MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Create an article for Tetris 99 and add it to the list of games
Tetris 99 currently does not have an article on this wiki, and I believe one should be created and the game should be added to the List of games, List of games by date, and List of games by genre articles. The game features many Super Mario- and Nintendo-themed elements, including from Luigi's Mansion 3, Paper Mario: The Origami King, Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Golf: Super Rush, WarioWare: Get It Together!, and Mario Party Superstars.

There is direct precedent for this in the form of Tetris DS. Like Tetris 99, Tetris DS features many Super Mario- and Nintendo-themed elements, and as a result, it has an article on this wiki and is included in the List of games, List of games by date, and List of games by genre articles. Examples of other games that feature Super Mario elements and thus have articles and are in the list of games articles include Minecraft, Rhythm Heaven Megamix, NES Remix, NES Remix 2 , Ultimate NES Remix, Nintendo Land, Captain Rainbow, SSX on Tour, and NBA Street V3.

Proposer: Deadline: August 26, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Given a large amount of Mario themes present in this game, there is enough content to justify creating a full article on this game.

Oppose

 * 1) I think this is really stretching what can be considered a guest appearance. It doesn't have you playing as Mario characters like many of those examples do, and the Mario elements it features don't even directly affect gameplay or get interacted with, it's just skins based on other games that change visuals and sounds. I'd say it fits better on the list of references.
 * 2) per Hewer. I get that they are a lot of effort put in them, but it doesn't really modify the gameplay. Let, if the Tertis blocks were maybe replaced with Mario blocks, maybe? I mean, Just Dance was voted a guest appearance but that was because of the effort of the music videos. Even if I would agree with you, you don't try to explain how it is more than a skin. Because that's how it feels to me.

Comments
Please note that there was just a proposal that determined that the NES Tetris does not count as a full appearance or a guest appearance but rather a standard reference; it includes direct appearances of Mario, DK, Luigi, Bowser, and Peach outside of gameplay. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:02, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

I think Art Style: PiCTOBiTS should be a good comparison for games that don't have playable Mario characters or interactible Mario elements. If the answers to these questions are comparable to Art Style: PiCTOBiTS, then we could say it is a guest appearance. Also take a look at the proposal Doc von Schmeltwick linked, as what is and isn't a guest appearance is very much up for debate. What do you think? Axis (talk) 12:10, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * How many themes/levels are Mario themed?
 * Are there sounds/music borrowed from the Mario games?
 * And most importantly, how much of a game do these levels/objects/themes occupy compared to non-Mario elements?
 * For the last point, the Mario themes are only some in a plethora of themes based on Nintendo Switch games that are exclusively available in limited-time events, so I don't think it gets a great score there. And from what I can tell from its article (I haven't played the game), it seems like Pictobits does feature interactible Mario elements in the form of coins and POW Blocks. 12:37, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * As resident Pictobits-head, we can vouch that you do in fact use Mario items to an extent (you can collect coins very obviously modelled off of SMB1, and there's the POW block as a mechanic). So, there's definitely a stronger argument for Pictobits over Tetris 99, as you can directly interact with both of those (you spend coins, and as mentioned, the POW is an outright mechanic of the game). 22:37, August 20, 2023 (EDT)

Reconsider Nintendo's website filenames being used as a source
See this proposal for full context. Nintendo is sadly known to make mistakes in their filenames found on their websites (especially Play Nintendo). I think we can all agree there is zero reason to believe these files should have the same priority as number 4 in the acceptable sources for naming policy, but I also believe we shouldn't throw them away. If Nintendo blunders, we mention it. If this proposal passes, the following changes will be implemented:
 * 1) Nintendo's weird website filenames can be added either as trivia or in the same section as internal names, but these names shouldn't be anywhere near the first paragraph.
 * 2) In a potential unforeseen case where the website filename is the only name Nintendo provided, it will occupy the last 7th place in acceptable sources for naming (yes, even below the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia)

Redirects, on the other hand, is something I'm unsure about.

Proposer: Deadline: August 24, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support, use these names as redirects as well

 * 1) No harm done by using redirects, unless we want to obliterate these names off the wiki.
 * 2) Honestly, I still don't really get why the last proposal had so much vehement opposition just because "no one thinks these are the actual names". While that may be true, it's not like we're trying to make these the article titles - I'd obviously agree if that was the proposal, but I don't really see the harm of making a note of these on pages like we usually strive to do with all the official information we get. And I tend to support redirects for any names that have been officially used, since having more redirects is completely harmless - it's potentially helpful and never a hindrance, so again, I don't see a problem.
 * 3) If we can distinguish them from the games’ internal names, I think that these names can be a nice addition to the pages.
 * 4) Since the original option was, evidently, not in-line with what we were expecting, this one seems at least closer with our original intent. While these should be low-priority due to their obscure nature, but there's no harm in acknowledging that they exist in the first place.
 * 5) Per all.

Only cite them in case of no other source being available

 * 1) I don’t know how often this might happen, but if a filename is the only source we can work with for a given name, it shouldn’t be discounted.


 * 1) In the extremely unlikely case that the Nintendo website's data is the one, the only authority on a name, we may as well use it; otherwise, though, we can probably get away with discounting them. After all, these are names you'd only encounter by prodding at the site data.


 * 1) Per Koopa con Carne.

Oppose

 * 1) I actually think it's a good idea to cite web filenames as a recourse when absolutely nothing else comes in clutch, and I support mentioning the original filename of a wiki upload on its file page as it still defines the image in an official capacity, but the overall course of action proposed here still puts too much stock in this kind of material. Per some of the opposers to the previous proposal.

Comments
@Camwoodstock: Why is it that the obscurity of the names means we should ignore them? There's plenty of obscure content on the wiki, if anything it makes it more interesting to note them if it's obscure and not many people know about them. I don't understand why this proposal and the previous one were opposed with arguments along the lines of "too obscure, no one will see these" when that's never been a factor in anything else on the wiki to my knowledge. 05:31, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I was bewildered by this argument in the previous proposal too. It's nonsense, as the wiki already cites no shortage of material you'd normally have to look really deep into finding--and it seems weird to think a filename for an image that is readily available on Nintendo's website is somehow more obscure than a section in some '90s player's guide that is not sold anymore. However, I'll grant you that there are still some reasons to argue against the use of these filenames as sources of information, namely that those who help piece together promo material aren't obliged to demonstrate a staggering amount of professionality in the way they represent Mario concepts, and are not what you'd construe as an authority on such. 05:47, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * Indeed, hence why I don't think we should make these page titles or otherwise give them much credence, but noting them in trivia sections and the like seems like it should be fine to me as this is still official material, and it's certainly not like we usually tend to ignore promotional material like these websites. 06:21, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * We should probably clarify that we specifically mean our vote in the sense of, if there is zero other authority for a name, we can use it as a last resort, as it is still a valid name. Not "discard" it as in "it gets ignored outright the moment more authoritative name arrives", heavens no! But if a more definitive name exists, it should get priority over the website name for stuff like, y'know, article names, while the website name can remain as a redirect if it doesn't conflict with anything. Apologies for not being very clear. 22:39, August 20, 2023 (EDT)
 * So you agree with making redirects for the file names but are supporting the option to not create them? This just makes me more confused. The support options here aren't to regard these as a high source of authority, just to make them redirects and make a note of them on articles like we usually do with alternate names. 09:01, August 21, 2023 (EDT)
 * ...Okay, now we're confused, OOPS. We voted that because we thought the option was to consider those a valid name, but only as the second-to-lowest priority, literally only beating out the Encyclopedia; as better names from higher priority sources follow suit, we follow our standard protocol from there. If that's not what the option meant (and it's seeming like there is, indeed, a semantic difference, but we wanna make absolutely certain first that's the case!), we can change our vote as need be. And, once again, sorry for the confusion. 10:20, August 21, 2023 (EDT)
 * The option you voted for does not allow these files to be used as redirects, and the Enclyclopedia names would actually take priority over these weird web filenames. I should have made it clearer, but it's too late to edit the proposal now Axis (talk) 10:35, August 21, 2023 (EDT)
 * Our bad. Changin' our vote then! 10:40, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

Reflects the elements from DKwiki
In the past, DKwiki existed separately. It was eventually merged because there were no DK games in recently and there were more appearances in the Mario spinoff. How about including the first appearance from the Mario series? If there is no appearance in Mario spinoff, the status quo is maintained.


 * List of Super Mario-related appearances
 * Mario-related spinoff and crossover
 * Mario vs. Donkey Kong series
 * List of Donkey Kong-related appearances
 * Super Smash Bros. fighters or collectibles
 * WarioWare minigame cameo
 * Super Mario Maker costume

Example: Before: Donkey Kong Country (1994)

After: Donkey Kong Country (1994) Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour (2003, Super Mario-related spinoff)

Proposer: Deadline: August 21, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support (Separate)

 * 1) Per proposal, this is a good idea.

Oppose (Status quo)

 * 1) This wiki basically treats Super Mario and Donkey Kong as if they were the same franchise. This would just lead to others trying to find similar exceptions like this which would get way too messy.
 * 2) Per Swallow. This just opens the door for the same to apply to Wario and Yoshi as well, as they are also in the same sub-franchise boat as Donkey Kong is.
 * 3) I... don't see the reason to do this.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per Swallow. This only muddies the waters of what's a Mario game vs. a Donkey Kong game, and is honestly a lot less helpful than it is harmful. There's more elegant ways to convey these sorts of things anyhow.
 * 6) - What is the point? Prose is better for this and less ambiguous anyway.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Swallow.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Donkey Kong games are considered by the wiki to be part of the Super Mario franchise, and the lines can be blurry in some cases (most notably the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games that we consider to be in both franchises, but also other similar cases like the original Donkey Kong game, which is obviously in the Donkey Kong franchise but is also considered the first Mario game as it was the first appearance of Mario and he's the main character). But I also don't really see the benefit of changing this regardless, it's not like we consider either Mario or DK to be more important than the other. Also, I'm confused why the proposal lists crossover appearances featuring both Mario and DK under the DK-related appearances.
 * 12) Per all, specifically Swallow, Tails777, Camwoodstock and Hewer. Also, see comments.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all, but it looks a same treat for the Super Mario and Donkey Kong franchise.

Comments

 * Mario vs. Donkey Kong is considered into Mario-related appearance since it contained more Mario contents than Donkey Kong Country. Windy (talk) 23:37, August 18, 2023 (EDT)
 * The wiki has considered the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games as both. Sure, it contains very few Donkey Kong Country elements compared to the Super Mario elements it has, but the games have always been a homage to the classic arcade games of Donkey Kong; the very first entry of Mario vs. Donkey Kong is a spiritual sequel to the Donkey Kong Game Boy game of 1994, with its gameplay similar to that game instead of how a Super Mario Bros. game works. Its sequels also reintroduce Pauline, who only appeared in the Donkey Kong arcade game, the 1994 Game Boy game, and the NES game Pinball; Pauline hadn't really made an actual appearance in a Super Mario title until Super Mario Odyssey ten years later. The Mario vs. Donkey Kong games also make sure to always homage the classic 1981 arcade game in some fashion. So in essence, I think it's wrong to consider Mario vs. Donkey Kong a Mario spinoff only, when in reality it's a spinoff of both Mario and Donkey Kong. It's a crossover, in essence. As such, if this proposal passes, it'd probably make more sense if Mario vs. Donkey Kong, and by extension the classic Donkey Kong arcade games, either should be counted as Donkey Kong games, or are listed separate from both the Super Mario games and the Donkey Kong games... and that's straight-up confusing and makes me doubt that the separation between the two series really is a good idea, even if only for the infoboxes. 01:44, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * Also, the original McsDK takes more from Donkey Kong on the Game Boy, which is a Donkey Kong game through and through. In that respect, it makes more sense to consider it primarily a DK game, but as Arend pointed out, that's not necessarily true. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:57, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

@Hewer: Regarding why crossovers featuring both Mario and DK would be regarded as DK-related, I presume is because the specific appearances of those DK characters would be more related to the DK games than the Mario games (e.g. Super Smash Bros. lists DK, Diddy and K. Rool as Donkey Kong series character rather than Super Mario series characters; the DK, DK Jr and Diddy Mystery Costumes in Super Mario Maker are listed separately from the other Mario-related Mystery Costumes instead of being blended in, as if they're representing their own series instead; and the WarioWare microgames that feature Donkey Kong are based on Donkey Kong games rather than Mario games). But like with the Mario vs. DK thing I discussed, though, this crossover segregation could be really confusing and complicated for people and makes me think that it's not a good idea to list these things separately in the infoboxes. 06:35, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * My confusion is why those crossovers are all exclusively listed under Donkey Kong despite all featuring both Mario and DK representation. I guess they're covered by "Mario-related spinoff and crossover" as well, but that's confusingly vague. And I very much disagree with the proposer's stance that the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games aren't part of both franchises - the Donkey Kong franchise isn't just Donkey Kong Country and its derivatives, it also includes the original arcade trilogy and the derivatives of those games, including Mario vs. Donkey Kong. 08:23, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * Regarding the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games, that's exactly what I was saying. 10:58, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I was arguing against the proposer as I specified. 11:44, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
 * Especially when one considers the original MvsDK is based directly on DK94 more than any Super Mario-branded game. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:54, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.