MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Determine whether reused artwork is a reference
Right now, whenever a piece of character artwork is remade/reused, it's considered a reference in the references section. But I say... why? It's a practice Nintendo's been doing for years, and the poses are always very generic. I don't think anyone at Nintendo says "Hey, remember that Mario Party game from 10 years ago? Let's reference it by reusing Bowser's character artwork!".

Because there's several variables, there are a few different options for this proposal:
 * Only reused artwork is a reference: Only instances where the exact artwork is reused will be considered a reference.
 * Only remastered artwork is a reference: Only instances where the artwork is remade will be considered a reference. For example, Wario's artwork from Mario Party: The Top 100 would be a Super Mario 64 DS reference because it's a remake of his older artwork.
 * Neither are a reference: Self-explanatory, all mentions of reused artwork in any form would be removed from the references sections.
 * Both are a reference: Nothing happens, both continue to be considered a reference.
 * Determine on a case-by-case basis: Artwork reuse being a reference would be determined on a case-by-case basis, similar to other elements of games like reused enemies.

Proposer: Deadline: August 30, 2018, 23:59 GMT Extended to September 6, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Only reused artwork is a reference

 * 1) - Per my original thoughts.
 * 2) - Per proposal.

Only remastered artwork is a reference

 * 1) Remaking an artwork is at the very least giving a specific nod to an element of a game, if not the entire game. Artwork is an element as much as sprites or quotes.
 * 2) Per Baby Luigi's comment. At this point, artwork from the Mario Party games has been reused so many times, it's hardly a reference anymore.

Neither are a reference

 * 1) Per proposal + my comment on the previous take.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Per all

Determine on a case-by-case basis

 * 1) This proposal is clearly better off as a discussion, but I'm going for this option since it's at least an opener for further discussion.
 * 2) Gonna vote here as well since this option now exists, and I see the merits of both.
 * 3) The context surrounding the artwork is far more important into establishing whenever it's a reference. In many contexts, however, especially related to more general artwork, which are later to be used as stock work, this is not true. For instance, it's silly to say that the artwork that appears in New Super Mario Bros. is a reference to Mario Party 6 since it appeared in Mario Party 6 first (if not earlier). If there is important information about how the artwork is reused, especially if it's reused prominently the point it's associated, it should be instead be noted in the file page as well as be categorized in the file page as artwork for those multiple games (e.g. that Mario artwork should be considered Mario Party 6 AND New Super Mario Bros. art). But there are other instances of art where I'd argue that it would be a reference; Mario & Luigi and Mario Strikers art, for instance, are highly stylized so their appearances in other games are references. Even iconic art like the Super Mario Bros. pictures should probably be recognized as a reference if it appears anywhere else. Another reason context matters much is if hypothetically, Super Mario 64-era Mario artwork gets reused. Back then, it's used in more general promotional advertising so its being reused in similar games would've not really been a reference. But it's no longer getting used, so if one sees it in a newer game, would it be a reference? I'd really say if it's more case-by-case especially if artwork start receiving diminished use in the future as rendering technology continues improving and designs continue evolving. So far, a lot of the GCN/Wii/Wii U era art is getting used, even after being re-rendered, but there might be an interesting argument in the future once the that era art stops becoming stock.
 * 4) Per Bazooka Mario.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Some are references, perhaps, like Bazooka Mario's point about unique art styles, but some are stock artwork. Usually the latter. Really, the best course of action is not to make a solid rule and decide for each image as the issue comes about.

Comments
I think this should be applied in the same mannerism as we already handle references for policy: referencing Super Mario Bros. because Goombas appear in the game is ludicrous, so saying that Baby Luigi's artwork in promotional material are all references to Mario Kart Wii (which in turn is a reference to Luigi's pose from DDR: Mario Mix) is a bit ludicrous. So in that way, I accept remaking/remastering artwork only when it reuses artwork from that specific game instance, such as Bowser's very specialized, dancing artwork that isn't reused all that often to begin with being reused for Mario Sports Superstars. Artwork such as Waluigi's crouching pose, Yoshi's running pose from Mario Party 8, ie any artwork that gets reused very often, should not be labeled as references. 13:25, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Yes, by then it's stock artwork. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * I'll also add that some artwork gets edited without it being necessarily a reference: Bowser Jr.'s artwork in Mario Party: Star Rush is an edited version of his artwork in Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash, but that doesn't mean that they wanted to reference said game. Actually, I frankly don't think that in most cases the artwork which is reused or remastered is a reference to the original game for which the original artwork was made. I'd rather talk about sourcing in these cases, but we don't have any way to make this distinction at the moment.--Mister Wu (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

I say that I don't like any of the options in this proposal. My conclusion is this: some reused artworks are references, many of them aren't, but that doesn't mean no reused artworks aren't references to past games. 16:57, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Agreed; it's better if this was case-by-case, rather than catch-all. 17:01, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * I've added a fifth option, since this seems to be a popular opinion. -- 17:28, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * The problem I have with it is that it's pretty vague. 17:42, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it is pretty vague. I like the idea, but since it's too vague, I don't think I can vote for it. For me, most should follow under what I voted for. 17:38, 25 August 2018 (EDT)

Does the movie Pixels warrant guest-appearance coverage?
The thought sparked after reading this statement on the revamped Donkey Kong (franchise) page:

"The original arcade iteration of Donkey Kong appears as the main antagonist in the 2015 film Pixels".

Well, shouldn't it warrant a page then?

After doing some digging, it seems this is most, if not all of DK's screentime in the movie so calling him the "main villain" of the movie is a bit misleading. On the other hand, it still substantial enough that Donkey Kong has some stakes in the plot of the movie (unlike, says, Bowser's cameo in Wreck-It Ralph) and furthermore, according to Wikipedia's summary of the "plot", the Donkey Kong arcade game itself is integral to the movie as it's prominently featured in the oepning scene and it drives one of main character's motivation for the rest of the film. You can split hairs and say the DK in Pixels is not the genuine article but a weird alien recreation of his sprite, but I don't think it's an useful distinction here. Fact is, the use of the Donke Kong intellectual property is more relevant to the plot of Pixels than is Donkey Kong's appearance in the Wii Punch-Out, which squarely meets the current description of what a guest appearance is.

Of course, according to the standards set by Coverage, only the movie itself would get a page and nothing else from it. I don't feel particularly strongly about the outcome either way but I felt this needed to be discussed.

Proposer: Deadline: September 12, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Yes, the movie where Adam Sandler Actually Josh Gad procreates with Q-Bert warrants a wiki page

 * 1)  - For the reasons provided above and (mostly) for the sheer absurdity of it.
 * 2)  - I have to agree with Glowsquid here. It would be sensible to make an article for Pixels.
 * 3) Personally, I feel Adam Sandler-related content is something that this wiki has been lacking for a long time and I welcome its coverage. Per all.
 * 4) I feel that Donkey Kong is featured prominently enough to have coverage similar to our coverage of The Wizard.
 * 5) Why is it that films centered around video gaming competitions do poorly while films about video game franchises, on the other hand, do much better? Per all.
 * 6) - It wasn't Adam Sandler, it was, jsyk. But yes, per all.
 * 7) Josh Gad is da Devil! Per all, I've been curious about this myself.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
This proposal is sure to make someone abnormally angry, like an alligator with an enlarged medulla oblongata all them teeth but no toothbrush. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

I love the proposal options omg we need more of that. 13:29, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

It would be better if we waited until  also releases, since the film's development team was planning on giving Mario a much larger role than in the. Since the focus on Mario seems roughly equal for both films, maybe...propose both at the same time? Just a thought. 13:33, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Two unrelated medias, two proposals! --Glowsquid (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

So, to clarify, we would get a Pixels page, but we would only cover the Donkey Kong information aside from a intro about the movie? 13:33, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
 * We might have to take some queues from the article on The Wizard. 13:35, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Basically yeah. Do a very basic overview of what the film is and what it's about, then talk about what Dong does in it. --Glowsquid (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

How about the short film it's based off of? Would it get a section? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
 * I don't think it warrants any more coverage than mentioning its existence and status as source material on the movie's page since afaict nothing was licensed. --Glowsquid (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.