MarioWiki:Proposals

Establish a guideline for citing archived web pages
I've made a previous proposal about this in the past, but it was unnecessarily complicated. To put this as simply as possible, many online web pages are very likely to be taken down at some point, and many already have; a user may come across an online source which is no longer on the live web, and only exists on an online, the largest of which is the Wayback Machine.

To establish consistency when citing pages from these web archives, a guideline should be listed on Citations, below the template for citing live websites. This is what I believe is the best style to follow for such citations: cite the original, unmodified link to a page as usual, then include a statement in parentheses that lists the page as being archived, with a link to where the web archive hosts the page, a timestamp, and finally, the web archive which was sourced. Below is a template of such a citation (the link to the archived page would be accessed by the word "Archived"):

"Author Name (January 1, 2000). . Publisher. Retrieved January 1, 2023. ( June 1, 2022, 00:00:01 UTC via Web Archive.)"

As an example, the list of rumors and urban legends about Mario already uses this style for the majority of its web page citations. Here is an example from that page:

"Nintendo (1985). Super Mario Bros. Instruction Booklet. Retrieved July 8, 2021. (Archived March 9, 2021, 10:01:59 UTC via Wayback Machine.)"

A note should also be added to MarioWiki:Citations that the precise timestamp for a page from the Wayback Machine, the most common web archive source, can be found by examining the date in the URL; for the above example, 20210309100159 can be read as 2021-03-09 10:01:59, and should be formatted as March 9, 2021, 10:01:59 UTC.

To clarify the proposal, this should not be considered a strict rule that must be followed, nor a necessity for every citation of a web page, but simply as a guideline to follow in case a page has already been taken down, or if a link to an archived version of a page is being added to a citation.

Proposer: Deadline: June 1, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per everyone, as users might think they’re going into an active link when really they are led into a 404’d link
 * 4) Per all. Preservation is extremely important, and it'd seriously help if we pointed to archives when applicable.
 * 5) This is a great way to combat link rot and I strongly encourage more regular usage of archived pages regardless.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Yes, please.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
I am sick of these “active” links that are really dead or 404 links. This proposal acknowledges said statement of mine. 17:53, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Split major classic remakes
I was inspired by the Mario Bros. split proposal to make this proposal. Essentially, we have some remakes, like SM64/DS, the SMA series, & SMBDX split. With the Switch/3DS remake proposal, I feel like someone should do a classic remake proposal, whence why I'm doing this.

There are 3 options. Option 1 splits all major remakes. Option 2 only splits major remakes that would be in a strict definition. Option 3 is the "do nothing" option.

Proposer: Deadline: May 19, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

 * 1) This is my perferred option.

Option 2

 * 1) I'm fine with this, though. Secondary option.

Option 3

 * 1) Of course, if enough people are fine with the inconsistency, this would be fine, too. Tertiary option.
 * 2) This proposal is extremely vague and unclear in what it's trying to achieve and I still don't really see the point of it, so I'll oppose.
 * 3) Per Hewer, and the fact that the proposer doesn't seem to know which games would be split as well. Even if the goal of this proposal is to open a door for future splits, that door was never closed in the first place, and it's better to determine what needs to be split on a case-by-case basis.
 * 4) Per Spectrogram. This proposal in its current state is in this uncomfortable middle ground between being way too vague and having way too many potential ramifications. What's... What's even meant to be enacted if this passes? What articles are being effected? What does this policy mean?! It was mentioned this was apparently meant to be the prelude to determining potential articles to split in future proposals, but honestly, you need to lead with that, because we don't want to say "yeah, let's do it!" and then it turns out exactly 0 of the given games are remakes we agree should be split up, rendering everything a moot point anyways as we end up with some protocol that has an "exceptions" list that covers every possible application.
 * 5) Per all: It is extremely unclear which articles the proposer wants to split, especially regarding Option 2 which would split major remakes that "would be in a strict definition" (and even when clarifying that it would be like how we split modern remakes on a case-by-case basis, it's still rather vague). Clarity is key for a proposal with big ramifications like this one, so the proposer should make sure to provide a list of which articles would be split under Option 1, and a list of which would be split under Option 2; yet, they didn't provide any of these lists. Even when asked, it gets totally ignored in favor of other questions. This makes Spectrogram's theory of the proposer actually having no idea what games should be split very plausible, which, for a proposal like this, is a huge problem. If you don't know what should be split for your proposal to split articles, then why bother making it? Should this proposal be tried by someone else another day, please think of the articles you want to split first, and make sure to list them when you do make the proposal.
 * 6) per all. everyone else here has said it perfectly.

Comments
What exactly do you mean by "classic remake" here? That's much too vague. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:48, May 12, 2023 (EDT)

What games would fall in the scope of this proposal? Spectrogram (talk) 12:51, May 12, 2023 (EDT)

What "major classic remakes" are we talking about here? Which ones "would be in a strict definition"? Are there "minor remakes" we're excluding here? Ahemtoday (talk) 12:55, May 12, 2023 (EDT)

Whoa! Already, you 3 ask this! Not being rude, of course. Now, to answer Doc's question, "classic remake" is a remake of a classic game, unlike a "modern remake" which is something like Donkey Kong Country Returns 3DS, or Tropical Freeze Switch. To answer Spectrogram's question, games like Super Mario Bros, Donkey Kong, and so on, would fall in the scope of this proposal. Mario Bros is not included due to there already being a passed proposal for it. To answer Ahemtoday's questions, here's my answers. 1. I'm talking about remakes of a game like Super Mario All-Stars' remakes of SMB1, TLL, 2, & 3 that are still in the articles of the OG game. 2. Strict definition would be something akin to the DKC games mentioned earlier, Luigi's Mansion 3DS, & Poochy & Yoshi's Wooly World. 3. Minor remakes would be like splitting Mario Bros. Classic from Mario Bros. Battle, or Super Mario Bros. with its' FDS version. 12:57, May 12, 2023 (CST)
 * I think they were asking for a complete list of what articles would be split with each option. By the way, you should probably remove at least one of your votes, voting for every option is effectively the same as not voting at all. -- 20:35, May 12, 2023 (EDT)

SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)@undefined One user cannot support to every option at the same time. They should support to at most, one option. 00:01, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
 * You can support multiple. But not all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:26, May 13, 2023 (EDT)

I must say, this is probably the first time I've seen a proposer put their support in all options of their proposal. I don't think it's allowed to vote for every option though, because as Waluigi Time said, it's essentially like not voting at all. If every option is given a vote by the same person, it doesn't make a significant change in the standings. Another thing: I'm really confused at what the difference between options 1 and 2 are. Option 1 is "Split all major remakes", that sounds clear enough, but Option 2 is "Only split major remakes that would be in a strict definition", and reading that, I'm like: "what would does 'in a strict definition' even mean?!" I got to ask, what games are affected with option 2, and which games are not affected? I know Ahemtoday already asked what "in a strict definition" meant and you already answered that, but I don't feel any more enlightened with the three examples you gave him. All I'm certain of is that minor remakes won't be affected by either option. Listing all games that will be or won't be affected by either option (similar to this or this) would help a lot, as Waluigi Time said. 02:40, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
 * There is no rule against voting for every option on a proposal with multiple options though Spectrogram (talk) 03:09, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
 * There's no rule against it because it doesn't really hurt anything, but it's also pointless to do so. You can vote for every option, but you shouldn't because it accomplishes nothing. There's no difference between the current state of the proposal and if the proposer had decided not to vote at all. -- 12:14, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!! JEEZ! This is crazy! Let me try to clear more things up. Waluigi Time, PnnyCygr, Doc, & Arend have good points on voting, but I think on that matter Spectrogram sums it up perfectly. On the topic of what falls under 2, I was talking about how we split modern remakes under a case-by-case basis, option 2 would essentially be like that. It's nice to know that you understood option 1! One last thing. PnnyCygr, that at symbol thing made me get Porplemontage vibes. 09:39, May 15, 2023 (CST)
 * So do you have a list of games that would be split if option 2 passes, or is it just meant to pave the way for future proposals? -- 12:14, May 15, 2023 (EDT)
 * The second one. 12:42, May 15, 2023 (CST)
 * Look, man, we cannot really work here if we don't get any specific games that need to be split off, at least for Option 2. While I appreciate the slight clarity with the case-by-case explanation, that doesn't mean much without examples. Just give us a full list of what articles would be affected for Option 1, and a more trimmed-down list for the articles that would be affected for Option 2. And if you can't provide such lists, then perhaps this proposal a bit undercooked. It's quite vague as it is, so you might need to take some time, think it through, etc. 17:35, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

Fine, no one likes this. Can an admin cancel this, then? 14:30, May 15, 2023 (CST)
 * If you cannot wait for an admin to veto/cancel it, you can always move your proposal from here to Proposals/Archive. Make sure you reach the bottom end of the archive page (press the End key), then cut this proposal above and paste into that archive. Hope it help. 09:26, May 16, 2023 (EDT)
 * This is incorrect. "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals)." Spectrogram (talk) 09:36, May 16, 2023 (EDT)
 * Oh. sorry about that. I thought proposals can be cancelled within any amount of time (remember my sonic character proposal?). 09:42, May 16, 2023 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.