User:Archivist Toadette/Draft proposals

Real World Subjects vs. Real World Terms
A recurring trend on this wiki is to create articles on real-world terms, such as Genre, Level, and Pre-release and unused content. I know we've said something like this in the first proposal aimed at reducing generic subjects, but allowing these articles as precedents would lead to further unnecessary articles, such as, , ...the list goes on. , and we don't necessarily need articles on those subjects, same as the generic subjects. Therefore, in a similar vein to the generic subjects proposal I linked to, I propose that we allow articles on real-world terms only if they have a function or purpose that makes them unique and discernible from the way the term is applied elsewhere.

The following are examples of real-world terms that would be allowed:
 * Cheat code – The cheat codes and their effects vary per game; New Super Mario Bros.s is a simple button hold that allows Luigi as a playable character, whereas Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!s has a cheats section where the player can enter five-letter code words to drastically change the gameplay (for example, typing "COLOR" in the SNES version gives Dixie and Kiddy a palette swap).
 * Game Over – The Game Over screens are entirely unique for each game, and Game Overs aren't just achievable by "losing". Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, for example, has a Game Over that occurs by making the mistake of reading Ghost T.'s diary.
 * Easter egg – Same as cheat code.
 * Fourth wall – Fourth wall breaks occur very often in the Mario universe, such as how in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, Starlow references the Year of Luigi when Luigi is otherwise alone in west Gloomy Woods thanks to King Boo ("You had, like, a whole YEAR named after you!"), or how in Paper Mario: Color Splash, Huey makes a remark when he sees the final memory revealing that Bowser had accidentally created his black paint alter-ego, ""You're telling me we could have avoided this entire game if we just installed a "Don't Mix the Paint" sign?!".
 * Unrevisitable locations – Same as fourth wall.

The following are examples of real-world terms that would be forbidden:
 * Glitch – They are recurring, but they don't differentiate enough in concept from glitches in other franchises.
 * Level – There's nothing different about the concept of levels in the Mario franchise. You play them, you beat them, you move on to the next level. It's the same thing.
 * Genre – Genres in the Mario franchise are conceptually no different from genres elsewhere.
 * World – Same as above.
 * Minigame – Same as above.

Whatever happens to the targeted pages in the aftermath (i.e. merging into the glossary or converting into a list) has no bearing on this proposal.

If this proposal passes, I will begin drafting some text to add to the generic subjects policy, which I will propose later on.

Proposer: Deadline: TBA 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Split Frog and cut down on its genericness, take 2
Yes, I see the proposal directly above this one, but both the proposal and the opposition itself was flawed compared to what I'm about to propose. Essentially, what I'm proposing is that we split the Frog article by game (except the Diddy Kong Racing info; that can be covered in the Drumstick (character) article), as we already do the same for Beetle and Mole. Let me break it down for you: Unlike the Banana case, I don't see how these splits would be too complicated nor open up a can of worms. Each of the four non-generic Frog appearances look noticeably different from each other, and I think a split is warranted here.
 * Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars: These frogs are clearly sapient, and don't behave as the other non-generic frogs do. You can also actually interact with them.
 * Diddy Kong Racing: These frogs serve little purpose other than one that turns out to be a cursed Drumstick, so I think we should just delete this section as being too generic.
 * Yoshi's Story: These frogs are actual enemies that attack the targeted Yoshi.
 * Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon: Unlike Yoshi's Story's frogs, these frogs are red and yellow in color, and can be defeated with the Strobulb.
 * Super Mario Odyssey: The most generic of the many types of frogs, these ones are more well known for their capture abilities than anything else (they're neither characters you can interact with nor are they truly enemies).

Proposer: Deadline: TBA 2018, 23:59 GMT

Identifier discussion (mostly for characters)
Yes, I know I've discussed related cases with you countless times before, but this isn't necessarily the same case. This time I'm talking about a more problematic case - one that doesn't seem to be bound by policy despite some admins saying it is.

Recently, some admins have been moving character pages with identifiers to the name of the species they identify as (such as Jerry (Bob-omb)). While that sounds perfectly normal at first glance, the problem is actually more straightforward than you'd probably think it is: Where does it stop? The example I provided is just one of many examples of this trend...not bound by policy!

If you want my thoughts, while I definitely understand why such moves would be taking place, I think it's not necessarily a good idea. I could go on and on about why I think that, but I think the problem is that not every character is of a species defined by Mario standards, which makes the cases wildly inconsistent with each other. To back up a bit, in some cases, that kind of identifier works fine, such as the aforementioned Jerry case; one is unambiguously a Bob-omb, while the other is unambiguously a Magikoopa. In other cases, the cracks begin to show, such as the Boomer case; one is clearly a Pixl, another is clearly a member of the Brothers Bear (though it has the generic "(bear)" identifier that's likely to cause problems), and another is a boss and therefore has a "(boss)" identifier (though should it have that identifier? Surely he has a bigger role than just a boss...). In yet other cases, that kind of identifier wouldn't seem to work at all, such as the Herman case; one is clearly a human, but the other appears to be a carnivorous plant of some kind (would it be "plant" or "carnivorous plant"? Even if you were to make a decree about this, I'm not sure if all of the users would agree with it, let alone me.).

Here are a few more examples:
 * Gary
 * Mario Tennis: Power Tour – I feel rather uneasy about the "human" identifier, and though it's not a bad identifier, it looks kind of silly. That's probably just me, though...
 * Super Paper Mario – I think that in a double-disambiguation scenario, if one page gets the more specific type identifier, the other should too.
 * Lily
 * Paper Mario – ····· How would that help anyone? As it is, no one would even guess at first glance that the article is about a character and not a generic water lily.
 * Super Paper Mario – "Flip-Flop Folk" isn't even an official name, so I don't think new readers would immediately understand the identifier.
 * Sonny
 * Saturday Supercade – Even if the matter was settled via discussion or proposal, the reality is that the show treats "ape" and "gorilla" interchangeably, with neither term taking priority over the other.
 * Mario Golf – Same as both entries for Gary.

What I'm suggesting is that we use game identifiers as an absolute second resort for all cases, and restrict the "species" identifiers (and any related cases) to absolute last resorts, such as with the Slim case. Any further thoughts?