MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>[[File:Proposals.png]]</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear=all>
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removals of previously added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action is taken.
*Any user can support or oppose but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
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 <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==New features==
<h3 style="color:black">Rules</h3>
''None at the moment.''
#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 [[MarioWiki:Writing Guideline|Writing Guideline]] proposals ''must'' include a link to the draft page.
#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.
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
#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 [[MarioWiki:Administrators|administrators]].
#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.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#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.
#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.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an [[MarioWiki:Administrators|administrator]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
#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.
#There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try setting up a [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?board=57.0 collaboration thread on the forums].
#Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|administration]].
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.


<h3 style="color:black">Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format</h3>
==Removals==
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 <u>replace the whole variable including the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". 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.
''None at the moment.''
-----
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]</nowiki>


<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
==Changes==
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for </nowiki>[[MarioWiki:Writing Guideline|Writing Guidelines]] and [[#Talk Page Proposals|Talk Page Proposals]])
===Merge ''Super Mario Bros.'' (film) subjects with their game counterparts===
 
Currently, several articles exist for characters from ''[[Super Mario Bros. (film)|Super Mario Bros.]]'' (1993) that share names with and are to some extent based on corresponding characters from the source material. While from a certain perspective this makes sense (these characters ''are'' substantially different from the characters they're based on), '''no other non-game-compliant ''Mario'' adaptation is given this treatment'''. [[SMW:CANON]] suggests that all official sources should be treated equally, including in cases when these sources contradict each other. I believe that the 1993 film is a very clear case when this applies, and I propose that some if not all of these articles should be merged with their corresponding game characters.
<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
Now, to this one might suggest: "But the characters from the 1993 film really ''are'' canonically not the same in-universe people as their game counterparts! Doesn't that mean they should be covered separately?" The thing is, that's not how this wiki treats different versions of the same character in any other instance. The article [[Donkey Kong]] covers the ''character'' Donkey Kong, including in games where that character is "canonically" [[Cranky Kong]]. [[Paper Mario (character)]] is only considered a separate character from Mario in the very specific case where the two characters coexist alongside each other. Two works of media portraying different iterations of the same character is seemingly always treated as being ''the'' same character, and the coverage of ''Super Mario Bros.'' (1993) is a strange exception to this.
-----
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 "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
The relevant articles are:
* Film characters very directly based on specific characters from the source material:
** [[Mario (film character)]]
** [[Luigi (film character)]]
** [[Yoshi (film character)]]
** [[President Koopa]] (to be potentially merged with [[Bowser]])
** [[King (film character)]] (to be potentially merged with [[Mushroom King]])
* Film characters based more loosely on specific characters from the source material:
** [[Toad (film character)]]
** [[Princess Daisy (film character)]]
** [[Iggy (film character)]] (to be potentially merged with [[Iggy Koopa]])
* Film characters based on enemies from the source material:
** [[Spike (film character)]]
** [[Big Bertha (film character)]]
* Film species based on enemies from the source material:
** [[Goomba (film species)]]
** [[Snifit (film species)]]


__TOC__<!--
'''Proposer''': {{User|JanMisali}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>April 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
====Merge all ''Super Mario Bros.'' (film) subjects with their game counterparts====
#{{User|JanMisali}} First choice, per proposal.
#{{User|Mario}} Echoing my sentiments in my 2016 proposal[https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Remerge_most_Super_Mario_Bros._film_information] a bit (tho I promise to be less grouchy :O}D). Even with the filmmmaker's contrived notion that live action movie Mario is supposed to be a separate entity from Mario from the Mario Kart series, if you work with that logic backward, they're still variants of each other, basically two different takes of the Mario the Super Brother. This can extend for the other characters. That being said, some of the target pages articles are big enough as they are already but I s'pose that's a different problem irrelevant to the logic of these pages.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Keeping the coverage on the same article reflects how they're the same thing. Different entity doesn't necessarily mean different subject. If anything, separate articles on the film characters would set an unwelcome precedent for scattering information of like, let's say, ''Super Mario-kun'' or ''Super Mario Bros. Movie'' counterparts of Mario into separate articles, which we'd want to avoid.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} I think it's best to not be arbitrary with who gets merged or not based on how different they are from their "main" counterpart. Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Maybe I could work with this kind of continuity-based differentiation in a series with, like, ''any'' sense of continuity, but I don't really think the Mario series has that.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We think this makes the most sense, and in the name of consistency, what we do to one, we should probably do to all. Besides, it's not like the 1993 movie is even the first time that a different entity has used the name of a pre-existing entity--though unlike things like [[Galoomba|G(al)oombas]], the 1993 movie incarnations stand alone, with only things like gags in mangas deciding that the movie incarnations are different from the original characters (such as what happened to [[Yoshi (film character)|Yoshi]])--and even in those cases, it's pretty clearly not part of some deep lore for the film itself. <small>We hope this rationale makes sense, anyways? As we write this we're a tad tired, so if you need clarification, just ask politely.</small>
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - I forgot I hadn't voted. I prefer this option. I'd be fine with the other popular option (for now), aside from questioning why Toad is part of the exclusions.


====Merge most of these, but keep Spike and Big Bertha separate from the enemies they're based on====


====Merge most of these, but keep Goomba and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on====


<br>
====Merge most of these, but keep Spike, Big Bertha, Goomba, and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on====
-->
#{{User|JanMisali}} Third choice, per proposal.


<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
====Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate====
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.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Second choice, per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} I agree with merging the more obviously game-inspired characters like Mario and Luigi where the split feels more like a vestige of the wiki's former obsession with its made-up idea of canon, but merging characters like Iggy and Spike where pretty much the only thing in common is the name with (to my knowledge) little indication they're even based on the game characters doesn't feel right. EDIT: I agree with DrippingYellow's comment about how the King and Mushroom King shouldn't be merged though, since their only similarity is that they're both kings, but that can be dealt with in another proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} I'm most hesitant about merging Daisy. As you know, Daisy is pretty much the movie's equivalent of Princess Toadstool, and in a previous concept, was even named Hildy/Heidi/whichever of the two it was. Had that name not been changed to Daisy, many would obviously argue to merge it with [[Princess Peach]] instead. I would also say that it's pretty bizarre to have one of the two bumbling henchmen be based on a Koopaling while the other is based on a random enemy, instead of ''both'' being based on a Koopaling (we got ''seven'' of those guys; they couldn't have called the other henchman "Larry"?); not to mention that this version of Toad was once called Lemmy (''another'' Koopaling).
#{{User|Tails777}} Leaning more on this idea. There are the obvious ones, but I think the ones holding me back from an all out merge are Spike and Big Bertha, as they seem way different compared to what they are supposedly based off of (also the Iggy one feels a bit off to merge with the Koopaling).
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Secondary choice; per proposal.
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} I think I'd rather go with this option, since those particular subjects have too little overlap with their game "counterparts". Besides, how would a carnivorous freshwater fish share clear commonality with an...uncomfortably attractive humanoid being?
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all, Archivist Toadette especially.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall (collectively)
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Say what you will about trying not to separate variations of characters, even in media with notable differences from the "main canon" (i.e. ''[[Super Mario Bros. Super Show|Super Show]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Bros.: Peach-hime Kyūshutsu Dai Sakusen!|Peach-hime Kyūshutsu Dai Sakusen]]''), these characters still have recognizable attributes. Mario, Luigi, and Yoshi certainly fit the bill of mere variations, but others I'm a little more icky on, with this lining up most easily with my opinions. With the film being designed to be a deliberate departure from other Mario material, it makes sense not to merge film characters unless they have significantly overlapping roles with their game counterparts. (e.g. Goombas are still the front-line weaklings, Yoshi is still held captive by Koopa and has a long tongue...)<br>The only merges I entirely disagree with here are the Snifits (who don't shoot bullets at all, and, if I had to guess, had their name chosen just because they "sniff 'it' (the garbage)"). As well as the King because... umm... he's not the king of the mushroom kingdom, nor Peach's father? I don't even get this connection to be honest. Nevertheless, I'm willing to wait it out to change those if this passes, because something something two-party system...
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Mario and Luigi have some similarities with their video game counterparts, but Toad, Iggy and Spike have nothing in common with their namesake, Big Bertha is way too different to the fish she is based on, and Daisy seems more like "Princess Toadstool but we called her Daisy because "Toadstool" is not a given name".
#{{User|Biggestman}} I agree with all above points, however if there was an option to also keep President Koopa split I would vote for that, he's literally just not the same guy in the movie in any way whatsoever.


:''For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see [[:Category:Settled Talk Page Proposals|here]].''
====Only merge Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, President Koopa/Bowser, and King; keep the rest separate====


<h3 style="color:black">Rules</h3>
====Merge Goomba and Snifit, but keep the characters separate====
#All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the ''brief'' description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "({{fakelink|Discuss}})". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{tem|fakelink}} to communicate its title. The '''Deadline''' must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{tem|TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{tem|SettledTPP}}.
#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:
#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.
#Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
====Other====
*Move [[Flagpole]] to {{fakelink|Goal Pole}} ([[Talk:Flagpole#Move to Goal Pole|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' September 3, 2012 23:59 GMT
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Considering all of the "History of X" articles that have been written, why don't we ''keep'' the separate articles, but ''rebrand'' them as "History of X in ''Super Mario Bros.'' (1993)"? Maybe down the road, if Illumination gets enough content, we'll think about if we want to do "History of X in film" or "History of X in cartoons/television" or something. This'll satisfy the proposal's condition while lightening the load. Plus, this'll save the headache of merging the character infoboxes (unless the idea was to keep them intact in film sections).
*Merge [[Metal Luigi]] into [[Metal Mario (character)]] ([[Talk:Metal Luigi#Merge this article into Metal Mario (character)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' September 5, 2012, 23:59 GMT
*Create articles for [[Mario]] and [[Yoshi]]'s [[Power Flower]] forms. ([[Talk:Super Mario 64 DS#Split Mario and Yoshi's Power Flower Forms from this article.|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' September 6, 2012, 23:59 GMT
*Update the current artwork for Mario's page ([[Talk:Mario#Artwork_Update|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': September 7, 2012, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Coin Rush]] into [[New Super Mario Bros. 2]] ([[Talk:Coin Rush#Merge Coin Rush to New Super Mario Bros 2|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' September 9, 2012, 23:59 GMT
*Move [[Lava Bouncer]] to {{Fakelink|Ice Podoboo}} ([[Talk:Lava Bouncer#Change Lava Bouncer to Ice Podoboo|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' September 12, 2012, 23:59 GMT
*Split [[Star Road]] into Star Road and Star Road (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) ([[Talk:Star Road#Split into Star Road and Star Road (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' September 12, 2012 23:59 GMT


==Writing Guidelines==
====Do nothing====
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} While I completely understand and agree with [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]] and the points stated above, I just don't want these to be merged at all. All of the characters mentioned are very different from their game counterparts, and many characters that are non-human in the video games are at least partially human in the movie (like Bowser (video game character) and King Koopa (movie "counterpart"). This is enough for me to not want to merge any of the pages.
 
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per FOR2007.
==New Features==
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} The 1993 movie was an awful adaptation that changed too much. I would want [[Bob Hoskins]]' Mario to remain separate from the the games' Mario. President Koopa is clearly very different from Bowser.
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm still okay with this, too. I know ''we'' don't make canonical judgments, but when ''creatives'' do on the rare occasion, that's where I think we should stand. After all, "This Ain't No Game." Per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Oppose 8|myself]] in the old proposal.
 
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
==Removals==
===Remove level articles of levels that have names===
There are no level articles for levels named 1-1 and 2-2, but there are articles for levels named [[Awesome]] and such. There have been proposals to create articles for the "non-named" levels, but they have been turned down. We want consistency right? So, I say keep consistency and merge, the "named" levels into their world articles. There isn't anything special about "named" levels besides the name. [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)#World 1-1|This level]] deserves an article as much as [[Funky (stage)|this one]]. So, as all else has failed before, neither of them deserve their own page. The only ones that should be kept are, obviously, places that have more than one level/boss fight in 3D platformers such as, [[Bob-omb Battlefield]], [[Bianco Hills]], [[Good Egg Galaxy]], and [[Bowser in the Dark World]]. Easy enough to understand right?
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Koopa K}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' September 2, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Koopa K}} It's my proposal, so per myself.
#{{User|Zero777}} Consistency is best in this situation, I see nothing special of the two different level mentioned.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - As I've said many times before ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_30#Oppose_2|1: most recent]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_25#Oppose_7|2]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_28#Oppose_9|3]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_13#Worlds_and_levels|4]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_10#Comments_14|5: earliest]]), levels should not get separate articles. Putting the level information on the world articles streamlines navigation and it does away with the whole "named vs. no-name" inconsistency. It also means less stubs and walkthroughs alike; the former because they'll be merged (and hopefully the short sections will then be less daunting to expand than a whole page would be), and the latter because there's a lot less pressure to make overviews long if they're sections rather than pages. However, that doesn't mean that being turned into sections will get rid of info: sections can still be nice and juicy - we just don't want the fluff is all.
#{{User|Master R.O.B}} Per Walkazo
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|YoshiKong}} Per all
#{{User|Blue CosmicToad}} Per Walkazo
#{{User|BoygeyMario}} Per Walkazo
#{{User|Technickal}} Just because they have names doesn't mean they're special. Also, per Miss Walkazo.
 
====Oppose====


====Comments====
====Comments====
All those areas you mentioned as keeping their articles could actually be considered to be the 3D equivalents of World articles (while the missions/episodes/whatever that happen in them would be the "Levels"), which makes things a lot more straightforward: Worlds get articles, Levels don't. - {{User|Walkazo}}
Haven't decided on an option but I will at least link [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/18#Different Version Characters|the original proposal that split them]]. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 19:18, April 4, 2024 (EDT)
:It's interesting to read through this old discussion, especially how much the focus at the time seems to have been on specifically Daisy. Nobody in this whole proposal ''or'' the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/17#Peach/Daisy in Film|"Peach/Daisy in Film" proposal]] before it ever suggests the idea of giving specifically Mario (film character) a separate article! I wonder how that happened. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:05, April 4, 2024 (EDT)
https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Remerge_most_Super_Mario_Bros._film_information <br>Here is my attempt that ended up being vetoed. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:01, April 4, 2024 (EDT)


So you want to merge all of the Super Mario World levels, right? {{User|GreenDisaster}}
Did this need to be one huge proposal? The fact that there are ''seven'' options as well as an "Other" option (which, how would that even work if it got the most votes?) suggests to me that the ''Mario Bros.'' movie live-action subjects have far too much range in how close they are to their OG counterparts for this to be resolved in one seven-day proposal. For instance, I mostly agree with the fifth option, except for the inclusion of the [[King (film character)|King]] among the merged characters (considering that unlike the [[Mushroom King]], he is neither the king of the Mushroom Kingdom nor [[Princess Peach|Peach's]] father (he's ''[[Princess Daisy (film character)|Daisy's]]'' father)).<br>If we were to add options for every little disagreement with the proposal author's reasoning in this particular instance, it would become a nightmare to try and find an appropriate option to vote on. I'd suggest splitting the proposal based on character roles (e.g. one for main characters, one for minor characters like Yoshi, one for creatures like Goombas, and one for references-in-name-only like [[Toad (film character)|Toad]], [[Big Bertha (film character)|Big Bertha]], etc.) [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 13:36, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
:Yep. Worlds get Articles, Levels don't. {{User|Koopa K}}
:I would argue that range from source material isn't much of a factor in so much as they're variants of a source character and my understanding is that we do sometimes merge whack variants of the same entity, such as Skeeters. I'd go for the straightforward option because I don't see much merit debating within gradience of who gets a separate article or not. {{User:Mario/sig}} 13:56, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
::How about Yoshi's Island levels? {{User|World10}}
::I'd still argue that there's a point where it's not so much a variant as it is an entirely new character that only uses an existing character name as a callback. The film's plot provides a framework for this, considering it is loosely based off of the ''Mario'' games' story: Princess Daisy is the damsel-in-distress, Koopa is the antagonist who kidnaps her, Goombas are his lackeys, Yoshi is a dinosaur with a long tongue who is also held captive by Koopa, and Mario and Luigi are the heroes. Those are definitely a variation of standard Mario features.<br>However, then there are characters like Big Bertha who shares no similarities with her namesake other than being... well, big. <small>Not to mention she should probably stay split anyway considering normal Big Bertha is an enemy species, while ''this'' Big Bertha is a unique character. Spike at the very least should also be split for similar reasons.</small> Big Bertha's connection to her original inspiration would at least be more plausible if, for example, she was a marine biologist or had a scene where she saved Mario from drowning or something. I'm a little more inclined to merge Toad, since he gives exposition about the fungus (which would line up with the original character's appearance), but then again, [[:File:SMBFilmCardH1.png|he was originally named Lemmy]], so the connection there may not have been intentional. And as for the King vs. the Mushroom King, the Mushroom King article is a catch-all for anytime the king of the Mushroom Kingdom. To include a King in that article who exists in a continuity where there is no Mushroom Kingdom seems a little odd. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 14:43, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
:::Please read my previous comment Worlds get Articles levels '''DON'T'''. {{User|Koopa K}}
:::To be fair, we can't think of how else to showcase the granularity of the options than the deluge of choices; short of something like a checkbox-esque "vote for this one if you think it should be split!" proposal, which is entirely unprecedented and we have no real way of handling. Is it clunky? Yes. But it's either this, a bunch of standalone proposals (which could get ''even more'' messy), or some entirely new form of proposal gets invented ''just'' to handle this. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
::::I don't really see how the standalone option would make things messier. Is it that hard to keep track of multiple proposals? The choice would be between that or a list of options that is either unreadably long or doesn't have an option that aligns with your opinion due to something like an assumption by the author. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 21:29, April 5, 2024 (EDT)


'''@Commander Code-8''' My thoughts exactly! I was looking at the previous proposals to create articles for levels like 1-1 and 2-2, I thought that they had a pretty good point that levels without names and with names had no real differences, but I also thought the opposers had good points about how levels should not have their own articles, and then I thought why not remove the named levels articles! So that's how I came up with the idea for the proposal (along with some opposers saying "Per all, but I don't think levels, named or not should get articles"). {{User|Koopa K}}
By the by, what's this version of Spike called in the Japanese localization of the film? I think that's important to ask because we do in fact have [[Foreman Spike|''another'' Spike]] in this franchise, one who is decidedly NOT called "Gabon" in Japanese, ever. {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:58, April 5, 2024 (EDT)


===Puns on the Mario Party articles===
On the contrary, the thought has crossed my mind to go in the other direction and have something done with the ''Paper Mario'' universe and characters, but it'd probably be controversial. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:21, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
This is something that was briefly discussed on the [[Talk:Mario Party Advance|talk page]] of [[Mario Party Advance]]. On the articles that cover the various Mario Party games (listed in the comments section), there is a "Puns" section that list all the minigames that have puns in their names. The question is, should we remove these sections or should we keep them? In my opinion, they should be removed, because while a few of them are puns on songs and English idioms, most of them are, as one person put it, "so obvious an intoxicated monkey could figure them out". It's crude, but it's true. Not to mention that several of us have been going around to articles and removing obvious trivia pieces, so having entire lists of these seems odd to me.
:Strongly disagree, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Deal with the duplicate Paper subjects in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam|the arguments against all hold]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:51, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
::I would oppose covering all Paper Mario appearances in the Paper character articles and I would also oppose merging them all with their regular counterparts. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 17:25, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
:::You see, while the 1993 Mario movie characters are drastically different from their mainline game counterparts (or namesakes), the same can''not'' be said about the Paper Mario characters, which stay relatively close to the source material in comparison. Sure, the first three games gave most enemies a couple of design quirks that stand out from the mainline games, but they are still recognizable as those enemies.<br>Same deal with the 2023 Mario movie counterparts; they have some differences, but are still clear and recognizable as the same characters. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:41, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
::::I never really nailed down how it would work, but wouldn't be as full splits. Maybe something along the lines of how we now have "History" articles split from their sections. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 09:45, April 12, 2024 (EDT)


'''Proposer''': {{User|GreenDisaster}}<br>
Regarding Iggy, unused scripts on the SMBMovieArchive website show that originally, there were other Koopaling-named characters (like Morton and Wendy as announcers), showing Iggy was an intentional reference. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 06:31, April 8, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': September 3, 2012, 23:59 GMT
:But still, being named after another character doesn't necessarily make them the same character given how otherwise completely different they are, especially considering what's already been brought up about how characters like Toad were originally named differently. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:13, April 8, 2024 (EDT)


====Remove Puns Section====
This needs looked into some more as I can't remember for certain, but I seem to recall the script referring to the generic Dinohattan police officers as Koopa Troopas (a variation of that name was given to Goombas in earlier development). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:59, April 9, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|GreenDisaster}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} per GreenDisaster.
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per GD, but shouldn't this be in removals?
#{{User|Walkazo}} - The puns are more appropriately placed on the minigame articles themselves: there's no reason to have them cluttering up the game pages too. (And per Koopa K in regards to the placement of this Proposal.)
#{{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Coooool123}} Per all, also, we could just add the info to the trivia sections of the games as well, if it's not there already.
#{{User|Master R.O.B}} Per proposal. These sections are pretty pointless in my opinion.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|Neptune99}} We should just change the title, so per
#{{User|Commander Code-8}} The lists are pretty pointless and the section should just be labelelled 'minigames' anyway


====Keep Puns Section====
@Doc von Schmeltwick: As Arend mentioned, the character that ended up being "Toad" was originally called Lemmy, which to me feels like evidence that the inspiration doesn't extend beyond the name, and merging based on that alone would be a strange choice. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:45, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|JORDAN DEBONO}} <s>Even though some of the puns are plain simple and the less straight forward ones will still be put into the minigame articles, precious work was put into the project, work in which my opinion still doesn't deserve to be deleted. Yes, some are dead obvious, but since the Mario Party series attracts a younger audience, it might not be very obvious to them.</s> EDIT: Per Technickal's comment below.
:Aside from being an ally. The "good Goomba" character at that point in the script rewrites was a separate character named "Hark," anyway, and there were other associated "freedom fighter"-type characters in addition to the one who is Toad in the final. [https://www.smbmovie.com/SMBArchive/preproduction/script.htm Also, he was called "Toad" first], [https://www.smbmovie.com/SMBArchive/preproduction/script/13_Disney_Synopsis.htm with "Lemmy" being used for a single draft in mid-production]. In the first "Wizard of Oz"-style draft, he had basically the same role Toad would be given in the more recent movie, but drifted slowly from that as rewrites occured. He is still, therefore, primarily derived from the games' Toad. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:14, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Technickal}} Per my comment.


====Comments====
@LinkTheLefty: Considering the "History of <x character> in <the cartoons they appear in>" articles are still waiting for their cigarette and tinder box  before their execution via categorization <s>as much as we deeply, deeply regret that proposal</s>, we don't exactly see a "History of <x character> in Just The 1993 Movie" turning out well, unfortunately. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 10:46, April 12, 2024 (EDT)
And here are the articles that will be affected.


*[[Mario Party]]
*[[Mario Party 2]]
*[[Mario Party 3]]
*[[Mario Party 4]]
*[[Mario Party 5]]
*[[Mario Party 6]]
*[[Mario Party Advance]]
*[[Mario Party DS]]
*[[Mario Party 7]]
*[[Mario Party 8]]
*[[Mario Party 9]]
{{User|GreenDisaster}}


'''@JORDAN DEBONO''' It wouldn't be totally deleted just put into the minigame article. {{User|Koopa K}}
{{Quote2|I believe rule 9 calls for an extension if I'm not mistaken.|LinkTheLefty|3=[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=next&oldid=4182252 this revision]}}
:Unless it's one of those obvious ones. And how in the world is the Mario series for ages 3+? Actually, how in the world would a three year-old come onto this wiki? {{User|GreenDisaster}}
Well, ''before'' you extended the proposal, there were 19 voting users in total, if I'm not mistaken, and according to rule 9, more than half of the total amount of voters (in this case, more than 9.5 voters) must show up in a single voting option. If I get that right, that means at least 1 voting option must have more than 9.5 votes... and uh, the "Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate" section has ''10'' votes, meaning that must have won.<br>''However'', you decided to vote too while extending the proposal, meaning that there's now 20 voting users, and the "Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate" section now requires ''more'' than 10 votes... thus, 11.<br>Since you decided to cast in votes ''alongside'' extending the proposal, when it should have enough results to not require an extension, I'm honestly not sure if we should end the proposal now and remove subsequent votes and comments from prior the extension, or keep the extension for another week. {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:00, April 12, 2024 (EDT)
::Yea, I don't think a 3-year old would be able to type yet. {{User|Koopa K}}
:::Let alone read what's on the articles. Also, what work? The incredibly obvious ones required no work, and everything else only needed a quick Google search to find out. {{User|GreenDisaster}}
::::Really obvious ones are like, [[Bombsketball]] pun on basketball, duh, [[Shy Guy Says]], pun on Simon Says, again, duh. {{User|Koopa K}}


Ok look the 3+ thing was just an exaggeration ALTHOUGH all those game have 3+ on the box so you never quite know. And where will the pun article go, inside the minigame article? I don't fully understand this. Also @GreenDisaster, I was offline at the time so I couldn't respond anyone. {{User|JORDAN DEBONO}}
==Miscellaneous==
:Yes. If there is a pun in the name of a minigame, the pun is mentioned in the article of a minigame unless it's one of those really obvious ones. The only thing that will be lost is stuff that we were already trying to lose in the first place. {{User|GreenDisaster}}
 
Well that does kind of change my ''initial'' reasoning although seeing that the odds are against me and Technickal I will continue to support my vote. Thanks anyway, {{User|JORDAN DEBONO}}
:If you're going to continue opposing it, you should at least change your reasoning to acknowledge what I've told you. {{User|GreenDisaster}}
 
All right, if you're going to go with that angle... Currently, several of us [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=19333.0 on the forums] have agreed to remove any pieces of trivia that are speculation, dumb, coincidental, or, most relevantly, obvious. And like I said, the obvious ones required no work, and the others just required a quick Google search. Besides, the point of this proposal is to remove the list of puns from the articles. You can create a separate proposal and argue about the obvious trivia there, but right now, it's irrelevant. {{User|GreenDisaster}}
 
:You know what, this is getting a little too confusing for me. I'll see what Technickal has to say about it. If I like his reasoning, I'll keep my vote. If not, I'll go back to remaining neutral. I just opposed because of all the articles that were going to be affected, and I'm not a fan of huge changes like that. {{User|JORDAN DEBONO}}
::But it won't be a huge change at all. Eleven articles are going to lose a relatively small section that was mostly pointless. {{User|GreenDisaster}}
:::I will see what Technickal has to say, and then I will continue from there. {{User|JORDAN DEBONO}}
::::I don't see any reason we should delete this. Of course some are ridiculously obvious ([[Pier Pressure]] anyone?). But it's fine them being in both articles. I mean, what's the harm? I also agree with Jordan's reasoning, the puns list was part of not one, but ELEVEN articles, and we shouldn't just throw it all away. My point is, the puns list works; there's no point in changing it. {{User|Technickal}}
:::::Technickal, let me ask you a question; What exactly is lost by removing the lists? All the minigame articles already have their respective puns in their articles, as long as they're not obvious ones, so all that's really being lost is bad information that some of us have already removed on several other articles. {{User|GreenDisaster}}
 
==Changes==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''
==Miscellaneous==
===Merge the various enemy categories from Super Mario World 2 to [[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]===
[[Edibilis Boringus]], [[Harrassimentia Phlyoverus]], [[Projectilia Ritebakatchia]], [[Ucantia Defeatus]], [[Dudim Phreykunoutonthis]], [[Mostosti Vomitonus]]. These articles are incredibly short without even being stubs, and could very easily be merged into SMW2. There's really not much else to say.
'''Proposer''': {{User|GreenDisaster}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 7, 2012, 23:59 GMT
====Merge====
#{{User|GreenDisaster}} I'm making a statement indicating that I support my proposal.
====Don't Merge====
#{{User|Raven Effect}} They are officially named enemy categories and I see no reason to merge them to the SMW2 article.
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per Raven Effect.
#{{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}} Per RF.
#{{User|Technickal}} Per Raven. Wouldn't we have to merge the DKC ones as well?
====Comments====
None of the articles are a stub, so why merge? {{User|Koopa K}}

Latest revision as of 13:53, April 17, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, April 19th, 03:34 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 on proposals with more than two choices.
  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 by a margin of 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: "April 19, 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 {{TPPDiscuss}}. 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 {{SettledTPP}}.
  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

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)
Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)
Trim or remove various Smash franchise-specific subcategories, Camwoodstock (ended February 25, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
Merge Start Dash with Rocket Start, Koopa con Carne (ended August 17, 2023)
Use italics for the full title of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass, Hewer (ended September 15, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Decide which series certain Yoshi games are related to, GuntherBB (ended December 14, 2023)
Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)
Replace "List of Game Over screens" and "'Game Over' as death" sections with a "History" section, DrippingYellow (ended December 20, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make major changes to the MarioWiki:Links page, PnnyCrygr (ended January 10, 2024)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the "Johnson" running gag into one page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)
Merge Masterpieces to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U articles, Camwoodstock (ended March 31, 2024)
Split Super Luigi Bros. from NES Remix 2, DrippingYellow (ended April 5, 2024)
Merge Game & Watch: Manhole (minigame) with Manhole (Game & Watch), JanMisali (ended April 9, 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)
Rename Beanstalk to Vine, DrippingYellow (ended April 11, 2024)
Merge Treble clef with Note, Nintendo101 (ended April 17, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts

Currently, several articles exist for characters from Super Mario Bros. (1993) that share names with and are to some extent based on corresponding characters from the source material. While from a certain perspective this makes sense (these characters are substantially different from the characters they're based on), no other non-game-compliant Mario adaptation is given this treatment. SMW:CANON suggests that all official sources should be treated equally, including in cases when these sources contradict each other. I believe that the 1993 film is a very clear case when this applies, and I propose that some if not all of these articles should be merged with their corresponding game characters.

Now, to this one might suggest: "But the characters from the 1993 film really are canonically not the same in-universe people as their game counterparts! Doesn't that mean they should be covered separately?" The thing is, that's not how this wiki treats different versions of the same character in any other instance. The article Donkey Kong covers the character Donkey Kong, including in games where that character is "canonically" Cranky Kong. Paper Mario (character) is only considered a separate character from Mario in the very specific case where the two characters coexist alongside each other. Two works of media portraying different iterations of the same character is seemingly always treated as being the same character, and the coverage of Super Mario Bros. (1993) is a strange exception to this.

The relevant articles are:

Proposer: JanMisali (talk)
Deadline: April 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Merge all Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts

  1. JanMisali (talk) First choice, per proposal.
  2. Mario (talk) Echoing my sentiments in my 2016 proposal[1] a bit (tho I promise to be less grouchy :O}D). Even with the filmmmaker's contrived notion that live action movie Mario is supposed to be a separate entity from Mario from the Mario Kart series, if you work with that logic backward, they're still variants of each other, basically two different takes of the Mario the Super Brother. This can extend for the other characters. That being said, some of the target pages articles are big enough as they are already but I s'pose that's a different problem irrelevant to the logic of these pages.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Keeping the coverage on the same article reflects how they're the same thing. Different entity doesn't necessarily mean different subject. If anything, separate articles on the film characters would set an unwelcome precedent for scattering information of like, let's say, Super Mario-kun or Super Mario Bros. Movie counterparts of Mario into separate articles, which we'd want to avoid.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) I think it's best to not be arbitrary with who gets merged or not based on how different they are from their "main" counterpart. Per all.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Maybe I could work with this kind of continuity-based differentiation in a series with, like, any sense of continuity, but I don't really think the Mario series has that.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) We think this makes the most sense, and in the name of consistency, what we do to one, we should probably do to all. Besides, it's not like the 1993 movie is even the first time that a different entity has used the name of a pre-existing entity--though unlike things like G(al)oombas, the 1993 movie incarnations stand alone, with only things like gags in mangas deciding that the movie incarnations are different from the original characters (such as what happened to Yoshi)--and even in those cases, it's pretty clearly not part of some deep lore for the film itself. We hope this rationale makes sense, anyways? As we write this we're a tad tired, so if you need clarification, just ask politely.
  7. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I forgot I hadn't voted. I prefer this option. I'd be fine with the other popular option (for now), aside from questioning why Toad is part of the exclusions.

Merge most of these, but keep Spike and Big Bertha separate from the enemies they're based on

Merge most of these, but keep Goomba and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on

Merge most of these, but keep Spike, Big Bertha, Goomba, and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on

  1. JanMisali (talk) Third choice, per proposal.

Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate

  1. JanMisali (talk) Second choice, per proposal.
  2. Hewer (talk) I agree with merging the more obviously game-inspired characters like Mario and Luigi where the split feels more like a vestige of the wiki's former obsession with its made-up idea of canon, but merging characters like Iggy and Spike where pretty much the only thing in common is the name with (to my knowledge) little indication they're even based on the game characters doesn't feel right. EDIT: I agree with DrippingYellow's comment about how the King and Mushroom King shouldn't be merged though, since their only similarity is that they're both kings, but that can be dealt with in another proposal.
  3. Arend (talk) I'm most hesitant about merging Daisy. As you know, Daisy is pretty much the movie's equivalent of Princess Toadstool, and in a previous concept, was even named Hildy/Heidi/whichever of the two it was. Had that name not been changed to Daisy, many would obviously argue to merge it with Princess Peach instead. I would also say that it's pretty bizarre to have one of the two bumbling henchmen be based on a Koopaling while the other is based on a random enemy, instead of both being based on a Koopaling (we got seven of those guys; they couldn't have called the other henchman "Larry"?); not to mention that this version of Toad was once called Lemmy (another Koopaling).
  4. Tails777 (talk) Leaning more on this idea. There are the obvious ones, but I think the ones holding me back from an all out merge are Spike and Big Bertha, as they seem way different compared to what they are supposedly based off of (also the Iggy one feels a bit off to merge with the Koopaling).
  5. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per all
  6. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Secondary choice; per proposal.
  7. Archivist Toadette (talk) I think I'd rather go with this option, since those particular subjects have too little overlap with their game "counterparts". Besides, how would a carnivorous freshwater fish share clear commonality with an...uncomfortably attractive humanoid being?
  8. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all, Archivist Toadette especially.
  9. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all of yall (collectively)
  10. DrippingYellow (talk) Say what you will about trying not to separate variations of characters, even in media with notable differences from the "main canon" (i.e. Super Show and Peach-hime Kyūshutsu Dai Sakusen), these characters still have recognizable attributes. Mario, Luigi, and Yoshi certainly fit the bill of mere variations, but others I'm a little more icky on, with this lining up most easily with my opinions. With the film being designed to be a deliberate departure from other Mario material, it makes sense not to merge film characters unless they have significantly overlapping roles with their game counterparts. (e.g. Goombas are still the front-line weaklings, Yoshi is still held captive by Koopa and has a long tongue...)
    The only merges I entirely disagree with here are the Snifits (who don't shoot bullets at all, and, if I had to guess, had their name chosen just because they "sniff 'it' (the garbage)"). As well as the King because... umm... he's not the king of the mushroom kingdom, nor Peach's father? I don't even get this connection to be honest. Nevertheless, I'm willing to wait it out to change those if this passes, because something something two-party system...
  11. Jdtendo (talk) Mario and Luigi have some similarities with their video game counterparts, but Toad, Iggy and Spike have nothing in common with their namesake, Big Bertha is way too different to the fish she is based on, and Daisy seems more like "Princess Toadstool but we called her Daisy because "Toadstool" is not a given name".
  12. Biggestman (talk) I agree with all above points, however if there was an option to also keep President Koopa split I would vote for that, he's literally just not the same guy in the movie in any way whatsoever.

Only merge Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, President Koopa/Bowser, and King; keep the rest separate

Merge Goomba and Snifit, but keep the characters separate

Other

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Considering all of the "History of X" articles that have been written, why don't we keep the separate articles, but rebrand them as "History of X in Super Mario Bros. (1993)"? Maybe down the road, if Illumination gets enough content, we'll think about if we want to do "History of X in film" or "History of X in cartoons/television" or something. This'll satisfy the proposal's condition while lightening the load. Plus, this'll save the headache of merging the character infoboxes (unless the idea was to keep them intact in film sections).

Do nothing

  1. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) While I completely understand and agree with MarioWiki:Canonicity and the points stated above, I just don't want these to be merged at all. All of the characters mentioned are very different from their game counterparts, and many characters that are non-human in the video games are at least partially human in the movie (like Bowser (video game character) and King Koopa (movie "counterpart"). This is enough for me to not want to merge any of the pages.
  2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per FOR2007.
  3. SeanWheeler (talk) The 1993 movie was an awful adaptation that changed too much. I would want Bob Hoskins' Mario to remain separate from the the games' Mario. President Koopa is clearly very different from Bowser.
  4. LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm still okay with this, too. I know we don't make canonical judgments, but when creatives do on the rare occasion, that's where I think we should stand. After all, "This Ain't No Game." Per myself in the old proposal.
  5. Pseudo (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.

Comments

Haven't decided on an option but I will at least link the original proposal that split them. Bowser Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 19:18, April 4, 2024 (EDT)

It's interesting to read through this old discussion, especially how much the focus at the time seems to have been on specifically Daisy. Nobody in this whole proposal or the "Peach/Daisy in Film" proposal before it ever suggests the idea of giving specifically Mario (film character) a separate article! I wonder how that happened. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:05, April 4, 2024 (EDT)

https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Remerge_most_Super_Mario_Bros._film_information
Here is my attempt that ended up being vetoed. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:01, April 4, 2024 (EDT)

Did this need to be one huge proposal? The fact that there are seven options as well as an "Other" option (which, how would that even work if it got the most votes?) suggests to me that the Mario Bros. movie live-action subjects have far too much range in how close they are to their OG counterparts for this to be resolved in one seven-day proposal. For instance, I mostly agree with the fifth option, except for the inclusion of the King among the merged characters (considering that unlike the Mushroom King, he is neither the king of the Mushroom Kingdom nor Peach's father (he's Daisy's father)).
If we were to add options for every little disagreement with the proposal author's reasoning in this particular instance, it would become a nightmare to try and find an appropriate option to vote on. I'd suggest splitting the proposal based on character roles (e.g. one for main characters, one for minor characters like Yoshi, one for creatures like Goombas, and one for references-in-name-only like Toad, Big Bertha, etc.) DrippingYellow (talk) 13:36, April 5, 2024 (EDT)

I would argue that range from source material isn't much of a factor in so much as they're variants of a source character and my understanding is that we do sometimes merge whack variants of the same entity, such as Skeeters. I'd go for the straightforward option because I don't see much merit debating within gradience of who gets a separate article or not. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:56, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I'd still argue that there's a point where it's not so much a variant as it is an entirely new character that only uses an existing character name as a callback. The film's plot provides a framework for this, considering it is loosely based off of the Mario games' story: Princess Daisy is the damsel-in-distress, Koopa is the antagonist who kidnaps her, Goombas are his lackeys, Yoshi is a dinosaur with a long tongue who is also held captive by Koopa, and Mario and Luigi are the heroes. Those are definitely a variation of standard Mario features.
However, then there are characters like Big Bertha who shares no similarities with her namesake other than being... well, big. Not to mention she should probably stay split anyway considering normal Big Bertha is an enemy species, while this Big Bertha is a unique character. Spike at the very least should also be split for similar reasons. Big Bertha's connection to her original inspiration would at least be more plausible if, for example, she was a marine biologist or had a scene where she saved Mario from drowning or something. I'm a little more inclined to merge Toad, since he gives exposition about the fungus (which would line up with the original character's appearance), but then again, he was originally named Lemmy, so the connection there may not have been intentional. And as for the King vs. the Mushroom King, the Mushroom King article is a catch-all for anytime the king of the Mushroom Kingdom. To include a King in that article who exists in a continuity where there is no Mushroom Kingdom seems a little odd. DrippingYellow (talk) 14:43, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
To be fair, we can't think of how else to showcase the granularity of the options than the deluge of choices; short of something like a checkbox-esque "vote for this one if you think it should be split!" proposal, which is entirely unprecedented and we have no real way of handling. Is it clunky? Yes. But it's either this, a bunch of standalone proposals (which could get even more messy), or some entirely new form of proposal gets invented just to handle this. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I don't really see how the standalone option would make things messier. Is it that hard to keep track of multiple proposals? The choice would be between that or a list of options that is either unreadably long or doesn't have an option that aligns with your opinion due to something like an assumption by the author. DrippingYellow (talk) 21:29, April 5, 2024 (EDT)

By the by, what's this version of Spike called in the Japanese localization of the film? I think that's important to ask because we do in fact have another Spike in this franchise, one who is decidedly NOT called "Gabon" in Japanese, ever. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 15:58, April 5, 2024 (EDT)

On the contrary, the thought has crossed my mind to go in the other direction and have something done with the Paper Mario universe and characters, but it'd probably be controversial. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:21, April 5, 2024 (EDT)

Strongly disagree, the arguments against all hold. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:51, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I would oppose covering all Paper Mario appearances in the Paper character articles and I would also oppose merging them all with their regular counterparts. Bowser Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 17:25, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
You see, while the 1993 Mario movie characters are drastically different from their mainline game counterparts (or namesakes), the same cannot be said about the Paper Mario characters, which stay relatively close to the source material in comparison. Sure, the first three games gave most enemies a couple of design quirks that stand out from the mainline games, but they are still recognizable as those enemies.
Same deal with the 2023 Mario movie counterparts; they have some differences, but are still clear and recognizable as the same characters. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:41, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I never really nailed down how it would work, but wouldn't be as full splits. Maybe something along the lines of how we now have "History" articles split from their sections. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:45, April 12, 2024 (EDT)

Regarding Iggy, unused scripts on the SMBMovieArchive website show that originally, there were other Koopaling-named characters (like Morton and Wendy as announcers), showing Iggy was an intentional reference. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 06:31, April 8, 2024 (EDT)

But still, being named after another character doesn't necessarily make them the same character given how otherwise completely different they are, especially considering what's already been brought up about how characters like Toad were originally named differently. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:13, April 8, 2024 (EDT)

This needs looked into some more as I can't remember for certain, but I seem to recall the script referring to the generic Dinohattan police officers as Koopa Troopas (a variation of that name was given to Goombas in earlier development). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:59, April 9, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: As Arend mentioned, the character that ended up being "Toad" was originally called Lemmy, which to me feels like evidence that the inspiration doesn't extend beyond the name, and merging based on that alone would be a strange choice. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:45, April 10, 2024 (EDT)

Aside from being an ally. The "good Goomba" character at that point in the script rewrites was a separate character named "Hark," anyway, and there were other associated "freedom fighter"-type characters in addition to the one who is Toad in the final. Also, he was called "Toad" first, with "Lemmy" being used for a single draft in mid-production. In the first "Wizard of Oz"-style draft, he had basically the same role Toad would be given in the more recent movie, but drifted slowly from that as rewrites occured. He is still, therefore, primarily derived from the games' Toad. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:14, April 10, 2024 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty: Considering the "History of <x character> in <the cartoons they appear in>" articles are still waiting for their cigarette and tinder box before their execution via categorization as much as we deeply, deeply regret that proposal, we don't exactly see a "History of <x character> in Just The 1993 Movie" turning out well, unfortunately. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:46, April 12, 2024 (EDT)


“I believe rule 9 calls for an extension if I'm not mistaken.”
—LinkTheLefty, this revision

Well, before you extended the proposal, there were 19 voting users in total, if I'm not mistaken, and according to rule 9, more than half of the total amount of voters (in this case, more than 9.5 voters) must show up in a single voting option. If I get that right, that means at least 1 voting option must have more than 9.5 votes... and uh, the "Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate" section has 10 votes, meaning that must have won.
However, you decided to vote too while extending the proposal, meaning that there's now 20 voting users, and the "Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate" section now requires more than 10 votes... thus, 11.
Since you decided to cast in votes alongside extending the proposal, when it should have enough results to not require an extension, I'm honestly not sure if we should end the proposal now and remove subsequent votes and comments from prior the extension, or keep the extension for another week. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 18:00, April 12, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4187885"