MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/37

Split Nintendo 2DS from Nintendo 3DS
DON'T SPLIT 4-10

It's not the same console right? The Nintendo 2DS should have it's own article because it's a video game console.

Proposer: Deadline: October 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.
 * 2) - How is the lack of the iconic stereoscopic 3D technology of the Nintendo  3D S not a significant hardware difference? It seems pretty radical to me - a far cry from a mere change in size (GB Micro) or shape (GBA SP). Plus it got its own unique name, rather than having something affixed like the other remodels, and it's just plain interesting: readers could easily type in "Nintendo 2DS" in hopes we have a page - that hope is not unreasonable. Obviously the page won't have a list of games and whatnot, but Wikipedia's 2DS page is still pretty beefy without that sorta stuff, and we could easily make a read-worthy page here too.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) I agree with the proposer and would second the proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) The reason we split Nintendo DSi from Nintendo DS and Game Boy Color from Game Boy because they have significant hardware differences. The Nintendo 2DS is simply a redesign of the 3DS, much like the Game Boy Micro and Game Boy Advance SP from the Game Boy Advance and the Nintendo DS Lite from the Nintendo DS (my god I put too much links)
 * 2) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 3) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 4) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 5) It doesn't have many information, and like BLOF said: it is just a redesign, no changes in the hardware.
 * 6) Well, technically, it is the same console. Only a redesign, and no 3D. You can't say much about it in a separate article, anyway.
 * 7) Per Baby Luigi
 * 8) The premise of this proposal is "It's not the same console". The 2DS functionally is the same console, just lacking the obvious feature. It's as much of a separate system as the Wii mini.
 * 9) Per Baby Luigi and Glowsquid
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
@Walkazo: The GBA revisions do feature notable hardware differences from the base model (such as a backlighted screen and the removal of backward compatibility in the Mcrio's case) and unlike the GBC or the DSi, the 2ds has no Mario universe-branded games that can't be played on the base model. Making a separate page for it when it has no relevance to Mario as a franchise would be coverage creep. --Glowsquid (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2013 (EDT)
 * Besides, I wouldn't use the Wikipedia page. Most of the information in there pertains to the 3DS itself; only the history and the reception sections are unique to the 2DS. Everything else is already covered with the 3DS itself.
 * Precisely. The 2DS has, apart from design and no 3D, nothing different with the 3DS. What we would get as a result would be probably something like this compared to that.

Create writing guideline for reception and sales sections
CREATE GUIDELINE 12-0


 * Draft: User:Glowsquid/Brain Palace

Another week, another writing guideline! Kids love those, right?

Anyway, the few sections about the critical and commercial performance of a given game have no consistent format and they are (as usual for "real world" subjects) rather weak. As such, I think it would be a good idea to create a guideline page to give an idea of how they should be organised and pointers on how to write them.

I've made a draft for such a guideline page here. I've been told it looks ok. What do you think?

Proposer: Deadline: November 3, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - per proposal
 * 2) – Par propusel.
 * 3) I think it's fine.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Por prapasal.
 * 6) - Per Glowsquid.
 * 7) - Per proposal and Baby Luigi's comment.
 * 8) - Per Baby Luigi's comment. The table makes everything more organized.
 * 9) - Per proposal
 * 10) It has always bothered me that we don't have a consistent format for reception on the games, so this proposal addresses this.
 * 11) - Per Glowsquid (including in the comments).
 * 12) Per Glowsquid.

Comments
Maybe we could use Wikipedia as inspiration as what to the reception section looks like? This looks nicely organized, and it has a great table to boot. Before y'all shoot me down for saying, "WE'RE NOT WIKI PEDIA BLAH BLAH BLAH" at least take my suggestion into consideration: there's a reason they do this and I don't see why not: I like the nicely organized table and I think it would improve the section more.
 * It looks great!-- 17:09, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Should we include reception for subjects other than games? Again, looking at Wikipedia, they have reception towards some of the characters and the game consoles.

@table suggestion: That's something I considered, though I'd rather have "our" own template rather than copying Wikipedia's, for various reasons.

@reception for things that are not games: That's something I didn't think of, and I think it could be workable, but more on a case-by-case basis.

The problem with Wikipedia's reception sections for characters and other fictional elements is that they, most of the time, only exist to establish the notability criteria required by Wikipedia policy and thus are little more than a ridiculous collection of inane statements of no use or interest to anybody. However, illustrating Mario's popularity and relevance to pop culture is certainly something that should be done. Additionally, if someone at Nintendo comes out and say something like "We changed Birdo's characters due to the criticism it received" or "We redesigned the Blue Shell due to players feedback", giving exemples of audience reaction to provide context to the statement would also make sense. --Glowsquid (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2013 (EDT)

Remove coverage of "cameo" puzzle games
REMOVE 10-1

The wiki includes several pages on random puzzle games (Alleyway, Art Style: PiCTOBiTS, Tetris DS... etc) which feature Mario-themed puzzles and cameos from the franchise. We do not feel these games are worthy of their own page.

To take one example, Pushmo, despite having a page, features a limited amount of Mario references; there is only one Mario puzzle out of the first 100 (not counting the NES controller puzzle), and the remaining levels are found exclusively within two Nintendo-themed puzzle sections towards the end of the game. More to the fact, Mario characters do not make cameos outside of their puzzles, the game does not include any additional Mario themes or sounds, and the game’s story and characters do not reference the Nintendo characters much at all. So covering anything else from the game (story, character artwork, and menu icons) and calling it a crossover is not really justified by the amount of references the game has.

The other cameo puzzle games are in a similar bunch; While the ratio of Mario vs non-Mario content may be slightly higher (with Tetris DS, for example, featuring NES Super Mario Bros. sprites prancing around in several modes), the depth of the Mario content featured within is extremely minimal and barely relevant to the actual game.

So why are we giving these games crossover coverage? The answer: we shouldn’t be, and we shouldn’t let new users believe that we are. Some of these articles seem more like bloated references than worthy crossovers, so why have these entire content-creeping articles when the actual references, which only take up about a small percent of their article's length, would not be out of place on the references list.

In short, we propose that we move the Mario-related information, which is the only thing relevant to the wiki, to the references list, and redirect the articles to that, because the cameo puzzle games simply don't have enough relevant content to be given full crossover coverage.

The following games would be affected by this proposal:
 * Alleyway
 * Tetris DS
 * Art Style: PiCTOBiTS
 * Pushmo

Proposers: and Deadline: November 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. I may have contributed a lot to the Pushmo article, but I feel that removing these pages is for the best.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) par prapsel.
 * 4) Purr proposal.
 * 5) Wario approves of this proposal. I always found pages like Pushmo to be questionable.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Definitely, if we do this for all the games then we'll end up having full in-depth articles for games that have nothing to do with Mario like Lego City Undercover, Rayman Legends, Angry Birds Space, Animal Crossing, Banjo-Kazooie, Cave Story+, Epic Mickey: Power of- oh you get my point.
 * 8) Makes sense. Per all.
 * 9) True indeed! Per all.
 * 10) Per proposal. I never got why we covered these.

Oppose

 * 1) Cannot support in current form, see comment below for full opposition.

Comments
I assume that any sub-pages the games have will also be deleted.


 * In the case of Gallery:Pushmo? Should all the images contained there also be deleted, asides from the ones which may be used elsewhere, such as on the references page. – 09:40, 9 November 2013 (EST)
 * I can't think of any reason to keep them.
 * Except for the 8-bit Mario one, but I don't know if it's an actual level or just a creation.
 * Yeah, that one does count as an image that can be used elsewhere, but the images of Mallo and the game's logo should go.

What about Captain Rainbow, whilst it has Mario references more frequently than the puzzle games, but they do have a role in the story?
 * This proposal's not applicable to that game at all. Captain Rainbow is not a plotless puzzle game and Birdo's got a pretty meaty role, not to mention we're not even trying to give it full coverage as a crossover anyway, unlike the puzzle games. It's considered a "guest appearance" with partial coverage only, and it should remain that way. -
 * Oh yeah. This also applies to those NBA games as well.

I agree with the main bulk of this proposal with one exception that prevents me from supporting it in its current form: Alleyway. As shown on the boxart and apparently in-game, Mario controls the paddle and is thus, in a somewhat indirect fashion, the playable character in this game. Compare to Golf. Other than the fact that you play as a very un-Mario looking Mario (and only in North America, to boot), this game has no connection to the Mario series. Yet it has a full article, as it should. Why is Alleyway any different?

I would almost argue for keeping Tetris DS as well due to the depth of content (its Puzzle mode is basically a remake of Yoshi's Cookie, from the sound of things), but I don't have as strong of feelings or support for that objection.

Allow Featuring and Unfeaturing nominations to fail before the deadline
ALLOW 6-0

I think that if an oppose comes up for why the nomination should fail, and the problem is not fixed, or a counter-argument is bought up against the oppose in a way that it cannot then be countered within 1 week the nomination should fail. This is so silly nominations like Featured Articles/Unfeature/N/Kirby can fail before the deadline and the article isn't left with an UNFA template when it doesn't deserve it. Under this new system nominations like this can fail long before they should. For the FA system if the flaw is something that cannot be fixed i.e. size, then it should fail after the timeframe.

Proposer: Deadline: November 17, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) Per all (this will go through since I make it a quorum)
 * 5) Yes, we should be able to cancel nominations like the Super Mario 3D World one. Per all
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
Wait, what? I tried reading what you're saying, but I don't understand the gist of it.
 * Basically if an oppose vote is put in, and it's not fixed or countered then the nomination should fail.
 * What if there is a valid article nominated to be featured, and to satisfy the opposition, it takes a lot of work? You weren't there when Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story was nominated to be featured, and it took a while (more than 1 week) and a lot of work to satisfy the opposition. I know it eventually became unfeatured for another reason, but that's not my point. A better way to word it is if there is nothing being done (or nothing can be done, such as in Super Mario 3D World) to satisfy the opposition within a time period, then the article should fail.
 * Yeah, alright.

@Lefty In a way that cannot be countered, what I mean by that is a counter-argument for which there is no counter. For example, on the Kirby nomination, the subject has no relevance to the quality, it cannot be countered. And the 1 week timeframe as said only applies to the FAs if the problem is unfixible, the 1 week deadline mainly applies to the unfeaturing because if the problem is fixed there's no point on the article just sitting around for 2 months with the unfeature template on it.
 * This is obviously not fixable, but there may be situations where this happens: who determines something to be not fixable? The 1 week deadline apparently applies to featuring articles as well. Also, new points may be brought up while an article is getting unfeatured, but I suppose 1 week should be enough to point out flaws in the article or the votes. There are also problems in articles that are going to be unfeatured that may take a week to fix (I remember that Goomba article voting to get unfeatured; it was about to be unfeatured until I worked really hard to refute that giant paragraph of points Time Turner done).
 * By fixable it's more size, rather than quality, for example if I nominated Mushroom Drop it is far too small and that is an unfixable problem so after the week passes and the oppose points that out it fails. And for unfeaturing, it's not about taking 1 week to fix it, it's fixing the problem then opposing and as long as all the points in the unfeaturing nomination have been addressed then it fails.

The thing is, with SM3DW, all of the oppose votes are simply perring others, and even though it will fail, I don't want to hurt the feelings of the supporting people.
 * I doubt 3D World will be affected, because if this passes, then it'll be a week before it fails and I think in that time 3D World will have been released somewhere so theoretically the opposing reasons could be fixed.

Ditch "Full Names" when appropriate
PASSED 4-0

Usually, when you get to the "Full Name" part, you see a totally unconfirmed, made-up full name. We only need confirmed things, not speculations and ideas.

Proposer: Deadline: November 20, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) P p.
 * 2) When appropriate sounds better to me. Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal
 * 4) Per All.

Comments
What do you mean by "Full Name"?

Like, for Bowser Jr, "Prince Bowser Koopa Jr". It's speculative nonsense.
 * I'm not sure all are speculation, Kamek has a reference for his.

Well, most are.

@Tails: You have a point, so I changed it a bit.


 * Bit late now, but for the record, the parameter should just be removed entirely: the full name, if it exists, can just be stated in the intro. -

Doesn't this need to be archived?

Merge Dream Team enemies' articles with their "R" version
FAILED 6-11

Looking at the Mario & Luigi: Dream Team enemy articles, I have noticed that the page content of the "original" enemies and the "R" versions of the same enemy are almost identical. What I suggest is to merge the two pages together, not only for the reason that I stated, but also because they have identical behavior, attacks, and appearance, except that they have a color change, exactly like EX versions, which do not have their own page. (See Flibbee and Flibbee R to see what I mean, or Monolift and Monolift R) Proposer: Deadline: December 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Makes sense
 * 3) I seems like R pages are almost duplicates, it makes sense to merge them.
 * 4) If they are practically the exact same thing, then it would definitely make sense to merge them.
 * 5) We did this with MLBIS bosses.
 * 6) per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I'm gonna have to oppose this one. These types of enemies are stronger variations of previous enemies and they are classified as different enemies, not the same ones. Bringing in this proposal, we split the 2 minigames because they were classified as different minigames, despite having the same rules and essentially being the same minigame. Enemies should be no different. If anything, we should split the X Bosses because they have a slightly different appearance and are all around stronger.
 * 2) - I've been mulling it over for the past few days, and I'm gonna have to oppose as well. If a variant of an enemy is stronger and has different colours and a different name, saying "well the name's only different by one letter" actually is a bit arbitrary, and opens the door to merges like the Behemoth / Behemoth King thing being asked about in the comments. It's a slippery slope, and it'd be much more straightforward and consistent to simply split the articles that have been merged thus far and keep it like that. Plus, it'll make navigation more transparent than burying the extra enemies in other pages, which improves the ease of both reading and searching for those enemies.
 * 3) Per both.
 * 4) No way. If we end up doing this then it could start to warrant changes such as merging all the emotional enemies from Super Princess Peach with their neutral counterparts. If you use the argument that they're more powerful, well then, Tanooki Mario is a more powerful of Raccoon Mario, so then we would have to merge them, along with White Tanooki Mario. It would just start a vicious cycle.
 * 5) Per Tails and Walkazo, they're different enemies even if they have similar names/stats.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per Tails and Walkazo.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per Tails777's comment.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
You know, if we're going through with this, there may as well be proposals to deal with the other identical recolours from the other RPG games with them for consistency.
 * Heck, even throw in Behemoth King in this

If we plan to go with many enemies that are like this, does that mean we'd merge Ember and Phantom Ember with Lava Bubble, just because they are stronger versions of it?

Well, if this fails, god do something about the copy-paste. It just ruins both articles. -- 12:01, 9 December 2013 (EST)

Change all Mario power-up transformations from "Mario" to "Form"
DELETED BY PROPOSER

Let me explain (as an example): rename Fire Mario to

Nintendo has lately stop restricting the use of items to only Mario and Luigi and have allowed other characters, Peach and Red Toad for example, to use them to the exact same effect and use.

At first I was okay with the Template:Diff on the top of the article when it says that the power may also extend out to Luigi (only), but now I believe it is looking too cluttered and unprofessional when it lists out that the power-up may extend to not only Luigi but also to Peach, Yellow Toad, Blue Toad, Rosalina, etc.

Think about it guys, Nintendo has been innovative and is currently trying out new things that we have never seen before. Who knows, maybe some time in the future we'll see a Fire Daisy, Tanooki Yoshi, Metal Waluigi, and Ice Wario. And I for one do not want to see that Diff template list grow even bigger because of that.

The proposal is basically saying that all power-up transformation articles of which the said power-up item is not used exclusively by Mario (or by any other single individual [if one does exist now or in the future]) will be renamed from "Mario" to "Form". (e.g. Ice Form, Penguin Form, Tanooki Form, Shell Form, Invincibility Form, Double Form, Cat Form, etc.) And thus call to delete Template:Diff.

It also calls for a change of the info-box photo. The info-box photo will have to be an official Nintendo company artwork (so no screenshots) of the latest exhibition of a group of characters in their power-up form. Example, the group artwork of Mario, Luigi, Peach, and Toad in Cat form for Super Mario 3D World. If a particular power-up form possesses no group artworks, then the latest appearance of the power-up form characters will all have to be pasted onto an artboard and uploaded to the SMW (the artworks all have to be from the same game, and the artboard has needs a transparent background, so it's like a composite).

And, I know this part may be the most obvious of all, all of the renamed articles will have a redirect name of its previous name (Fire Mario, Ice Mario, Tanooki Mario, etc.)

Proposer: Deadline: December 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Change It

 * 1) Per proposal. Personally, I think the template just looks ugly at the top of the article, but it was a necessary to some point. Now I just see it as unprofessional-looking.
 * 2) Mario isn't the only person to transform.

Don't Change It

 * I believe this subject has been brought up before. While it can look cluttered, renaming the article to eliminate the use of the template doesn't seem right to me. Maybe a better idea is to simply remove the template itself since the people who use the power up are already listed in the info box itself. But like the previous proposal regarding this situation, Mario is the most common person who uses these forms and has used them more than the other characters have.
 * 1) - We had this conversation before. I'm against. "Form" is conjectural, I don't see why we should replace the template with the conjectural one.
 * 2) Whilst I supported this last time, the reason it failed was because it caused the articles to have conjectural names, whilst pre-existing official names existed. I do agree with Tails here to remove the template completely.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) I have opposed this once, and I will oppose it again: I'd rather have this if it isn't conjectural. Conjectural is best to be avoided.
 * 6) Although I supported this cause in the past, it IS conjectural so we really shouldn't.
 * 7) "Fire Mario" is not only official, but standard. Looking up "Fire Peach" redirects to Fire Mario anyway, so this is a nonissue. Per all.

Comments
Wait! A proposal similar to this existed before? Man I've been gone for so long. In that case, whoever has the power to remove proposals may you please remove it?

Allow Removal of Support/Oppose in Proposals
DON'T ALLOW 1-12

This is in Featured Articles, so why not Proposals? I've seen silly votes on proposals before.

Proposer: Deadline: December 25, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) - The system is fairly different; an oppose in a Proposal doesn't carry the same weight as one in an FA nomination does. No need to do this.
 * 2) Per Tucayo
 * 3) - Per Tucayo. Rule 5 already provides the means to remove bad votes; discussing issues in the comments and giving the admins the freedom to remove truly invalid votes is a much simpler system than some clunky voting setup anyway.
 * 4) No. You're dealing with two completely different sharks here. Proposals are policy changes and the like, Featured Articles are things that we as a community improve upon time to time, solving issues that are brought out via oppose. We vote to remove it because articles are dynamic. Proposals aren't dynamic.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all, and how would it be decided if an opposition/support is "silly?"
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Considering an admin is needed regardless of whether this proposed addition passes, this is actually really unnecessary especially considering what Walkazo said. Per all.
 * 9) Per Tucayo, Walkazo, and Baby Luigi.
 * 10) I would want to read people's comments.
 * 11) No need to fix something that is not broken. The admins can remove invalid votes, and users may discuss why a vote may be invalid in the comment section.
 * 12) Per all. See that is the kind of silliness for a proposals. Proposals are suppose to improve the wiki, the writing, and the content. Plenty of users can vote and they can agree or disagree.

Have "Title reference" in the infobox for Mario Party minigames
DELETED BY PROPOSER

As you may know, most minigames from the Mario Party series have puns, wordplays or references for their titles, and these are mentioned right on the article. However, the sentence "The name is a pun on..." or similar things are very repetitive, and more like trivia. But instead of asking it to be moved to trivia sections, I think it would be better to have a "Title reference" area in the minigame infobox, like The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! episode infobox does. Yes, if we do this we cannot write the meaning of the original term, but the Super Mario Wiki is not a place for learning non-Mario or video game-related terms, and it can be easily found on the internet (if it has a Wikipedia article, we can still link it to there).

Proposer: Deadline: December 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) My Proposal.
 * 2) Sounds good.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per proposal
 * 5) I like it. Per proposal.
 * 6) I don't know if it should be exactly "Name reference". Maybe it should be "Title reference", but hey that's just me. I like this idea, per proposal.
 * 7) For the Wario minigames too. They have tons of puns in the titles.
 * 8) Per above, can we amend this to inculde the Wario minigames? In any case, the less "explaining the joke" we do, the better.

Oppose

 * 1) - Probably too late to make much difference now, but name explanations and other wordy things seem better placed within the articles themselves, rather than cluttering up the infoboxes. Having it in the articles' body texts rather than one-size-fits-all infoboxes also allows for more flexibility: some names are so obvious, they shouldn't need to be explained at all, while others might be obscure or complex and require far more attention than most.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.

Comments
@Zero777, I replaced "name" with "title". I always used "name", but it really seems that "title" is more correct. 08:05, 23 December 2013 (EST)

Walkazo brings up a pretty good point in his oppose, what do you suppose we could do with the more obvious references if/when this passes? Lord Grammaticus (talk
 * Let the reader figure it out and leave the parameter blank so it doesn't show up?
 * Well, you could also detail it in the text, one does not obstruct the other...
 * Which is why I asked the way I did; detailing the origin of a relatively common pun isn't obstructive so much as it is frivulous.
 * I'm aware that begs the question of what makes a pun obvious, but I don't think that discussion would be overly troublesome. Lord Grammaticus (talk)
 * I think it should be, if the pun is not obvious, like this, in the text: "This pun comes from the expression Expression here, which means (very short explanation here). And add on the infobox "From the expression (expression here)". We could even omit the explanation.
 * Stuff like "Plunder ground", "Urn it", "Grow Up" is self explanatory, but others including "Paint Misbehavin'", "Snow Ride", and "Jump the Gun" may need some explanation.


 * * her oppose. Also, the excess of obvious name explanations is bad enough, we'd hardly need it in the infoboxes and the body text, and I fear that having some explanations in one or the other and some boxes left blank without body text info will all just seem woefully inconsistent. As for what should or shouldn't be explained, that can always be decided in the talk pages if there's any disagreement. -
 * Isn't there a way to have the cell in the infobox not appear if the parameter is left blank?
 * Yeah, with stuff, like here, afaik. But even so, that wouldn't hide the fact that some infoboxes would have explanations while others wouldn't. Plus, optional lines screw up alternating-bg-colour schemes and the more they can be avoided, the better. -
 * Aye, my mistake, sorry about that. Regarding consistency: do we give the expressions in every infobox at least, and add more details in the body for the less obvious ones, or did you have.something entirely different in mind?
 * I think just having the explanations in the body text would be ideal. Anyway, the proposer MegaKoopa has asked me on my talk page to delete the proposal, so archiving now. -