MarioWiki:Proposals

List of talk page proposals

 * Merge Shy Guy (Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again!) with Shy Guy (toy). (discuss) Deadline: October 3, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Add lists of implied species from franchises other than Pokémon. (discuss) Deadline: October 11, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Coin Ring - Split Super Mario 64 (and DS) with Super Mario 3D Land and Super Mario 3D World (discuss) Deadline: October 13, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Changes
None at the moment.

Create or delete categories about an area's citizens
As far as I know, there are only two categories that catalogue every inhabitant of an area: Category:Rogueport Denizens (for Rogueport) and Category:Glitzville Denizens (for Glitzville). It seems rather inconsistent for these two areas, densely populated as they are, to be the only ones to group an area's characters together. Such a category wouldn't be necessary for a lot of locations, but there are at least a few others, such as Toad Town, Flipside, Flopside, Shroom City (although that's a near-perfect overlap of Category:Mario Party Advance Characters), and possibly others. Since MarioWiki:Categories has a minimum amount of only five entries for a category to be created, this could theoretically get out of hand quickly, but there's nothing that's stopping us from moving the goalposts ourselves. At the same time, though, it's not as if the subcategories are all that necessary, since both the Rogueport and Glitzville citizens have a home in Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Characters, and they don't offera. So, let's put it to a vote: either we create new categories for other cities (within reason, unless it's discussed otherwise), delete the two categories that currently exist, or leave everything as it is and say that these are the only two areas that deserve categories.

Proposer: Deadline: October 2, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Create categories

 * 1) This is my primary choice. If I had the Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, I would be an actual helper rather than just a supporter.
 * 2) I think we should do something for consistency, but I do not care what course of action we take.
 * 3) My primary choice. It makes a lot more sense to create than delete, even if it does take more work.

Delete categories

 * 1) The characters that live in a given area can be listed on said area's article, and they can be included in a table that gives information about them; one example of this in action is this table on Goomba Village created by A gossip-loving Toad. Having these categories just doesn't seem beneficial to me.
 * 2) I agree with him! So, let's get rid of it and per him!
 * 3) I think we should do something for consistency, but I do not care what course of action we take.

Do nothing

 * 1) This is my second choice. This wiki shouldn't just delete categories just because there is not enough of that category to make 5. If there is less then five areas in a game, would it make sense to delete those categories? The answer, unless they have no problem being with the game's characters.
 * 2) This is my second choice.
 * 3) My second choice, I just don't think deleting is a good idea.

Comments
Just to clarify what the proposal is this effecting, which category? Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door characters, area characters, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door area charcters or another?


 * It's referring to Category:Rogueport Denizens and Category:Glitzville Denizens, concerning whether they should be merged with the overall Category:PMTTYD Characters, and the "inhabitants" be listen on the area articles instead of having a category.


 * I'm quite neutral about it. 31 and 34 pages in the "denizens" categories would make a very large list, unlike the example that MW:CAT gives on Aquatic Attackers, which is a very small list and already makes navigation with a category unnecessary. This is why we have "[game] Levels" categories, and "[game] Bosses". Sure, they could already be listed on the game article (with the table that you suggested). But since there's already a lot of other kind information on the game page, relying on a long and detailed page list could become quite exhaustive to navigate with. That's why we have "levels" and "bosses" categories for games. – 03:11, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
 * I didn't mean that the game's article would have a giant table; that would easily become way too big. I was suggesting that every location would have a table that lists the NPCs in that location. 18:26, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

@Yoshi the SSM: By voting for the "Do nothing" option, you're saying that the Rogueport and Glitzville categories are the only two that should exist, and that no other will be created. Since you seemed confused about the proposal's intentions, I wanted to make that clear. 18:26, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
 * Let me remind you that it is the second choice I am taking, not the first. It means that I would rather have nothing done than a deletion. I also rather create categories rather than doing nothing. Also, it is fact that people don't become leaders in most situations. 23:23, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

I don't see what's wrong with with having a category for the citizens as well as a table on the locations' articles. The Donkey Kong Country article has a list of all the levels and the game also has a category for its levels. One is a list of links and the other is a list of information. The categories for the Mario Party Advance characters wouldn't be too small, either. There are several locations in every city with many characters. Same for Paper Mario places.
 * I just find it to be a needless division that makes it harder to find certain information without offering much in return (as per Categories, only the lowest subcategory is placed on an article; anything higher isn't used). I don't think it's particularly beneficial to have a category for a given location's characters when those characters are already listed on the location's article. Anyone looking for its inhabitants would already go to the location's article, so the category doesn't offer any added convenience. 23:22, 28 September 2016 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure if I really like the "anyone looking for its inhabits would already go to the location's article". Wouldn't this be akin to saying that we have a list of all Goombas in the infobox of the Goomba article; therefore, we don't need a Goomba category? Or we have a giant list of enemies, we don't need Category:Enemies? And so forth. I myself don't exactly see the harm in including a category like this, which does add one layer of organization without being frivolous. The rules say, if the area is too small to have enough characters for a category, let common sense dictate that case and don't create the category. That doesn't seem that hard to me. 14:29, 29 September 2016 (EDT)
 * The Goomba article, at best, only has an undetailed list of species and characters in the infobox and a brief description of each of them smushed between the actual Goombas. A simple list alone is not what I want, but the table that I had suggested would be more helpful than the category. It's hardly unreasonable to say that someone who doesn't know the name of a character would go to the article of the location in which they appear, which is something that a category cannot do. The harm that I see in these categories is that the sky can actually be the limit: as I said, a category technically only needs a minimum of five entries to be accepted, and there are plenty of locations with more than five characters; common sense as to what the limit should be or which locations should or shouldn't get articles can vary wildly between people. Even if there's a rigid system that works perfectly and logically, the end result will be that there's a main category which contains the bulk of the characters and then a bunch of smaller categories that needlessly disperses a handful of other characters, making it harder for navigation. I do not see the benefit in having that. 14:44, 29 September 2016 (EDT)