MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/42

Stricter Guidelines for "References to Other Games" and "References in Later Games" Sections
DELETED BY PROPOSER

Not sure where to put this or if it even needs a proposal, but I've noticed way too many times that the "References in Other Games" and "References in Later Games" sections are used for extremely minor things (especially characters/enemies reappearing) that are probably coincedental. After all, where do we draw the line? Is every appearance of Mario a direct reference to Donkey Kong? Is every appearance of "256" a Super Paper Mario reference? Wait, what's that? The Paper Mario: Sticker Star page says it is? Uh-oh:

Mario Bros.:
 * Super Paper Mario: Super Dimentio indirectly alludes to the Shellcreepers' weakness during the final battle, when taunting Mario and his party that they shall "wallow in helplessness like upside-down turtles!"

New Super Mario Bros.:
 * Super Mario Bros. 2 - Just like in this game, Small Mario can crouch.
 * Super Mario World - an item is stored on the touchscreen, and can be summoned at any time during each level. This derives directly from Super Mario World. A Monty Mole, which first appeared in this game, appears as a boss called Monty Tank. Wigglers also appeared. Grinders don't appear in New Super Mario Bros., but spiked balls appear in the game, having the same function. Items can be held in a level, just like in the aforementioned game. Also this game features Warp Pipes that can shoot the player into the air like Cannons.
 * Mario Party 4 - Mini Mushroom and Mega Mushroom return with the same function as in this game.

Super Paper Mario:
 * Mario Bros. - Super Dimentio's simile taunt to the party after the first half of the battle has him comparing the party to upside-down turtles as they wallow in helplessness, alluding to how the Shellcreeper enemy was frequently defeated.

Super Mario 3D Land:
 * Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels: Poison Mushrooms return from this game. Mario and Luigi retain their singular characteristics (Mario is more stable and balanced while Luigi jumps higher at the cost of worse traction). The phrase "THANK YOU!!" appears in the last level, but is in English instead.
 * New Super Mario Bros.: Star Coins return as Star Medals and have a similar use (unlock levels). Some flowers and bushes have a similar design to the ones from this game. Also, some levels share a similar design. A lot of returning enemies keep their NSMB designs. Dry Bowser also returns.

Paper Mario: Sticker Star:
 * Super Mario Bros. 2: Shy Guys, Snifits, Pokeys, and Ninjis, which were introduced in this game, appear in this game. Some Pokeys are designed like their first appearance from this game as well. The main theme is a jazzy version of the credits theme with snippets of the main overworld theme.
 * Super Paper Mario: At the beginning of the game, after Mario saves one of the Toads in Decalburg, the latter will say that Bowser crumpled him up 256 times, which is a nod to the running joke in Super Paper Mario, starting with Dimentio claiming that Dimension D makes his attacks "256 times more powerful", followed by Flint Cragley's camera crew stating that the "Rainbowzilla" story was apparently told that amount of times. This number is also the number of cards in the game.

New Super Mario Bros. U:
 * Super Mario World: 3-Up Moons, Bony Beetles, Baby Yoshis, Sumo Bros., Thwimps, and Torpedo Teds return. When Mario reaches the haunted part of Soda Jungle, the screen fades into the submap similar to how it fades in and out in this game. Also, the world map is connected again and a ghost ship, similar to the Sunken Ghost Ship level, appears in this game. The Warp Pipes have a similar structure to Super Mario World. Most of the worlds are named after food again. Some of the world's features are similar to those found in Dinosaur Land (e.g. Acorn Plains having jagged mountains or Soda Jungle being one-third based on the Forest of Illusion). Super Mario World has the exact same number of exits this game has: 96.
 * New Super Mario Bros. Wii: Big Urchins, Clampies, Eep Cheeps, Spiny Cheep Cheeps, Cooligans, Scaredy Rats, Huckit Crabs, Stalking Piranha Plants, and River Piranha Plants all return.

Proposer: Deadline: April 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I couldn't disagree more. Reading these, minor, but interesting things were always one of my favorite things to do on this wiki. Listing references and allusions is part of the flavor and actually the mood of the original Mario game. Removing all of these would be uninformative of the rapid usage of numbers like "64", "128", and "256" in games, alongside wonderous references. This things you listed were some of the most interesting things of all about the games, how they tie into eachother. This is something a database cannot disacknowledge. These should stay.
 * 2) - As I've said in the comments twice already, a proposal vaguely calling for rules that already exist is unnecessary. Remove the proposal and just start enforcing the policy (and/or make a collab thread on the forum instead to get help with that and raise awareness).
 * 3) Per all.

Comments
So what ideas do you have with stricter guidelines? Pease give a few examples. Andymii (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
 * Disallowing examples that are basically "[character/enemy/item] appeared again", along with things that are probable coincedences anyway because of how obscure they are. Binarystep (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2015 (EDT)

This isn't a Writing Guideline proposal so I moved to to "Changes" for now, but it should actually be removed anyway because what you want already exists, having been proposed and accepted via an October 2013 WG Proposal (after a vague proposal like this one was voted down as being useless, I might add). But like so many quality control measures around here, people don't know about it and the "references to other games" sections have become crap-filled again. While another proposal is unnecessary, making a collaboration thread on the forums would probably be a good idea to try and fix this issue across the wiki. -

I definitely think stuff like Shy Guys, Pokeys, Monty Moles etc. are no longer references to their debut games because they have appeared so many times. Perhaps the limit should be five times, and if it reappears again it shouldn't be a reference to the debut anymore? -- 11:53, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
 * Maybe even less, like three. Nintendo these days rarely discards their characters. Andymii (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
 * I think the rule should be "it isn't a reference unless it's associated with the game in question". Shellcreepers appearing would be a reference, as would Fawful or Goombella, but not something as simple as "[New Super Mario Bros. enemy] appeared in New Super Mario Bros. Wii". Binarystep (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
 * So, something like those Jumping Piranha Plant things from SMW returning in Mario Party, but not something like "everything from SMG is back in SMG2 so it's a reference". -- 12:31, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

The current rules are: Beyond that, the idea is that people should use common sense to tell the difference between recurring enemies or whatever and conscientious callbacks. Of course, many editors don't conduct themselves so selectively and just dump every possible recurrence or coincidence into the Ref and Trivia sections. Just because they do doesn't mean they should, however, and other users are already well within their rights to step in and removing all the non-references. I say again: this proposal is unnecessary. -
 * References:
 * When a unique spite, design or music theme from a past game reappears. Example: a character's sprites and the design of ground blocks from Super Mario Bros. are very recognizable if they appear in a more recent game.
 * A character, location or enemy that was notable exclusively in one game is brought back someway; a particularly strong reference would go so far as to mention the happenings from that earlier game. Example: Goombella and the University of Goom are mentioned in Paper Mario: Sticker Star, clearly referencing to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door.
 * Not references:
 * Any passing physical or gameplay resemblance where there is no actual proof that the purpose was to make a reference. Example: unless an official source proves otherwise, Super Mario 3D World doesn't refer to Wario Land 4 just because Bowser's car bears a little resemblance to the Wario Car.
 * Follow-up games aren't references to the original ones. Example: Super Mario Galaxy 2 isn't a reference to Super Mario Galaxy.
 * When a character, location, object or enemy that became common to the series reappears. Example: Shy Guys appearing in Paper Mario: Sticker Star isn't actually a reference to their debut game, Super Mario Bros. 2.

Toadbrigade5, I think you misunderstood the proposal, it's not saying not to mention arc numbers and things like that on the wiki, it's saying that "references" like "Shy Guys appearing for the millionth time is a reference to Super Mario Bros. 2", "The number 256 appearing at all anywhere for any reason is a direct Super Paper Mario reference" or "Mentioning flipped-over turtles is a reference to the original Mario Bros." are not actually references to specific games. Binarystep (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

Okay, can this be removed since the guideline already exists? Binarystep (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

Set Clear Rules as to What "Species Origin" Means
DELETED BY PROPOSER

To my knowledge, the "species origin" section on Template:Species-infobox is for the main species a subspecies is descended from (e.g. Shy Guy being the species origin for Snifit), but I keep seeing it used to mean "looks like" or "type of thing" (e.g. "Bottle" being the species origin for PET Bottom), which would be like labeling Dry Bones as a subspecies of "Skeleton" or "Turtle". And while I think this section could have a use if defined better, I'm sure some would say it could just be removed altogether, or replaced with something clearer. It's starting to look like the old "Affiliation" section of Template:Character-infobox, unrelated things are being put in it just to make the infobox slightly bigger. This may not need a proposal, in which case I'll gladly delete it, but to my knowledge, there isn't anything on the wiki actually defining what that section is supposed to be used for.

Proposer: Deadline: April 2, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Make a Clear Definition of What "Species Origin" is For

 * 1) Even though I agree with Mario, I can still see an appeaseable solution to the speculation problem.

Remove the Section Altogether

 * 1) I feel like "species origin" treads too closely with speculation. Whatever purpose it has is already served by "subspecies" (or "related species", which I think is a better name than "subspecies"). The flaw in your support is the lack of explaining "Make a Clear Definition of What 'Species Origin' is For" means since it's not clear exactly how you want to define it.
 * 2) Per LGM. I think the section is unnecessary anyway.
 * 3) Per Mario.

Rename Section

 * 1) Changing my vote, I think it'd be overused a lot less if it was renamed to "Subspecies Of" or something similar.

Comments
This is partly due to the over use of sub-species with little forethought into how it actually applies to subjects broadly or if it's even practical to call something that looks slightly different than something otherwise identical a "subset of the species. If we're being literal with the term, there should only be a handful of subspecies and it would flow counter to how we generally list things (as an example, a Paragoomba wouldn't be a subspecies of Goomba, as the wings denote an evolutionary advancement and both species are frequently found in the same regions, whereas Galoomba would be more of regional cousin). However, we use the term in such away that French Canadian's are a subspecies of both Canadians and the French. Sadly, there probably isn't easy or adequate way to solve this issue this late into the game. And let's all give a big hand to the idiot who first added the term on a whim to the wiki! I'm such a damn asset, aren't I!

What the hell were we talking about again? -- Ghost Jam 03:23, 27 March 2015 (EDT)
 * Wings aren't necessarily an evolutionary advancement. Going off-topic, but technically, if wings weren't evolutionary advantageous, they wouldn't be considered "better". 19:51, 28 March 2015 (EDT)
 * For the sake of argument, I'd say it counts as an advancement in so far as video game logic is being applied, but not in reality of course. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:47, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

Not really important, but here are some things I found on that section:


 * Bottle
 * Golden Diva
 * Hammer
 * Large fish
 * Robot
 * Squeak (on the Squeak article)
 * Thumbtack

Binarystep (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2015 (EDT)

My idea of a "clear definition" is basically obvious, confirmed subspecies only, like how it was originally used before people felt the need to add it to everything, not things that just look kind of similar or are that type of thing. It also means broad terms like "Bee", "Pig", etc. would not be allowed under that section, for the same reason why Goombas aren't a subspecies of Mushroom or something. To be honest, I think a lot of problems would be fixed if it was renamed to "Subspecies Of", which is a lot more clear than "Species Origin". In fact, I'll change my vote. Binarystep (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2015 (EDT)


 * @Mario (and Ghost Jam): If something's not "better" it's usually selected against and erased from populations, rather than leading to specialization - unless it's being dragged along with a good adaptation (due to the genes being close on the chromosomes), or something that started out good and only became bad after it was fixed due to new changes or changes in the environment, etc. Anyway, it doesn't matter if differences are good or bad when determining the taxonomy of a species, just that there are differences, and Ghost Jam's completely right in that the way we use "subspecies" around here is completely wrong. Aside from some RPG enemy sets that only differ in colour, strength and attack strategy, things we call "subspecies" should simply be recognized as full species, and in the interest of uniformity and not making subjective judgment calls, it would be better to even call the biologically similar-enough things "species" too. After all, the wiki's current mix of "species" and "subspecies/sub species/sub-species" is both inconsistent (in many ways) and often just speculating about what's a full species and what's a subspecies, which, as Ghost Jam also pointed out, is frequently done wrong, and periodically leads to rather messy situations. (I.e. is a Shady Paratroopa a Shady Koopa "subspecies" or a Koopa Paratroopa "subspecies", or neither, or both, given how Shady Koopas and Koopa Paratroopas are already "subspecies" of Koopa Troopas?) As a zoologist by trade, it makes me cringe to see the word splattered around the wiki, and it is honestly on my (very long) "to do" list to see it wiped out someday, including replacing the "subspecies" header of the infoboxes with "derived species"/"descendents"/etc. But for now, to make this more on-topic, @Binarystep: imo, what you're looking for for the vague "species origin" header is "parent species" - the species that directly gave rise to a given species (in RL it refers to evolution, but here it's from a game development POV - however the idea's the same: from X came Y, by adding wings/changing the colour/etc.). I also recommend making only one rename/redefine voting header (alongside the removal and leave-it-be options) as you're potentially splitting the vote and the basic idea that it's potentially a useful header if it's fixed is pretty much the same for both options anyway. -
 * Ooo, yeah, but my point is that wings don't necessarily denote an advancement, which implies it's "better" somehow. But anyhow, what about "related species" rather than "subspecies"? You can put the alleged "parent species" on top and put all the related ones underneath without actually assuming the Paragoomba came before the Paragloomba or something like that. I mean, creation-wise, that would make sense, but it seems to be assuming that one form chronologically came before the other. Or, maybe I'm just bringing up arguments that aren't there. 22:49, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
 * I knew that wing thing was wrong when I typed it, but it was the only thing think of to get the point across (I was also going under the assumption most people get all the things involved in the species/subspecies selection process, hell I only have a cursory understanding of it). Regardless, I like the idea of the mass correction of terms and Walkazo's suggestion of derived species (or similar). -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:45, 1 April 2015 (EDT)
 * To be honest, I don't think "Related Species" would work for that, I think it'd be better for similar species (e.g. Li'l Sparkys are similar to Sparks, but not a subspecies). Binarystep (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Perhaps, but I think related is just specific enough to group Paragoomba and its variants or something like that. 15:55, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

You know, I'm going to withdraw this, since it doesn't really need a proposal, I'll try my luck with a forum thread instead. Binarystep (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2015 (EDT)
 * A vote would still be good in the long run, but if you want to have a forum discussion in the meantime, okay (I'll remove the proposal for you later, or maybe tomorrow, but as the discussion's still in progress here, hence I haven't yanked it yet; plus I've been really busy or the last few days). Also, keep in mind that I might just make that "no more subspecies" proposal in the meantime (if I can make the time to write, run and start enforcing it), thus forcing some name changes in the template either way, but no promises. Anyway, I feel it's worth having a specific section for the parent species that the developers spun the later species off of, since the tendency is to make longer lists alphabetical so any nested nuances would be easily lost, and in general, it's best to specifically say "this is x" instead of assuming everyone will understand that the first thing in list y is x. "Derived species" can be the counterpart that's exclusivity used for species that were based on the focal species (such as Colossal Koopa Paratroopa for Gargantua Koopa Troopa), while "related species" (or perhaps "similar species") header can be used for things that are morphologically similar to the species in question, rather than simply listing all other derivative species: we have nav templates for that. -
 * To be honest, I think the Species Origin section could be fixed, just not with that name, which is too confusing (a lot of people seem to think it means "based on", probably because of how on a lot of game wikis, "Origin" refers to a real life thing being referenced). I actually have an idea for a remade species infobox, but I don't know enough about coding to make an example on my sandbox, unfortunately. Also, in response to Mario, I actually have a WIP species chart in my sandbox, showing the most logical (based on appearances, names, behavior, and ingame/manual/guide info if available) species/subspecies relations, I'd like some feedback on it. Binarystep (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (EDT)