MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Classify Just Dance series as a guest appearance
In Just Dance 3, there is a song named "Just Mario" with a whole theming around it. Spinies on the background, horsetail plants, and Mario Mario himself, dancing at the center of the screen. Exclusively for Just Dance 2018 Switch version, there is... Rabbid Peach, dancing next to Peach's Castle. With a whole theme going around these two songs, I believe it's fair to call the series a guest appearance.

Proposer: Deadline: April 27, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Mario is just that good at dancing
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) If we aren't going to consider Punch-Out!! (NES) a guest appearance, then we should also treat this as a cameo. The Mario elements play no role in the gameplay. If you're going to use the argument that the character blatantly appears in it, so did Mario in Punch-Out!! (NES). Even if I would classify these games, I think we should create two different articles on it.
 * 2) Why create a series page for two games Mario guest appeared in? We should only do series pages for Mario spinoffs. We'd might as well do a Sonic series page or a Legend of Zelda series page if Just Dance gets a series page here. The Just Dance guest appearances should have a page for each game instead.
 * 3) Per SeanWheeler, but I'd support an option to make individual pages for the games with Mario content.

Comments
i mean, if its got mario stuff in it then yeah its a guest appearance. my question is does this really need a proposal? 22:02, April 20, 2023 (EDT)
 * SMW:CV "Please note that a proposal should be made before a game is classified as a "guest appearance", as this is a somewhat tricky distinction and there could easily be disagreement in the community about the extent to which coverage should be granted to any given non-Mario game." Spectrogram (talk) 01:21, April 21, 2023 (EDT)

So would this classify the whole series as a guest appearance or just those two games with Mario content? 08:19, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
 * The whole series because: a) stand-alone articles on two of these games just wouldn't be a good idea, and b) it's just better to keep all Mario content on one page for the whole Just Dance series. If Nintendo ever partners with them again and another Mario song gets released, would we need to make a third page? These games are way too similar. Spectrogram (talk) 09:16, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
 * So I'm assuming the page name would be "Just Dance (series)"? 09:19, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
 * Why not just Just Dance? Spectrogram (talk) 12:01, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
 * Naming: "Game series articles always get a series identifier regardless of whether or not the title is shared, such as Mario Kart (series)." 13:00, April 23, 2023 (EDT)
 * Not sure I agree with this rule, but in this case, yes Spectrogram (talk) 13:06, April 23, 2023 (EDT)

@WikiBoy10, Punch Out literally only has Mario as a referee (and that's it). These two songs clearly have tons of effort put into, combining elements from two separate Mario games. Comparing this to Punch Out is just fractally wrong. Spectrogram (talk) 14:57, April 23, 2023 (EDT)

There's already a precedent for lumping multiple "Guest Appearance" games with the Skylanders: SuperChargers page, which covers the title game, the "Racing" version for last-gen consoles and the character's appearance in Imaginators. Making a separate page for each Just Dance game that has a Mario song in it is an insane suggestion to me, they're very iterative games. --Glowsquid (talk) 13:57, April 27, 2023 (EDT)

Discourage drive-by templating part 2
Building off of this proposal, I propose taking this one step further with some more templates that are often used. Suggestions to merge, split, and rename articles are frequently made using the relevant templates, but many times that's the end of it and no talk page discussion is ever started. The reasons for the suggested change are left behind in a quickly buried edit summary, or not elaborated on at all. That makes it a lot harder for users to know why the change was suggested in the first place, and to discuss whether to do it.

If this passes, then these templates must be accompanied by either an active discussion or proposal. The discussion/proposal doesn't need to be on the talk page of the article where the template is used, but it does need to exist somewhere, and the template needs to link to the appropriate page. I'm hesitant to define what counts as an active discussion here, because I think it's fair to have some level of discretion there - personally, I would say that if there hasn't been any engagement whatsoever in the past 365 days, the discussion isn't active anymore (please be aware that this is not set in stone). This is to prevent having these templates left behind while attached to discussions that are years old - like proposals, if you suggest a change it's up to you (or the other supporters) to see that through and keep it active until a consensus is reached.

Articles where the proposed changes are enforced by a proposal but not enacted yet are exempt, as a decision has already been made. However, the proposal field of these templates should be used to link to the relevant proposal.

The following templates will be affected:
 * Template:Merge to
 * Template:Merge from
 * Template:Split
 * Template:Move

Proposer: Deadline: May 4, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) yeah
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) "Yeah" indeed. (To be honest, I thought this was something the previous proposal did...)
 * 5) Explaining why you suggest a split/merge/move in the edit summary is horrible for wiki maintenance. The reasoning is often very hard to find (if it even exists), and the templates end up linking to a red link talk page. If you can't be bothered to actually start a discussion on the changes you want to see made, then you shouldn't be allowed to use these templates in the first place.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Yeah, fully on board with this. I've seen this template many times and it often doesn't have any sort of discussion tying to it.
 * 8) Per all, I've seen so many instances of this with no discussion to be found anywhere.
 * 9) This is exactly what I had brought up on the previous proposal.
 * 10) - Please? (because a "per proposal" doesn't drive home the urgency.)
 * 11) Pretty please. Way too many instances of articles having these specific tags but never linking to talk pages, or any other way to give out what the reason for it's inclusion is. I especially hate it when the reason is hidden away in edit summaries, like, edit summaries are only ment for telling what you did on a page, it is NOT for explaining complex topics that better warrant an entire discussion on a talk page.
 * 1) Pretty please. Way too many instances of articles having these specific tags but never linking to talk pages, or any other way to give out what the reason for it's inclusion is. I especially hate it when the reason is hidden away in edit summaries, like, edit summaries are only ment for telling what you did on a page, it is NOT for explaining complex topics that better warrant an entire discussion on a talk page.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.