MarioWiki:Proposals

Standardize citations for archived pages
Many web pages that are used as citations on the Mario Wiki are no longer available at their original links. Consequently, the citations use links from web page archival sites such as archive.today or the Wayback Machine. This can be seen on articles that reference the English translation of the Mario Portal, such as Banzai Bill, as well as other articles, such as Nintendo GameCube. Including archived citations is especially important for web pages that are volatile by design, such as online store listings for merchandise. However, nowhere does Citations feature a template for how to properly cite archived web pages; therefore, an example of a citation for an archived page should be created under the heading What to put as references.

EDIT: Per Koopa con Carne's comments, I've revised my recommendations for a standardized template below.

The current basic template for citations of non-archived pages looks like this: "Author Name (January 1, 2000). . Publisher. Retrieved January 1, 2022."

In order to make citations of archived pages as simple as possible, they should only link to the archived page, followed by the date and timestamp (if available) of the archived page, along with the name of the archival website: "Author Name (January 1, 2000). . Publisher. Archived January 1, 2000, 09:00:00 UTC via Archival Website. Retrieved January 1, 2022."

This is what an actual citation would look like under this standard, using one of the references on the Nintendo GameCube article as an example: "Satterfield, Shane (August 25, 2000). Nintendo's GameCube Unveiled. GameSpot. Archived September 5, 2015 via Wayback Machine. Retrieved July 15, 2022."

Here's another example, using the citation of the Mario Portal on the Banzai Bill article (because this specific page does not have an author nor a release date attributed to it, these details are omitted from the citation): "Game Archives"

As a clarification, this proposal does not mean to mandate that every citation of a web page should include an archived link; that should be left to editor consideration. However, in cases where archived links are necessary, such as volatile links or links that are already dead, a standard method of citation would be useful to implement.

Proposer: Deadline: October 24, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support
I think I'd rather have it link to both the archive and the original, but I can see why that might not be ideal and this is still better than nothing so per proposal.
 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I agreed with making it a formal encouragement to treat archive links as supplementary to authentic links, thereby easing the process of swapping them when the latter are discontinued. However, I don't see a use for replacing perfectly fine, working links with archived counterparts, much less so extending that to policy. Generally speaking, archived snapshots load slowly and can be a fuss to instate in the first place; making their use obligatory and exclusive, on top of what I just said, might discourage editors from actually sourcing their information. Besides, ignoring this aspect, all in all this reads to me like trying to make an amendment for an issue that doesn't exist.

Comments
Can you articulate some specifics for this standard? Namely, would it suffice to include the link to a snapshot, or would editors be requested to also add the time, date, and name of the archivation website of that particular snapshot? You are putting forward the Banzai Bill citation as a template and, though I agree on encouraging comprehensive fact-checking and easy readability/access (as the user who basically pushed for this whole format across the wiki over the past years), I reckon some editors may not like being forced by policy to tick so many boxes when structuring their links. 00:50, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I've edited the description of my proposal to reflect your criticisms. If there's anything else I was unclear about, please let me know. 11:57, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't disallow snapshot timestamps. I recognise that the presence of such info creates an inconsistency with the way the original link's access date is formatted, but one could argue the timestamp is a defining, unique attribute of the snapshot. I.E., a snapshot taken at 09:00:00 UTC on January 1, 2000 is stored separately from another snapshot taken 17:00:00 UTC on the same day, and (on Wayback Machine at least) there's a set waiting period before a new snapshot can be created, so there exist no two simultaneous snapshots of a given web page. Another proviso in your proposal I would like to address regards the way broken links are handled: it's fairly counterintuitive to put forth a link that doesn't work and treat the working archive link as secondary; the way I've gone with this has been to treat the archive links as any other regular link, complete with its original website's name and access date, and sandwich the archival details in-between the former two, like so:". website. Archived January 1, 2000, 09:00:00 UTC via Mayback Wachine. Retrieved January 1, 2022." An additional practice I've seen on Wikipedia is to also append the original link as an accessory, as "Archived January 1, 2000, 09:00:00 UTC from the via Wayback Machine", which I suppose makes documentation more thorough--if a bit overly so, which is why I suspect some editors may find fault in this addition.  20:30, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I've made more revisions to the template I recommended for citing archived links. I elected to simply include only the archived link within the citation, both because the original link is always available on any credible archived page, and for simplicity's sake so editors don't find it too tedious to implement said template. 23:35, October 10, 2022 (EDT)

So, is the proposal now championing the prohibition of first-hand links in favour of archived links, or just a guideline recommendation for using the latter? The last statement of the proposal is in direct contradiction with the rest: "As a clarification, this proposal does not mean to mandate that every citation of a web page should include an archived link; that should be left to editor consideration." 18:04, October 11, 2022 (EDT)
 * For additional clarification to that final sentence in particular, users should decide on their own whether to use an archived link in their citation (especially for pages that are volatile or already dead on the live web), or if using a regular link would be sufficient (this applies to most pages). However, if the user decides that an archived link would be appropriate, the standardized template described above should be used. There should be a template for citing archived links in addition to the existing template for citing regular links; that was the goal of this proposal in the first place. There will always be outliers and exceptions (for example, the reference on Il Piantissimo's article would be difficult to fit into a standard template), but having these guidelines is good practice because it sets the standard for credible and accessible citations. 21:33, October 11, 2022 (EDT)

My sincere apologies for writing this so late, but I'd like to request that this proposal be cancelled. Koopa con Carne has made several valid points of opposition; on top of this, the proposal has only received three support votes other than mine (with one doubting its effectiveness). I still agree that standardized guidelines are generally better than a lack of guidelines, but I'd rather not have a policy change go into effect unless it's agreed upon unanimously or nearly unanimously (i.e. more support votes and less valid criticisms of what the proposal entails). 20:42, October 23, 2022 (EDT)

New features
None at the moment.

Remove external links to Zelda Dungeon Wiki and/or Triforce Wiki
Early this year, a proposal was passed to add external links to Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki by 10-0; the intent was to add two links to two independently hosted wikis as Zelda Wiki at the time was hosted on Fandom.

Fortunately for us, this is no longer the case. Zeldapedia is now independently hosted and doing well. I think while Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki have served their purpose and are great resources for Zelda content, it would be embarassing (as a NIWA wiki) to continue using these wikis when it was originally intended to supplement a Fandom wiki that has since forked its content to become independently hosted once again.

Edit: After giving some thoughts, I've decided to allow users to either remove ZD Wiki or Triforce Wiki or remove them both.

Proposer: Deadline: October 27, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Remove both

 * 1) Per my reasons.
 * 2) Per proposal.

Do nothing

 * 1) - Disregarding my personal ties to Triforce Wiki, I'd actually support (and even prefer) allowing more specifically approved outside-NIWA indy wikis of Nintendo subjects to be included, if only for variety's sake. (Also, I am very happy for ZeldaWiki!)
 * 2) Agreed. Disregarding the biases involved with Triforce Wiki's approach being modeled after this wiki's, I think it's more in our interest to keep the line drawn at non-NIWA wikis that cross into Mario franchise coverage. I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a time when the Sonic News Network links were in question due to the Sonic Retro wiki, but it was decided to keep both because while the former isn't independent, it's more mature as a wiki? For our purposes, the relevant content is mature enough. Cutting off options does a disservice to readers.
 * 3) - per Doc

Comments
Here's the thing, I'm more in favor of just removing Triforce Wiki. Zelda Dungeon Wiki, I feel, should still be kept for the reasons Doc has said. However, I'm more in favor of removing Triforce Wiki because the owner has had disturbing history on many NIWA wikis. Wikiboy10 (talk) 09:53, October 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * I tried my best to not mention it, but yeah the history of Triforce Wiki had been concerning for many. If people want to keep ZD Wiki and remove Triforce Wiki, I'd be happy to add it as an option. 10:03, October 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * I'm going to let Doc touch on this since I don't know as much - being that I had never been in Discord - but know the bottom line is that the founder is no longer actively involved and I disbelieve that one's personal actions taints a whole. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:25, October 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Um... TriForce Wiki was always my little pet project. RMV even said as much himself. Technically the domain is now hosted by grifkuba, I've banned RMV for his - quite frankly dangerous - behavior, and I am the de facto proprietor now - I've just been inactive due to being busy on this site. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:34, October 20, 2022 (EDT)

Disregarding the problematic history with Triforce Wiki (and thank god he's no longer involved), I have some issues with your argument @LinkTheLefty.
 * "I think it's more in our interest to keep the line drawn at non-NIWA wikis that cross into Mario franchise coverage. [...] Cutting off options does a disservice to readers."

I'm not sure if this is a great argument. We already have issues with Smash coverage here, and at the moment they aren't linking to any other Smash wiki than SmashWiki. I might be getting into slippery slope territory by saying this, but I don't want an instance where we decide that if we provide enough coverage to a franchise, we should link to every wiki that covers that franchise. Relatively speaking, I don't want this wiki to start linking to https://animalcrossing.fandom.com (which is unlikely, but still). I don't think Zeldapedia minds about linking to other Zelda wikis, but I don't want this to set a precedent that quite frankly should be avoided. 11:08, October 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * I was going to mention Smash before, but I thought that example was already implicitly inapplicable given the franchise's special scope in wiki coverage (for the time being or not), so I didn't bother. Your Fandom example isn't applicable either, per this proposal. Furthermore - and I'm aware this wasn't your intention when you made this but I want this to be clear - associating Triforce Wiki with one person/incident it has largely moved away from is REALLY unfair to Doc, who has been open about it being a pet project of hers and earned the title of current proprietor of the wiki, which is now hosted by Grifkuba among other NIWA wikis. That's all I really want to say about this matter. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:54, October 20, 2022 (EDT)

I think I'm going to wait a bit before weighing in with a vote. For now, I think it's best if we at least replace all links to the ZeldaWiki hosted by FANDOM with links to the new independent Zeldapedia, if that hasn't been done already. I'm also happy that they finally went independent again, like how they used to. It kinda stuck like a sore thumb to have this one NIWA wiki to be hosted by Gamepedia/FANDOM when all the other NIWA wikis are independent. On a side note though, I think it's funny that the new independent wiki is called "Zeldapedia", considering there was previously a Zeldapedia hosted by FANDOM before they were assimilated by ZeldaWiki on FANDOM. 11:05, October 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * Just to let you know, it's already replaced; the interwiki links now point to Zeldapedia instead of Zelda Wiki. 14:26, October 22, 2022 (EDT)

Merge all non-Mario universe Super Smash Bros. Stages into a collective article
Throughout the past few months the wiki has been trimming down on Super Smash Bros. content. Mutliple propsoals have now been passed supporting the trimming of Smash content including propsoals merging items, deleting general technqiues and most recently the merging of bosses. Up until I recently beleived that Smash should receive full coverage on this wiki becuause of the high level of represention Mario and its sub-franchies recive in these games. However the recent trimming of content combined with the existence of Smash Wiki I have changed my mind on this. The next step that should be taken in trimming smash content is would be to merge the stages into one collective artcile.

This is probably the most radical proposal in the trimming of Smash content so far giving the stages are a big part of the Super Smash Bros. franchise. However if we are no longer going to have seperate artciles for Items and Bosses then I think it now has to be questioned to wherever or not non-Mario stages should be also still have seperate pages given this the Mario Wiki that they based on locations that have nothing or very little to do with the Mario franchise and that seperste artciles of these stages exist on Smash Wiki.

Given that this the Mario Wiki that all stages based locations from the Mario and the sub-franchises should keep their artciles. By keeping them split it will emphasis that this the Mario Wiki by given increased focus on elements from Smash that are based on Mario. Therefore should this propsoal pass stages from these franchises which are covered by this wiki remain split:


 * Mario
 * Donkey Kong
 * Yoshi
 * Wario

One series where I think there is question mark to wherever they should be split or merged are Smash oringal stages, ie Battlefield and Final Destination. I would be also keep these with their own articles as these stages have the most hertiage of all Smash stages in the series and that they are not specfially based on a non-Mario franchise. I will therefore provide two options for merging one that sees the Smash oringnal stages remain split and the one that sees them merged.

As for all the other franchises inclduing not listed above they would all be merged into an idvidual artcile with the page names being replaced by redirects and include external links to Smash Wiki. Futhermore the infoboxes for the non-mario stages are removed and the text body should be limited to one paragrah per stage.

I'm very much aware that if this proposal passes it would be a very signifcant change for the wiki. But I beleive now given the trimming of smash content that has been taking place it is one that I beleive should hapoen. (Amendments made to proposal in comments below)

Proposer: Deadline: October 8, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended until October 22, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended until October 29, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge all non-Mario universe stages excluding stages orignal to Smash

 * 1) Per proposals, first prefrence

Merge all non-Mario universe stages including stages orignal to Smash

 * 1) Second prefrence.
 * 2) I'm in agreement with the proposal, and generally also with the original proposition to have some of the information trimmed, such as the soundtrack listings (although I wouldn't exactly restrict stage entries to only one paragraph, but I digress). The way Super Mario Wiki covers Smash content is an infamously messy attempt at a compromise between the practices of a bygone era of the wiki and its current efforts to curate information. Most of these stages, while not entirely out of the wiki's scope given their presence in a crossover game, have too tenuous a connection to Mario to have dedicated articles; related information is much better conveyed on Smash Wiki, i.e. someone can go there to see Dream Land's track selection if that's a concern. For the record, I would support a similar treatment for fighters that haven't appeared in Mario media.
 * 3) After some thought, I think this is also a fine option.
 * 4) Per Koopa con Carne. I see little to no reason to keep entire Smash articles with little to no relation to the Mario franchise if said information is documented far more comprehensively on SmashWiki; it just sets a standard of redundant documentation. People aren't visiting the Mario Wiki to learn about Brinstar.
 * 5) Since simply deleting Smash content that is irrelevant to Mario doesn't seem to be an option for this wiki for some reason, this is the best compromise I guess. Per proposal.
 * 6) I was opposed to merging the bosses before, but now that they are merged, why are we prolonging the inevitable? It makes little sense that things that amount to a backdrop & a floor have more priority than the actual items and bosses and every other mechanic (minus the players) in the series. Per proposal.

Merge only non-Mario adventure mode and subspace emissary stages

 * 1) Merging all stages seems like biting off more than we can chew right now, but these in particular aren't really significant enough to warrant separate articles for them.
 * 2) Per my reasoning in the comments
 * 3) I think that the main stages are prominent enough to remain separate, per Waluigi Time’s vote below, but I feel like these stages are less significant and can be merged.
 * 4) Per TheFlameChomp. the adventure mode and subspace emissary stages don't need separate pages.
 * 5) Per all, the arguments for stages being too prominent to merge don't really apply to the adventure mode stages.
 * 6) Per all. I agree to this most.
 * 7) Second choice; per all. Even if most non-Mario-related stages won't be merged, I strongly feel that these stages have too little relation to Mario to be split.
 * 8) The main stages are just as essential to Smash as the fighters, so I see no reason to merge them. Per all.
 * 9) Second choice since a full merge seems to be gaining traction suddenly.
 * 10) Per all.

Keep all Smash stages split

 * 1) Creating a single page to contain every non-Mario stage in the series history, as this proposal seems to aim to do, is going to be way too messy. I'm also strongly against this specific sentence: "Futhermore the infoboxes for the non-mario stages are removed and the text body should be limited to one paragrah per stage." By doing that, we either lose information while trying to keep it trimmed to an arbitrary maximum (why?) or we have all the information we can talk about regarding each stage clumped into a single paragraph, which isn't nice to read. Take a look at Dream Land (Super Smash Bros.) for example, and try to think of how this would look merged. It's not pretty. Stages are a big enough part of the series gameplay that I think they're fine keeping separate, and frankly, I wasn't really too happy about items being merged either, but at least that was easier to pull off.
 * 2) - Too much, too far. Engaging pushback mode.
 * 3) I feel stages are the second to only playable roster in terms of prominence in a Smash Bros. game (I mean we didn't get an "Everything is Here!" for stages 😒) so I feel a lot of other content should be merged first before we consider stages.
 * 4) I may consider The Subspace Emissary, which is mostly Smash-original content (and the parts that aren't, aren't Mario-related), but Adventure mode mostly consists of normal stages, and one of the nonstandard stages gets utility outside of the mode via Event Match.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all. At least, until we can adequately address the issues brought up by other users.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) By that logic non-Mario Mario Kart courses would also be merged which doesn't make a lot of sense.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
I'm very conflicted about this. I think non-Mario Subspace Emissary stages such as Battleship Halberd Bridge or The Path to the Ruins need to be merged, but regular stages that shape Smash Bros. into what it is are fine. Not to mention, Battlefield according to the last Smash proposal will be merged with Fighting Polygons and other teams, so that would mean merging a stage that was already just merged. Keeping it unsplit alone would also be seen as weird. Your proposal also does not make an exception for Wrecking Crew (stage). Please add an option to only merge non-Mario Subspace Emissary levels Spectrogram (talk) 13:07, October 1, 2022 (EDT)
 * I agree with merging Subspace Emissary stages, along with Melee Adventure Mode stages barring Mushroom Kingdom. 17:23, October 1, 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for all the feedback given on this proposal, I created this proposal because I feel like it should either be all or nothing when consdiering Smash content, either it should be all merged or all split and I felt based off the pervious proposals held that the consenus of smash content leaned towards it being merged. By having items and bosses merged but stages split i feel it is middle of the road but i do understand the points made of stages being more important. It seems very likely that this proposal is not going to pass but i'll going make amendments based of the things said to see if changes any minds. Firstly as per comments from Spectrogram and 7feetunder I've added the extra option to merge non-Mario adventure mode subpace emissary stages. Secondly in regards to infobox removals and trimming of content, i've decided to strike that off from the proposal given ideas clearly sound unpopular. Thirdly in regards to Wrecking Crewe I completly forgot that stage existed and if this proposal were to pass then that would also stay split. Lastly if this proposal passes then maybe rather than one aritcle it be mutliple articles perhaps one per game to avoid it being messey. That being said even despite these ameadments the consenus clearly belevies the stages should remain split and fully see where all of you are coming from the points made but I curious to see what you all think of these amendments.

@KoolKoopa, no, it doesn't. Smash series is an exception in the coverage policy, which allows such proposals to be made. It wouldn't imply removing content from other crossovers. Spectrogram (talk) 13:58, October 18, 2022 (EDT)

@KoolKoopa "By that logic..." Erm, no? Mario Kart is a pure, distinctly Mario game spin-off with non-Mario stuff in it, and said non-Mario stuff gets covered as a result. Smash is not a pure, distinctly Mario game. It's a 50-ish way crossover with its own unique stuff in it on top of that. Those two situations are Apples to Fruit Punch levels of different.

Decide what Paper Airplane Chase is
Paper Airplane Chase is a DSiWare game that was made based on the minigame Paper Plane (minigame came first). If this game wasn't made based on the WarioWare minigame, the answer to how MarioWiki should cover it would be obvious: a cameo appearance. The characters just appear on the background and serve no gameplay functionality. So the question is, how should Paper Airplane Chase be covered on this wiki?


 * Part of the Mario franchise: Paper Airplane Chase gets considered a full part of the Wario series, since it originated from the WarioWare minigame. This option results in the game receiving full coverage
 * Guest appearance: Not sure how to justify this option. The page remains, no full coverage
 * Cameo appearance: Paper Airplane Chase gets considered nothing more than a cameo appearance, resulting in the article getting removed

Proposer: Deadline: October 22, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Mario game

 * 1) It's a direct spin-off of Wario, and I'm pretty sure that makes it count as a game in the franchise by our policy.
 * 2) It's taken directly from WarioWare and still keeps the elements of that series, I don't see why we should do anything else.
 * 3) I think it makes sense to give the game full coverage if it is based directly off of a WarioWare subject and continues to contain some elements from the series.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.

Merge most of what's listed in Diamond
All of the disambiguated objects on that page that bear the appearance of a diamond and are named "Diamond" (e.g. Diamond (Wario's Woods), Diamond (Wario Land 4), and Diamond (Dr. Mario World)) are the same generic subject, just with different functions--and that principle isn't used to break apart Frog, Heart, Mushroom, and other similar pages. (In fact, a proposal to split the latter ended in a failure.) This proposal aims to bring together all the aforementioned objects into one page. Regarding the diamonds that appear in a collection of functionally-identical objects, such as the diamond treasure in Wario World and the gem category in Luigi's Mansion 2, I should probably clarify that I don't intend to have them split from their parent page with this proposal, just give them a quick mention alongside the more individual diamond items on the repurposed Diamond article.

Proposer: Deadline: October 29, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal
 * 2) Diamonds are diamonds. Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.

Comments
What's the deal with Captain Toad's Super Gem? The current Diamond page says it's sometimes called a "diamond", but I don't recall that being the case in the game's English version. It will be kept a separate article whether this proposal passes or not, since it's a distinctly-named fictional object, but if Super Gems indeed have this secondary descriptor, they should be linked through an "about" tag at the top of the Diamond article. IMO. 15:55, October 22, 2022 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.