MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Replace all related species/etc lines in infoboxes with a single "See also" line
As has been so energetically pointing out recently, the way we handle "species" bears little-to-no resemblance to reality - an octopus is not a species related to a mushroom, even if an Octoomba is obviously derived from a Goomba, and trying to justify it is waaay beyond the bounds of a simple infobox list. And the likes of fish skeletons for one example aren't even breedable! And, generally, obsessing over taxonomy seems rather misplaced for a Mario fansite.

This primarily affects. In the immediate aftermath, this proposal will be achieved by putting all three variables in the "See also" line (with appropriate s so that they can be stacked vertically), inside a new variable, which will be on the documentation and override the older variables if both the new and old variables are used. In the longer term, it may require use of a bot to make wiki-wide changes, especially if full alphabetisation (as opposed to priority-based sorting) is desired.

Proposer: Deadline: April 24, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I support my own proposal :)
 * 2) yeah I agree

Oppose

 * 1) - The way we have it now is at least reasonably organizeable. No reason to obfuscate a perfectly good system. What I've been pointing out is that it should be consistently followed without people trying to make arbitrary case-specific decisions >.>
 * 2) Per Doc.
 * 3) The proposed system is worst than what is currently in place, only to serve as a fix for one flaw in it. The problem is two-fold. Either it isn't going to be organized like it is currently (which is already in the best way it could be), or it isn't going to be known where the things start and end. Trying to do otherwise would result in the flaw coming back. And in this proposed system, if it does go to the flaw, either there would be no change or it would add stuff that is not needed to the current system (which is the more likely of the two). The proposed system causes more problems than the worth of what it fixes. And thus, I can't support, but oppose.
 * 4) While merging it into one section would deal with the issues that could arise from the initial classification, once it has been classified correctly, this is not an issue. However, this would make it harder for readers to distinguish between how the species are related, and would just be detrimental to the organisation of it. Per all.
 * 5) While I do agree with the general notion of this proposal, I feel it needs a bit more thought before it can actually go into effect, given we've used "species" for quite a while. Per all.

Comments
Small question: You bring up alphabetical ordering vs. priority ordering, but which one is this proposal rolling with? 13:57, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * I'm relatively agnostic. I'd probably prefer priority, since it will roughly mirror the way the "old" variables will stack initially, but if alphabetical was preferred by the consensus I'd be fine with it. It would require a bot to implement, however. - Reboot (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * I'm inclined to support (especially with the confusion surrounding Rocky Wrenches/Monty Moles), but does that mean the "see also" section will be included in the infobox or near the end of the page? I'd prefer the former, but I'm fine with either. 15:14, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * Infobox. (Which does not prohibit end-of-page sections, but that's not what this is about). - Reboot (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * Does this affect list of species? LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * Or the species categories, for that matter. 16:16, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * This is purely a display change on the infoboxes, not a structural change in general. It does not (currently) affect the species categories at all, although I would consider supporting a proposal about those. As for List of species, it doesn't directly affect that either, but that's already tagged rewrite-expand for being an incomplete mess with some stuff sorted under "parent" types and some not, so it doesn't really need a proposal to change to pure alphabetical sorting rather than the current part-alpha, part-hierarchical shambles, does it? - Reboot (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * It would basically be list of enemies if it's rewritten alphabetically. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * I would suggest that, if one and only one was going to be done hierarchically, List of enemies would be the more logical option.
 * And re: your "I feel this should be more comprehensive..." edit summary, if you want to put together a more comprehensive proposal that incorporated this, I'd be prepared to withdraw this one in favour of yours. - Reboot (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * I don't know, I'm all for doing something - maybe just using less specific, more general terminology would suffice - but merging it all in one nebulous spot will probably cause even more confusion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2018 (EDT)

This proposal would seemingly have this enemy be in the same nebulous group as this enemy, without listing the steps in between. What we have now makes the most sense to me, and doesn't lump a bunch of stuff into an unworkable mess. (Also, what do you have against obsessing over taxonomy? It's one of the few ways I can distract myself from my bouts of depression...) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2018 (EDT)
 * There's also the fact that a current proposal of mine is dependent on the current system, and this proposal's time will end before that one's will; ergo, if this wins, it will render mine invalid, and as such, this seems like little more than an attempt to sweep the rug out from under my feet to me. And I don't particularly like that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2018 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.