MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Changes: Archived)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
==Writing guidelines==
*Separate [[Wii U]] audio files from the ones on the [[GBA]] ([[Talk:Mario Circuit (GBA)#Separate Audio Files|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Merge [[Choco Cake]] with [[Chocolate Cake]] ([[Talk: Choco Cake#Merge Choco Cake with Chocolate Cake|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Split the Paper Mario boos from [[Big Boo]] into a separate article. ([[Talk:Big_Boo#Split_the_Paper_Mario_boos_into_a_separate_article|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Decide if [[Porcupuffer]]s are [[Cheep Cheep]]s ([[Talk:Porcupuffer#Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Seperate [[Payday Waystation]] into a separate article ([[Talk:Shy Guy's Perplex Express|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Recreate {{fakelink|List of Saffron and Dyllis Recipes by ingredient}} ([[Talk:List of Saffron and Dyllis Recipes by ingredient#Keeping this article|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Blurp (Yoshi's Story)]] with [[Cheep Cheep]] ([[Talk:Blurp (Yoshi's Story)#Merge Blurp (Yoshi's Story) with Cheep Cheep|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 
==Writing Guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==New features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
===Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes===
 
Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being [https://www.mariowiki.com/images/2/26/Mario1c.jpg dumb], but hear me out.
==Removals==
===Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wiki===
For pretty much the wiki's entire run, "sub-species" (or "subspecies") has been used as shorthand to denote species like [[Gloomba]] or [[Fire Bro]] from the more basic species they're derived from (i.e. [[Goomba]] and [[Hammer Bro]]), but it's high time we put and end to it, and here's why:


#'''It's wrong''' - In science, "subspecies" denotes different populations of a species that are genetically, geographically, behaviourally, and/or morphologically distinct, yet still similar enough for interbreeding to occur freely when possible. What ''we'' call "subspecies" are ''not'' actually subspecies at all: they are completely different species, whether we're comparing [[Lakitu]]s to [[Koopa Troopa]]s or [[Deep Cheep]]s to [[Cheep Cheep]]s. There is no reason why we should so wilfully misuse very specific scientific terminology incorrectly when there are other options available like simply "type", "variation" or just plain "species". It's not like "beta elements" where there is no umbrella term and we have to make due with what readers are most familiar with: everyone already understands what "species" means, unlike the muddled "subspecies" (which even scientists argue about).
A few years after [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/31#Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxes|this proposal]] passed, this wiki added a [[Template:Group infobox|group infobox]] for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would '''only''' be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.
#'''It's speculation''' - It's clear enough when things are based on other things to whatever extent, but classifying some enemies as "subspecies" instead of "species" has always struck me as presumptuous. Where exactly does the line get drawn? Some things like [[Koopa Paratroopa]]s are rather basic and fundamental in their own rights, with many derived species of their own, yet are still called "subspecies". And what about things like [[Shady Paratroopa]] that could be a subspecies of Koopa Paratroopas ''or'' Shady Koopas? Only a few sets of differently-coloured/powered RPG enemies and things like the red and blue ''PM'' [[Spike Top#Official profiles and statistics|Spike Top]]s really fit the proper "subspecies" definition, but we already established that we're not using science here, so all that's left are judgment calls being passed off as hard distinctions that don't actually exist in official material.
#'''It's misleading''' - Despite the liberties we're taking with the term, "subspecies" still inherently sounds like it requires close relatedness between species (based on their names and/or appearances), but for the sake of navigation and connectivity between articles, sometimes it's useful to be able to reflect the conceptual relatedness between rather different species, such as [[Clubba]]s and [[Chargin' Chuck]]s being related to the more standard Koopa species. Having relaxed terminology would make this easier (i.e. potentially [[Talk:Bandit#Decide if Bandits are a sub-species of Shy Guys|avoiding]] some [[Talk:Porcupuffer#Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps|TPPs]] and [[Talk:Snifit#Are_they_Shy_Guys.3F|other such discussions]]) and result in less cross-talk between users operating on differing definitions of "subspecies".
#'''It's inconsistent''' - As well as murky definitions and three different ways to spell the term ("subspecies"/"sub-species"/"sub species") being found across the wiki, and even side-by-side in single articles, there are also plenty of cases where single subjects are being called both "species" and "subspecies". For example, [[Ice Piranha Plant]] bears both [[:Category:Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:New Super Mario Bros. U Species|Category:NSMBU Species]], is listed as a "sub-species" in the [[Piranha Plant]] infobox, and is part of the "species" list in {{tem|Piranha Plants}}. This is not good.


Between the disconnect with how the real world uses the word, and the different definitions, applications and spellings throughout the wiki, there is really only one way to sum up the use of "subspecies" around here: '''''it's confusing''''', and we should get rid of it. Specifically, we should do the following:
I've come up with two options:
*Option 1: [[Template:Character infobox]] and [[Template:Species infobox]] get a "member of" parameter, which would be used to link to groups they are, well, a member of. [[Goomba]] and the like would link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[Vivian]] would link to [[Three Shadows]], etc. This parameter would be used to list both memberships and leadership roles (the latter could maybe be distinguished by adding "(leader)" next to the link).
*Option 2: these infoboxes would also get a separate "Leader of" parameter. [[Bowser]] would use this to link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[King K. Rool]] would use this to link to [[Kremling Krew]], [[Captain Syrup]] would use this to link to [[Black Sugar Gang]], characters and species-characters would link to the [[:Category:baseball teams|baseball teams]] they lead, etc.


*Remove all occurrences of "subspecies", "sub-species" or "sub species" from the articles. Instead, everything should be called plain "species", and described informally as being based on and/or related to other species with words like "type", "variety", "kind", etc.
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).
*Delete [[:Category:Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Yoshi Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Donkey Kong Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:Wario Sub-Species]]. The equivalent "Species" categories exist [[:Category:Species|for]] [[:Category:Yoshi Species|all]] [[:Category:Donkey Kong Species|four]] [[:Category:Wario Species|cases]], but ideally, ''game-specific'' "Species" categories should be used to replace everything (but that's another kettle of fish altogether).
*Replace the "sub_species" variable in {{tem|Species-infobox}} with "derived_species". At the same time, "species_origin" should be replaced with "parent_species", for the sake of uniformity (there's already a "related species" variable for similar species not directly based on or providing the basis for the subject in question) and killing two birds with one stone since we'll have to fix the infoboxes anyway; this second change is from [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_42#Set_Clear_Rules_as_to_What_.22Species_Origin.22_Means|this cancelled proposal]] and its [[forum:34578.0|corresponding forum thread]] (both of which debate the use of "subspecies").
*Add "subspecies" to [[MarioWiki:Good_Writing#Frequently_misused_terms|the list of frequently misused terms]].


This will affect A LOT of articles and will take time to gradually roll out, but I think it's worth doing. There is no good reason why we need to stay inconsistent, confusing and misinformed about how we go about defining the species of the ''Mario'' series.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
====Option 1====
'''Deadline''': June 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} First choice per proposal.


====Support====
====Option 2====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per proposal. The zoologist half of me has wanted to eradicate this accursed term from the wiki for over seven years now. No more.
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Second choice per proposal.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per Walkazo. And yes, even though the term is used to described fictional species, it still gave me misinformation when thinking about actual sub-species. That's not right. I admit I am a bit pedantic when it comes to vocabulary and jargon but honestly, I'm pedantic for the very reason of being fed misinformation, which isn't the ideal way to learn things.
#{{User|ShyGuy8}} Per Walkazo and Baby Luigi. Yes, that's not right. In fact, I think it should be ''related spiecies'' instead of ''subspiecies''.
#{{User|Kart Player 2011}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Yes, remove ALL instances of it. I was misinformed about the true definition of "subspecies" this entire time I was in this wiki. This is a personal account, but if it confuses me, it's bound to confuse a lot of other readers. This wiki leads us to think "subspecies" means a derived or related organism even though the technical term is "some differences but capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring", especially provided that the "producing fertile offspring" part is the fundamental definition of a species. In that sense, subspecies do NOT denote separate species; the basic Linnaeus names have two names, but a third one is given if it's a subspecies. "Derived species", "parent species", "related species", these are all more correct and much more precise substitutes, making them vastly superior to the vague, confusing, incorrect "subspecies". In writing, we aim for precision and accuracy, and this proposed changes does exactly what is the gold standard in writing, so, as someone who admits of being very pedantic at times (the scathing criticism to singular "they" and contractions), it's not surprising that I want these changed enacted. This time, though, it's not pedantry, it's about being precise and accurate. It's been seven years, but better late than never to undo all that damage.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all, but take note of the rare few [[Pale Piranha|official]] cases.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Andymii}} Per all; a nicely crafted argument. I just find it funny that we are now debating over scientific terminology in a wiki about talking mushrooms and turtle kings.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Per proposal. (I also notice a bit of support due to the inadvertent spread of misinformation - "Beta" is rightfully considered a misused term as well, but I really do think a better label than "Beta elements" should be considered since it's a somewhat similar situation.)
#{{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}} Per all.
#{{User|Binarystep}} <s>my younger self would hate me for this</s> Per all.
#{{User|Lumastar}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Do nothing====
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place.  Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the [[Template:Character infobox]] is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. [[Excess Express]] passengers, [[Mario Kart 8]] racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances.  In the [[Goomba]] example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions.  What about the Goombas in [[Goomba Village]] or [[Rogueport]] or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas.  You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per DrBaskerville.


====Comments====
====Comments====
@SmokedChili: We ''can'' make an exception, but it's going to break consistency, and it won't be unreasonable to assume it's another species (just how people assumed all those [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark-eyed_junco dark-eyed juncos] were separate species), and, besides, Nintendo was ''very'' wrong about terminology before (most blatantly, the most egregious and irresponsible usage of "remix" I've ever seen in official media: ''Super Smash Bros. 4''). {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:09, 5 June 2015 (EDT)


Commenting on the Shady Paratroopa part, I think we should just use the most basic enemy and say its a derivative (or whatever word we decide on using) of Koopa Troopa. {{User|Magikrazy}}
==Removals==
:I actually feel like it'd be better to say it's a derivative of both Shady Koopa and Paratroopa, rather than listing derivatives of derivatives on the most basic pages, at that makes for some potentially unwieldy lists. - {{User|Walkazo}}
''None at the moment.''
::Per. [[Spiked Gloomba]]s can be derived from both Spiked Goombas and Gloombas, easy to list it as derived from ''both''. {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:50, 7 June 2015 (EDT)


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Super Mario Land 1 and 2 confirmed apart of the ''main series'' by Nintendo: Super Mario wiki should change accordingly===
===Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject===
For years it has been debated whether Nintendo considered the Super Mario Land games apart of the main Mario series or not. Super Mario Wiki, and rightfully so, chose that the Super Mario Land games are not apart of the main Mario series but rather considered its own series most likely because of the Nintendo sources below.
These past months, there have been some remakes that share titles with the games they're remaking. This has led to a few new articles with titles ending with "([Title] for [system])", such as [[Scrapbook (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch)|Scrapbook (''Super Mario RPG'' for Nintendo Switch)]] and [[Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch)|Gold Medal (''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' for Nintendo Switch)]]. However, this long-winded double-disambiguation format is not always strictly necessary, and both of these example articles fall outside of the specific use case [[MarioWiki:NAME]] recommends using this format in. There isn't a Scrapbook in the original ''Super Mario RPG'', and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door''. These are not cases where "two different games share the same title but appear on different consoles and the identifier '''needs''' to distinguish between them" (emphasis added).
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzERrLY-_9s <br>
[http://videogamemm.com/main/sites/default/files/images/DSCN1748.preview.JPG]
 
As one can see, Nintendo did not include the land games as part of the main Mario series titles during Mario's 25th anniversary 5 years ago. This has lead people such as myself to believe that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of their own series. However, as of May 29, 2015. Nintendo has updated Mario's 30th anniversary site to include all the main series Mario titles. In this list is Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. As shown, this is included in both the American and Japanese versions of the site.
 
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/ <br>
http://supermario.nintendo.com/#/history/
 
Due to this confirmation by Nintendo, all articles on Super Mario Wiki should be changed to fit this new information. Such articles as the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario Series'']] articles should be changed to add the two Land games, and articles such as ''[[Super Mario Land (series)|Super Mario Land Series]]'' articles should most likely be deleted entirely due to their interference of the first two Super Mario Land games being apart of the main Mario series. Other changes being the chronological order of Mario titles. An example being, changing "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." To. "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth installment in the Super Mario series."


These things might change from time to time, but it's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. This is why the Super Mario Land games should now officially be considered apart of the main Mario series by Super Mario wiki.
I propose a change to the naming policy to explicitly discourage using this disambiguation format in such cases. If the game title alone is enough to specify the subject, including the system in the article title is unnecessary and awkward. Those details belong in the article itself, not the title.


'''Proposer''': {{User|thenintendostooge}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|JanMisali}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support change====
#{{User|thenintendostooge}} Per my proposal. Due to the recent confirmation by Nintendo themselves, the wiki should have articles changed to fit this new confirmation.
#{{User|JanMisali}} As proposer.
#{{User|Aokage}} More recent stuff takes precedence. It doesn't really make sense to exclude the Land games from the main series, anyway.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Erring on this for the time being. We get the counter-arguments, but it's usually clear from the article's body itself that the content is exclusive to a given remake of a video game that happens to hold a similar name, and it's not like we even apply these nametags consistently anyways--if a thing has a more specific name that isn't already shared with something else, like [[Hottest Dog]] or [[Goomboss Battle]], we don't append these "<name> for <console>" tags. As it stands, if you ''need'' the title to clarify it's exclusive to a remake, then something's probably wrong in the article itself.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Trim! Trim the excess!
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all. And uh, sorry for accidentally roasting this proposal with my comment lol.
#{{user|Dive Rocket Launcher}} I find it strange that this additional disambiguation is used for version-exclusive content ''only'' if the article already needs a distinguisher. [[Nostalgic Tunes]]'s title doesn't have to clarify that it's exclusive to the TTYD remake specifically, so why does [[Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch)|Gold Medal]] need to? <s>Or maybe we need to go the Nintendo route and call it "Gold Medal in the ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' game for the Nintendo Switch family of systems"</s>
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per Camwoodstock and Dive Rocket Launcher.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all for nintendo switch
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Better to shorten the titles than to add unnessarily long parentheticals. No need to disambiguate when the subject only appears in one version. The "(<title> for <console>)" parenthetical should only be used for subjects with different pages for each version, like [[100m (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Wii)]].
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all</s>


====Oppose====
====Oppose change====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - While the 30th anniversary stuff is more recent, the fact that the 25th anniversary excluded the ''SML'' games shouldn't be ignored, and it should be kept in mind that unlike the ''[[Super Mario History 1985-2010]]'' booklet (which is more complete than the linked-to poster and video), the 30th anniversary stuff leaves out all the remakes (i.e. ''SMAS'' and the ''SMA'' series), and the US version of the website also leaves out ''Lost Levels''. Plus, neither celebration included [[Super_Mario_(series)#Ports.2C_remakes.2C_and_downloadable_content|all the random ''SMB'' remakes and whatnot]], whereas ''we'' '''do''' need to take everything into account, from the remakes to the conflicting and ever-changing stances Nintendo takes on its material, and then organize them in the way that makes the most sense. And I still think it makes more sense to keep the ''SML'' games separate in History sections, templates and categories (this is actually a big change with far-reaching consequences being proposed here: not just [[Super Mario (series)]] and a few articles' opening lines), given how different the series is, its historic separation from the rest of the games, and most of all, the fact that the series straddles both ''SM'' and ''[[Wario Land (series)|Wario Land]]'' (awkward at the best of times, but it'd be worse if no bridge series is used or acknowledged). And for all we know, the 35th anniversary will be back to separating them anyway. But I ''do'' think the ''SM'' series page should include ''SML'' (and ''Yoshi's Island'') somehow, like how it's got the remakes listed separately - but certainly not ''instead'' of the [[Super Mario Land (series)|''SML'' series page]], especially considering that ''WL:SML3'' and ''VB:WL'' definitely '''aren't''' ''SM'' material, yet should still be grouped with the first two games ''somewhere'', as well as in appropriate History sections (same reason why [[Super Mario Advance (series)|''SMA'' gets its own series page]], despite being mostly part of ''SM'' and otherwise part of [[Yoshi (series)|''Yoshi'']]).
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - "There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door" ...that is precisely ''why'' this is needed, or else it's confusing as to why something that isn't in the actual, original game is identified as though it is.
#{{User|ShyGuy8}} Per Walkazo
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per Doc. It doesn't make it more clear, it's just confusing because it implies it's in the original game.
#{{User|1337star}} The ''Super Mario Land'' games are incredibly distinct from the "main" ''Mario'' games, mostly by dint of being developed by [[Gunpei Yokoi]]/Nintendo R&D1 rather than Miyamoto/Nintendo EAD, and our articles should reflect that. Otherwise, per Walkazo.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per Walkazo, in the comments and in the vote.
#{{User|Lumastar}} Per all. While they are platformers with similar gameplay, the ''Land'' games are unique from other ''Mario'' platformers at the end of the day.


====Comments====
====Comments====
@Walkazo. Potential change does not warrant the act of keeping something the same. The wiki is to be based on current viewpoints of Nintendo which is the lore creator. It's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. If we were to not follow Nintendo's viewpoint, any viewpoint could be established based on the person's own imagination. "What if Nintendo decides to officially change Birdo to Ostro to avoid confusion?" This is irrelevant as it is based on what Nintendo finds true and not true. "If" cannot be a factor of whether or not we apply the land games or not. That would be based on our own assumptions and our assumptions are endless. We must use Nintendo's current viewpoint to stay relevant in the Mario franchise. If not the wiki becomes outdated with old information. {{unsigned|Thenintendostooge}}
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I disagree. "Gold Medal (''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'')" is not a name that implies the subject appears in the GameCube game ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door''; that would be "Gold Medal (''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' for Nintendo GameCube)". All the "(''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'')" identifier suggests is that the subject appears in ''some'' game with that title. The body of the article can specify which game. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
:My point isn't that Nintendo ''might'' change their minds again, but rather, that they really doesn't give a crap about "lore", "true"ness or keeping its stories straight when it comes to ''Mario'': they flip-flop about stuff all the time and information is often inconsistent, and as a result, the only way to maintain easy, logical organization is for the wiki to think for ourselves sometimes, like with splitting, merging and grouping enemies based on facts other than plain names, or deciding on how to organize our game pages. For in-universe stuff like the Kooplaings' paternity, our hands are tied and we need to give the new story prominence (but still mention the old story), but this is a different matter: as long as we acknowledge on all the relevant pages that Nintendo currently considers ''SML'' 1 & 2 as part of the ''SM'' series, and didn't before, whether or not we follow up with shuffling History sections, categories, lists and templates is up to us, based on whether we think it will or won't be a better way to present and organize the information. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:Common sense dictates the game title refers to the original, not the George Lucas'd Special Edition (that verbiage may be cruel, but I'll stand by it). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:26, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
 
::Would you recommend moving [[Switch (Donkey Kong)|Switch (''Donkey Kong'')]] to "Switch (''Donkey Kong'' for Game Boy)" then? Or [[Floor (Mario Bros.)|Floor (''Mario Bros.'')]] to "Floor (''Mario Bros.'' for arcade)"? {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:33, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Whether Nintendo cares about the Mario canon or not is not for us to decide. We can mention how Nintendo used to not consider the Land games being apart of the main series, but we must also tell the reader Nintendo's current stand point. An example being starwars. The lore is changing all the time, however, the star wars wiki does not keep the old lore as canon. It mentions how it used to be canon, but supports the current standpoint of lucas film if we like it or not. There is much Mario lore that Nintendo has dropped that has been official in the past. This is not a situation like the koopalings where the creator of Mario says they are not Bowsers kids, but this is the whole company of Nintendo saying that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of the main series. Both in Japan, and all over the World. I know it sounds like a lot of work for us to have to update so many articles. If there is official information with no way to disprove it, it CANNOT be denied. All official Mario information must be used in Mario wiki. One could argue that the past has more info, but that does not make it relevant. Over time things become outdated and it is Nintendo that updates it. We must accept what Nintendo updates. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
:::[[Floor (Mario Bros.)]] is a bad example; "Floor (Mario Bros. for arcade)" implies that it ''only'' appears in the arcade original, yet it actually appears in ''all'' versions of ''Mario Bros.'', so it being called just "Floor (Mario Bros.)" is actually justified. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:45, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
 
::::But it ''doesn't'' appear in [[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|the original]]. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:46, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
@Walkazo - I'm not completely confident in either choice right now, but remakes/rereleases were never a necessary mention in official celebrations since it's understood that they're not exactly the original titles (we certainly don't count them as such, either), so I'm not sure why they're factored in the counter-argument... (I must say, ''Super Mario 3D Land'' makes sense with its namesake included.) [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:54, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
:::::...the ''lesser known'' one, to the point that its identifier is "(Game & Watch)" instead of simply "(game)" that's attached to the arcade version? I feel like if there were floors in the G&W game, such an article is more likely to be called something like "Floor (Mario Bros. for Game & Watch)" simply for how well-known and widespread the arcade version is in comparison. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:56, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
 
::::::Therefore, it is not always reasonable to assume that a title without specifying system always refers to "the original". {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 21:02, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
@LinkTheLefty- Indeed, the remakes have never been mentioned to be apart of the main Super Mario titles. As we all know, Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not remakes of any main series Mario game. Unless someone has any evidence to prove that Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not apart of the main series, and since Nintendo has stated they are apart of the main series as of now, it is only right to have Super Mario wiki state the same. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
:::::::My impression of the (<game> for <system>) identifier is to use it when one feature appears in one version of a title, but not in another version (or is different in another version), and when it's identical in both versions (or multiple versions), just (<game>) may be used as normal. [[Special:Diff/4035332|this revision]] justifies the (<game> for <system>) for consistency with article such as [[100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS)]] - which would have to have such a name because [[100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Wii U)]] also exists. This kind of identifier is also used after [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|this proposal]] has passed in which to opt out the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier in favor of the shorter (Super Mario RPG) one, since the remake is simply called "Super Mario RPG" and enemies with the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier clearly appear in both games; with (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) being used for features that weren't in the SNES original, and presumably using (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) for features that weren't in the Switch remake. {{User:Arend/sig}} 21:20, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
 
::::::::Yes, that does appear to be the current way it's being used. The premise of this proposal is to discourage this in cases where it's not strictly necessary, as it makes the article titles longer and less convenient for little to no benefit. This practice of specifying that a subject is exclusive to a later game isn't used consistently anyway (see [[Switch (Donkey Kong)|Switch (''Donkey Kong'')]]), and as the proposal states it falls outside the use case that [[MarioWiki:NAME]] recommends using this format in. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 09:00, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
:My point is that what works for Nintendo for their celebration stuff doesn't necessarily work for us, since they're cherry-picking lists of showy platformers while we're trying to document every single game and present all that info in the clearest way possible. They already cut out plenty of remakes and obscure games that we can't, and they don't need to worry about awkward things like ''SML'' and ''SML2'' having a direct sequel (''WK:SML3'') that's also the start of a separate series, and another followup that never got finished (''VB Mario Land'') and wouldn't've fit in either ''SM'' or ''WL'' anyway. As long as we're basing out decisions on facts, we're allowed to make judgment calls when splitting, merging or reclassifying iffy enemy situations and whatnot, and similarly, we're also allowed to think outside the box a bit when it comes to dealing with iffy series situations. Like I said in my vote, the first two ''SML'' series games should be acknowledged on [[Super Mario (series)]] (that page is missing a lot of remakes too, but I digress), but they should remain separate when it comes to overall wiki organization. (On a side note, my guess is that ''SM3DL'' is the reason why the games are included this time around, unlike in 2010, although besides the name, like every other ''SM'' game, it has nothing to do with ''SML'' or its sequel at all.) - {{User|Walkazo}}
:::::That ignores that the arcade one was ''in development'' first, the G&W one just beat it to the release punch on account of being simpler to program and manufacture. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
::Yeah, you do have a point in how Nintendo cannot celebrate all Mario games they acknowledge into one anniversary game, or they'll be here all day. But that they picked Super Mario Land out of all games alongside games like Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and even the forgotten Super Mario Bros. 2 does feel significant. As of now, however, I'm still supporting still holding out how Nintendo really treats Super Mario Land. This is a rather big change that will affect the corresponding history section, so I feel like acting carefully is the best decision to make when it comes to this. Still, Super Mario Land being placed alongside the other major games still means something... {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:48, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
::::::Do you have a source for that? If so, you should put that source on the ''Mario Bros.'' (game) article. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 09:21, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
 
:::::::Considering it's been repeatedly said Miyamoto created Luigi for the arcade game and the G&W games were created without his involvement, it seems pretty self-explanatory. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 10:22, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
Then when do you propose is the right time? Nintendo did say that they would talk more about Mario's 30th anniversary during E3 2015, so maybe till then? I do not think we should wait to long on this. We cannot wait another 10 years to see if Nintendo still counts the land games as apart of the main series because that would make this wiki outdated. Although it is very understandable to be questioning if Nintendo will keep it apart in the future or not, it is very important to keep the wiki up to date on Nintendo's standpoint. We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding. If not we would not have a wiki based on Nintendo's Mario, but rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be. I know it is a lot of work and a huge overhaul for the wiki. Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair. The sooner we start editing, the more our readers know more about this information. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}


:I'm on the fence be. If this Super Mario Land categorization feels isolated, in other words, continues to feel discourse, as I said, it's a lot of work. I'd wait for perhaps one or two more years (not ten, where did you get that figure from?)jointed from the mainstream games, more so than Super Mario Bros. 2, this work we're proposing would essentially be a waste of time and effort for our editors. And no editor would like that. I think the categorization works as it does, although I do admit that the organization is still an issue, ''but'', logical and convenient organization sometimes works over company ideals, especially when the company can be all over the place with the Mario games. I don't think you've really refuted 'kazo's points though, as you've just reiterated what you said earlier.
Only tangentially related, but why ''are'' the three [[Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch)|Gold]] [[Gold Medal (Super Paper Mario)|Medal]] [[Gold Medal (Yoshi Topsy-Turvy)|items]] split anyways? Sure, they all function differently, but it seems like a fairly generic concept all things considered, and we don't split articles like [[Apple]]s just because they happen to work differently across games. And then [[Medal]] is ''also'' split up even further, but makes no mention of Gold Medals? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:52, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
:Have badges ever been merged with other items? As far as I can tell, basically every badge from the first two games has its own article, even ones that are clearly related to and similar to items in other games ([[Power Plus (badge)]] and [[Power Plus (Super Paper Mario)]] for example). [[File:Modern Rocky Wrench SM-k.png|35px|link=]] [[User:Dive Rocket Launcher|Dive]] [[User talk:Dive Rocket Launcher|Rocket]] [[Special:Contributions/Dive Rocket Launcher|Launcher]] 02:16, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
::This reminds me to back when [[Talk:Cog (obstacle)#Merge Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) and Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) into this page and move to "Cog"|this failed proposal]] tried to merge [[Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!)]] and [[Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)]] to [[Cog (obstacle)]], even though the former two are collectables and the latter one is an obstacle or platform. I had suggested in my oppose vote to merge the former two in a new article "{{Fake link|Cog (item)}}" instead (which I stand by after finding out there's [[Gear Up|a mission]] in ''[[Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon]]'' where gears had to be collected, which would also fit perfectly for a potential "Cog (item)" page), but proposer Super Mario RPG never added an option for such a thing despite many others agreeing that it would be a good idea. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:30, June 3, 2024 (EDT)


:"We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding."
<s>This might just be the most unanimously opposed proposal in Mario Wiki history. No offense to the proposer or anything, but no matter how good this sounded in their head, it would never work out in real life.</s> [[File:Bowsersm64.png|33px]] [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) [[File:BowserNSMBU.png|35px]] 19:36, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
:Nintendo's understanding is putting the Super Mario Land games in the same series as Super Mario series. This is the only evidence in favor of reorganizing the info, and we have several reasons to keep Super Mario Land as separate: very disjointed, obscure game, hardly any reappearances from enemies to worlds to music in the future games, and that it was left out of an anniversary game that was very limited in itself does mean something. This is why I'd rather wait and see any future actions of what Nintendo might do to the Super Mario Land series.
: ??? Did you mean to post this on the above proposal? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:09, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
 
::Uh, yeah. Whoops. [[File:Bowsersm64.png|33px]] [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) [[File:BowserNSMBU.png|35px]] 10:25, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
:"Rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be"
:::We couldn't find if the "rename the wiki" proposal is the proposal with the most opposes, but we can tell you right now [[Talk:Alien (Club Nintendo)#ANTI-ALIEN ALARM!!! (Delete this article)|it'll ''never'' have the most opposition by percentage]]! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:54, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
:No, we're not saying that we're writing the Mario series as how we interpret; we're saying that we and Nintendo have different methods of ''organization'', and Nintendo hasn't had this problem because they aren't and, so far, never required to cover the Mario series in the same scope as us.
::::[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66#Forbid the use of images without captioning them|You sure there aren't better options?]] {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:59, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
 
:::::We'd argue that the Alien (Club Nintendo) example is funnier just because we opposed it out of the gate despite ''being the creator of the proposal'', whereas the Images proposal lost its vote via means of retracting it after having been talked out of it. The latter at least had (past tense) a vote--the former had none, ever. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:22, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
:" Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair."
::::::I don't think [[Talk:Toad Brigade#TPP: Toad Brigade in SMS or not?|this one]] ever had a supporting vote either. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 20:49, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
:We shouldn't be ignoring it, but my biggest problem with this proposal is changing long-established structure because "it appeared in a Mario anniversary game". Of course, that game is fairly significant, but I don't think it proves a lot. I did say it meant something for Super Mario Land to appear alongside the bigger games, but so far, it's one game. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:44, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:::::::[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Include physical appearance in an infobox|This]] is another example. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:57, June 5, 2024 (EDT)
 
Obscurity is not an excuse and can be subjective based on the person. One could argue that Super Mario bros 2 (U.S.A) is too obscure to be considered a main series Mario title, though we all know it is. Another example being Super Mario Sunshine. Very different environment, no standard Mario enemies (Koopas, Goombas, etc), and a very different gameplay mechanic involving F.L.U.D.D. Although these two games are very different from other main series Mario titles, they are still apart of the main series. Even with their mass differences, they all keep the same design, they are platformers. Super Mario land 1 and 2 are both platformers that follow heavily on the 2d Mario aspect. Mario still grabs mushrooms, still defeats enemies, still fights bosses, and completes levels in similar manner to the other Mario games.
 
This is not a simple anniversary game, this is an entire celebration recognizing that the Super Mario Land games are apart of the main Super Mario series. Posters, commercials, and celebration videos will all recognize this. For Nintendo to recognize these games for Mario's 30th anniversary celebration is huge. Saying it is all apart of one small game is a little extravagant. Please don't take this as rude in anyway, as I don't want to offend anyone, but fear of a lot of work shows laziness. Although it is a lot of work, it is our job to tell our readers. If it will take 1-2 years to tell our readers. We can at least delete absolutes, such as "Super Mario Land is not considered apart of the Super Mario series." As shown on the Super Mario Land (series) article.
 
"not ten, where did you get that figure from?"
What I said was not actually sarcasm. My estimates are based on when Mario's 40th anniversary occurs. As Nintendo will most likely bring back up the main series on Mario's 40th anniversary, it makes sense for me to think that the wiki would wait that long to see if Nintendo confirmed it again. You could argue that I could have just said 5 years based on Mario's 35th anniversary. But the chances of Nintendo celebrating this big again are more low and is not as big as a 40th anniversary. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
 
:Well, a lot of the weird ''SMS'' things got incorporated into the both subsequent ''SM'' games and the series at large, like Petey Piranha, Bowser Jr., Toadsworth, Gooper Blooper, Piantas, Cataquacks, FLUDD references and Isle Delfino locations in spinoffs. ''SMS'' also included a few regular enemies, like Bob-ombs, Bullet Bills, Boos, Chain Chomps, Pokeys, Bloopers, Cheep Cheep, a Monty Mole boss, Peach as the damsel-in-distress, and Bowser as the final boss. By contrast, ''SML'' has Mario, (Super) Mushrooms, Star(men) and ''nothing'' else, with nothing recurring save for Tatanga in ''SML2'' and Daisy reappearing in spinoffs only, with possible but unconfirmed Sarasaland locations to go along with her sometimes. ''SML2'' is better off in the using-recurring-enemies department, even a bit better off than ''SMS'', but it still doesn't ''add'' anything to the ''SM'' series, unlike ''SMS'' which was clearly embraced as from the start. The only thing it did was add Wario to the series, and the first thing ''he'' did was launch his own spinoff series with ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3'', which really just emphasizes why subsuming ''SML'' into ''SM'' is a bad idea: it has as much to do with ''WL'' as the ''SM'' games, and reflecting that bridge existence by keeping it separate from both is the least awkward way to try and deal with it (with ''WL:SML3'' either being with the rest of ''WL'' or the rest of ''SML'' depending on the content in question - but it certainly wouldn't do to put it with ''SM'', ever). You can ignore ''SML'' and ''SML2'' and the rest of the series will stay exactly the same (and so far, we ''have'' ignored it without issue), but the same can't be said for any of the other non-remake games; even ''Lost Levels'' added new stuff, like Luigi's different jump mechanics. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::''Obscurity is not an excuse and can be subjective based on the person.'' While it is true that obscurity can be subjective, what is generally known is that the Super Mario Land are a far deviant from any Mario game, and it rarely gets mentioned in other Mario games, hence why it's perfectly appropriate to say they're obscure. The term "obscure" is a relative term regardless, and using it to describe the Super Mario Land series in comparison with other Super Mario games is reasonable considering that, as Walkazo has stated, has been barely referenced throughout the entire realm of the Mario series whereas the rest of the Super Mario games have at one point. The Super Mario platformers are a highly popular and well-known brand, the Super Mario Land, while it could be about as popular, isn't remarkable as well known as any other entry of the Mario series, and is extremely deviant from it, is fine to be its own separate thing. Walkazo has already proposed a solution to this muddy categorizing and I agree with her on using that. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:15, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 
Although Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have had less of an impact with less references, to say the Land games did nothing to add on to the Super Mario series in the future is false. Such example as the director of Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Super Mario 3D Land, in an interview with IGN. Koichi Hayashida (the director) said that when Mario shoots a fireball in Super Mario 3D Land it bounces off the wall. He said this was taken from Super Mario Land as he had so much fun having the "Super Ball" bounce off the wall in the game. Interview can be read below.
 
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/12/making-mario-magic-the-interview
 
Even easter eggs have occurred from Super Mario Land. An example being in Super Mario 3D Land, one can see a flying saucer believed to be Tatanga flying through the sky. Easter egg can be seen in video below.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smwnedFs8I8
 
Impact cannot be a factor whether or not the Land games are included. If Nintendo refers to the Land games as part of the main series then it should be so. Development team can also not be used as a counter argument because many other Nintendo franchises have done the same. Although the Land games were not made by EAD, that is not a counter argument. The Legend of Zelda games oracle of ages and oracle of seasons were made by Capcom, yet Nintendo refers to them as apart of the main Zelda series. If one could use the argument of impact, then oracle of ages and seasons should not be apart of the main Zelda series because it has had little to no references in future games. Another example being Metroid. Many teams have worked on Metroid such as EAD, Retro Studios, and Team Ninja. Many of these arguments cannot be used against why the Land games should not be included.{{User|Thenintendostooge}}
 
btw, @Walkazo- I can already tell we are going to be big rivals on this wiki XD.
 
:That is hardly any influence to the Mario series other than an extremely minor nod and a speculative Easter Egg. Hardly anything from Super Mario Land 1 & 2 has been put in later Mario games, down right to the music. Walkazo is correct: Super Mario Land is a heavily disjointed Mario game with no impact in most Mario games. It's great that it has its section in an anniversary game, showing that Nintendo hasn't ''completely'' ignored it, but based on how little impact it has made, it might not even exist. :/ No, we editors aren't pretending it didn't exist or it's a "fake" Mario game.
 
:In this case, impact on the entire series is a good indicator on how the Land games should be grouped. Nintendo hasn't had any official word on it, so we're left to organize with our own standards. Unlike Mario, ''The Legend of Zelda'' games have an established canon, and the Oracle of Ages and Seasons games are included within the official timeline; ''all'' Mario games are ambiguously canon, even Hotel Mario and Mario is Missing, even though those aren't acknowledged by Nintendo. We're not using developer teams as an argument here (except for l337star, who brought it up, but that's a reason the games are so distinct rather than "it's developed by these guys, so it's a different game"; his argument still has problems, but it's not my main thrust) and I wasn't intending to either. As we stated, Nintendo doesn't need to cover the Mario series in the same scope as we do. As for your argument "fear of a lot of work shows laziness", you're oversimplifying it. What I'm arguing is this proposal is, as I stated earlier is "this proposal is changing long-established structure because 'it appeared in a Mario anniversary game'." It's not a very compelling reason for me or other editors apparently, to start devoting hard work. We will devote hard work to wikis, if you see from our previous proposals. Finally, the final argument is how we have Super Mario Land 3, which is the first game in a new nonMario series. You haven't proposed any solutions to that potential problem if we have the Super Mario Land games integrated into the same section as Super Mario Bros. 2. It might be convenient for Nintendo to select only Super Mario Land 1 & 2 to showcase that "yeah, they exist", but we have to consider all three Super Mario Lands and that's a problem for us.
 
:In the meantime, it's good you're here for a discussion because it's not very often we have a user willing to go on long debates. :){{User:Mario/sig}} 00:49, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
 
I should be in bed, but I love my Mario talk so here comes another novel XD.
 
Once again, influence is subjective. How much we say somthing influences something else to determine if it fits with something is always debatable. Either way, influence should not be a counter argument. Something could be influential or not at all, but that does not make it any less relevant. Yes the Land games have many elements that are different. But at it's core it still plays very much like any standard Mario game.
 
"The Legend of Zelda games have an established canon, and the Oracle of Ages and Seasons games are included within the official timeline; all Mario games are ambiguously canon." This is not true if Nintendo themselves say Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are canon. Which they are. According to the Hyrule historia, it says that Nintendo may change the Zelda timeline at any time. So Zelda does not have a completely established canon either.
 
As for a solution for Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3. We can treat it like we do with Yoshi's island : Super Mario world 2. We obviously do not have a "Super Mario World series" article. We have a Yoshi series article and "Super Mario World 2" is in it. We can just leave Super Mario Land 3 (Wario Land) in the Wario Land series article and delete the Super Mario Land Series article to put the Super Mario Land games in the main series article. There would be no need for their own section as other main series Mario titles are series with in themselves as well. The Super Mario Galaxy series, the New Super Mario Bros series, the Super Mario Bros series, the 3D series, etc. Despite these all being a series with in a series, there is no need for a "Super Mario Galaxy" series article because it is apart of the main series.
 
Glad you like having me debate. If there is no one to challenge anything, things don't always progress. That is why I, the biggest Mario nerd is here. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
:Just as long as we nerds have a civilized debate, I'm fine for that. In fact, I need to go to bed sometime soon. I really don't like one-sided proposals because I fear group-think may take over, and that's bad. :)
 
:Influence is subjective, but also relative. We measure influence on how it has impacted future Mario games in terms of appearances and mechanics in later games; let's work from that. Super Mario Land, in that definition, has little influence on future Mario games. Its soundtrack (like its first level), is catchy, but unrecognizable. The invincibility theme is the can-can theme. We have sea dragons shooting fireballs, zombie Pionpis from the Chai Kingdom; the games look and sound very exotic. Oh, Super Mario Land is still a relevant game, don't get me wrong, but it's an obscure game by Mario standards; if it wasn't relevant, we wouldn't be having this argument! Anyhow, why can't we use influence as an argument? We sometimes use consistency and logic for our approach for organization, and Super Mario Land 1 & 2, being very different games, we use that kind of approach, especially with Nintendo's very minimalist approach with the Mario canon.
 
:Speaking of Mario canon, I haven't stated that Super Mario Land 1 & 2 aren't canon. I meant to the say that the ''entire'' Mario series, subseries and all, [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|has no established canon]], so ''all'' games/comics/TV shows/film have ambiguous canon, although some subseries have their own set of continuity, most notably, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi. Meanwhile, while ''Link'' timeline is, of course, subject to change as Nintendo sees fit, it's still far more established than the Mario canon, so it's clearer which game is canon and which game isn't. Again, subject to change, but it's unlikely Nintendo is going to overhaul ''The Legend of Zelda'' 's rather convoluted timeline any time soon. It's a different argument from what we're talking here, though, but just throwing it out, and I'm not going to go further into that one. It's in another castle.
 
:The issue is that we can easily separate the two games; two games isn't quite enough to make it a series while three games are. Two games are simply a game and its sequel. Your proposal would be an easy solution if Super Mario Land were two games, but it's three games, so Super Mario Land 3 has to be included with the first two games because of the title (it's a horrible title, I agree) and not to confuse our readers. I understand where you're coming from, though, as I do want to incorporate Super Mario Land into the main Mario games because they are indeed 2D Mario platformers, and Nintendo has never acknowledged them as spinoffs, so perhaps they are ''technically'' mainstream games, but I'm also uncomfortable on defining them as "mainstream" games because of their little impact and very self-contained continuity. They do look like weird bootlegs from another planet if you think about it, due to how it's been pushed to obscurity and hardly any Mario game, if at all, references them, and it's only now that they've been actually mentioned in an anniversary game. {{User:Mario/sig}} 02:36, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
 
===Ban the term beta<nowiki>*</nowiki> and rename pages in the Beta namespace===
 
[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_36#Correct_use_of_the_term_.22Beta.22 There was a proposal] suggesting to change the name of the "beta elements" page to something more accurate. Despite being close to succeeding, it was vetoed by the admins with the reason being that "it's not meant to be taken literally" and "it works".
 
Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why
 
1: '''It's a bad, innacurate term''': "Beta" in programming language refers to a specific state of development, a prerelease build that's feature-complete and is being bugtested. It's not even a particularly representative term: the beta period happens near the end of development, long after ideas suggested in pre-production are shot down, games are overhauled, unique characters and objects are removed... etc, which is what the "beta" pages usually cover.
 
Some may argue that "language evolves" and that "beta as it is used here is not meant to be taken literally", but I don't think it's a strong arguments. Sites focused on the documentation of unused/prelease content such as Unseen 64 and TCRF have mocked the usage of "beta" as a catch-all term and lower-quality ressources that use it that way. Other fan wikis like SegaRetro also [http://segaretro.org/Beta do not use] "beta" as a generic term. Fact is, "beta" is nowhere near accepted in professional circles and that's what the wiki claims to be - a professional ressource. Furthermore, why would you use an inacurate and potentially misleading term when dozens of accurate, non-misleading alternatives exist?
 
2: '''It leads to muddy, vague writing.''' Whenever you see "beta" used on other pages, its catch-all nature muddies the information. "[[Dread Kong|Dread Kong did not exist in the beta version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]" - nevermind that referring to a singular "beta version" betrays a gross ignorance of how game development works, what's the "beta" in question? A preview in a magazine? A proto leaked on the internet? Something suggested in pre-production that was rejected and never programmed into the game? Banning the generic beta  and forcing editors to be more specific (as opposed to the current [[Mariowiki:Good Writing|wishy-washy stance]] that "we know it's bad, but we still use it because reasons I guess") will improve the quality of the information.
 
3: '''The "grandfather clause" is never a good excuse:''' Similar to this case, "sub-species" is a long-used term that was found to be innacurate and cause inconsistencies, and the current community concensus is that it should be replaced despite its longstanding nature. "It's what we've always used" is not a good refutation when the usage of a term is proven to lower the credibility and quality of the information, as is the case here.
 
As a replacement, I propose beta pages to be renamed '''List of prerelease and unused content'''. "Prelease" perfectly encansuplates the varieties of content that's not present in the final code, and it's wordier, yes, but not overly so. Generic mention of "beta" should not be robotically replaced with a generic "In prelease/unused content of [game]", but rather with a specific term ("magazine preview", "prototype", "unused"), with a piped link to the "List of..." pages.
 
(<nowiki>*</nowiki>: This of course doesn't apply to actual beta builds, but as none of the specific builds documented here are specifically said to be real betas, that precision is kinda irrelevant.)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 
====Move beta pages to "List of prerelease and unused content" and ban the generic "beta" in mainspace articles====
#{{User|Glowsquid}}
#{{User|thenintendostooge}} Simply because something works does not make it professional or the most efficient. The simple term beta used on the wiki goes against basic definition and term of the word that is beta.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} "Beta" probably could be validated ''if'' it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal.
#{{User|PowerKamek}}I am okay with this. Beta is a bad term and I think that term may be better. It's a little long, but I like it. Per [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]].
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Okay, I'll let it out: I felt cheated when I saw that veto and I agree that it should've never happened, and ''it should not happen again''. This poorly-handled veto deserves ''all'' the criticism it gets for using administrative powers to shut down legit debate. Anyhow, nonstaff user's opinions aside, by keeping the term "beta" as "a-okay", we're contradicting our own policy, the [[MarioWiki:Good Writing#Frequently misused terms|Good writing's frequently misused terms]]. This policy will cause confusion for newer users by saying it's not okay to use "beta" while in the same time, using that term in the same way. Now, I'm feeling confident to lambast the staff team's reasoning and decision, hear me out. This is the reasoning: ''"'Beta' was never meant to be taken literally as the specific beta version, but as a convenient umbrella term synonymous with 'pre-release'. It works perfectly well as-is; there is no need to change the name.''" This reasoning has several problems. "It's never meant to be taken literally" is dodging the basic argument, that "the terminology has never been a problem in the first place" when that there was an entire proposal about it that garnered massive support (only to be shut down by a handful of people) about the usage of that term. It doesn't matter if we "intended" the term to be "taken literally"; this term certainly confuses, misleads, and misinforms our readers, just as how "subspecies", apparently, is never meant to be taken literally in this wiki. The usage of "beta" as a convenient umbrella term ''is'' the entire problem with that forsaken word. We have a much better umbrella term "pre-release and unused elements" that is not only far superior, but does not flirt with the line into pedantry. *breathes* Okay, pardon my bitter tone, I'm still a bit miffed over that, but I support this proposal as much as the subspecies eradication proposal. They're both about precise and accurate word usage and so the reasoning behind the two should be reasonably similar.
#{{User|Gabumon}} Glowsquid's reasoning makes sense and the proposed change sounds agreeable.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} There's a fine line of difference between being "pedantic" and being "outright wrong" when it comes to terminology, and this clearly falls in the latter case by the reasoning Glowsquid provided. Per Glowsquid and Mario, they've already stated what I was going to say.
#{{User|Yoshi876}} I supported this the last time, I'm supporting it this time. Per all.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
@Mario - I agree with practically everything that has been said on the matter so far, and there's not much for me to add besides the fact that using the term as loosely as Mario Wiki does is definitely looked down upon in certain circles (and indeed, there is still quite a lot of rogue instances of "beta" that require cleaning up regardless of this); however, while I don't feel your sentiments are wrong, it's worth acknowledging that it was a bureaucrat who decided to initiate this second proposal. I believe that counts for something! [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 00:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:That's true. :) However, I feel like if ''I'' attempted a redux like, it might get vetoed. Oh well, I guess you can't win by doing nothing. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:51, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
@Glowsquid, you should probably correct your support header, "prelease" to "prerelease" {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:17, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:It makes for a terrible pun though. http://forum.mariowiki.com/Smileys/default/dk.gif {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 
===Use explanation text to explain pronouns and whatnot in quotes===
Let's take a look, for example, in [[List of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door quotes#TEC-XX|this section of the List of ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' quotes]]. I see that, since [[Princess Peach]] is referenced many times, there are many "you"s linking to her article, and this is ''just'' to indicate that she is the one being referenced. But it doesn't seem right to use links for this purpose, because for what I know they are supposed to support navigation. Plus, since regular articles usually use only one link to some subject (on the first mention), it would be nice to do the same with quotes.
 
So, I propose that, whenever a subject must be identified in a quote (except on the first mention), we use <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Subject">This kind of explanation</span><noinclude> to identify it.
 
So, this quote from ''[[Super Paper Mario]]'':
*"''If [[Merlon|he]] thinks [[Mario|you]] are the hero, [[Mario|you]] probably are. I think...''"
 
Would become:
*"''If <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Merlon">he</span><noinclude> thinks <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Mario">you</span><noinclude> are the hero, <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Mario">you</span><noinclude> probably are. I think...''"
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 16, 2015, at 23:59 GMT.
 
====Support====
#{{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}} Per my proposal.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I really don't see the issue of using links to link to character articles? Adding links to character name certainly doesn't create any problems whatsoever, and what you're doing is basically stripping away the link function, since these two function essentially the same: hovering over a name to show a character's name. I'm not exactly against this, but I see this as a pointless change so I'm just going for the do-nothing option, which is essentially this vote.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - The span stuff is a huge pain to use, where as links are easy and do no harm. The wiki's studded with blue overall (or whatever colours you have your skins set to: not our fault if they links are garish), and cases like the example where "you" gets liked twice shouldn't happen anyway since the first link establishes who it is. Other times, context can tell us who's the subject matter, or perhaps the identity might not matter, just the soundbite itself for the sake of the speakers' character, so even links wouldn't be necessary. Other times, parenthetical context can be provided to explain the quotes, again without links. Overall, it's really not as bad as the proposal makes it out to be.
#{{User|PowerKamek}} That would make sense, but the problem is that the links are showing what characters they mean. In the game, it doesn't show the characters names, but since this is the Mario Wiki, it has more information on everything. I would say, "per all".
 
====Comments====
Perhaps we can compromise by replacing all first instances (in general) with links and then making repeated instances with the explanation text fields? {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:48, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:Even so...what does that do that links can't? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:50, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
::Isn't that accomplishing the same thing with less convenience? It just seems like an unnecessary step to me. What's the downside/negative aspect of having the links in the first place? {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
:::@Baby Luigi: it's less of an eyesore than techno-color links all over the place (and maybe mobile users don't have to worry about accidentally touching them or something). We don't link every text in the gallery pages for that same reason, so maybe we can use those fields instead. However, as Time Turner said, it's another piece of wiki code to memorize and incorporate. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:53, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
::::Techno color links? You mean two colors, blue and black? That's not an eye sore at all. Perhaps we can limit the linking to once per pronoun referral but that's about it. It's not that much of an eyestrain unless this wiki uses the yellow color to link things. I don't know how mobile users work though. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:56, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly what I mean. And what I mean by techno-color links, look at the example in the proposal: two links to Mario's page is a bit ludicrous. If those links are meant to give clarification, then we shouldn't have to solely rely on them; stuff like explanation text wrap exists. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:04, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
::::::I still don't see the problem in that? You're making this a bigger deal than it really is. It's still only two colors, blue and black, and it links just as much as any other article on the wiki does. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:06, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:::::::I was exaggerating myself here in terms of "gaudy links", but yeah, it was hard to tell. Sorry for that. {{User:Mario/sig}} 00:54, 9 June 2015 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 11:00, June 9, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, June 9th, 16:00 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your 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 and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". 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 proposal can be amended as necessary.

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

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

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing, DrippingYellow (ended May 26, 2024)
  • ^Note: Requires action from admins.

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes

Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being dumb, but hear me out.

A few years after this proposal passed, this wiki added a group infobox for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would only be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.

I've come up with two options:

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).

Proposer: Dive Rocket Launcher (talk)
Deadline: June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) First choice per proposal.

Option 2

  1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Second choice per proposal.

Do nothing

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place. Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the Template:Character infobox is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. Excess Express passengers, Mario Kart 8 racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances. In the Goomba example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions. What about the Goombas in Goomba Village or Rogueport or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas. You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per DrBaskerville.

Comments

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject

These past months, there have been some remakes that share titles with the games they're remaking. This has led to a few new articles with titles ending with "([Title] for [system])", such as Scrapbook (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) and Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch). However, this long-winded double-disambiguation format is not always strictly necessary, and both of these example articles fall outside of the specific use case MarioWiki:NAME recommends using this format in. There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. These are not cases where "two different games share the same title but appear on different consoles and the identifier needs to distinguish between them" (emphasis added).

I propose a change to the naming policy to explicitly discourage using this disambiguation format in such cases. If the game title alone is enough to specify the subject, including the system in the article title is unnecessary and awkward. Those details belong in the article itself, not the title.

Proposer: JanMisali (talk)
Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support change

  1. JanMisali (talk) As proposer.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Erring on this for the time being. We get the counter-arguments, but it's usually clear from the article's body itself that the content is exclusive to a given remake of a video game that happens to hold a similar name, and it's not like we even apply these nametags consistently anyways--if a thing has a more specific name that isn't already shared with something else, like Hottest Dog or Goomboss Battle, we don't append these "<name> for <console>" tags. As it stands, if you need the title to clarify it's exclusive to a remake, then something's probably wrong in the article itself.
  3. Shadow2 (talk) Trim! Trim the excess!
  4. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. And uh, sorry for accidentally roasting this proposal with my comment lol.
  5. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) I find it strange that this additional disambiguation is used for version-exclusive content only if the article already needs a distinguisher. Nostalgic Tunes's title doesn't have to clarify that it's exclusive to the TTYD remake specifically, so why does Gold Medal need to? Or maybe we need to go the Nintendo route and call it "Gold Medal in the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door game for the Nintendo Switch family of systems"
  6. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
  7. DrBaskerville (talk) Per Camwoodstock and Dive Rocket Launcher.
  8. EvieMaybe (talk) per all for nintendo switch
  9. SeanWheeler (talk) Better to shorten the titles than to add unnessarily long parentheticals. No need to disambiguate when the subject only appears in one version. The "(<title> for <console>)" parenthetical should only be used for subjects with different pages for each version, like 100m (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Wii).

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all

Oppose change

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - "There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door" ...that is precisely why this is needed, or else it's confusing as to why something that isn't in the actual, original game is identified as though it is.
  2. Scrooge200 (talk) Per Doc. It doesn't make it more clear, it's just confusing because it implies it's in the original game.

Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick I disagree. "Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)" is not a name that implies the subject appears in the GameCube game Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door; that would be "Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo GameCube)". All the "(Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)" identifier suggests is that the subject appears in some game with that title. The body of the article can specify which game. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Common sense dictates the game title refers to the original, not the George Lucas'd Special Edition (that verbiage may be cruel, but I'll stand by it). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:26, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Would you recommend moving Switch (Donkey Kong) to "Switch (Donkey Kong for Game Boy)" then? Or Floor (Mario Bros.) to "Floor (Mario Bros. for arcade)"? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:33, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Floor (Mario Bros.) is a bad example; "Floor (Mario Bros. for arcade)" implies that it only appears in the arcade original, yet it actually appears in all versions of Mario Bros., so it being called just "Floor (Mario Bros.)" is actually justified. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:45, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
But it doesn't appear in the original. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:46, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
...the lesser known one, to the point that its identifier is "(Game & Watch)" instead of simply "(game)" that's attached to the arcade version? I feel like if there were floors in the G&W game, such an article is more likely to be called something like "Floor (Mario Bros. for Game & Watch)" simply for how well-known and widespread the arcade version is in comparison. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:56, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Therefore, it is not always reasonable to assume that a title without specifying system always refers to "the original". jan Misali (talk · contributions) 21:02, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
My impression of the (<game> for <system>) identifier is to use it when one feature appears in one version of a title, but not in another version (or is different in another version), and when it's identical in both versions (or multiple versions), just (<game>) may be used as normal. this revision justifies the (<game> for <system>) for consistency with article such as 100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS) - which would have to have such a name because 100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Wii U) also exists. This kind of identifier is also used after this proposal has passed in which to opt out the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier in favor of the shorter (Super Mario RPG) one, since the remake is simply called "Super Mario RPG" and enemies with the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier clearly appear in both games; with (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) being used for features that weren't in the SNES original, and presumably using (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) for features that weren't in the Switch remake. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 21:20, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Yes, that does appear to be the current way it's being used. The premise of this proposal is to discourage this in cases where it's not strictly necessary, as it makes the article titles longer and less convenient for little to no benefit. This practice of specifying that a subject is exclusive to a later game isn't used consistently anyway (see Switch (Donkey Kong)), and as the proposal states it falls outside the use case that MarioWiki:NAME recommends using this format in. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:00, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
That ignores that the arcade one was in development first, the G&W one just beat it to the release punch on account of being simpler to program and manufacture. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Do you have a source for that? If so, you should put that source on the Mario Bros. (game) article. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:21, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
Considering it's been repeatedly said Miyamoto created Luigi for the arcade game and the G&W games were created without his involvement, it seems pretty self-explanatory. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:22, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

Only tangentially related, but why are the three Gold Medal items split anyways? Sure, they all function differently, but it seems like a fairly generic concept all things considered, and we don't split articles like Apples just because they happen to work differently across games. And then Medal is also split up even further, but makes no mention of Gold Medals? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:52, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Have badges ever been merged with other items? As far as I can tell, basically every badge from the first two games has its own article, even ones that are clearly related to and similar to items in other games (Power Plus (badge) and Power Plus (Super Paper Mario) for example). A Rocky Wrench in volume 45 of Super Mario-kun Dive Rocket Launcher 02:16, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
This reminds me to back when this failed proposal tried to merge Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) and Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) to Cog (obstacle), even though the former two are collectables and the latter one is an obstacle or platform. I had suggested in my oppose vote to merge the former two in a new article "Cog (item)" instead (which I stand by after finding out there's a mission in Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon where gears had to be collected, which would also fit perfectly for a potential "Cog (item)" page), but proposer Super Mario RPG never added an option for such a thing despite many others agreeing that it would be a good idea. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:30, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

This might just be the most unanimously opposed proposal in Mario Wiki history. No offense to the proposer or anything, but no matter how good this sounded in their head, it would never work out in real life. Super Mario 64 promotional artwork MegaBowser64 (talk) Artwork of Bowser in New Super Mario Bros. U 19:36, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

??? Did you mean to post this on the above proposal? Shadow2 (talk) 23:09, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
Uh, yeah. Whoops. Super Mario 64 promotional artwork MegaBowser64 (talk) Artwork of Bowser in New Super Mario Bros. U 10:25, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
We couldn't find if the "rename the wiki" proposal is the proposal with the most opposes, but we can tell you right now it'll never have the most opposition by percentage! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:54, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
You sure there aren't better options? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 18:59, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
We'd argue that the Alien (Club Nintendo) example is funnier just because we opposed it out of the gate despite being the creator of the proposal, whereas the Images proposal lost its vote via means of retracting it after having been talked out of it. The latter at least had (past tense) a vote--the former had none, ever. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:22, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
I don't think this one ever had a supporting vote either. I need more wrenches... Dive Rocket Launcher 20:49, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
This is another example. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:57, June 5, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4254646"