MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 271: Line 271:


====Do nothing (Proceed with categorization per previous TPP)====
====Do nothing (Proceed with categorization per previous TPP)====
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} I'm not really convinced by articles being longer — in my mind, if there are more things to cover in an article, then... yeah, it ''should'' get longer. This goes double for the History articles, which basically exist '''because''' they're huge — if they weren't, then they wouldn't be necessary; they'd just be part of the main article. And it seems silly to me to have the [[Mario]] article, which then splits off into [[History of Mario]], and then '''that''' splits off into {{fake link|History of Mario in ''The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3''}} and {{fake link|History of Mario in ''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show''}}. You'd need a dedicated proposal encompassing a lot more than just the cartoons to convince me we should do something like that.


====Comments====
====Comments====

Revision as of 17:38, January 6, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, May 9th, 23:28 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: "May 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 {{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)
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)
Create The Cutting Room Floor link template, Bro Hammer (ended May 7, 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 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)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)
Merge Party Ball (item) with Party Ball, GuntherBayBee (ended May 5, 2024)
Split "Big Boo (character)" from Big Boo, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 8, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Clarify stance on Japanese-derived internal names

The wiki's policy on official name priority seems to suggest that they are only to be used if there is a distinct lack of official English names. However, there's a notable grey area in this policy: what are we intended to do when the internal names are derived from Japanese words, but typed out in English letters? There are a few article titles that come to mind where the official Japanese name is used instead of the internal name: several Super Mario Bros. Wonder enemies, including Suppoko (formerly "Uminoko"), and a few Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat enemies such as Gōrumondo (known as "Garigari" in the files). Uminoko and Garigari are clearly derived from Japanese words, so the question is: should we consider these kinds of internal names Japanese names, or English names?

Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Consider them Japanese names, use names in official material over internal names

  1. DrippingYellow (talk) I don't think we should consider these English names, even if they are written in English characters for the purposes of file organization.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) I would even say that "English letters" is a misnomer: those are actually Latin letters, and they are used to write numerous languages besides English. Just because a word is written in Latin script does not mean that it is in English.
  3. Biggestman (talk) Per all.
  4. FanOfYoshi (talk) I've never been a fan of this, tbh. Per my stance, my Hatopop proposal, and all.
  5. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all. I don't really care, but whatever.
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.

Consider them English names, use internal names over Japanese official material

Comments

This proposal passing wouldn't really change how we generally do things. Is this just to establish something more formal? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:11, December 31, 2023 (EST)

Indeed, I'm pretty sure we've HAD a proposal on this very subject before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:03, January 1, 2024 (EST)
That was the proposal which gave internal names their own tables. This proposal would give more weight to moving pages like Disaster Neko to its Famitsu guide name. SmokedChili (talk) 05:06, January 1, 2024 (EST)
I'm not sure it would. This proposal does not specify whether it would apply to internal names containing both Japanese and English words. Jdtendo(T|C) 05:57, January 4, 2024 (EST)
My take is that if the name is by the Japanese, the name is Japanese. SmokedChili (talk) 15:09, January 4, 2024 (EST)

New features

Create a article for List of television networks

Hi, i was wondering if a article can be made listing all the television networks that the Mario and Donkey Kong TV Shows and Movies aired on.

The reason we need this article on the wiki is i want to document the networks that aired the shows in every region in a list so that it can be well-documented here on the wiki and also preserved for the future for anybody that wants to know what networks aired the shows on in other regions such as Jetix for example.

Proposer: MarioKartFan4863927 (talk)
Deadline: January 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. MarioKartFan4863927 (talk) Per

Oppose

  1. Swallow (talk) I think a better idea would be just to list those in the relevant articles rather than creating a whole new page for it.
  2. Super Game Gear (talk) Per Swallow.
  3. PnnyCrygr (talk) "Oh no, not again!" to quote Ashley. Also per all.
  4. Sparks (talk) I understand your idea for the networks, but there may not be that many to warrant a category for them. Per all.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Swallow--while this isn't useless information, it almost definitely doesn't need to have a whole article to itself (we're ignoring the idea of making YouTube it's own disambiguation page in this proposal because it is way out-of-scope for "just the DiC Mario cartoons"). Just expand the "Distributor(s)" section of the infobox, within reason of course (so like, don't put just straight-up "YouTube" in it.), and we don't think anyone would particularly bat an eye.
  6. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  7. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.
  8. Mario (talk) Reminds me of your failed proposals in Talk:WildBrain, Talk:Netflix, Talk:YouTube, Talk:Hulu (streaming service), Talk:Amazon Prime Video, Talk:NCircle TV, Talk:Jaroo, and Talk:WildBrainTV. The information you want is too oddly specific and ultimately tangential to MarioWiki. If you want to keep a personal list, then probably do it on your userpage.
  9. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Mario: I don't necessarily think we need this article but I disagree with the notion that this information is too irrelevant to cover on the wiki. Couldn't it be seen as the equivalent of what consoles a game can be played on? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:06, January 6, 2024 (EST)

Create a navigation template for non-Mario characters

There are several characters documented on the Super Mario Wiki whom did not originate from the Mario universe, but rather an external series/franchise. These crossover characters range from Sonic the Hedgehog (and others from the titular series), Link, Kirby, Mega Man and more. Instead of having to scroll through a multi-paged category or searching and hoping they're here just to find one article, wouldn't it be more convenient for readers and editors to be able to access all of these characters via a neatly-organised navigation box?

The navbox could be sorted by either series of origin, their roles in their crossover appearances, or both. I think this would be a good idea because, as I said before, the only alternatives right now are to scroll through a giant category page or search the character's name in the search bar and hope for the best. If this proposal is approved, leave it to me to create the template; it would be my responsibility due to the idea originating from me.

Proposer: RetroNintendo2008 (talk)
Deadline: January 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Game Gear (talk) Sounds like a good idea.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal. There's no harm in voting now — redefining Category:Third-party characters can happen in a later proposal.
  4. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) While the prototype sandbox version is a little rugged, actually improving the aesthetics and giving its character roster another skim is something that can be done in due time. Off the immediate top of our head, no thoughts just going, a lot of the comics characters could easily qualify, but things like that are better suited for after the template is voted into existence. What we've got so far, we think looks nice and is, above all else, easy to navigate--which, y'know, is a big thing for a navbox to do right.

Oppose

Comments

Tangentially related, but we just took a look at the category linked in "more", and it's a doozy. In addition to characters that are from external series altogether, such as say, Plok, characters that are from games that happen to have been co-developed by non-Nintendo companies are also clumped in here. We'd guesstimate roughly half of this category is just stuff from either Smash or Super Mario RPG, and while you can argue the former makes some sense to include, the latter absolutely shouldn't be here; especially seeing as we sure don't clump together every last Mario Party original character despite those being primarily by Hudson. If they really had to be included, the Wario Blast bosses are only included via their category being a subcategory--sure, we don't have a blanket "Super Mario RPG characters" category, but we feel like you could easily make one even if just for this. Why the hey is this not already the case for either partially or fully third-party games?

More directly related, however, with the category in its current state, we're almost hesitant to vote on this... At all. Would we just have a section that's "Here's every original character to Super Mario RPG because Square Enix isn't Nintendo! This is a helpful navbox when you're looking for Dr. Wily." Yes? Then we don't want to even think about that navbox. Are we going to hopefully repair the category and use that as a basis for the navbox? Yes? Then we might be on-board. But until then, we literally don't feel like we can vote either way in good conscience because hopefully, now that we've brought it up, this category can get all its gunk fixed. also sorry if we sound dismissive, we're not trying to be! we just want to make it clear this category is in a BAD state rn. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:01, January 4, 2024 (EST)

I recently had a discussion with fellow user Juju1995 on how to handle the original characters of Super Mario RPG and Diddy Kong Racing for Category:Third-party characters. We didn't come to any conclusion, however. Other than the idea to add subcategories I gave there, another possible solution to fixing Category:Third-party characters would be to tighten the definition to characters that are both not owned by Nintendo or its subsidiaries and come from a series also not owned by Nintendo or its subsidiaries. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:24, January 4, 2024 (EST)
We feel like the requirements kinda need to be tightened, because in the current state the category is just flooded with Smash and SMRPG characters... And redirects to Mega Man's article as various forms he's taken on in the different spinoff series, just because of his Final Smash. (...Do any articles at all actually use these redirects? We might need to make a proposal on that.) ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:15, January 4, 2024 (EST)
You'd also have to apply the definition change to Category:Third-party species and Category:Third-party locations, even though neither category is in quite as bad a state as the one for characters. The fact we even have more than one "third-party" category makes my idea about adding subcategories no longer viable. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 23:49, January 4, 2024 (EST)
I understand that the category is currently in a higher priority as of now in terms of fixing, reorganization and whatnot. Therefore, wouldn't a navbox also be convient in that scenario too? It's obviously gonna take a while to fix the category, so users and readers currently have to just wait for the issue to be resolved for an easier method of finding this type of characters. As I said before, the navbox would be far more organized than how the category currently is. So, it wouldn't really make sense to not do it in many regards. Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. My talk pageMy sandbox 07:07, January 5, 2024 (EST)
We suppose that makes sense, we just wanna make it abundantly clear that copy-pasting the category 1:1 for the navbox is a Terrible, Awful, No Good Idea™, since... well, you've heard us gob about the state of the category for a bit now, we hopefully don't need to repeat ourselves. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 09:22, January 5, 2024 (EST)
You are correct, but the navbox obviously wouldn't include every article from the category. Firstly, any redirects wouldn't be included. Secondly, there are a few characters that wouldn't count as necessary (e.g. the Super Mario RPG characters arguably don't exactly count as third-party since they only appear in a Mario game). Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. My talk pageMy sandbox 10:00, January 5, 2024 (EST)
Touche, not including redirects is kind of a given, and odds are the SMRPG characters are not long for the category. We're still a little too concerned to vote one way or the other, seeing as we'd like to see a draft of what the template could look like before making any solid decisions, but this has our provisional approval now, now that that's been made clear. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:32, January 5, 2024 (EST)
"...we'd like to see a draft of what the template could look like before making any solid decisions..." If you do want me to do this, I'd happily make a proof-of-concept in my user sandbox page. Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. My talk pageMy sandbox 11:14, January 5, 2024 (EST)
That'd work for us! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:22, January 5, 2024 (EST)
I've finished making the navbox, and it can be viewed in my sandbox! Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. My talk pageMy sandbox 13:13, January 5, 2024 (EST)
We like what we're seeing here! While there's a few characters that got missed in the absolute chaos that is the article in its current state--mostly characters that are only in various comics (pouring one out for my boy Plok right now and obligatory mention of the true Classics of Article that is Chuckie)--there's ample time to remedy that and manually cross-check everything; hopefully once the category's pruned of all the SMRPG stuff and is easier to review, we can get to adding what was missed, but we definitely like the list we're seeing. We think it's a good sign that we're thinking of what else we can include for the sake of thoroughness, rather than asking what we need to remove for the sake of pruning extraneous characters that shouldn't have been added in the first place. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:03, January 5, 2024 (EST)
Thank you for your feedback! I know the proof-of-concept isn't exactly the highest quality, and I am aware there are many characters I missed (keeping track of them all is harder than you think), but I'm glad it at least strengthened this proposal's chances of being approved! Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. My talk pageMy sandbox 06:01, January 6, 2024 (EST)

A silly question; we'd like to potentially release a proposal that would impact the Third-party characters category, albeit only in regards to articles that are present to it via redirects--specifically about the presence of many copious redirects to Mega Man just because of his Final Smash. Could we start that now, or should we wait for this proposal to conclude first? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:32, January 5, 2024 (EST)

I see no problem with doing so. Go ahead! SolemnStormcloud (talk) 11:49, January 5, 2024 (EST)

Removals

Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies

A bit of an extension of this proposal, but this time focusing solely on Super Mario RPG enemies and bosses. Lots of enemies in this game can use exact same spells such as Flame Wall and Water Blast, which then leads to Category:Fire creatures and Category:Water creatures being added to every single article of enemies that use those attacks (this even leads to Czar Dragon being in Water creatures, and look at the amount of categories Valentina falls under). I still think this is taking these categories a bit too far and because these spells are shared between lot of different enemies I don't think they fit too well.

Proposer: Swallow (talk)
Deadline: January 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Swallow (talk) Per proposal
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Swallow. There are too many enemies that can do lots of elemental attacks, such as Czar Dragon, a fire enemy that can do Water Blast.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Heh, the Earth Crystal is an air and water creature... Per all.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Now that you've pointed it out, we can't unsee it. How is Zombone, the undead version of the fiery Czar Dragon, only an Air creature? This ought to have been done awhile back, frankly--per proposal.
  5. LinkTheLefty (talk) If Pokémon has taught us anything, it's that move attributes aren't necessarily indicative of monster types.

Oppose

Comments

You think Valentina's bad? Exor falls under almost all of the elemental creature categories, only missing Category:Air creatures. Category:Water creatures isn't listed, but Exor's Neosquid Mouth can use Water Blast. Yeah, that's excessive. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 16:09, January 6, 2024 (EST)

Cull categories from or delete the various Mega Legends & Mega Man moveset redirects

Mega Legends featuring Proto Man and Bass in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
Pictured: Mega Man, and 6 redirects to him.

Full disclosure, we made this with the approval of the person currently running a proposal about the Third-party characters category. If this is an overstep for whatever reason, we can cancel this and launch it later on.

This concerns the following redirects:

And concerns the following categories:

All of these redirects exist to lead back to one spot--Mega Man's final smash. MegaMan.EXE, Volnutt, and Star Force Mega Man are all entirely identical category wise; Mega Man series, Third-party characters, Smash 4 3DS and Smash 4 Wii U trophies, and Smash Ultimate spirits. And then Mega Man X is in all of those, and also in Robots. Protoman and Bass lack the 3DS trophy category, but have the Robots category. Rush and Beat are also part of the custom special moves categories, and robots, and the rest.

We'd get these redirects being in these categories if any of these guys had appeared in a comic or cartoon relevant to Mario like Mega Man himself did, but as far as we can tell, none of them do; they're exclusive to either Mega Man's final smash, or his Up+B move--and poor Proto Man and Bass only get to be there for Ultimate, while Beat, bless his robot bird heart, he's only here for a custom move in Smash 4! The result is that a few of these aforementioned categories just kind of get clogged with needless Mega Man's final smash or Up+B redirects--in a few cases, some of these are literally right next to one another alphabetically!

Now, we do acknowledge a counterpoint that we have categories for Smash 4 custom special moves, as well as Smash 4 trophies and Smash Ultimate spirits. This is way out of the scope of this proposal, but while we feel as though the trophies categories are largely redundant nowadays since we've been gradually scaling back Smash coverage to things that aren't related to the Mario series, we understand those categories do still currently exist, and they have trophies and spirits; those inclusions do make sense. In addition, in Rush and Beat's case, we understand their presence in Category:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U special moves entirely--they exist entirely to be the focal point of the move, and the move with Beat is literally named after him. But um... Look, we're going to be real here; outside of them being in those categories, which seem to be outdated as-is as our trophy list articles have culled any non-Mario trophies, we can't think of any other compelling category to put these guys in. Though, since they are reasonable to put them in, we have an option to retain those categories for the time being.

Now, while putting these things in categories is beyond us, we can understand keeping the redirects themselves for the sake of the Wiki search function--there's likely someone out there who's been getting to Mega Man's final smash by simply searching one of Mega Man's variants (or Proto Man and Bass), and Rush and Beat are valid names for Mega Man's Up-B in Smash. But having these all fully categorized feels... a little overkill, right?

And even worse, and our ultimate point here; having all these redirects in these categories where they don't really fit in causes certain categories to decay heavily in usability. Yeah, this is mostly about Category:Third-party characters, but also the Category:Robots category get rather gunked up because of this. Which is pretty silly when Mega Man himself is in both of those categories! So, there's a few options we can understand taking:

  • Remove all categories period, keep the redirects: This would effectively leave the redirects solely to catch searches. We feel this may be extreme in the case of Rush and Beat's cases, but we understand. We didn't bring it up, but the Category:Mega Man series category is related to his Smash appearances, so those would also vanish. We refuse to comment further on the state of that category, this proposal is long enough, but uh... It's a thing, alright.
  • Remove the Third-party characters and Robots categories, keep the trophy/spirit/custom move/Mega Man series categories and keep the redirects: Like the above, but we leave an exception for the explicitly Smash-related categories.
  • Remove all categories and remove the redirects: The full-on nuclear option. DELETE EVERYTHING!!! This feels a little extreme, especially in Rush and Beat's case, but we figure it's worth acknowledging it.
  • Do nothing: We'll just... Keep every category as they are. We don't really like this, considering Mega Man is currently linked to 9 times in the Third-party characters and Robots categories (once for his actual article and 8 redirects), but hey, we are required to have this as an option, so we're not going to decline it just because we dislike it.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: January 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Remove all categories, retain the redirects

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Our secondary choice, but this definitely feels like a rather nuclear option (somehow even moreso than the "delete the redirects" one!).
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal. Secondary choice.

Remove the Third-party characters and Robots categories, retain the redirects and Smash categories

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) This is our primary choice, if we haven't made it clear. We do see the value in retaining those categories while they still exist in their current states, and removing them would only make sense if we began pruning Smash-related categories--not exactly unlikely, but definitely not right now, and way out of the scope of this proposal. But the Third-party characters and Robots categories should've been pruned long ago if you ask us; There's literally 8 redirects to Mega Man in these categories at the moment. Besides, even if it is true that Beat is a robot, that's not exactly helpful information when his only Mario presence is as a custom special move.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, seeing as Mega Man already being in the categories makes the bunch of redirects a little redundant.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Primary choice.

Delete redirects wholesale

Do nothing

Comments

I'd move to pruning the Smash Bros redirects in categories such as Category:Pokémon series. It'll probably happen sooner or later but worth thinking about. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:31, January 5, 2024 (EST)

I agree, we need to get rid of all non-Super Mario content in Super Smash Bros. Super Game Gear (talk) 12:34, January 5, 2024 (EST)
Don't get carried away. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:45, January 5, 2024 (EST)
sharpens axe 🪓 I'm still looking at those bloated list pages with red in my eyes. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:53, January 5, 2024 (EST)
Not to derail the discussion, but I still think we should merge those list pages on a per-game basis rather than covering the entire series, like I have partially done with the page for the original Super Smash Bros.. That way, it covers their existence and basics without needing to go into detail. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:03, January 5, 2024 (EST)
Yeah, your idea seems okay. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:16, January 5, 2024 (EST)
We saw that, and it's a nightmare. We explicitly want to save that for a future proposal, since it's way out of the scope for this proposal (which, believe us, we just made originally for Third-party characters before a category-themed rabbit hole dropped us inside it and we had to climb out of it), but in the meantime, let's play a game; how many times does Category:Mega Man series redirect you to Mega Man after several distinct article merges? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:38, January 5, 2024 (EST)
I counted 28. Twenty-eight. (29 if you count the Charge Shot disambiguation page.) That's as many pages as most Robot Masters have hit points. Also, why do we even have redirects for Elec Man's Thunder Beam and Zero's techniques? Elec Man and Zero are not playable characters but Assist Trophies, which don't even have individual pages anymore. We also don't have redirects for moves used by non-playable Pokémon like Eevee's Take Down (nor do we need them), and I highly doubt anyone would be looking for these moves on this wiki. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 14:57, January 5, 2024 (EST)
We initially counted 29 (not even including Charge Shot!), which we think is terrifying that we somehow came out with different answers (the culprit was Thunder Beam, we forgot Elec Man was an assist trophy, probably because he isn't even in this category. Poor guy.). We think the only reason redirects like the special weapons even exist is just because of legacy--awhile back (and we mean awhile back, like, pre-Smash Ultimate), Smash moves were split into their own articles. They've somehow never been questioned until right now. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:27, January 5, 2024 (EST)
That's true for the Special Weapons Mega Man uses, yes, but the redirects for Thunder Beam and Zero's techniques were created pretty recently — September 24, 2023, to be exact. We had long since merged the Assist Trophy summons to the Assist Trophy page. EDIT: I discovered redirects for many other named Assist Trophy moves, also created on September 24, 2023. I don't know why we should have redirects for them but not the non-playable Pokémon's moves — or better yet, why we need them at all. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:47, January 5, 2024 (EST)

I noticed you put Category:Super Smash Bros. for Wii U trophies a second time instead of Category:Super Smash Bros. Ultimate spirits. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 12:44, January 5, 2024 (EST)

Oops! Our bad. That's been fixed now. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:38, January 5, 2024 (EST)

Changes

Disallow the use of individual promotional artwork in character -- history -- sections

Used in case of images missing from a section gallery, table, bestiary box, or certain infoboxes.
An illustration of a video game controller with the words "Image not available" overlaid above it, used as an image placeholder in the Super Mario Wiki

To see what I am talking about, check out Mario's history article. There are a bunch of white/transparent backdropped promotional artwork thumbnails spread across the whole article. They are pointless, why such? Such these mainly pad the article and serve no purpose other than to ornament the section with color or illustrations. Worse, some have captions that state the obvious or lack thereof. In History of Mario (example again) there is a picture of Mario jumping in Super Mario Bros. Wonder section, only for the caption to say: "Mario in Super Mario Bros. Wonder". Others like the images in article's sections for Dr. Mario World and Super Mario-kun lack captions and are just promotional art.

There should be a rule in the (MarioWiki) name space that should probably state that

In the character's respective "History" section, images should have a useful purpose to exist in the section (e.g. clearly explain the role of the character in the game) rather than merely illustrating or decorating the section. Promotional images depicting the character's appearance only are discouraged in order to prevent padding.

This proposal concerns image use in history sections, NOT every section in the character articles. If this proposal wins, these transparent image thumbnails in history sections should be replaced with screencaps, have some sort of plot device depicted concretely, or be captioned usefully. How would it feel?

Proposer: PnnyCrygr (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. PnnyCrygr (talk) Per proposal

Sparks (talk) Per PnnyCrygr. Showing screenshots definitely beats past artwork without gameplay.

Oppose

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) not all promo artwork illustrates a character's appearance in a game the best it can, but that doesn't invalidate the ones who do. Case in point, the Super Mario Wonder render very concisely shows how Mario was also subjected to that game's unique aesthetic direction; an entire screenshot with various extraneous elements wouldn't communicate that as efficiently. The choice of a particular image for a section should fall under the editors' discretion and, at most, be discussed individually among users.
  2. Biggestman (talk) Per Koopa con Carne. also it's just more fun to read something if there are images.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) While I can agree that these are overused and that screenshots from the game may sometimes be better for illustration than promotional artwork, a full ban from using them for history sections at all is overkill and probably going to do more harm than good. If a piece of artwork isn't illustrating something well, then it can just be replaced, that's the collaborative nature of the wiki.
  4. FanOfYoshi (talk) This doesn't sit well with me. Per all.
  5. Swallow (talk) Per all
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per KCC--in plenty of games, screenshots can generally end up super noisy with other elements to them; not just UI, but entire enemies, other items, other characters... A screenshot is only as clear as it is focused on exactly one element, and if literally anything else is in frame, it kinda falls flat. While we can understand maybe replacing, say, Super Mario-kun's image with a scan from the manga itself, there's no real reason in the case Super Mario Bros. Wonder to force a screenshot of Mario in that game, when a render that is very specifically of Mario in that game would do the trick just as well.
  7. Sparks (talk) Changing my vote to oppose. The characters' artwork does show how the character has evolved over the years as well. Per all.
  8. Mario (talk) In Mario's page, I did look over the images used in the history section and Ive personally justified their inclusion. We should be trimming images on these longer pages though. We don't need a promo render for every New Soupy Goomba in the history section when Goomba hasn't changed in the slightest.
  9. Hewer (talk) Per all, this would be a pretty pointless limitation that would hardly solve anything.
  10. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.
  11. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  12. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. Having those images does show how a character has evolved over the years, which is an important feature to have. It makes sense as it's supposed to be a history page, and images are history too.
  13. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per all
  14. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  15. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. While I prefer using screenshots, the promotional artwork still does often show how a character has evolved.

Comments

Fine. I consider now that images should be in the history section to illustrate a characters evolution over the games, with one subsection having a promo art for that. Proposal shall be failed inevitably and shall keep all those images. it isn't ripe for cancelling Don't click Penny PnnyCrygr User contributions 18:17, December 29, 2023 (EST)

Delete Template:LM portrait infobox

Okay, so I'm really not a fan of infoboxes that are solely focused on one game, considering how we had the Super Mario RPG bestiary infoboxes, but when the remake was announced, those suddenly had to be done away with. The 3DS version of Luigi's Mansion is faithful to the original, so there isn't as much infobox clutter, but its purpose, if anything, feels similar to those vertical bestiary infoboxes, like the Super Mario RPG ones that had to be done away with.

If this passes, all instances of the portrait ghost infobox will be replaced with the standard character infobox. My idea is that we convert it into a horizontal infobox (which should be fine, considering pages like Gobblegut do this), but I'll also leave an option for those who want to vote for its deletion entirely.

Proposer: Super Game Gear (talk)
Deadline: January 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Delete the template

#Super Game Gear (talk): Per my reasons above.

Convert into horizontal infobox

  1. Super Game Gear (talk): Actually, this option is preferable over deleting it outright.

Leave as-is

  1. Hewer (talk) I don't really get what the benefit is of removing an infobox designed to convey the information as efficiently as possible. The only argument given by the proposal is that an infobox specific to Super Mario RPG got removed, despite there still being several other game and series-specific infoboxes (that wasn't even all of them). Also, as an aside, if your plan is to change the design/layout of the infoboxes, why not just make that this proposal instead of needlessly splitting it up?
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) - Per Hewer, especially on that last point; we'd get it if this was a general "convert game-specific infoboxes to horizontal templates, and then introduce more standardized infoboxes for these articles in the future" proposal, but to change only one of those infoboxes feels... A little silly, right?
  4. Swallow (talk) It is better than adding a lot of parameters to a standard infobox that would only be relevant to one game.
  5. Mario (talk) This infobox template is fine.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all; this template works just fine.
  7. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
  8. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

You should make horizontalizing an option, then. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:49, January 2, 2024 (EST)

I don't know how to do that, and even if we were to make something consistent across all 23 portrait ghosts (i.e. horizontal infobox in a statistics section), that would eliminate its purpose of being a vertical infobox. I'll let this proposal run its course, but would we still get consensus on converting the portrait ghost infobox into a horizontal infobox? Super Game Gear (talk) 12:31, January 3, 2024 (EST)
As long as it's within three days of the proposal's creation, you can edit it to add another option in addition to the current support and oppose options. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:45, January 3, 2024 (EST)
Did I do it correctly? Super Game Gear (talk) 19:08, January 3, 2024 (EST)
Yep! Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:22, January 4, 2024 (EST)

Rename the "List of <cartoon> episodes with <character>" articles to "History of <character> in <cartoon>" (and also, don't category-ify them)

The following proposal covers the following articles:

Since categories have apparently become talk of the town, we thought we'd revisit a proposal we made ourselves. It's been over a month since a proposal we created to convert the List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa article (and later, a few others) to categories, and while the changes from the proposal haven't been implemented, but in the time since then, we've had second thoughts about that proposal in the first place. So, we thought we'd put it into a new proposal, seeing as we can't exactly withdraw a proposal that's technically already passed.

Originally, the plan was to convert this article, as well as the aforementioned articles, into categories. But having looked at them now, we feel like we understand what they're trying to do better. In Hip Koopa's case, this was information already present elsewhere, but in the other articles' cases, this is actually split off from their History articles, and in Candy Kong's case, it's just split off from her article outright. We don't think a category cuts it for coverage anymore; especially since a merge to the pre-existing History articles, or in Candy Kong's case, to her article, would actually be more cumbersome than what we're doing. These were split off for a reason, mostly for the sake of size. People can get a general overview of, say, Mario in the DiC Cartoons in the History of Mario page, and then go to the subpages to learn about his role in every episode individually, since it'd otherwise take up too much space in the article. In the extreme case with poor Candy Kong, her article length would literally be doubled by a merge!

There's just three options this time, and hopefully, they're easier to understand too:

  • Keep the articles, and rename to "History of <character> in <cartoon>": The change is simple enough--just rename the articles! These are already functionally history articles, which are only really "list" articles in the sense that they divide things up by episode; the only change would be to the name! And, you know, not saying that we're going to turn these into categories later.
  • Keep the articles, but keep the "List of" name: Alternatively, we could simply overturn the proposal to turn these into categories, but retain the current names they have. We don't see why you'd do that but then not rename, but to each their own, we suppose.
  • Do nothing: The prior proposal will still need to be done in this case, seeing as this is to overturn a proposal that, while it passed, hasn't been enacted yet.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: January 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Keep the articles, and rename to "History of <character> in <cartoon>"

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) We think we've made it clear this is our choice by now. These articles do have merit in existing as split articles, something we failed to see back then and have been kicking ourselves for (that's an exaggeration, but it's irked us!). However, we wish to address that naming misnomer, and hopefully clear up these articles' intent in the future; both to prevent stuff like this from happening again, but also to make it easier to find these articles for people who need them. It's a little silly how, as far as we've been able to find thus far, these are the only articles that go over a character's history, yet are named "List of".
  2. Hewer (talk) I still don't think it's really necessary to keep these split from the history sections/articles but I do see the argument for it and this is a better naming choice if that's what we're going with (and we should probably also make more of these articles for other characters if this passes).

Keep the articles, but keep the "List of" name

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) If all else fails, while we dislike the "List of" name and feel it's a misnomer, we dislike the idea of these becoming categories and being merged even more now that we've had time to reflect. Especially now that we've seen other such problem categories; this has the potential to get out of hand, fast, and we'd like to nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem for some poor user in 2033.

Do nothing (Proceed with categorization per previous TPP)

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm not really convinced by articles being longer — in my mind, if there are more things to cover in an article, then... yeah, it should get longer. This goes double for the History articles, which basically exist because they're huge — if they weren't, then they wouldn't be necessary; they'd just be part of the main article. And it seems silly to me to have the Mario article, which then splits off into History of Mario, and then that splits off into History of Mario in The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 and History of Mario in The Super Mario Bros. Super Show. You'd need a dedicated proposal encompassing a lot more than just the cartoons to convince me we should do something like that.

Comments

Why not make categories anyway while still keeping the split articles? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:35, January 6, 2024 (EST)

If there's enough demand, we could add that as an option; though personally we're worried about over-complicating this proposal as-is, when the original was already probably needlessly over-complicated in retrospect. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:27, January 6, 2024 (EST)
I feel like it might even be doable without a proposal, I just wanted to make clear that I don't think making categories and keeping the pages are mutually exclusive. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:57, January 6, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4100135"