MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

Implement "See also" sections in Mario Party minigame and WarioWare microgame articles for related mini/microgames
Since there are so many minigames/microgames, I believe that people who look through them often end up finding one that is similar to what they are looking for but it's not, or they find of and it reminds them of something similar and want to find it. (This happens to me at least.)

I think it would be interesting that to have a "See also" section that we can use to link to mini/microgames that are remarkably similar in concept or theme. For example:
 * Flash Forward: See also Slaparazzi
 * Revolving Fire: See also Hazard Hold
 * Dry Eye: See also Laser Vision
 * Nighttime Allergies: See also Snivel Disobedience and Allergy Attack
 * Hectic Highway: See also Outta My Way and Racing 112
 * Oh, the Irony: See also The Irony
 * Classic Clash I: See also Classic Clash II and Classic Clash III
 * Zero to Hero: See also Bam-Fu and Log Chop
 * Noodle Cup: See also Circuit Path, maybe?
 * Balancing Act: See also Broom Shtick, maybe?

Just to make it clear, we wouldn't do that for microgames that simply have similar gameplay if it's not remarkable, or that simply have a similar character show up as some sort of easter egg (this is more fitting for trivia anyway).

Anyway, having this section would also make it needless to mention the similarities between mini/microgames elsewhere, like in the introduction paragraph or in a trivia section, which is often inconsistent as it is now.

Proposer: Deadline: August 28, 2018, at 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) My proposal, so yeah.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I also don't think this needs a proposal but it would be really helpful to establish this standard anyway. Though the one concern I have is that are we just going to lump all minigames of this archetype into this list together? Despite having the same concept, Cut from the Team and Cheep Cheep Chance are very thematically differet.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) As long as this proposal is about simply adding the "see also" sections and not removing the existing similarities sentence(s) in the article leads (since there are many different ways to express a similarity between two or more minigames/microgames), I'm all for implementing this. Per all. P.S.: To add to Baby Luigi's comment, Cut from the Team is more similar to Pier Pressure.
 * 6) Adding a "see also" section will be useful for navigation. Per all.
 * 7) This proposal is not needed.

Comments
Wouldn't it be better if you also proposed that we did this for Mario Party series minigames as well? 23:59, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Oh, right. I didn't think about that. 00:14, 21 August 2018 (EDT)

I don't really think this needs a proposal. That's pretty much why we include "See also" sections in the first place, to direct readers to other similar subjects. 00:12, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but I thought it was just better to see if there were other opinions about it rather than just start mass editing, doing things "my way" without getting any sort of approval. 00:17, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
 * In certain cases (Slaparazzi, for example), it already says it's similar to a previous game. 00:19, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
 * That's right, but it's also about how they are handled. Like, as I said on the last paragraph of the proposal, some articles mention similarities in the introduction paragraph, others in trivia, others in gameplay sections, and others don't mention similar games at all. It's kind of messy. 00:24, 21 August 2018 (EDT)

@Toadette the Achiever It's not; read the last paragraph. It would also be kind of redundant to mention the similarities in the main body and have a "See also" link to that similar microgame. 03:22, 24 August 2018 (EDT)

@Baby Luigi: Yeah, personally I wouldn't list those two minigames together either. When I said "concept", I meant the actions done during the game and the context rather than the gameplay. To be fair, I actually had only microgames in mind when I came up with this, and minigames are just more complicated. But I don't know. I guess that, if this passes, we'll just decide on the go?

Removals
None at the moment.

Determine whether reused artwork is a reference
Right now, whenever a piece of character artwork is remade/reused, it's considered a reference in the references section. But I say... why? It's a practice Nintendo's been doing for years, and the poses are always very generic. I don't think anyone at Nintendo says "Hey, remember that Mario Party game from 10 years ago? Let's reference it by reusing Bowser's character artwork!".

Because there's several variables, there are a few different options for this proposal:
 * Only reused artwork is a reference: Only instances where the exact artwork is reused will be considered a reference.
 * Only remastered artwork is a reference: Only instances where the artwork is remade will be considered a reference. For example, Wario's artwork from Mario Party: The Top 100 would be a Super Mario 64 DS reference because it's a remake of his older artwork.
 * Neither are a reference: Self-explanatory, all mentions of reused artwork in any form would be removed from the references sections.
 * Both are a reference: Nothing happens, both continue to be considered a reference.
 * Determine on a case-by-case basis: Artwork reuse being a reference would be determined on a case-by-case basis, similar to other elements of games like reused enemies.

Proposer: Deadline: August 30, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Only reused artwork is a reference

 * 1) - Per my original thoughts.
 * 2) - Per proposal.

Only remastered artwork is a reference

 * 1) Remaking an artwork is at the very least giving a specific nod to an element of a game, if not the entire game. Artwork is an element as much as sprites or quotes.
 * 2) Per Baby Luigi's comment. At this point, artwork from the Mario Party games has been reused so many times, it's hardly a reference anymore.

Neither are a reference

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal + my comment on the previous take.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.

Determine on a case-by-case basis

 * 1) This proposal is clearly better off as a discussion, but I'm going for this option since it's at least an opener for further discussion.
 * 2) Gonna vote here as well since this option now exists, and I see the merits of both.

Comments
I think this should be applied in the same mannerism as we already handle references for policy: referencing Super Mario Bros. because Goombas appear in the game is ludicrous, so saying that Baby Luigi's artwork in promotional material are all references to Mario Kart Wii (which in turn is a reference to Luigi's pose from DDR: Mario Mix) is a bit ludicrous. So in that way, I accept remaking/remastering artwork only when it reuses artwork from that specific game instance, such as Bowser's very specialized, dancing artwork that isn't reused all that often to begin with being reused for Mario Sports Superstars. Artwork such as Waluigi's crouching pose, Yoshi's running pose from Mario Party 8, ie any artwork that gets reused very often, should not be labeled as references. 13:25, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Yes, by then it's stock artwork. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * I'll also add that some artwork gets edited without it being necessarily a reference: Bowser Jr.'s artwork in Mario Party: Star Rush is an edited version of his artwork in Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash, but that doesn't mean that they wanted to reference said game. Actually, I frankly don't think that in most cases the artwork which is reused or remastered is a reference to the original game for which the original artwork was made. I'd rather talk about sourcing in these cases, but we don't have any way to make this distinction at the moment.--Mister Wu (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

I say that I don't like any of the options in this proposal. My conclusion is this: some reused artworks are references, many of them aren't, but that doesn't mean no reused artworks aren't references to past games. 16:57, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Agreed; it's better if this was case-by-case, rather than catch-all. 17:01, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * I've added a fifth option, since this seems to be a popular opinion. -- 17:28, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * The problem I have with it is that it's pretty vague. 17:42, 24 August 2018 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.