MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Separate Wii U audio files from the ones on the GBA (Discuss) Passed
 * Merge Choco Cake with Chocolate Cake (Discuss) Passed
 * Split the Paper Mario boos from Big Boo into a separate article. (Discuss) Passed
 * Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps (Discuss) Deadline: June 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Seperate Payday Waystation into a separate article (Discuss) Deadline: June 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Recreate (Discuss) Deadline: June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Blurp (Yoshi's Story) with Cheep Cheep (Discuss) Deadline: June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wiki
For pretty much the wiki's entire run, "sub-species" (or "subspecies") has been used as shorthand to denote species like Gloomba or Fire Bro from the more basic species they're derived from (i.e. Goomba and Hammer Bro), but it's high time we put and end to it, and here's why:


 * 1) It's wrong - In science, "subspecies" denotes different populations of a species that are genetically, geographically, behaviourally, and/or morphologically distinct, yet still similar enough for interbreeding to occur freely when possible. What we call "subspecies" are not actually subspecies at all: they are completely different species, whether we're comparing Lakitus to Koopa Troopas or Deep Cheeps to Cheep Cheeps. There is no reason why we should so wilfully misuse very specific scientific terminology incorrectly when there are other options available like simply "type", "variation" or just plain "species". It's not like "beta elements" where there is no umbrella term and we have to make due with what readers are most familiar with: everyone already understands what "species" means, unlike the muddled "subspecies" (which even scientists argue about).
 * 2) It's speculation - It's clear enough when things are based on other things to whatever extent, but classifying some enemies as "subspecies" instead of "species" has always struck me as presumptuous. Where exactly does the line get drawn? Some things like Koopa Paratroopas are rather basic and fundamental in their own rights, with many derived species of their own, yet are still called "subspecies". And what about things like Shady Paratroopa that could be a subspecies of Koopa Paratroopas or Shady Koopas? Only a few sets of differently-coloured/powered RPG enemies and things like the red and blue PM Spike Tops really fit the proper "subspecies" definition, but we already established that we're not using science here, so all that's left are judgment calls being passed off as hard distinctions that don't actually exist in official material.
 * 3) It's misleading - Despite the liberties we're taking with the term, "subspecies" still inherently sounds like it requires close relatedness between species (based on their names and/or appearances), but for the sake of navigation and connectivity between articles, sometimes it's useful to be able to reflect the conceptual relatedness between rather different species, such as Clubbas and Chargin' Chucks being related to the more standard Koopa species. Having relaxed terminology would make this easier (i.e. potentially avoiding some TPPs and other such discussions) and result in less cross-talk between users operating on differing definitions of "subspecies".
 * 4) It's inconsistent - As well as murky definitions and three different ways to spell the term ("subspecies"/"sub-species"/"sub species") being found across the wiki, and even side-by-side in single articles, there are also plenty of cases where single subjects are being called both "species" and "subspecies". For example, Ice Piranha Plant bears both Category:Sub-Species and Category:NSMBU Species, is listed as a "sub-species" in the Piranha Plant infobox, and is part of the "species" list in . This is not good.

Between the disconnect with how the real world uses the word, and the different definitions, applications and spellings throughout the wiki, there is really only one way to sum up the use of "subspecies" around here: it's confusing, and we should get rid of it. Specifically, we should do the following:


 * Remove all occurrences of "subspecies", "sub-species" or "sub species" from the articles. Instead, everything should be called plain "species", and described informally as being based on and/or related to other species with words like "type", "variety", "kind", etc.
 * Delete Category:Sub-Species, Category:Yoshi Sub-Species, Category:Donkey Kong Sub-Species and Category:Wario Sub-Species. The equivalent "Species" categories exist for all four cases, but ideally, game-specific "Species" categories should be used to replace everything (but that's another kettle of fish altogether).
 * Replace the "sub_species" variable in with "derived_species". At the same time, "species_origin" should be replaced with "parent_species", for the sake of uniformity (there's already a "related species" variable for similar species not directly based on or providing the basis for the subject in question) and killing two birds with one stone since we'll have to fix the infoboxes anyway; this second change is from this cancelled proposal and its corresponding forum thread (both of which debate the use of "subspecies").
 * Add "subspecies" to the list of frequently misused terms.

This will affect A LOT of articles and will take time to gradually roll out, but I think it's worth doing. There is no good reason why we need to stay inconsistent, confusing and misinformed about how we go about defining the species of the Mario series.

Proposer: Deadline: June 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

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

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

Commenting on the Shady Paratroopa part, I think we should just use the most basic enemy and say its a derivative (or whatever word we decide on using) of Koopa Troopa.
 * I actually feel like it'd be better to say it's a derivative of both Shady Koopa and Paratroopa, rather than listing derivatives of derivatives on the most basic pages, at that makes for some potentially unwieldy lists. -
 * Per. Spiked Gloombas can be derived from both Spiked Goombas and Gloombas, easy to list it as derived from both. 23:50, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Super Mario Land 1 and 2 confirmed apart of the main series by Nintendo: Super Mario wiki should change accordingly
For years it has been debated whether Nintendo considered the Super Mario Land games apart of the main Mario series or not. Super Mario Wiki, and rightfully so, chose that the Super Mario Land games are not apart of the main Mario series but rather considered its own series most likely because of the Nintendo sources below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzERrLY-_9s 

As one can see, Nintendo did not include the land games as part of the main Mario series titles during Mario's 25th anniversary 5 years ago. This has lead people such as myself to believe that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of their own series. However, as of May 29, 2015. Nintendo has updated Mario's 30th anniversary site to include all the main series Mario titles. In this list is Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. As shown, this is included in both the American and Japanese versions of the site.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/ http://supermario.nintendo.com/#/history/

Due to this confirmation by Nintendo, all articles on Super Mario Wiki should be changed to fit this new information. Such articles as the Super Mario Series articles should be changed to add the two Land games, and articles such as Super Mario Land Series articles should most likely be deleted entirely due to their interference of the first two Super Mario Land games being apart of the main Mario series. Other changes being the chronological order of Mario titles. An example being, changing "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." To. "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth installment in the Super Mario series."

These things might change from time to time, but it's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. This is why the Super Mario Land games should now officially be considered apart of the main Mario series by Super Mario wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: June 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal. Due to the recent confirmation by Nintendo themselves, the wiki should have articles changed to fit this new confirmation.
 * 2) More recent stuff takes precedence. It doesn't really make sense to exclude the Land games from the main series, anyway.

Oppose

 * 1) - While the 30th anniversary stuff is more recent, the fact that the 25th anniversary excluded the SML games shouldn't be ignored, and it should be kept in mind that unlike the Super Mario History 1985-2010 booklet (which is more complete than the linked-to poster and video), the 30th anniversary stuff leaves out all the remakes (i.e. SMAS and the SMA series), and the US version of the website also leaves out Lost Levels. Plus, neither celebration included all the random SMB remakes and whatnot, whereas we do need to take everything into account, from the remakes to the conflicting and ever-changing stances Nintendo takes on its material, and then organize them in the way that makes the most sense. And I still think it makes more sense to keep the SML games separate in History sections, templates and categories (this is actually a big change with far-reaching consequences being proposed here: not just Super Mario (series) and a few articles' opening lines), given how different the series is, its historic separation from the rest of the games, and most of all, the fact that the series straddles both SM and Wario Land (awkward at the best of times, but it'd be worse if no bridge series is used or acknowledged). And for all we know, the 35th anniversary will be back to separating them anyway. But I do think the SM series page should include SML (and Yoshi's Island) somehow, like how it's got the remakes listed separately - but certainly not instead of the SML series page, especially considering that WL:SML3 and VB:WL definitely aren't SM material, yet should still be grouped with the first two games somewhere, as well as in appropriate History sections (same reason why SMA gets its own series page, despite being mostly part of SM and otherwise part of Yoshi).
 * 2) Per Walkazo

Comments
@Walkazo. Potential change does not warrant the act of keeping something the same. The wiki is to be based on current viewpoints of Nintendo which is the lore creator. It's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. If we were to not follow Nintendo's viewpoint, any viewpoint could be established based on the person's own imagination. "What if Nintendo decides to officially change Birdo to Ostro to avoid confusion?" This is irrelevant as it is based on what Nintendo finds true and not true. "If" cannot be a factor of whether or not we apply the land games or not. That would be based on our own assumptions and our assumptions are endless. We must use Nintendo's current viewpoint to stay relevant in the Mario franchise. If not the wiki becomes outdated with old information.
 * My point isn't that Nintendo might change their minds again, but rather, that they really doesn't give a crap about "lore", "true"ness or keeping its stories straight when it comes to Mario: they flip-flop about stuff all the time and information is often inconsistent, and as a result, the only way to maintain easy, logical organization is for the wiki to think for ourselves sometimes, like with splitting, merging and grouping enemies based on facts other than plain names, or deciding on how to organize our game pages. For in-universe stuff like the Kooplaings' paternity, our hands are tied and we need to give the new story prominence (but still mention the old story), but this is a different matter: as long as we acknowledge on all the relevant pages that Nintendo currently considers SML 1 & 2 as part of the SM series, and didn't before, whether or not we follow up with shuffling History sections, categories, lists and templates is up to us, based on whether we think it will or won't be a better way to present and organize the information. -

Whether Nintendo cares about the Mario canon or not is not for us to decide. We can mention how Nintendo used to not consider the Land games being apart of the main series, but we must also tell the reader Nintendo's current stand point. An example being starwars. The lore is changing all the time, however, the star wars wiki does not keep the old lore as canon. It mentions how it used to be canon, but supports the current standpoint of lucas film if we like it or not. There is much Mario lore that Nintendo has dropped that has been official in the past. This is not a situation like the koopalings where the creator of Mario says they are not Bowsers kids, but this is the whole company of Nintendo saying that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of the main series. Both in Japan, and all over the World. I know it sounds like a lot of work for us to have to update so many articles. If there is official information with no way to disprove it, it CANNOT be denied. All official Mario information must be used in Mario wiki. One could argue that the past has more info, but that does not make it relevant. Over time things become outdated and it is Nintendo that updates it. We must accept what Nintendo updates.

@Walkazo - I'm not completely confident in either choice right now, but remakes/rereleases were never a necessary mention in official celebrations since it's understood that they're not exactly the original titles (we certainly don't count them as such, either), so I'm not sure why they're factored in the counter-argument... (I must say, Super Mario 3D Land makes sense with its namesake included.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty- Indeed, the remakes have never been mentioned to be apart of the main Super Mario titles. As we all know, Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not remakes of any main series Mario game. Unless someone has any evidence to prove that Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not apart of the main series, and since Nintendo has stated they are apart of the main series as of now, it is only right to have Super Mario wiki state the same.


 * My point is that what works for Nintendo for their celebration stuff doesn't necessarily work for us, since they're cherry-picking lists of showy platformers while we're trying to document every single game and present all that info in the clearest way possible. They already cut out plenty of remakes and obscure games that we can't, and they don't need to worry about awkward things like SML and SML2 having a direct sequel (WK:SML3) that's also the start of a separate series, and another followup that never got finished (VB Mario Land) and wouldn't've fit in either SM or WL anyway. As long as we're basing out decisions on facts, we're allowed to make judgment calls when splitting, merging or reclassifying iffy enemy situations and whatnot, and similarly, we're also allowed to think outside the box a bit when it comes to dealing with iffy series situations. Like I said in my vote, the first two SML series games should be acknowledged on Super Mario (series) (that page is missing a lot of remakes too, but I digress), but they should remain separate when it comes to overall wiki organization. (On a side note, my guess is that SM3DL is the reason why the games are included this time around, unlike in 2010, although besides the name, like every other SM game, it has nothing to do with SML or its sequel at all.) -
 * Yeah, you do have a point in how Nintendo cannot celebrate all Mario games they acknowledge into one anniversary game, or they'll be here all day. But that they picked Super Mario Land out of all games alongside games like Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and even the forgotten Super Mario Bros. 2 does feel significant. As of now, however, I'm still supporting still holding out how Nintendo really treats Super Mario Land. This is a rather big change that will affect the corresponding history section, so I feel like acting carefully is the best decision to make when it comes to this. Still, Super Mario Land being placed alongside the other major games still means something... 23:48, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Then when do you propose is the right time? Nintendo did say that they would talk more about Mario's 30th anniversary during E3 2015, so maybe till then? I do not think we should wait to long on this. We cannot wait another 10 years to see if Nintendo still counts the land games as apart of the main series because that would make this wiki outdated. Although it is very understandable to be questioning if Nintendo will keep it apart in the future or not, it is very important to keep the wiki up to date on Nintendo's standpoint. We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding. If not we would not have a wiki based on Nintendo's Mario, but rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be. I know it is a lot of work and a huge overhaul for the wiki. Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair. The sooner we start editing, the more our readers know more about this information.

Ban the term beta * and rename pages in the Beta namespace
There was a proposal suggesting to change the name of the "beta elements" page to something more accurate. Despite being close to succeeding, it was vetoed by the admins with the reason being that "it's not meant to be taken literally" and "it works".

Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why

1: It's a bad, innacurate term: "Beta" in programming language refers to a specific state of development, a prerelease build that's feature-complete and is being bugtested. It's not even a particularly representative term: the beta period happens near the end of development, long after ideas suggested in pre-production are shot down, games are overhauled, unique characters and objects are removed... etc, which is what the "beta" pages usually cover.

Some may argue that "language evolves" and that "beta as it is used here is not meant to be taken literally", but I don't think it's a strong arguments. Sites focused on the documentation of unused/prelease content such as Unseen 64 and TCRF have mocked the usage of "beta" as a catch-all term and lower-quality ressources that use it that way. Other fan wikis like SegaRetro also do not use "beta" as a generic term. Fact is, "beta" is nowhere near accepted in professional circles and that's what the wiki claims to be - a professional ressource. Furthermore, why would you use an inacurate and potentially misleading term when dozens of accurate, non-misleading alternatives exist?

2: It leads to muddy, vague writing. Whenever you see "beta" used on other pages, its catch-all nature muddies the information. "Dread Kong did not exist in the beta version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat" - nevermind that referring to a singular "beta version" betrays a gross ignorance of how game development works, what's the "beta" in question? A preview in a magazine? A proto leaked on the internet? Something suggested in pre-production that was rejected and never programmed into the game? Banning the generic beta and forcing editors to be more specific (as opposed to the current wishy-washy stance that "we know it's bad, but we still use it because reasons I guess") will improve the quality of the information.

3: The "grandfather clause" is never a good excuse: Similar to this case, "sub-species" is a long-used term that was found to be innacurate and cause inconsistencies, and the current community concensus is that it should be replaced despite its longstanding nature. "It's what we've always used" is not a good refutation when the usage of a term is proven to lower the credibility and quality of the information, as is the case here.

As a replacement, I propose beta pages to be renamed List of prerelease and unused content. "Prelease" perfectly encansuplates the varieties of content that's not present in the final code, and it's wordier, yes, but not overly so. Generic mention of "beta" should not be robotically replaced with a generic "In prelease/unused content of [game]", but rather with a specific term ("magazine preview", "prototype", "unused"), with a piped link to the "List of..." pages.

( * : This of course doesn't apply to actual beta builds, but as none of the specific builds documented here are specifically said to be real betas, that precision is kinda irrelevant.)

Proposer: Deadline: June 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Move beta pages to "List of prelease and unused content" and ban the generic "beta" in mainspace articles

 * 1) Simply because something works does not make it professional or the most efficient. The simple term beta used on the wiki goes against basic definition and term of the word that is beta.
 * 2) "Beta" probably could be validated if it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal.
 * 3) I am okay with this. Beta is a bad term and I think that term may be better. It's a little long, but I like it. Per Glowsquid.
 * 4) Okay, I'll let it out: I felt cheated when I saw that veto and I agree that it should've never happened, and it should not happen again. This poorly-handled veto deserves all the criticism it gets for using administrative powers to shut down legit debate. Anyhow, nonstaff user's opinions aside, by keeping the term "beta" as "a-okay", we're contradicting our own policy, the Good writing's frequently misused terms. This policy will cause confusion for newer users by saying it's not okay to use "beta" while in the same time, using that term in the same way. Now, I'm feeling confident to lambast the staff team's reasoning and decision, hear me out. This is the reasoning: "'Beta' was never meant to be taken literally as the specific beta version, but as a convenient umbrella term synonymous with 'pre-release'. It works perfectly well as-is; there is no need to change the name." This reasoning has several problems. "It's never meant to be taken literally" is dodging the basic argument, that "the terminology has never been a problem in the first place" when that there was an entire proposal about it that garnered massive support (only to be shut down by a handful of people) about the usage of that term. It doesn't matter if we "intended" the term to be "taken literally"; this term certainly confuses, misleads, and misinforms our readers, just as how "subspecies", apparently, is never meant to be taken literally in this wiki. The usage of "beta" as a convenient umbrella term is the entire problem with that forsaken word. We have a much better umbrella term "pre-release and unused elements" that is not only far superior, but does not flirt with the line into pedantry. *breathes* Okay, pardon my bitter tone, I'm still a bit miffed over that, but I support this proposal as much as the subspecies eradication proposal. They're both about precise and accurate word usage and so the reasoning behind the two should be reasonably similar.
 * 5) Glowsquid's reasoning makes sense and the proposed change sounds agreeable.
 * 1) Glowsquid's reasoning makes sense and the proposed change sounds agreeable.

Comments
@Mario - I agree with practically everything that has been said on the matter so far, and there's not much for me to add besides the fact that using the term as loosely as Mario Wiki does is definitely looked down upon in certain circles (and indeed, there is still quite a lot of rogue instances of "beta" that require cleaning up regardless of this); however, while I don't feel your sentiments are wrong, it's worth acknowledging that it was a bureaucrat who decided to initiate this second proposal. I believe that counts for something! LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.