MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

Create a template for proposer and deadline parameters
Yet another measure intended to improve how proposals are added to pages. You can find the details here. Basically, my proposal is that we change the parameters for the "Proposer:" and "Deadline:" parameters from hardcoding into a template. This will also (quite obviously) mean that previous archives must be temporarily unprotected to enforce these changes. Proposals like these have received near-unanimous support in the past; we have all of these, to name a few, so how does this fare?

Proposer: Deadline: November 14, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Templates are for reducing redundant and common markup into an easy-to-use code. We went through it once before.

Oppose

 * 1) Why? This just seems like it unnecessarily complicates the whole process. It's perfectly readable as-is and doesn't take up a notable amount of space.
 * 2) - Per Time Turner. This seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
 * 3) Templates are annoying to use as-is, and what I saw when I viewed the source of that example didn't make me particularly welcoming of this idea. It's just easier to do it the way we've been doing it.
 * 4) Per all. I don't see how this makes things any easier.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Per all.

Comments
@MrConcreteDonkey: The problem is that I have seen countless poorly formatted proposer/deadline parameters. 17:30, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * I haven't noticed anything like that, and even still it's much less hassle to just fix them separately, rather than editing every proposal in every archive. 17:39, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * Your argument is still flawed; all of these, to name a few. 17:52, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * But this doesn't make things any more convenient, and it doesn't provide any added insight for future readers. How is this better than manually inputting it? 18:24, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * It's been fixed. 18:44, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * It has not. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * You've only added the list from your most recent comment to the proposal, and haven't addressed our concerns. How is introducing more complicated formatting going to combat poor formatting? 19:46, 7 November 2017 (EST)

Somewhat related, but I have had a way to streamline calculating proposal deadlines 1 or 2 weeks in advance, but no one responded: MarioWiki talk:Proposals/Header It won't go into the template, but it will replace, found in  (/Header). --

@Wildgoosespeeder: Is our current system not easy-to-use? 09:43, 8 November 2017 (EST)
 * Replacing text is kind of a hassle because trying to preserve formatting. That's why I proposed the template a while ago. Also don't forget . -- 00:32, 9 November 2017 (EST)
 * What text is being replaced? 22:45, 9 November 2017 (EST)
 * This is what is looking to replace with User:Toadette the Achiever/PParameter as a sandbox template.
 * Test:
 * Test:


 * Seems to be working OK. -- 00:19, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * But is too complicated for the purpose it's trying to fill. The current formula can at least be realistically remembered without copypasting from a different tab. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * But the parameters still need to be explained. Nothing is actually being replaced here. 00:21, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * Too complicated? Does that mean that and  are too complicated as well ? It's not hard. The sandbox template has documentation how to use . If you want the code to be   instead of , just let  know. Also the name of the template can change later. -- 00:27, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * It's complicated because there's like 3-4 separate blanks on there, which in my opinion is too many. And again, there is no point to it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * Template coding is possible to make two of the four parameters optional to specify (proposer and deadline mandatory, start and withdrawn optional). I think that the template is like that already. Only thing left to do is to simplify the code by using,  , etc.. See  or  for exact code how things are achieved. -- 00:56, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * It doesn't matter what's possible for the system what matters is human limitation for a thing that gets used like 3 times per week. And again, it is completely unnecessary. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * I think you are making it more complicated than it actually is. What you will be typing is  (if the template is coded to use ,  , etc. instead). The proposed template page doesn't make it clear what the effects are compared to what I did when  was first proposed. Maybe that is what you are concerned about? -- 01:24, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * And this is simpler than what we have in place currently how? And why on earth would it be "PParameter?" Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * Replacing text of the hard-coded copypasta version is a hassle. That's why templates are a thing. Also templates formalize and standardize things. For the name, I said that it can be changed later. Nothing is absolute. That's what a proposal is for. What would you call this template? -- 01:34, 10 November 2017 (EST)

Delete the categories for the levels that an Animal Friend appears in
The title's a bit unwieldy, but it's a good way of describing the categories I'm talking about, like Category:Levels with Parry and Category:Levels with Winky. Why do we have these categories? It's not like we have categories for every level featuring Orange Yoshi or Goombas or 1-Up Mushrooms or anything else apart from Animal Friends. It's not even all of them: the animals from Donkey Kong Jungle Beat are completely absent from the category deal. If you want to know every level that a certain Animal Friend appears in, their pages already list them. Although the lists are a bit unwieldy, especially when multiple of them are on the same page, the solution is not to make categories. Who would actually benefit from these categories in the first place? Who requires a compact list of every level that an Animal Friend appears in, especially when some of them have less than five entries? As I said with the proposal to delete Category:New Levels, we shouldn't need to cater to every single remote possibility.

Proposer: Deadline: November 17, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal; just having the Animal Buddy pages list the levels is good enough.
 * 3) - Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.

Comments
Affected categories:
 * Category:Levels with Ellie
 * Category:Levels with Enguarde
 * Category:Levels with Expresso
 * Category:Levels with Parry
 * Category:Levels with Quawks
 * Category:Levels with Rambi
 * Category:Levels with Rattly
 * Category:Levels with Squawks
 * Category:Levels with Squitter
 * Category:Levels with Winky

Make "Bestiary" its own namespace
Sure, we have a namespace for galleries, but I don't see why we can't do the same for bestiaries. It's the same kind of "special" article that I would define galleries as as well. Therefore, I propose that we rename every instance of  to.

Proposer: Deadline: October 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 2, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 9, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 16, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.  Why not?
 * 5) This is (similar to?) one of the things Zeldawiki does that I think we should too.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Switch sides again, Per Toadette's comment.
 * 9) - Just because we've got fewer bestiaries than galleries doesn't really give much an excuse. This helps keep the wiki more organized than it would be, and that's more than a good enough reason IMO.

Oppose

 * 1) - For galleries it made sense because most major articles had one (there are currently 319); for bestiaries, I don't see the point at all. There are 12 proper bestiaries, I don't think this warrants a namespace by any means.
 * 2) Per Tucayo. I also don't see the benefit of this; it seems like more hassle then it's worth for little payoff when considering the few bestiaries on the page.
 * 3) Per Tucayo.
 * 4) - Originally supported, but considering the number of bestiaries there are, per Tucayo.
 * 5) I don't think we have enough pages of this thing to make it into a separate namespace. Per all.
 * 6) Per my comment below and Tucayo.
 * 7) Per all. I see what's trying to be done here, but it seems overly fiddly considering what is being effected, making this extra work for little reward.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Really?! Per all.
 * 10) - Per all. At least for now I don't see why this is needed.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments

 * I might just be a bit dumb, but I don't fully understand what this means or what the difference is. Could you give an example?-- 12:15, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * For example, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary would become if this were to pass. -- 12:18, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I can only see one problem with this. On every enemy page where the enemy template is placed, transcluding its info from the bestiary page, they look like this:
 * The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.-- 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sounds like bot work. 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.-- 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sounds like bot work. 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)


 * Could we keep the current names as redirects until all of the transclusions are fixed?
 * 14:05, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Ultimate Mr. L: Isn't that a standard measure? @Alex95: That was my exact plan for fixing those pages. 17:37, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Tucayo: "There's too little" is not an argument in and of itself. It's so that normal readers don't get confused into thinking it's an actual article. 18:00, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * They are articles, though?? What makes them any different from quote pages, lists of badges, recipes, assist trophies, etc.? Bold + italics doesn't make it true. -- 22:01, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Those are actual list articles. Bestiaries are not technically list articles; they are rather pages that are there to have individual sections be transcluded onto actual articles. 22:07, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * But they are still articles by themselves. I truly fail to see the point here. -- 22:09, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Again, why do you think that they're actual articles? They are not meant to be. 08:25, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

If we gonna have them as separate namespaces I honestly think the category should expand to all list articles since they are the very similar to bestiaries. I honestly think having a separate namespace for just 12 pages for something very specific is inconsistent and unprofessional.
 * @NSY: Again, bestiaries ARE NOT technically list articles; they are relevant sections of a page transcluded onto other articles, and having too few does not make too much of a difference. Also, could you please elaborate on the "inconsistency" argument? I understand it less so than Tucayo's arguments. 15:10, 24 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Well according to dictionary.com a list is defined as "a series of names or other items written or printed together in a meaningful grouping or sequence so as to constitute a record". Pretty certain an article that has a record of every enemy and their stats falls under that. It's inconsistent because these would the only list articles that got their own namespace, what about the articles listing all the mini games in a Mario Party game, would they also get their own namespace.
 * No, because that's an actual list:
 * Balloon Burst
 * Bombs Away
 * Crazy Cutter
 * Where as the bestiaries are tables:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Name !! Location !! HP !! Items
 * Bowser || Castle || 100 || Key
 * Goomba || Plains || 3 || Mushroom
 * Koopa Troopa || Mountains || 12 ||N/A
 * }
 * We don't list out the enemies on a bestiary like we do for every single list on this site. The lists are spilt up into categories, like the Species list, and they only have a name that links to it's main article, ONLY. Nothing else about that link exists on the page.-- 17:32, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * However, there are some "list" articles such as List of enemy formations in Paper Mario that are tables, so the lists are not always simply just a name that links to its main article. I agree that bestiaries are like list articles. -- 17:36, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Didn't know that existed. Is that article necessary? If so, seems like that should be integrated into the Paper Mario bestiary.-- 17:40, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I feel that there is enough information for it to remain separate (a proposal to merge it could be created though). Even if that and the Thousand-Year Door version were merged with their bestiaries, there are still other list articles that are more than just simply names (see Category:Lists for more examples). -- 17:55, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * There is also List of Sammer Guys. The only reason why it is kept separate from Super Paper Mario bestiary is that it is a list of Sammer Guys fought in an optional thing (though the first 20 are required) and they are too similar to each other. As for another this bestiaries are, they are compendiums which is "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication (not really relevant to these bestiaries, but I am quoting this word for word)" -- definition found by searching compendiums on Bing. The list of enemy formations and others listed here may be the only exceptions, though.
 * Didn't know that existed. Is that article necessary? If so, seems like that should be integrated into the Paper Mario bestiary.-- 17:40, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I feel that there is enough information for it to remain separate (a proposal to merge it could be created though). Even if that and the Thousand-Year Door version were merged with their bestiaries, there are still other list articles that are more than just simply names (see Category:Lists for more examples). -- 17:55, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * There is also List of Sammer Guys. The only reason why it is kept separate from Super Paper Mario bestiary is that it is a list of Sammer Guys fought in an optional thing (though the first 20 are required) and they are too similar to each other. As for another this bestiaries are, they are compendiums which is "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication (not really relevant to these bestiaries, but I am quoting this word for word)" -- definition found by searching compendiums on Bing. The list of enemy formations and others listed here may be the only exceptions, though.

Okay, this just doesn't make any sense at all. How and why in the world would we make this thing its own namespace if there are only twelve of it on the market right now? I don't get it. 17:49, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Because it's not really an article. Its main purpose is infoboxes to transclude onto articles. Because it is more than just an article, I feel it warrants its own namespace. It doesn't matter how few of them there are.
 * 19:48, 28 October 2017 (EDT)
 * But why does it need a separate namespace to exemplify that fact? 20:00, 28 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Are you suggesting that the Template namspace might be the ideal home for them? (Yeah, it just now occurred to me.) 13:25, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
 * ...No? 00:11, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

Improve rewrite-expand template
I propose that the needs improved.  It has been requested that this be rewritten and expanded

Proposer: Deadline: November 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Once again, per last time and then some. I don't get it, what is so wrong with the rewrite-expand template anyway? It does the job just fine.
 * 2) - Other than moving the word "to", there's no difference being made here.
 * 3) Why?
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) You can already add specifics if any are needed. This change is nothing but busywork. Per all.
 * 6) The proposal is still failing to reconsider other templates, from last time. Stop pushing this proposal until you "do your homework", for a lack of a better phrase.
 * 7) There's no point, we might as well be moving it to "not dun yet lol."
 * 8) Can't see the difference or any worthwhile or significant impact it may have, per all.
 * 9) Why do you keep trying to fix something that isn't broken?

Super Hornio Bros Page
This is a bit of a controversial one, but here it goes. I think we should incorporate a full page on both Super Hornio films for preservation purposes instead of a mere description. I would like to do this, as the film is owned by Nintendo themselves, and the history behind them are extremely interesting. I've written a draft here: User:Howzit/Sandbox. We have so many other Mario knockoffs properly documented, why not this one?

Proposer: Deadline: November 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Okay, since this has absolutely no relation to the Mario franchise whatsoever, I don't think this is a good idea at all.
 * 2) This is a place that kids visit. We have nothing in place to stop people underage from accessing adult only content, even if it is appropriately censored. Swearing is one thing (Bob Hoskins for example), but pornography is just a big no-no for a kid-friendly franchise and an unofficial wiki that is also kid-friendly.
 * 3) The reason this is owned by Nintendo is that they bought it out to prevent more entries coming out, as they apparently hadn't discovered that wonderful "sue" button they've used to take down far more quality-controlled fan games ever since.
 * 4) Not gonna lie, I would love if we had an article on that. It would be pretty funny and interesting. But it's not an official Mario product, despite Nintendo themselves owning the distribution rights. As such, I don't feel it deserves its own article. Rather, just a section in the bootlegs and knockoffs page we already have.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - I'm going to oppose on the ground that from my understanding, Nintendo only bought the distribution rights and not the actual Super Hornio property (of course in practice, this is not that relevant of a distinction because only Nintendo has controls over wheter that is released). Because of that technicality, I think the way it's currently covered on the knockoffs page is the best (btw "Think of the children!" is a totally invalid reason)
 * 7) I think the brief description's enough, it is just a rip off and isn't part of the Mario series, so it definitely doesn't deserve an article of its own.

Comments
@Wildgoosespeed: We already cover it on the wiki. Also, the subject matter is irrelevant, as we're a wiki first and foremost (as the point was made on Bob Hoskin's page; we're not about to censor anything). Besides, have you read the draft? It's purely professional. 01:12, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * The more you know, am I right? Still, I consider such coverage questionable. -- 01:14, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Official content is official content, no matter what form it takes. What should be debated here is whether or not it should be covered in full. For the moment, I'm leaning towards giving it a separate page, simply because it was bought by Nintendo and is therefore an official product. 01:20, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Legal definitions are messy. I mean, the Mario IP was licensed to those who made the Category:Edutainment Games for DOS, PC, NES, and SNES, but that doesn't mean that the games are owned by Nintendo are official. Maybe I am wrong about that. The point is the original author isn't Nintendo and yet giving credit to them as if they were because they bought the film rights isn't quite right to then label it as "official". Legalities isn't the only measure of being official. I think that Nintendo has long since forgotten those licensed instances of the Mario franchise. -- 01:34, 12 November 2017 (EST)

@TimeTurner: Oh. My bad. I had no idea. I should probably think twice before I start shooting my mouth off for no reason. 18:35, 12 November 2017 (EST)