how serious of a pursuit you find editing a Mario fansite to be), the fact of the matter is that they have no business mingling with each other. April Fools content, at large, is already being separated from the rest of the wiki, albeit seamlessly so (it's being directly presented on the home page, but not linked from the mainspace), and you're still not allowed to vandalize actual articles on that day--shouldn't a similar restriction be applied to proposals? This here proposal aims to introduce a brand-new section on this very page (alongside "Writing guidelines", "New features" etc.) that will only be instated on April Fools day and will be reserved for joke proposals. (To clarify: it won't be a permanent part of this page, just on that day of the year.) Option 1 of this proposal is to name this section the "April Fools' Day proposals" section. Prim, proper, self-explanatory. Option 2 is to give it a more jokey title, to which I raise "Extremely important proposals". Option 3 is to not add a section and let joke proposals wander about the page. Neither of the first two options would actually "kill" any joke. The entire "punchline" of these joke proposals is the silly interactions between users, and, looking at their history, these proposals tend to be so clearly frivolous that they're easy to tell from the actual proposals. There's no surprise to ruin by putting these in their own section, but it's beneficial in actually drawing a line between them and the actual wiki discussion, and minimizing potential spillover into the latter. TLDR having genuine stuff crammed with jokey stuff looks bad Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Option 1 (add section, name it "April Fools' Day proposals")
Option 2 (add section, name it "Extremely important proposals")
Option 3 (do nothing)
Comments
@Glowsquid @Camwoodstock, option 2 directly addresses that issue. Either way, the point of joke proposals is less the "joke" itself and more to get others in on the play house and goof around. The "punchline" is the entire community interaction itself. That kind of stuff should not share a corner with Very Serious wiki discussion, the same way the wiki's April Fools campaigns should not be a part of the actual knowledge repository. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:59, February 25, 2024 (EST)
Just a quick question; has the issue this proposal intends to address (joke proposals appearing simultaneously with real ones on April 1st) actually occurred before? I've only been on here since late spring of 2021, so my perspective is rather limited, but I don't think that's been the case since at least then. Last year (2023) when I made my 「ウィキを青にしてマフィンを焼く」joke proposal, it was the only one up on the Proposal page that entire day; and the year before that (2022), there weren't any joke proposals made, and serious ones were on the page. S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 19:41, February 25, 2024 (EST)
I take it the opposition didn't read my comments or what I added to the proposal. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:27, February 28, 2024 (EST)
To be honest, I misunderstood the proposal and assumed these proposals would be added to BJAODN
Split game series articles into sub-series articlesDo not split 1-12 The following pages being split are as follows:
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsThis should really be either a case-by-case or have multiple options rather than all-at-once or none at all. Nightwicked Bowser 19:16, February 29, 2024 (EST)
This proposal has now been updated to not split the Galaxy and Maker games into a subseries, however there's still the matter of Super Mario Bros and the Mario Kart Arcade games both being split if the proposal is supported with no one-or-the-other. These especially should be entirely seperate cases. Nightwicked Bowser 11:26, March 1, 2024 (EST)
Hmmm... I'm not opposed to splitting into sub-series, the definition of sub-series is "a series that is part of a larger series." So, we could still have sub-series articles. We wouldn't be saying that Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Bros. Wonder aren't part of the same series, they are. But I do get some of the reasoning used by the opposition. Redundancy would be a problem, as would criteria, though we would need a limit to how many games can constitute a series of sub-series, though Super Mario Land could be a Super Mario Advance-esque situation, because of the Wario Land series. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:58, March 4, 2024 (CST)
|