MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Mario Stadium (Itadaki Street DS) with Mario Stadium (baseball stadium) (Discuss) Deadline: October 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Category:Characters Named for their Species (Discuss) Deadline: October 20, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Split "Propeller Box" from the Propeller Block article (Discuss) Deadline: October 25, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Split from Mario Kart (series) (Discuss) Deadline: October 26, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

Guideline section for "References to other games"/"References in later games"
After reading this proposal, I've been observing the sections "References to other games" and "References in later games" in game articles for quite a while, and I agree people kind of exaggerate it: even when something resembles another thing to them, it does not mean the purpose was to make a reference. The sections are filled with examples, like these from New Super Mario Bros. U:


 * Yoshi's Safari: In this game, Lemmy Koopa is the first Koopaling to be fought, and Larry is the boss of a water-themed world.
 * Super Paper Mario: Grrrols resemble Spiky Tromps.
 * Super Mario 3D Land: [...] Also, the Acorn Tree is similar to the Tail Tree because both items produce similar power-ups. Also, Ball 'n' Chains swing in a pendulum-like manner again.

So, simply saying they "are similar" isn't enough to decide they're a reference. See my draft (that might needs some work) showing how we could add these rules to References.

Proposer: Deadline: October, 14 2013 23:59 GMT

Have this section in MarioWiki:References

 * Per my proposal.
 * 1) Grrols resembling Spiky Tromps is a reference to Super Paper Mario? Lol. Yeah we need an official guideline on this.
 * 2) I agree. And I don't think the appearance of Pokeys or Shy Guys is a reference to Super Mario Bros. 2. It also bugs me when the only "reference" is "This game is a sequel to this game".
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) I think we need this. Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Looks good, per proposal and draft.
 * 7) Per all

Removals
None at the moment.

Trim the Relationship Sections
Relationship sections are one of the worst sources of cruft on the wiki. Some are definitely worth writing about, but others are way too minor or straightforward for whole sections - but then where could you put that info? The solution is simple: get rid of the individual character sections altogether. Just put all the info about a given relationship into a regular old paragraph, and merge similar, minor relationships together to avoid the temptation to pad the info. For many characters, like Kamek or Rosalina, paragraphs are all you'll need, but for more major characters, general headers like "Family", "Friends", "Foes and rivals", etc. can be used to group related subjects. Then the entire "Relationships" section can be a subsection in the "General Information" sections, bringing even more nested order to the character pages (also please note that these sections should just be called "Relationships" from now on, rather than the wordy headers we have now). You can see a couple worked examples on my work page, such as this change going from this to that - note the compact TOC section, and how, despite not actually removing all that much stuff, the whole thing seems much less sprawling and fragmented, doesn't it? And when you start with pages with filler, the amount that you can trim is even more noticeable - and still without losing any of the good info, while at the same time making it easier to add info about new simple yet noteworthy relationships. It's win-win-win.

Proposer: Deadline: October 19, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - I've been meaning to propose this for a while: the info is well worth keeping, but the sections as they are now have gotta go.
 * 2) As someone who had to clean up articles before due to ridiculous relationships (I'm looking at you, Waluigi's relationship with Daisy) and a proponent of scrapping crap, I whole-heatedly agree with this.
 * 3) – Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) I suppose we could...

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.