MarioWiki:Proposals

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Apply usual naming rules to Mario Kart course names
According to Naming, this is how we handle the naming of Mario Kart courses that share a name with other subjects:


 * For Mario Kart courses, console abbreviations are used as the identifier whenever possible to match the retro course naming convention (e.g. Daisy Cruiser (GCN)).
 * Due to the Mario Kart 8/Deluxe multi-console situation, the identifier "MK8" is used until confirmation of anything else (e.g. Rainbow Road (MK8)).

The guideline enforces a compromise between our general naming rules and Nintendo's own in-game convention of affixing a console abbreviation to classic courses. In the case of Mario Kart 8 courses, it specifically requests using a game abbreviation as an identifier, whereas another rule states we should generally use the expanded form of the game's title. Neither part of this guideline appears to be justified, they contradict other rules, and read like a remnant of the wiki's bumbling pre-2010 days.

This proposal aims to make our naming rules consistent across the board, applying a "race course" or expanded game-of-origin identifier to Mario Kart course articles instead of the aforementioned. Doing this would prevent confusing situations such as the article for the Donut Plains 1 racetrack from Super Mario Kart being notated “SNES” despite the other Donut Plains 1 subject also originating from an SNES game.

Proposer: Deadline: May 28, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal.
 * 2) It wouldn't hurt to at least try. Also, using the normal identifiers for the GameCube and DS battle courses feels like it's too rigid of an exception.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't really see anything wrong with the way we do it right now, I think having an exception in the policy to name things like how Nintendo does is fine and I would prefer it to using generic identifiers. Also, I don't think it matters if this contradicts other rules, since the page itself addresses this by making it very clear that this is an exception aiming to match the way Nintendo does it. The way I see it, this is the least confusing because it uses terminology found in the games themselves. As for using 'MK8', I think it's a decent compromise since the games haven't given an official console identifier to those tracks yet, though I would consider changing it to 'Wii U' or something similar, or just using normal identifiers specifically for the Mario Kart 8 tracks since we're not trying to replicate Nintendo's way of doing it in that case.
 * 2) Per Porplemontage's comment.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Porplemontage. If anything, we should probably wait until MK8 retro tracks actually appear to see what Nintendo calls them to see if there really is an "inconsistency" here.

Comments
@Hewer: The current naming scheme is confusing by all accounts. The proposal was updated to address your statement. 11:25, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

It is the way it is because Nintendo is essentially providing an identifier for us when they do retro courses. If a person is playing a newer game and look up a retro course, they will probably search how it is shown in the game (e.g. "SNES Rainbow Road") and if they see the article title as "Raindow Road (SNES)" on Google, that makes a lot of sense. "Raindow Road (Super Mario Kart)" isn't great because it doesn't match that extra piece of info Nintendo is attributing to the course, the user might not even know the title for the SNES game, and the course isn't just appearing in Super Mario Kart - it's appearing in the newer game as well. -- 11:40, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * This sounds like trying to fit a square tile into a round hole. Nintendo’s own convention isn’t compatible with our rules and trying to integrate it as such leads to situations like the Donut Plains article doublet I mentioned in the proposal. Also, the “these courses are not exclusive to one game” justification can be extended to electronic systems too; SNES Donut Plains 1 appears on SNES, DS, and mobile systems, so it’s not exclusive to one system like the identifier implies. 13:14, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * If their conventions weren't compatible with our rules then we probably wouldn't have incorporated them into our rules. 14:17, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * And yet, here we are. 14:36, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * One thing worth mentioning is that Nintendo GameCube (battle course) and Nintendo DS (battle course) are somehow exceptions to this rule. I still vividly remember contacting Porplemontage about this three years ago, and while his response was adequate enough (it would be "too dumb" to use "Nintendo DS (DS)"), I don't find it a good excuse to keep the policy exception. And there's also Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit race course layouts which also have their own articles; so would World 1-1 (race course) become "World 1-1 (MKLHC)"? Like Koopa con Carne keeps saying, there's too much confusion with this policy. 14:47, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * I think using normal identifiers for Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit specifically is fine, since there's nothing official to try to match there whereas there is for the other games besides Mario Kart 8. 16:02, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

I don't want to lose the "SNES" element in the article title for retro courses since I definitely consider that to be part of the official title, as well as for purposes of SEO and people finding the article they're looking for. Here is my counter-proposal: For tracks which have appeared as retro courses, move them to "SNES Donut Plains 1" format. That doesn't conflict with the level since it's a different title. For the rest, use traditional game identifiers. This creates an inconsistency from track article to track article, but I believe it is the most technically correct solution based on how Nintendo names them, and it eliminates the "MK8" guess. -- 15:23, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * I would support that, it stays consistent with how Nintendo does it and technically goes with our policy of using the most recent English name. 16:02, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

Citing WildBrain
A while ago, a proposal was made about using closed captions of the Super Mario cartoons from third-party contractors hired by WildBrain, which we opted to decline because A) WildBrain has been notorious for stealing chunks of information away from us without attribution, B) WildBrain has been entirely unprofessional with their handling of the Super Mario cartoons, and C) closed captions were unreliable compared to the actual script.

However, although we may have disallowed using the closed captions as a source, we still have areas of information that directly source themselves to WildBrain. Similar to how we prohibited using the English Super Mario Encyclopedia over similar issues, we should disallow the usage of WildBrain as a source for these reasons I listed above, and therefore our sources for the Super Mario cartoons should only pertain to the staff involved with the cartoons and DiC Entertainment themselves.

Proposer: Deadline: May 23, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Allow some parts of WildBrain to be used as a source

 * 1) See my comments. I think we should allow WildBrain's names to be redirects, but otherwise we can ignore their names.
 * 2) Per Hewer.

Do not allow WildBrain to be used as a source

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per pretty much everything that was said in the aforementioned proposal.
 * 4) We don't need redirects like the now-deleted "Ahehehauhe." Per all.
 * 5) Yes, per what I said then
 * 6) Evil Dinorsaur should say it all, really.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Per.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) - per all
 * 12) No sourcing. Redirects don't seem necessary either.
 * 13) - Per my reasonings in the previous proposal. I'm indifferent on redirect creations, but Ahehehauhe can stay off our wiki.

Comments
I think we should allow WildBrain's names to be redirects since the whole point of redirects is to be helpful to readers and there might be some readers who would find those redirects helpful. For example, someone might see the 'Ahehehauhe' clip on YouTube and search it up here in search of information on the clip without knowledge of the episode name. Otherwise, I understand why we decided not to cite WildBrain, but I think that we should adjust our naming policy to specify that WildBrain can't be cited after this proposal (depending on its result) like we did with the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. 15:02, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * I see your point, though I do question if we have to therefore include hundreds of redirects for any particular clip made of any episode, especially since clips can named by anyone, WildBrain included. I should also point out that the 'Ahehehauhe' clip only attached 4k views on YouTube, which doesn't justify the demand for these redirects. 15:24, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * According to REDIRECTS, a redirect is justified if there is a chance someone would find it helpful, which I feel there is in this case. This policy also states that redirects should only be deleted if they are too general or too silly, and redirects like 'Ahehehauhe' don't fall under either of those categories since it's clear what they're referring to and what a reader searching it is most likely looking for, and they come from a source that is, by at least one definition, official. Also note the policy says alternate names as redirects are fine. So going off of our policies there doesn't seem to be a good reason for deleting these redirects, and there's not really a downside to creating a large amount of redirects anyway. 15:43, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * How, precisely, does that not fall under "too silly?" Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:27, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * What the policy seems to mean by 'too silly' is joke redirects and borderline vandalism, judging by its example 'Game with luigi and ghosts 2'. 'Ahehehauhe' has a legitimate reason to exist, and according to the policy, it should exist, since it has some potential to clear up confusion even if we aren't going to use WildBrain's names as page titles. It's comparable to how someone might see the name 'Soarin' Stu' in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia and search it here, and we have a redirect for it even though we do not use it as a name. 16:57, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * I don't find it feasible anyone would search that specific convoluted and inaccurately-spelled laughing onomatopoeia, personally. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:07, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * "Soarin' Stu" is also a fan-name, originating from this wiki, that was used for multiple years. There's a realistic chance that people who don't know the proper name of the enemy will search it up. Nobody thinks that "Flatbush Koopa" is called "Ahehehauhe," and WildBrain has uploaded the episode under its proper title as well, which has more views (100k vs 4k). 17:26, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * There is a possibility that someone would see the 'ahehehauhe' clip on YouTube and, not knowing the actual name of the episode, search for it here. REDIRECTS states: ' If there's even a small chance that a redirect will help someone, it's not useless'. Also, while I've been using 'ahehehauhe' as an example, there are things like the alternative spellings seen in the subtitles, including 'Obi-Wan Toady', 'Light Plunger', and 'Red hot pepper detector', which aren't redirects even though they may be helpful to certain people, there would be no downside to having them and REDIRECTS says alternate name and spelling mistake redirects are fine. 17:39, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * Agree with Doc con Schmeltwick's comment above. I sincerely doubt someone will look up WildBrain's channel, find an obscure, 14-second clip, then come to this wiki and input said name. They likely wouldn't even recognize the episode. 20:02, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * The name of a short clip on YouTube doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would warrant a redirect either way. 20:39, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * @The Mansion: My whole point is that they wouldn't recognize the episode, and thus would search for the clip's name. That's the purpose of redirects.
 * Even if we refuse to make 'ahehehauhe' a redirect, I think we should at least make the alternate spelling redirects since it is feasible that someone might think they are the correct spellings. 02:37, May 17, 2021 (EDT)