MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53

Split Diddy Kong Pilot into Diddy Kong Pilot (2001) and Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)
Hi, this is Results May Vary. I am the administrator of the defunct DK Wiki. So one thing I've noticed is the mess on the Diddy Kong Pilot page--it covers two versions of Diddy Kong Pilot that are actually entirely different from each other. And it makes merging the 2001 and 2003 pages more difficult. The two are so different that the 2003 build is even more similar to Banjo-Pilot. I remember there's some history as to why Diddy Kong Pilot was entirely reskinned along the way. The 2003 version of Diddy Kong Pilot was from that year, according to the original title of the YouTube gameplay video. Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, the YouTube account is gone, and the only information we have left from that time are via forum threads such as The RWP or NeoGAF. Thanks for reading.

Proposer: Deadline: January 19, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I started this proposal.
 * 2) This page had no proposal until now! Thanks Results May Vary! Anyways, the two are really different, per proposal.
 * 3) - Per proposal. The two builds are vastly different.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) It should be  and  if you ask me, but otherwise, per proposal.
 * 9) Per all, they're two very different builds.
 * 10) Per all. The 2001 version is more Mario-based, while the 2003 version is closer to the Donkey Kong sub-franchise.
 * ya, sure
 * 1) Per all.

Comments
Is this really a good idea? We have all sorts of genre-jumping tech demos and such in the pre-release and unused content articles, after all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2019 (EST)
 * The only difference is that both games were never released. Results May Vary (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2019 (EST)
 * You meant "similarity", right? 23:28, 15 January 2019 (EST)
 * Yeah and that both games are "prerelease and unused content". Results May Vary (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2019 (EST)
 * They are also both within the plane-flying genre, they just had a complete overhaul. It's basically a scrapped alpha/beta and another one built from the ground up. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2019 (EST)

Delete certain Game & Watch game articles
Currently, we have several articles for Game & Watch games that have no relation to the Mario series. Unlike other Game & Watch games we cover, these do not have "Modern" remakes featuring Mario elements, and do not appear as microgames, or if they do the articles neglect to mention them. Most, if not all, of these articles are only justified by the flimsy connection of them being playable in the Game & Watch Gallery games alongside other Game & Watch games which do have Modern versions featuring Mario elements and have earned their place here. However, Game & Watch Gallery 4, which most of these games are included in, also has a port of the Zelda Game & Watch game which we do not cover and instead link to ZeldaWiki for. We don't have articles for the non-Mario minigames in Nintendo Land, or games like Duck Hunt which were bundled with Mario games in the past, so why should we have these? It could also be argued that some of these games influenced Mr. Game & Watch's moveset in Smash, but I don't think that's a valid reason to keep these considering our lessened Smash coverage.

If this proposal passes, the following articles will be deleted: This would also prevent the currently-redlinked Dynamite Jack and The Wily Bomber articles from being made, as they are only characters who appear in these games.
 * Bomb Sweeper
 * Climber
 * Judge
 * Life Boat
 * Safe Buster
 * Spitball Sparky
 * Tropical Fish

Proposer: Deadline: January 27, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) This has always bugged me a lot. Does not belong here at all.
 * 3) After some thinking, yeah, I don't really see why these pages are needed after all. Per Waluigi Time.
 * 4)  This section of MarioWiki:Coverage stated that we do not cover games that are included in packages such as Duck Hunt, and while these games are playable in the Game & Watch galleries they do not feature Mario characters or themes, and Mario characters cannot be played in them either, making them completely separate from anything Mario related besides from being packaged with other Game & Watch games with a Mario-themed modern version.
 * 5)  what ^ said
 * 6) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I'm against outright deletion. Also, Dwhitney is working hard on these pages. Why not instead merge these to their respective page like we did for Destroy Them All? And by extension, Alex95's comments.
 * 2) Per Coverage. "In all cases, these crossovers are given full coverage: everything appearing in the games gets articles." And the Game and Watch Gallery series is considered a crossover. The fact that most, if not all, of these Game & Watch games are unlockable rewards makes them different than a typical pack-in title. See also Jetpac for another example of a non-Mario game which is covered because it appears in one (albeit in an arguably more important capacity).

Comments
I think we should review Coverage but common sense tells me that those articles really aren't needed. 15:47, 21 January 2019 (EST)
 * I'm against outright deletion. -- 03:56, 22 January 2019 (EST)

@FanOfYoshi: Yes, work was put into them, but that's a moot point if they're not related to the Mario series. They shouldn't be merged either, as they have no place here. Someone could make an original write up of the entire history of Link in every Zelda game on his page, but it's not relevant to the Mario series so it would be removed regardless of the effort put in to make it. Besides, everything on this wiki is work, so how is this different than deleting, trimming, or rewriting any other article? -- 10:44, 22 January 2019 (EST)
 * Also, years ago the wiki covered the Banjo and Conker games because of their debut in Diddy Kong Racing, but all those articles were later deleted because the community decided they really weren't spinoffs of the Mario series at all and had no place here as a result, which was a lot more work down the drain than this would be. -- 10:48, 22 January 2019 (EST)

Considering I was the one to tell Dwitney to make these, I should probably weigh in here. In MarioWiki:Coverage, the Game & Watch series is marked under two sections: Crossovers and Guest Appearances, both of which we cover. I suppose it could also fall under Package Deals, which we only cover the Mario aspects of. This was a bit of a confusing matter for me, and Flagman apparently appears in Wario Land II according to Doc von Schmeltwick. I think this is something we could cover, but if consensus is we shouldn't, Nintendo Wiki could use them, so they shouldn't be deleted immediately. 10:51, 22 January 2019 (EST)
 * I do think our stance on covering the Game & Watch series should be changed, since aside from the Mario-themed remakes the rest of the minigames are ports. Super Mario Bros. was packaged on the same cartridge as Duck Hunt and World Class Track Meet, but we don't cover those games. Nintendo Land is full of other original minigames (which would make them more worthy of articles than the Game & Watch ports in my opinion, although I don't think they should be covered either) that we don't cover. I think the Game & Watch games are the same situation, so I don't see why they should have special treatment. -- 10:59, 22 January 2019 (EST)

@1337star: Jetpac at least appears in what's more than basically a minigame compilation. Flagman, another Game & Watch game, also appears in Wario Land II and as a microgame in WarioWare: Touched!, and was exempt from this proposal for similar reasons. Personally, I don't think the Game & Watch games should be considered crossovers at all. What makes them more important than Nintendo Land, for example? -- 14:41, 25 January 2019 (EST)


 * The version of Flagman featured in Wario Land II is a remake in the same style as the "Modern" games in the Game and Watch Gallery titles, so it wouldn't be a valid target for deletion under this proposal anyway. In any case, you're correct in that they aren't really crossovers; they're remakes of the original Game and Watch titles with a Mario paint job, like Doki Doki Panic/Super Mario Bros. 2 or Panel de Pon/Tetris Attack. The only difference is that unlike those games, the original version of the games are also included and some of the games (the ones covered by this proposal) have no Mario counterpart. But as unlockable minigames in a Mario title, I feel these games should be covered. It's a tenuous distinction, but one I feel is important. After all, what's really the difference between these Game and Watch games and the Pyoro minigames from the WarioWare titles other than the fact that the Game and Watch games happened to already exist in real life first? Both are unlockable minigames having very little to do with the main content of the game they are featured in. (As an aside, all of our articles on non-Mario Game and Watch games should probably focus more on their status as minigames in the Game and Watch Gallery games and not the real games they were based on.) -- 1337star (Mailbox SP) 15:42, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * Honestly, we should probably be covering the Game & Watch games in the same way we cover Super Smash Bros. content. 16:01, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * I don't think your argument works well considering you're throwing out a big difference. At least Pyoro and his minigames originated in the Wario series, which we cover fully. However, I do agree with you that if these articles stay the information about the original games should be trimmed/removed altogether. -- 16:26, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * Yeah, I meant "more or less", not "completely" like Super Smash Bros. 16:28, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * Jetpac is essential to be played and completed if one wants to complete DK64. It is necessary to obtain the Rareware Coin. Playing through to the end of DK64 will unquestionably force the player to play it. The G&W games without Mario remakes are not as essential to the game they are a part of. They are extra, bonus content, equivalent in my mind to Duck Hunt and World Class Track Meet. As Waluigi Time mentioned, as well, Pyoro was created in WarioWare and is a product of the WarioWare series. These G&W games had no connection to Mario when they were envisioned, created, and sold. For me, I like to hit the 'Random Button' on this wiki when I'm bored and read something Mario-related to pass the time. It's always stuck me as very, very strange that one could hit the Random button and get a page about Tropical Fish. It was even worse in the past when I would hit the button and get Goldeen, Aether and Hyrule Castle all in a row, but thankfully some of that has been trimmed. I think trimming these articles is a good step in the same direction. Furthermore, if we were to go by the logic of including games because they're included in games we cover (a la Jetpac > DK64), then wouldn't we need an article about all of the Masterpieces included in SSBB and SSB4? That would be crazy. Shadow2 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Update the Manual of Style to strongly discourage abbreviations of game titles on mainspace articles
NSMBUDX is a port of NSMBU. What? While that example was made up abbreviations are quite common in articles, and can be annoying to read or even downright confusing, such as the previously mentioned King K. Rool edit where not only was Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest shorted, but Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! was abbreviated to 3, which can be extremely confusing to a reader if they do not know the abbreviations of a game, especially in the case of 3 as there is several threequels in the Donkey Kong franchise with 3 in their name, such as Donkey Konga 3: Tabehōdai! Haru Mogitate 50 Kyoku. There is other examples of potentially confusing abbreviations such the commonly used Deluxe abbreviation for New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, which could be mistaken for Super Mario Bros. Deluxe. This is why I am proposing that we update the Manual of Style to strongly discourage abbreviations of game titles on mainspace articles only, as this would greatly improve reading experience. Please note that this only applies to the main content of mainspace articles as, redirects of commonly used abbreviations, talk pages and user discussion, the and  templates in articles, and brief mentions of an official abbreviation in the article such as with Fire Stalking Piranha Plants (sometimes abbreviated as Fire Stalking Piranha Pl. and Fire Stalking P . Plant) (Imagine that sentence referring to a game title) are fine as they tell and help guide users with popular or official abbreviations, however the main content of an article should have the full, official name of the game if this proposal passes. In my opinion, this change would greatly improve user experience.

EDIT: Per several user's suggestions, I also included a Allow abbreviations if they are necessary for space or infoboxes or are more convenient and are not confusing such as Deluxe option as for example ''Donkey Konga 3: Tabehōdai! Haru Mogitate 50 Kyoku could be shorted to Donkey Konga 3 due to that abbreviation not being confusing, while for example New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe still will not be shorted to Deluxe'' due too potential confusion, and in this option some abbreviations would be allowed if necessary for space or infoboxes.

Proposer: Deadline: January 30, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Fully restrict the use of abbreviations

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per Doomhiker
 * 3) Per all. Do you mean that we'll use abreviations?
 * 4) - We're supposed to use the full title of a game in article bodies anyway, but I can't find anything about this. Closest is in Naming, where it says the article title has to be a full game title (aside from Mario Kart courses), but doesn't say anything about the actual content of the article. If someone does find something already on MarioWiki pages and I completely missed it, then rip this proposal :P
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) I'm surprised this wasn't in the Manual of Style already, per all.

Allow abbreviations if they are necessary for space or infoboxes or are more convenient and are not confusing while discouraging the use of confusing abbreviations such as Deluxe

 * 1) My second option, per proposal.
 * 2) - Echoing my struckthrough comment above, but also abbreviations can be used in charts, like Amiibo. Not every abbreviation is discouraged, just those used in the actual paragraphs.
 * 3) Better option per Mario jc, 7feetunder, and BBQ Turtle in the comments.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) This option would be more beneficial, per all and my comment below.
 * 6) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't like this idea at all. The first time a game is mentioned, yes, the full title should be used, but I don't see anything wrong with shortening a long-ass title like Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest to just Donkey Kong Country 2 otherwise. No one is going to be confused by this, and having to read (let alone write) a long title over and over again is irritating itself (there's also the fact that the GBA versions of DKC2 and DKC3 don't even use the subtitles). There's also what Mario jc said below about tables and infoboxes (e.g. Krazy Kremland). Simply put, this is a needlessly pedantic proposal, and this issue should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (or at least with a less restrictive guideline) rather than the "kill it with fire" approach you've taken.
 * 2) Changed mind per 7feetunder.
 * 3) Changed mind per 7feetunder.
 * 4) What we currently have is fine, no policy change. Just expand abbreviations in body text, but keep abbreviations/shortened names when common sense calls for it. We already are doing this.
 * 5) Changing my mind again, per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
Please note that the Game Boy Advance versions of the Donkey Kong Country games do not have subtitles. Therefore, when referring to them, they should just be Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (EST)

While I'm not opposed to using the full titles, I don't think using abbreviations should be fully restricted, as there are often cases where titles have to be shortened, like a column for a table, or using the full title would be too lengthy, like in an infobox. Basically, how I've seen it is, "Don't shorten the title if you don't need to." 21:00, 16 January 2019 (EST)

Does this proposal also account for shortening the game names? 00:34, 17 January 2019 (EST)
 * @Bazooka Mario yes it does, and with the King K. Rool edit the trivia was mentioning the remakes of SNES games, in which the SNES games full names should be used being Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest for example, and as the Game Boy Advance remakes have a shortened name when those games are specifically being talked about their full names should be used, which are just Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey  Kong Country 3, however, if the SNES games with the longer title are shorted to just for example,  Donkey Kong Country 2 they should be expanded to add the full name of the title.  6:34 17 January 2019
 * Even so, I agree with Mario jc and 7feetunder that maybe they shouldn't be completely restricted. 10:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)

@FanOfYoshi this proposal is about strongly discouraging the use of abbreviations in the main content of mainspace pages, so if this proposal passes the use of abbreviations will decrease in mainspace articles, however abbreviations will still be allowed in discussions, in redirects, etc.  6:44 17 January 2019

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify before I vote for this, does this proposal only cover confusing or misleading abbreviations, such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe being shortened to Deluxe (Which I definitely support), or all titles in general? Because, as others have mentioned, sometimes it can be beneficial to shorten the title, and I think it would be alright to do so if it wouldn't be confusing or misleading, so shortening ''Donkey Konga 3: Tabehōdai! Haru Mogitate 50 Kyoku to Donkey Konga 3'' if required to do so for space, as there is no other game it could easily be confused with. In limited-space situations, it'd likely be beneficial to drop the lengthy subtitle, as long as it isn't confusing or misleading. BBQ Turtle (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2019 (EST)
 * @BBQ Turtle the first option would fully restrict abbreviations of all titles in general, while the second option is like what you just said. 14:08, 17 January 2019 (EST)
 * Shouldn't proposal on this page last 1 week? 2 weeks if for talk pages. -- 09:00, 18 January 2019 (EST)
 * Per rule 3, writing guideline proposals also last 2 weeks. -- 09:26, 18 January 2019 (EST)

Delete Do the Donkey Kong
This article should just be a short section in List of Mario references in music. It does not need an article for itself and can be turned into a redirect. See Talk:Do the Donkey Kong.

Proposer: Deadline: February 2, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. It is pointless, and will soon redirect to its target page.
 * 3) The song is not licensed by Nintendo and is simply a reference to Donkey Kong and thus does not need an article for itself.
 * 4) Per all.

Comments
This should be a TPP, not a mainspace proposal, as it affects only one article. 16:15, 26 January 2019 (EST)
 * Yeah, this should be a proposal on the subject's talk page. Also @Doomhiker, is it not official? Doesn't seem to be anything saying it isn't. 01:31, 27 January 2019 (EST)
 * @Alex95 according to 's wikipedia page (Pac-Man Fever was where the song came from) the album was about different arcade games, Donkey Kong being one of them, and that the album was recorded by Buckner & Garcia. There is no proof from what I could find that it was endorsed by Nintendo, if anything the song was a tribute to the game. This ad, directly says that the songs are inspired by the nation-wide video game craze, which includes Do the Donkey Kong. 10:12, January 27 (EST)
 * I agree. I think this should be in the talk page, but anyways, i support changing the page itself into a redirect. -- 13:03, 28 January 2019 (EST)

Decide how to handle Donkey Kong Country 2 and Land 2 boss stages
As of right now, most of the boss stages for these two games still need articles. So far, only two exist: Kreepy Krow (level) and Krocodile Kore. However, these articles cover both the DKC2 an DKL2 versions of the stage, which is not consistent with how we cover the other levels in these games. The levels in DKC2 and DKL2, despite sharing names and themes, are split due to having different designs. The boss battles aren't identical between games either, so it makes sense to split these as well.

However, there is one I'm not sure about: Stronghold Showdown. Unlike everything else, this really is the same thing in both games - a small castle room with a short cutscene where DK is seen tied up before being taken to the Flying Krock. While splitting it would be consistent with all of the other DKC2/DKL2 splits, it would also create two articles that are basically the same thing. The only game where Stronghold Showdown is actually different is the GBA version of DKC2, where Kerozene is added as a boss. Plus, we've already voted not to split the returning Super Mario 3D World levels in the Wii U version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker for a similar reason.

Proposer: Deadline: February 10, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Split the boss stages, including Stronghold Showdown

 * 1) While I find splitting Stronghold Showdown kind of redundant, it's at least consistent.
 * 2) Per 7.
 * 3) Changing vote due to my mishap. Stronghold Showdown has enough differences as well.

Split the boss stages, excluding Stronghold Showdown

 * 1) My preferred option.
 * 2) Per 7, preferred as well.
 * 3) - If the two games share the exact same information, it makes more sense to me to keep them together. The GBA information can simply be an extra point.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all. Any minor changes in Stronghold Showdown can easily be mentioned briefly, but I don't see a need for an entirely new article for them.
 * 9) As the editor who expanded both those pages, I agree it's better to split the pages, so to focus on one. Stronghold Showdown is practically the same in DKL2, so that can stay as one.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) If there aren't significant differences, this makes sense.

Comments
Sorry, my first vote was a mistake. I wanted to vote "including" as, if everything is going to be split, this might need a split as well. Should i restart a proposal if the "excluding" option passes? -- 04:32, 4 February 2019 (EST)
 * Or is the proposal unneeded? -- 03:56, 5 February 2019 (EST)
 * It's not needed. The current consensus is that Stronghold Showdown should not be split. If you really wanted to, you could wait four weeks after the deadline, then make another proposal, but you'd need to come up with a compelling argument to convince all of these voters, myself included, that such a split needs to happen. So far you have only said "Stronghold Showdown has enough differences" without actually explaining what these important differences are. 21:30, 5 February 2019 (EST)

Standardize species as the main article for subjects sharing an identical "character" and "species" name
This proposal is directed at subjects with shared names that have both a separate "character" and "species" article. To sum it up: despite species by its nature alone having way more conclusive appearances throughout the franchise's entire history, practically being universally treated as the official default or "current story" depiction for years by Nintendo themselves (since at least Paper Mario and arguably earlier), and being the far likelier search result for younger fans who didn't grow up aware of these individual characters (which were made popular in legacy media for the most part), the wiki uses the generic character articles as the main default while the broader species article is the one that most often gets the identifier. As far as I can tell, this isn't actually due to any conscious decision on anyone's part, but rather a mere snowball effect inadvertently created from around the wiki's early days.

I guess I must be the one to say it - I sincerely think it is unwise to allow this setup to permeate much longer as it will most certainly not be sustainable forever.

The mission of this proposal is simply to set a wiki-wide organizational standard for all current and future articles that fit this criteria (a few obvious examples would be Toad and Yoshi, but this would also extend to others as well). All this will do is move the current main articles to a character identifier, and move those with a species identifier to the new main article. This proposal will not affect the content of these articles themselves, since I believe any attempt to do so (should it eventually happen) would best be done on a case-by-case basis; it will only affect the titles and links of these subjects. This will take a considerable chunk of time to comb over since this is something that should have been done from the start, but hindsight is 20/20.

An exception will be made for any articles where the species distinction falls under other media. The only current example I'm aware of is Fryguy. Readers will generally be more familiar with the Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic or Super Mario Bros. 2 boss and The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! role over the Nintendo Comics System depiction, which are treated as a transformation of Toads in precisely one story with a quick explanation that was never fully elaborated upon. Fryguy himself is not even considered a proper member of the Fryguy species, as he has a different origin in the game. As such, the proposal will not apply to Fryguy or potentially similar cases.

Update: As an alternative, I've included the option to have articles with character and species identifiers, and instead have the main article be a disambiguation page. This is the current situation with Luma. This is not as extensive as the proposal's main objective, but it allows both articles to exist on equal standing. Note that the above exception still applies. Under this scenario, an additional exception will be made for standard enemies such as Goomba and Amp, who already currently default to their species article and will most likely be searched as an enemy due to their common role.

Proposer: Deadline: February 11, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Make species the main articles

 * 1) This has been a long time coming.
 * 2) Props for the courage of making such a controversial proposal! After what happened with Dorrie and Draggadon and after Nintendo finally went out admitting that the Toad and Yoshi names given to characters are indeed species names, I'll go for the bold choice. This matches Japanese writing conventions as well.
 * 3) Per proposal and per my comments.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Second option.
 * 6) Per all.

Use disambiguation pages instead

 * 1) Per my comments.
 * 2) Per Yoshi the SSM. Rather than having character or species articles outprioritize each other in certain situations, let's have disambiguation pages to link to both articles (but please, remove the Green Yoshi article).
 * 3) Per all; supporting as an alternative.

Keep the current setup

 * 1) I'd prefer it was the other way around, actually. Besides, they're still treated as individuals in many spin-offs, and, let's be honest, more people have played Mario Kart Wii in the past 15 years without playing any other Mario game than any other game in the franchise.
 * 2) Per Doc von Schmeltwick. I don't really get the proposal though.
 * 3) Per Doc. Remember, the Toad and Yoshi characters have been treated as such in games other than Mario Kart and Mario Party.
 * 4) - I can't agree with this. Usually, the individual character has a bigger role than the species (see Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario 64 DS, etc.). If species are involved, they're usually a side element or roster filler, with the New Super Mario Bros. series being the exception coming to mind.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all, the current system seems to be on a case-by-case basis, which I think is best. I'd also like to add that Toad does clarify himself that he is the Toad in the Wii U version of Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, as he does mention that his blue jacket is unique. I can't find the exact quote now, but I'm almost certain that he says it.
 * 7) Per my comment below, while our current setup does not really have a standard on which things are the main article for subjects with identical names meaning that it is not 100 percent a case-by-case setup, our current system is the closest to a case-by-case basis than all of the options in this proposal, so per my comment below this my preferred option, and per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) This doesn't sit well with me, per all.

Comments
@Doc - A playable appearance doesn't automatically grant characterhood. Mario Kart Wii is your example - where, then, is the Dry Bones character article (ditto for virtually every other playable standard enemy in spinoffs)? If they are not notable enough, does that mean that Toad and Yoshi as characters mainly retain notability because of DiC? The characters are certainly not entirely apparent in the modern platformers, because the recent New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe shows that just about any Toad can play the generic role of "Toad" and the Super Mario 3D World Toad might actually be a relabeled Blue Toad. In terms of the more dialog/lore-heavy games like the RPGs, such characters barely exist - Square's Super Mario RPG might have a definitive Toad character, but everything since Paper Mario has greatly diminished him to the point where he barely exists and it's genuinely difficult to tell if the rare instances of singular "Toad" refer to the character or a generic. Even several games later in Paper Mario: Color Splash, where at last a single Toad accompanies Peach, I think the singular "Toad" is thrown around more often to generically refer to other NPCs who are obviously not the same Toad, not to mention there's the infamous "Toad #35".

The primary issue is the general writing style of Nintendo translations (and it's not unique to the Mario franchise) and how they often blend singular word use to refer to species, character, or generic (partially due to inconsistent localization and partially due to the Mario world not being as defined early on). This has been going on for quite a while, too - Kamek will refer to any given Yoshi color as generic/singular "Yoshi" in the Yoshi games, Nintendo Power and Prima Games would regularly flip between character and species usage on the writer's whim (sometimes on the same page), etc. "When in doubt, it's the species" would be the safer approach not just because species have become more prevalent but also because it's something that is constant (meaning it may not always be "the" character, but it's always "the" species). Besides, the current setup doesn't even make a whole lot of internal sense - searching priority for "Toad" should tell the reader what exactly a "Toad" is, not what "Toad, the Toad" is. That might look perfectively presentable to some of us, but it's confusing to uninformed newcomers. And honestly, I think a "shift" (whether it's a major overhaul or something as minor as simply changing around a few article titles) is an inevitability sooner or later, so the question is whether to begin taking care of this now or keep putting it off until it becomes unmanageable. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * I know fully well Toad as a character doesn't exist anymore, and am one of the people trying to get that out to people. However, it just feels wrong to have "Character" be the identifier when the character was named that first. Sure, the species was Kinokio prior, but it wasn't Toads. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * I personally prefer "Mushroom People" and was confused (and honestly a bit upset) when Paper Mario first came out and changed it...but it's been "Toads" for about twenty years. Even the re-releases of Super Mario Bros. on Virtual Console and through Wii's Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition changed it to Toads, so its original context is now overtaken. That aside, we consider the character to have debuted after the species, which frankly looks awkward as the current main article. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * Still with Yoshi, it's Yoshi's Island, not Yoshis' Island. As well as Yoshi's Crafted World, and all those other things in between. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * So? Unithorn's Lair doesn't appear to be the property of any singular Unithorn. (I could probably come up with more examples, but that's the first one that comes to my mind.) 22:21, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * And there are no singular Unithorns, they fade in and out en masse. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * That goes with what I mentioned about the writing style / Nintendo translators generally not catching on and communicating the character/species concept very well (e.g. Goomba's Shoe is not a shoe from a literal Goomba character, Boo's Mansion does not belong to a literal Boo character, etc.). The possessiveness of these Yoshi titles was added in localization for whatever reason - it's strongly implied that it's not "Mario's Yoshi" in these games due a green Yoshi being one of the star children. At any rate, Yoshi is also a mess because he practically has a third article (Green Yoshi), and all three have been marked with a rewrite template for ages. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * Regardless, I don't think the species should get dibs. I think it should be the character, or neither. Mostly, though, I'd base it off what people browsing would be looking for, which chances are would be the "character" in Mario Kart Wii or a similar game. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * I've actually considered just turning the main pages into disambiguations as a second option for the proposal and including both "character" and "species" identifiers, which would admittedly be a lot less work, but I decided against it because the Luma talk page indicated to me that it was unpopular (that, and I don't believe that they're on par with each other, at least not anymore). Should I add it? LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * I don't see a reason not to. Anyone who doesn't want to do it that way can simply vote for a different option. 23:18, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * Sure. So that means that I always wanted the Amp (character) from Mario Party Advance whenever I wanted to look up the enemies in Super Mario 64 or other games. That makes total sense. NOT. The wouldn't make sense at all. The enemies are clearly more popular than the character from MPA. Having the character over species would violate the "Shared titles" policy. I would get even more confusing if characters were allowed over species if we consider Goomba who has three separate characters named Goomba. However, this only removes the possibility of characters for mains.
 * As for them being the same, I see a benefit and a problem. The benefit comes from the fact that it would give species and characters with about the same level of popularity as each other equal rights. The problem comes from the fact that not all species would benefit from this. Let's look at the Amps again. Not one time are they playable characters nor do they are friendly NPCs except in MPA. In this case, I would not want to be taken to a disambiguation page if I typed "Amp" when I just want to find out more info about an enemy in Mario Party: Star Rush, where in has a clear in-game name. But other than this situation and others like it, it could work as well as the (series) identifier.
 * And by typing this out, I am viewing the disambiguation as main as an equally good option to the species as main option. As for the species as main option, I think it is good option due to that species are more popular than anything in general. 10:59, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * The Goomba formerly(?) known as Captain could be considered a fourth Goomba character. Anyway, including standard enemy articles like Goomba and Amp wasn't my intention with the proposal, so I've adjusted it again to make that more clear. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2019 (EST)

@LinkTheLefty, can we delete the Green Yoshi article? I hate that one! It annoys me to see that thing exist. I'm out of words... the content in the Green Yoshi article should be merged with the Yoshi species article. MarioManiac1981 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * That's probably a separate discussion/proposal, but I'm also not a fan of it. Treating the Yoshi colors as we do enemy colors would reduce overlap. LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2019 (EST)
 * The Yoshi colors have little reason to have their own articles. Differences they have are usually restricted to a few games, Yoshi's Story and Super Mario World, but vast majority of colors cases, colors are pure cosmetic. 01:20, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * Yeah, that'll probably be my next proposal since it's on my radar now. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (EST)

@Toadette - That's not the issue here; as stated, this proposal will absolutely not affect the content of the articles themselves and will thus preserve the history/legacy of these characters (hence the "character" identifier). The issue is that singular use in either species or generic contexts have become increasingly more common to the point where the original character is no longer certifiable and, for all intents and purposes, effectively phased out (Toad's "possible appearances" section could very easily be much larger if we were even mildly stricter about it). Over time, character has become secondary to species, plain and simple. We also continue to make certain assumptions based on both playability and the general mindset of "there's a generic member of the species standing there by itself minding its own business, so let's add it the main/character page" (one example would be Yoshi in Paper Mario: Color Splash, but there's many more). Overall, I think having the character pages as the wiki default contributes a lot to this unnecessary bloat, gives a false impression that a single recurring character is officially still in direct use today, and is a roadblock for discussion. I don't see any benefit to leaving it as-is when the signs are blatant. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * In all due respect this should be a case-by-case basis, as when I want to search for Boom Boom, I most likely want to see the character page. However, when I search Amp, I want to see the species, not the MPA character. I do not fell that a single proposal would really solve anything, as there is a large amount of variety with characters with species names, some important, some not so much, and while if option 2 passes there is exceptions with the standard enemies such as Amp, I fell that disambiguation pages would make it too complicated as you would not immediately go to amp when you search for amp for example, and with option one there is cases where I would prefer to see the character and not the species meaning that I cannot honestly vote to support that option, however there is cases where I would rather see a species rather then a character, meaning that I cannot honestly vote for option 3 either. 14:31, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * The purpose of the proposal is to define these articles' standards, which were seemingly created on an informal "first come, first serve" basis, to better align with the common contemporary species depiction of these subjects over the largely-bygone prominence of the characters, as well as to help make the treatment of these articles more uniform. So I feel that the first option best accomplishes this goal. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2019 (EST)

@BBQ Turtle - Claiming that his jacket's unique is probably the joke. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * It might not be consistent across games, but as far as I know, he's the only red Toad in that game with a blue jacket. The others have red jackets, or different coloured caps. I believe it's a similar case with Mario Kart Wii- what I'm trying to get across here is that in some games, the Toad is differentiated from other Toads by having a red cap and a blue jacket. BBQ Turtle (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * @LinkTheLefty if we did make the species pages the standard for the main pages of characters and species with the same name then examples such as Boom Boom where people are most likely to search for the character may be confused as why they are on the species page, so while the treatment of these articles being more uniform would be great the first and second options do not offer the flexibility regarding these characters/species pages that a case-by-case basis would give. Also, while Toad claiming that his jacket is unique may be a joke, it also may not and instead could be a reference to Super Mario Bros. 2 and other instances where a Toad is playable. 16:54, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * Would this idea be better addressed case-by-case? I suppose so - after all, cases such as Birdo and Fronk are admittedly not as strong - but for cases like Toad and Yoshi, I firmly believe that their current standing is increasingly weakening with each major release, and it would seem prudent to make a necessary shift towards favoring the objective appearances of these subjects over our nebulous interpretation in the probable event that Nintendo does directly make an inconvenient statement that risks the state of those articles imploding in on themselves (that, or the generation of fans that grows up on today's games will continue to raise objections with the wiki's approach until it can no longer be ignored). The best analogy I can give is whenever a fantasy creature in fiction refers to a character by the generic descriptor "human" - it obviously doesn't suddenly make that their actual name, and other Nintendo franchises that have taken similar approaches simply don't have this problem among fans. This is the modern context in which these subjects are addressed, which can be observed as recently as Mario Tennis Aces (in fact, a cursory glance at Toad's possible appearances section would indicate that this may have been the intention for a while now). While some won't take the character articles to mean that there is literally a reliable, recurring existence/continuity to these subjects, that is the purpose behind their creation and the impression still given. All in all, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a consistent standard as a protective measure. Also, I don't think your example is a particularly strong one because I and several others found the rationale for that split held up weakest to scrutiny...but that is a totally separate discussion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2019 (EST)
 * Definitely case-by-case. I'm open to considering Toad, as he's just plain not considered a character in any capacity outside spinoffs anymore, but "Yoshi" was treated as a character in mainline games as recently as SMG2. And no, I'm not counting SM3DW "Toad," given the way NSMBUDX treats Blue Toad and Yellow Toad. As for Kamek as a character, most appearances identified as such either relationship-with-Bowser-wise or behaviorally make deliberate callbacks to the SMW2 entity (with DT making a callback to NSMBW), and recent games seem to be trying to push the distinction even in Japan (note the bowtie in SPM). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2019 (EST)

Well, the Toad quote is: Hey there! I'm Toad. There are lots of my fellow Toads here from the Mushroom Kingdom, so try not to get us mixed up with each other. Some of us are here to compete in the Games, some are the cheer squad, and some are acting as the managerial staff. We've got Blue Toads, Red, Yellow, Green, Purple... There are lots of us, but if you're looking for me, just keep an eye out for this stylish blue jacket. He says that if you're looking for him you have to look for the blue jacket. Making the playable one with that color so you could recognize him among the many makes sense, but you need to remember that, before the concept of a Toad character was even a thing. And as LinktheLefty noticed, this remained the standard appearance of Toads. . Of course playable characters need to stand out, but that doesn't mean that the appearance isn't the standard one, just that in those game they need to use the other color variants not to create confusion among the players.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2019 (EST)

For your information, there is no real flexibility in the current setup. There is a lone Boom Boom? He goes into the Boom Boom character page. There is a lone Toad with a red cap and a blue vest? He goes into the Toad character page, regardless of whether they state he's the Toad of Super Mario Bros. 2 or not. A lone green Yoshi? He goes into the Yoshi page. And in case you were wondering, the name actually gives us a different information than we think, since Nintendo clarified that they use species names as character names - not unlike what was done in Pokémon, another Japanese franchise that follows the same conventions of naming a member of a species with the species' name. After all, what happened with Dorrie and Draggadon definitely confirmed this approach - what seemed unique names were actually species' names. And Kinopio was indeed introduced in Super Mario Bros. as a name to identify those Mushroom Kingdom citizens - recent bios confirmed that the name is still used with this purpose, and even noted how some of these, such as Toadsworth and Captain Toad, indeed have unique names. Unsurprisngly, those Toads also ended up with a unique appearance as well. By the way, there has recently been controversy on this matter, so there are definitely issues with the current approach that has troubles dealing with characters with standard appearance named after the species that as such, might or might not be the same recurring character. When using these naming and appearance conventions, this question becomes irrelevant, and I'd be hardly surprised if Nintendo's goal was exactly this.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * If there's a singular Yoshi, then it's the character Yoshi. It may not necessarily be the same character Yoshi from another game, but they're both portrayed as being "the character Yoshi." And that's what really makes or breaks that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * This interpreation would warrant the merging with the species - what's the point of creating pages separate from the species pages for a role (being a playable character or a lone Yoshi) instead of actual characters? Plus, the wording would have to be changed, since we surely don't imply that Yoshi might be a different character every time and the page just deals with the role of playable or lone character.--Mister Wu (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * Nope, do what we do with Kamek, as they are sometimes treated as individual, sometimes as species, and sometimes both at once. Having all that on the same page would be stressfully confusing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * But it would match how Nintendo treats them. After all, people had to learn to do that for Pokémon which does the exact same thing of presenting characters with standard appearance of the species and bearing the name of the species, I don't think it's impossible to them to apply the same reasoning here.--Mister Wu (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * It's how they treat them, except when they don't. When it flip-flops every three games with no indication of stopping, why go to all that trouble, when, once again, it should about what visitors will most likely be searching for? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * The flipflopping is actually exactly part of what I was trying to say, so you misunderstood what I said. In any case, we are facing problems in the maintenance of the pages, the case of Yoshi being the most evident one. And yes, we are stating that Yoshi is always the same one - we say that in the intro of the page, when we report that he's the same one who saved Baby Mario and Baby Luigi. If anything, if you don't want any change in terms of the pages we have, you should at least consider updating the page so that it reflects the view you just expressed.-Mister Wu (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * Update the pages we should, and I've tried doing a bit of that with Kamek's. It's a large undertaking, to be sure, but it's still needed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * Thanks, I'm glad we're finding some common grounds.--Mister Wu (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * I did update the intro to that page, and plucked some flowers from it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (EST)

Bring Back Fake Reminders and Warnings
Hi, this is Mari0fan100. I've seen fake reminders, warnings, and last warnings get banned for 8.5 years now, but some of them make me laugh! I think we should bring them back for amusement, but if we do, they cannot be used inappropriately, only for fun purposes.

Proposer: Deadline: March 9, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.
 * 2) Let's bring back this feature and be done with it!

Oppose

 * 1) Fake reminders/warnings were removed for a reason. We will not be bringing them back. (And don't be surprised if this gets vetoed as well.)
 * 2) - "they cannot be used inappropriately, only for fun purposes." The very point of warnings directly contradicts this. I'm not sure if this proposal is allowed or not, but I'm not going to be for this.
 * 3) Several issues. First, users may think that these joke warnings are not a joke and take them seriously, which will cause a lot of confusion and frustration. Second, if a user gets a joke reminder for a level one offence they did not do and they later actually do the level one offence, then a user may look at the joke reminder, think the joke reminder was serious, and give the user a warning when they only deserved a reminder. Finally, I could see users taking advantage of joke warnings using them as an excuse to flame users. I strongly oppose.
 * 4) Definitely not, per all.
 * 5) While this is funny, this wiki is serious. Per Doomhiker.
 * 6) Per all and several more reasons that should be obvious.
 * 7) This is honestly so ridiculous I was considering just ignoring it entirely and waiting for it to be vetoed, but honestly, it's too ridiculous even for that. Per primarily the first three as to why it's ridiculous.
 * 8) Per all, there's no good reason to bring them back.
 * 9) One word: why?
 * 10) They cause confusion, and the only arguments for bringing them back is "I think it's funny". I see no good reason for this ban to be removed.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) - Notice templates are not toys; they have a function. Having fake ones around impairs that function. I fail to see the humor in self-sabotage.
 * 13) Please no proposals on bringing back fake new message boxes either.
 * 14) Yeah, no. I don't think handing out fake/joke warnings are going to be acceptable.
 * 15) Fake warnings are a product of the wiki's unprofessional early days and I have no desire to take a step backward (I mean, look at the SPM articles written ten years ago!). We are not bringing back shops, joke proposals     (except April Fools)     or fake warnings. Per all.
 * 16) I must agree with everyone else on this issue. All human beings are different, having different feelings, thoughts, and perception towards something; some users may understand that the reminders are simply jokes, but others may get easily frustrated, depressed, or annoyed, even if they did nothing wrong. On this wiki, everyone has to be considered. We cannot cater to a select group of users who love to sabotage each other with unreasonable warnings. Bringing back something stupid from my infant days will cause nothing but problems: users may be dissuaded from editing anymore on the Super Mario Wiki, they may intentionally troll and/or flame others, and far more. I've looked at 2010 revisions of Mario's article, and boy, were they abyyysssmal. Let's not bring back the bum-level, jestful past back into this very moment.
 * 17) Per all.

Comments
(you forgot oppose and comments) -- 14:34, 2 March 2019 (EST)
 * Hmmm... Actual warnings are given in severe cases. -- 14:41, 2 March 2019 (EST)

@Baby Luigi, you might want to look at this. That warning sounds funny to me, and it was used for a fun purpose. Under no circumstances do I call that inappropriate. Mari0fan100 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2019 (EST)
 * That seems like toying with someone by making them think they've caused a metaphorical trashfire. Even if only for a second, that's not OK. That's trolling. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2019 (EST)
 * @Doc, how are issuing warnings like those trolling? Mari0fan100 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (EST)
 * Playing with someone's emotions. Before they see that it's a joke, they're going to see a big "Last Warning" template. Now I've been on the receiving end of a real one of those before, and I can tell you the sight of "Last Warning: New section" on your own talk page on the recent changes is not a pretty sight. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2019 (EST)
 * Whew, I think we lost some history after that revision... 02:28, 3 March 2019 (EST)
 * ????? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2019 (EST)
 * @Doc, now here's the problem. I don't look at certain warning templates that way. But then again, I've never had one myself. Mari0fan100 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2019 (EST)
 * Yeah, I don't care if it was for jokes or not it would be a bad idea. I think the only warnings that you should get are serious warnings.  10:51, 5 March 2019 (EST)
 * Agreed! -- 10:53, 5 March 2019 (EST)
 * @Ultimate Mr. L you mean that we will only use them in April Fools? -- 11:10, 5 March 2019 (EST)
 * @FanOfYoshi Yes, as in S.U.P.R.E.M.E
 * 12:39, 5 March 2019 (EST)

Ban certain cases of future tense from the wiki
No, not discourage. Ban.

When this wiki deals with a subject from an upcoming game or update, it's very common to see phrases such as "set to appear" or "will appear in said game or update". This kind of wording easily becomes obsolete once the game/update goes live. While some cases are promptly corrected, others remain unchanged for a long time. This instance, for example, had been forgotten for months since before the release of Mario Tennis Aces simply because it was too obscure.

I propose the Manual of Style to be updated to forbid explicit statements that a subject will appear in a future media, on grounds that simply stating the same thing in present tense ("[subject] appears in [upcoming game]") is fine enough to use and doesn't risk becoming out of date (except in extremely rare cases, where the subject it removed from the game or the game gets cancelled). It's actually more correct to state it this way, since any trailer or gameplay of an unreleased game presents elements that have already been incorporated into it and are thus presently in the game. We may then avoid situations like this one where the subject is literally hours from going live at the time of this proposal.

However, not all future wording would be affected by this proposal. Lead paragraphs that refer to a game as "upcoming" are free to stay, as this is the most simple way to state that the game is not released yet, on top of being likely more visible and easy to update than an obscure sentence on a particular page. So, cases like "Super Mario Maker 2 is an upcoming 2D platforming and level-editing game" will stay this way until release, even if the proposal passes.

Proposer: Deadline: March 13, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) I don't see any better way to prevent outdated future tense from persisting awkwardly. Support.
 * 5) This is partially my fault, so I do apologize. Anyways, I agree that using future tense can often date a page and be forgotten about, so per all.
 * 6) Please.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) I’ve seen instances where the future tense is left in the article long past the subject is released, so I feel this makes sense.
 * 9) This is an outright ban I'm sure we all can live with. Per proposal.
 * 10) I was concerned about the vague provisions in the title of the proposal, but that's already addressed in the proposal. I think this is solid.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * pa
 * 1) omg, I have lost count of the number of times I've come across "will be in [future game]" for a game that came out even more than a year ago. Please, PLEASE eradicate this practice
 * 2) Agreed, in those cases the future tense is unneeded and it's very easy to miss the update of some sentences after release
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all. If this proposal passes, I don't have to worry about tense of any sort.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't like this idea at all. If it is banning, then no. Discouraging is ok, but banning?! Would it make it a level offense? We usually fix it when the game is released, but when it is not released, it is fine to use it. I wouldn't stand that! I would make a counterproposal if this passes. >_>

Comments
Why are we banning it? I would prefer we discourage rather than banning. Should i make a counterproposal four weeks after the proposal's deadline? -- 03:26, 1 March 2019 (EST)
 * You can, but judging from the overwhelming support for the present proposal, I think people really don't want to see future tenses on the wiki. What's the point of having them if they are going to be changed to present tense anyway? 07:40, 1 March 2019 (EST)

Thing is, that's what the and  templates are for. They highlight upcoming or recently released games/subjects, which get categorized to look through. It's a simple category to look through and update, and if we have to edit the page to remove the template when it's time to do so, might as well change the tenses, and the Upcoming_content already encourages things to be written in a present tense in this way. 15:36, 2 March 2019 (EST)