MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split Densetsu no Stafy 3 from Video game references (Discuss) Passed
 * Move King Koopa's alter egos to "Alter egos of King Koopa" (Discuss) Deadline: June 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Goomba (Super Mario World) to or  (Discuss) Deadline: July 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT.

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment

Add no bullet point to any trivia that has only one thing
I don't think we need a bullet if there is only one thing in a list. If there is more then one, then it does need it, but just for one, ii don't think so.

Proposer: Deadline: June 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - It'd be inconsistent with the other pages' Trivia sections and it's not like the lone bullet looks horrible or anything. Besides, if there's only one Trivia point, the best thing to do would be to try incorporating it into the body text: problem solved.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per the bureaucrat that voted on this. (A.K.A. Walkazo)
 * 6) Yeah, but that would turn the Trivia into a mess and will vandalize articles. Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Per everyone.
 * 10) -Per everybody.
 * 11) - Per Walkazo.
 * 12) Per Walkazo.
 * 13) There might be more trivia.

Comments
This proposal is not needed: if there is only one thing in trivia, put it in the main sections where it can go.

This reminded me of a little problem: should we have bullet points in the "List of references" articles? I know it's not really related to the proposal, but since it's about bullet points... —


 * While having the odd one-bullet Trivia section is fine, on the Reference pages, the act of dividing the information into separate points is already accomplished by the headers themselves: bullets would be unnecessary. They'd also be out of place considering that a lot of the sections have full paragraphs containing multiple points (which is preferable to broken-up lists anyway), and they really wouldn't work with the few sections that have multiple paragraphs. -
 * Thanks, I think I'll get rid of those sooner or later. —

Remove conjecture for names of glitches
Honestly, it's pointless and looks sort of bad, and besides, Nintendo probably won't ever release official names for any of these glitches, so what's the point? Also this is my first proposal, so please tell me if I did something wrong.

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Horrible idea, dude. Nintendo wouldn't even give out the names of the glitches because Nintendo doesn't develop the glitches.
 * 2) It's the same reason we give conjecture names on subjects that have no official names. As a wiki, we have to cover everything Mario-related; nameless subjects are not exempt from this rule. As Pinkie Pie said, Nintendo usually doesn't find these glitches: if their debugging team did, it would have been fixed by now. Of course, there are some acknowledged glitches such as the Minus World, but the vast majority of glitches are overlooked by the debugging team. A conjecture name is therefore the only way we can name these glitches other than calling it a really wordy and unprofessional "the glitch where the player falls through the bridge in Frappe Snowland".
 * 3) The conjecture templates are not pointless. They tell us that the name of the glitches are not official and that these glitches can fall under any other name. Also, having these silly names without the conjecture titles sound equally silly. The lack of a conjectural title makes it more... formal and official. You ask, "Nintendo probably won't ever release official names for any of these glitches, so what's the point?". Conjecture titles are exactly the point.

Comments
@Pinkie Pie: I know, that's why I proposed to remove the conjecture titles. Why put conjecture on it if it's unofficial (in a way) and therefore, Nintendo won't make an official name for it? 19:22, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Because Nintendo doesn't care about glitches' names, so now you can understand.
 * No, that's not what I said. I meant, why bother to put on the conjecture thing if the glitches won't receive an official name anyway. 19:35, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Because Unoffical names has to go with the conjecture template.

You're asking why we put conjecture on glitches that will never receive an official name, right? Well, isn't that the point of conjecture templates in the first place?

Change FA size requirement
What I am proposing is simple, we decrease the size an article needs to be to become an FA. Koopa Cape is a quality article, but is too short to become an FA so is Grouchy Possessor. Articles like these are quality articles, but because of the size limit they can't be one, so the size requirement should be lowered so articles like these (as I'm sure there are many others) can be featured.

Proposer:, original idea Deadline: June 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I liked good articles better, but per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal

Comments
Okay, you want to reduce the size required for the FA. My question is this: what's the new minimum requirement you're asking for? It doesn't have to be specific, sure, but say, what is your view on what article is too short for an FA? Baby Donkey Kong was unfeatured because it's so small. Koopa Cape has a similar size.

By the way, I'm also wondering if we should add some margin of incompleteness to featured articles as well. That is, if the article fails to cover appearances from obscure, difficult-to-obtain sources, we shouldn't unfeature it based solely on that. But that's probably another proposal.


 * I'm thinking of a decrease in maybe character limit i.e. 4000-2500. And I think your idea is probably more suited for another proposal.
 * I don't think character limit is the whole story, though, so that's why we should speak in relative terms. If this proposal passes, how are we going to enforce it? It's already hard enough to draw the line between too short and just right.
 * FA's were always about quality, so that is a hard question and I'm sorry that isn't really specific, but an article where its quality would outweigh its length. But of a reasonable length, my examples provided would probably be the minimum allowed.

Loosen FA Requirements for Coverage
"This article doesn't cover details from the Super Mario-Kun (both versions). It can't be featured." "It doesn't have details from Super Mario Bros. & Friends: When I Grow Up." "All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros. isn't adequately covered."

Nowadays, our requirements for nominations for Featured Articles have tightened. It's a great thing, since we are following the mantra of "articles that represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer."

I still have a problem, though.

Number 8 on Featured Article requirements state that articles must "have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles." My problem is that we interpret this as including all appearances including from obscure media. The biggest problem is how extremely tough it is to acquire information, especially detailed, adequate information from such media. Lacking detailed information from a few obscure games and comics shouldn't be the difference between a quality article and a crap article.

I'm not saying that we disregard the obscure media. I am suggesting, however, that the obscure media should be treated as the "above and beyond" and the "extra credit". We should at the very least acknowledge such media exists and that the character made an appearance, but if there is anyone out there that is willing to add detailed information to the acknowledgement, more power to the article and the person.

I'm not saying either that we should feature incomplete articles. I'm suggesting instead that if an otherwise excellent article covers the vast majority of information while leaving out some detailed information from obscure "holy grails" out, we should let it be featured. In other words, we shouldn't prevent an article from being featured just because it doesn't have the intricate plot details from Bumm-Badabumm im Urwald. On the other hand, we should prevent an article from being featured if it lacks information from Super Princess Peach and Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix.

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) This loosening requirement should help establish a bit more leeway in featuring articles. We also shouldn't attempt to unfeature an article just because the Super Mario-Kun section is a one-liner.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal
 * 4) Per proposal.

Comments
Would this also include very obscure Japan-only games as well?
 * I'd say only if they have an adequate amount of quality information.

Split characters like Koopa, Shy Guy and Wiggler into a character page from the species
I feel the rule with characters like Koopa and Shy Guy should be a whole species article should change. Characters like them make appearances in spin off titles like the Mario Tennis and Mario Kart series and they shouldn't be in the article of their species. So I think we should split characters like Koopa, Shy Guy, Wiggler and Boo from their species articles and into their own character articles. Because I'm sure the Koopa in the Mario Kart series is a notable one from the Koopa species.

Proposer: Deadline: June 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I normally support my own ideas.

Oppose

 * 1) Nothing suggests that the random playable enemies like Koopa are always the same character. A "Koopa Troopa" character hasn't been established, unlike with Yoshi and Toad for example. Also per Turboo and Yoshi876's comments.

Comments
I don't really get the point of this; I guess you could make an article if you really tried, but... wouldn't it just be simple details of the Koopa's appearance in the games? It doesn't even appear different from a normal green-shelled Koopa. -
 * And wouldn't this make quite small articles that are composed of mostly 1-liners. 'Koopa appeared in the Mario Kart series, his karts are ...'?

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.