MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U into and  (Discuss) Passed.
 * Merge Garlic Pot with Garlic bottle (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
 * Split Vampire Wario into and  (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Swooper into and  (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
 * Rename Castles - Masterpiece Set to (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
 * Rename Grinder (enemy) to (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
 * Split Koopa Clown Car into and  (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
 * Merge Imajin, Mama, Lina, Papa, and Poki and Piki with Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic (Discuss) Deadline: January 7, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levels
Alright, this has bothered me for quite some time, so I'd like to try and change it.

Currently, the Donkey Kong series's boss levels are merged with their respective boss articles. Apparently this is due to the fact that the levels are pretty much just a boss fight, and thus don't "deserve" sepate articles. I disagree. Here's some reasons as to why I think they should be split:

1. It's wiki policy that all individual levels get separate articles. 2. Keeping them merged breaks the link between level articles. On level pages, the infoboxes have arrows that link to the previous and the next level's article. However, because the boss levels don't have their own articles, the flow is broken and users must look for the next level elsewhere. 3. We have articles for similar levels in the Mario series, such as Motley Bossblob's Big Battle and A Banquet with Hisstocrat. There's no reason to treat these ones differently. 4. K. Rool's page encompasses 10 boss levels because of this. People looking for a specific one would have an easier time if they had separate articles. 5. It simply seems "incomplete" to not have these articles.

I'd also like to mention that there's one boss level that actually does feature another section before the actual fight: Tiki Tong Terror. This information is nowhere to be seen, however, because there's no article for the actual level, only Tiki Tong.

Proposer: Deadline: January 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Create

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) per all.
 * 3) - Per Aokage.
 * 4) Seems like we do need these pages. I wonder why they weren't created so far. update: Read Glowsquid's points, Walkazo does bring up a nice rebuttal over the problem of creating redundant pages. After all, levels deserve articles, bosses deserve articles, so bosses in a boss level should have one article on both? Perhaps it's better to create two just for the sake of flow, but maybe redirects can accomplish this? Depends if people really look for bosses rather than the level or the other way around.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) This has bothered me too. Per all.
 * 8) Per Walkazo. *Trololololololol*

Don't create

 * 1) - See below.

Comments
this "more the merrier" shit is going too far:

1): The quote-unquote boss levels can be barely called that. They either dump the player directly in the boss fight or (in DKC Returns) consist of a short stretch of land with a DK barrel. Any content they describe would be redundant with the individual boss pages. Standalone pages would be especially problematic for the first DKC's "boss levels", which are flat and (save for the last one) uses the same background graphic.

2): The existence of pages for similarly low-content Mario levels is not a strong precedent. An old proposal established DKC's featureless boss levels shouldn't have a page. Ergo, if the precedent was followed properly, the cited pages should not have been created.

3): The arrow situation sucks, but it's an argument to have the arrow lead to the next "proper" level (something the DKC 3 level pages already do), not create a bunch of useless pages when a simpler solution exist. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2014 (EST)


 * How do you feel about the Tiki Tong Terror level though. I get how you feel that those boss-only levels should not have their own pages but what about the one that has an actual level portion before it.  Should that level at least have its own page?   18:18, 27 December 2014 (EST)
 * yeah. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2014 (EST)

I'm not going to log a formal vote on this, as I'm stuck between what I want to say and the policies I'm sworn to uphold. On the one hand, policy is firmly in favor of this, it falls right into our inclusion policy and standard editing practices. To bring up Glowsquid's points: On the other hand, Glowsquid has a point. We are stretching the inclusion policy as far is it can go to squeeze out every article we can and I debate the supposed quality or non-stub status some of the results have left us with. Generally speaking, lots of articles are great for a museum, but less helpful for an encyclopedia and/or archive and we qualify more as the later than the former.
 * 1. Largely isn't an issue as policy doesn't dictate the contents of a level, only that it needs to be a formal level for inclusion. While I agree that this particular instance is going to result in some rather problematic blurb type articles, that's a matter for editorial concern and not an argument we can really have in the proposal setting (or at least not without a lot of forethought from the proposer).
 * 2. I agree that many of the pages in question shouldn't have existed in the first place due to a previous proposal (aside, a review of past proposals and how we keep track of them might be in order), this proposal passing is going to overturn the previous one anyway, so that problem solves itself. The real mess comes if this proposal fails.
 * 3. This is an editorial concern at best, not something that would inhibit the creation of articles.

I feel that we need to have a formal discussion about how we apply our inclusion policy before this gets out of hand, but that's a debate for another time and a different venue. -- Ghost Jam 20:53, 27 December 2014 (EST)


 * If we were talking about overlapping articles about the same (or at least similar) subject type, I'd say not to bother with the extra ones, but something doesn't sit right about substituting boss articles for boss-fight level articles. It breaks the flow and navigation (like, you get to Rope Bridge Rumble, and then the page tells you it's the last level, and the infobox bounces you straight to Oil Drum Alley, and not once does it mention there's a boss fight in between: you have to go down to the nav templates and count to figure out which boss you're at (and hope it's never switched to alphabetical order); then if you do go to the boss page, you're dead-ended because there's no level template there), and it seems like an easily fixed gap. -

Add an Easter Egg section to game articles
A while back, there was a proposal for creating sub pages for game easter eggs. A lot of votes mentioned that A. there aren't really enough easter eggs in a game to earn an full on article for them and B. they'd work better as a section in the game article. Well that's where this comes in. May as well start a proposal for adding an Easter Egg section. Not sure if it really needs a proposal but may as well throw it out there. An easter egg section can also cut down on the amount of Trivia a game article has (such as Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon for example)

Proposer: Deadline: January 6, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Do I really need a reason to support myself?
 * 2) Per. An easter egg page would look cool.
 * 3) Long Trivia sections make an article seem unprofessional (some wikis on Wikia, I'm looking at you), so even if I love Trivia sections, an Easter Egg section would make Mario Wiki seem like a more organized wiki. However, with an Easter Egg section, we might need to change the writing guidelines a bit to avoid speculation (ex. saying Bowser's inhale ability is an easter egg to Kirby's inhale wouldn't be allowed due to how different Bowser's inhale is to Kirby's inhale).
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Meh, I've suggested this in the link the proposal provided. I can't say I haven't changed my opinion on this. Nevertheless, I don't see why you need an approval when perhaps creating the section would be good.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Some of the things in trivia sections are kind of more like Easter eggs, so that could help this out. Also, adding Easter egg sections would make ate ices seem more fun and would definetely attract attention.
 * 9) Per all, the current Easter egg page is terrible, it feels very crowded and having every one of them for their respective pages feels more in form. Also, delete the easter egg page and slap it in the Glossary or something.

Comments
Ugh, @MadzthePenguin, I get that you like M@L:BIS but, why does everything you say need a reference? lol,jk  Toad   and his brigade!  15:09, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * Because I love references. Oh, I also love puns. Wynaut use references, because if I decided Natu, I would feel sad. It feels Fawful when you can't type references, because I Toadley love them. Audino why I just did Mario and Pokemon references and puns in those two sentences. Maybe that's why we need an Easter Egg section! Madz the Penguin (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (EST)
 * Ok, that is Toadally Toadiffic. I'm going to stoad making Toad-puns Toaday. How you feel is definetly relaTOADable. But really, you must really, I mean, REALLY like BIS. Toad-brigade model CTTT.png Toad   and his brigade! Toadette model CTTT.png 19:58, 30 December 2014 (EST)

Didn't we formally decide to move Easter Eggs and trivia sections into the body of articles where able? I seem to recall that. Then again, maybe we were all operating on the assumption that it was a formal decision. -- Ghost Jam 00:31, 1 January 2015 (EST)
 * Not formally (at least not that I saw), but we had similar conversion when someone wanted to make a list for them. Yeah, Easter Egg page is terrible, so I support this proposal along with getting rid of that page.-- 13:54, 2 January 2015 (EST)
 * Wait, we have an Easter Egg page? I just looked at it, and it's terrible for Super Mario Wiki. It's not Le Miiverse Wiki or Haunted Hathoways Wiki terrible, but for a Mario Wiki, ugh. It's like the Sticker Star of Mario Wiki. Madz the Penguin (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2015 (EST)
 * In that it's decent but doesn't live up to its predecessors? The easter egg page couldn't live up to anything; it's absolutely incomplete if it wants to be a list of easter eggs, and gives such a vague definition to the point where it's confusing and inutile. Still, I think the page could serve as a compilation of easter eggs like List of references in the Mario series or the various outside references lists.
 * Are all the things on the list even Easter Eggs? The last one on the list seems like a cool fact rather than an Easter Egg. I've seen worse pages on other wikis, but this is Mario Wiki, also known as one of the best wikis I've seen before. We don't deserve pages like this. Madz the Penguin (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2015 (EST)


 * I just saw the page, and it definitely should be replaced by sections in articles. That page should be removed, it is unorganized and has little information.  19:25, 2 January 2015 (EST)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.