MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Separate Wii U audio files from the ones on the GBA (Discuss) Passed
 * Merge Choco Cake with Chocolate Cake (Discuss) Passed
 * Split the Paper Mario boos from Big Boo into a separate article. (Discuss) Passed
 * Decide if Bandits are a sub-species of Shy Guys (Discuss) Deadline: June 7, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps (Discuss) Deadline: June 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Seperate Payday Waystation into a separate article (Discuss) Deadline: June 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Recreate List of Saffron and Dyllis Recipes by ingredient (Discuss) Deadline: June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Blurp (Yoshi's Story) with Cheep Cheep (Discuss) Deadline: June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wiki
For pretty much the wiki's entire run, "sub-species" (or "subspecies") has been used as shorthand to denote species like Gloomba or Fire Bro from the more basic species they're derived from (i.e. Goomba and Hammer Bro), but it's high time we put and end to it, and here's why:


 * 1) It's wrong - In science, "subspecies" denotes different populations of a species that are genetically, geographically, behaviourally, and/or morphologically distinct, yet still similar enough for interbreeding to occur freely when possible. What we call "subspecies" are not actually subspecies at all: they are completely different species, whether we're comparing Lakitus to Koopa Troopas or Deep Cheeps to Cheep Cheeps. There is no reason why we should so wilfully misuse very specific scientific terminology incorrectly when there are other options available like simply "type", "variation" or just plain "species". It's not like "beta elements" where there is no umbrella term and we have to make due with what readers are most familiar with: everyone already understands what "species" means, unlike the muddled "subspecies" (which even scientists argue about).
 * 2) It's speculation - It's clear enough when things are based on other things to whatever extent, but classifying some enemies as "subspecies" instead of "species" has always struck me as presumptuous. Where exactly does the line get drawn? Some things like Koopa Paratroopas are rather basic and fundamental in their own rights, with many derived species of their own, yet are still called "subspecies". And what about things like Shady Paratroopa that could be a subspecies of Koopa Paratroopas or Shady Koopas? Only a few sets of differently-coloured/powered RPG enemies and things like the red and blue PM Spike Tops really fit the proper "subspecies" definition, but we already established that we're not using science here, so all that's left are judgment calls being passed off as hard distinctions that don't actually exist in official material.
 * 3) It's misleading - Despite the liberties we're taking with the term, "subspecies" still inherently sounds like it requires close relatedness between species (based on their names and/or appearances), but for the sake of navigation and connectivity between articles, sometimes it's useful to be able to reflect the conceptual relatedness between rather different species, such as Clubbas and Chargin' Chucks being related to the more standard Koopa species. Having relaxed terminology would make this easier (i.e. potentially avoiding some TPPs and other such discussions) and result in less cross-talk between users operating on differing definitions of "subspecies".
 * 4) It's inconsistent - As well as murky definitions and three different ways to spell the term ("subspecies"/"sub-species"/"sub species") being found across the wiki, and even side-by-side in single articles, there are also plenty of cases where single subjects are being called both "species" and "subspecies". For example, Ice Piranha Plant bears both Category:Sub-Species and Category:NSMBU Species, is listed as a "sub-species" in the Piranha Plant infobox, and is part of the "species" list in . This is not good.

Between the disconnect with how the real world uses the word, and the different definitions, applications and spellings throughout the wiki, there is really only one way to sum up the use of "subspecies" around here: it's confusing, and we should get rid of it. Specifically, we should do the following:


 * Remove all occurrences of "subspecies", "sub-species" or "sub species" from the articles. Instead, everything should be called plain "species", and described informally as being based on and/or related to other species with words like "type", "variety", "kind", etc.
 * Delete Category:Sub-Species, Category:Yoshi Sub-Species, Category:Donkey Kong Sub-Species and Category:Wario Sub-Species. The equivalent "Species" categories exist for all four cases, but ideally, game-specific "Species" categories should be used to replace everything (but that's another kettle of fish altogether).
 * Replace the "sub_species" variable in with "derived_species". At the same time, "species_origin" should be replaced with "parent_species", for the sake of uniformity (there's already a "related species" variable for similar species not directly based on or providing the basis for the subject in question) and killing two birds with one stone since we'll have to fix the infoboxes anyway; this second change is from this cancelled proposal and its corresponding forum thread (both of which debate the use of "subspecies").
 * Add "subspecies" to the list of frequently misused terms.

This will affect A LOT of articles and will take time to gradually roll out, but I think it's worth doing. There is no good reason why we need to stay inconsistent, confusing and misinformed about how we go about defining the species of the Mario series.

Proposer: Deadline: June 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal. The zoologist half of me has wanted to eradicate this accursed term from the wiki for over seven years now. No more.
 * 2) Per Walkazo. And yes, even though the term is used to described fictional species, it still gave me misinformation when thinking about actual sub-species. That's not right. I admit I am a bit pedantic when it comes to vocabulary and jargon but honestly, I'm pedantic for the very reason of being fed misinformation, which isn't the ideal way to learn things.
 * 3) Per Walkazo and Baby Luigi. Yes, that's not right. In fact, I think it should be related spiecies instead of subspiecies.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Yes, remove ALL instances of it. I was misinformed about the true definition of "subspecies" this entire time I was in this wiki. This is a personal account, but if it confuses me, it's bound to confuse a lot of other readers. This wiki leads us to think "subspecies" means a derived or related organism even though the technical term is "some differences but capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring", especially provided that the "producing fertile offspring" part is the fundamental definition of a species. In that sense, subspecies do NOT denote separate species; the basic Linnaeus names have two names, but a third one is given if it's a subspecies. "Derived species", "parent species", "related species", these are all more correct and much more precise substitutes, making them vastly superior to the vague, confusing, incorrect "subspecies". In writing, we aim for precision and accuracy, and this proposed changes does exactly what is the gold standard in writing, so, as someone who admits of being very pedantic at times (the scathing criticism to singular "they" and contractions), it's not surprising that I want these changed enacted. This time, though, it's not pedantry, it's about being precise and accurate. It's been seven years, but better late than never to undo all that damage.
 * 6) Per all, but take note of the rare few official cases.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per all; a nicely crafted argument. I just find it funny that we are now debating over scientific terminology in a wiki about talking mushrooms and turtle kings.
 * 9) Per proposal. (I also notice a bit of support due to the inadvertent spread of misinformation - "Beta" is rightfully considered a misused term as well, but I really do think a better label than "Beta elements" should be considered since it's a somewhat similar situation.)
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) my younger self would hate me for this Per all.

Comments
@SmokedChili: We can make an exception, but it's going to break consistency, and it won't be unreasonable to assume it's another species (just how people assumed all those dark-eyed juncos were separate species), and, besides, Nintendo was very wrong about terminology before (most blatantly, the most egregious and irresponsible usage of "remix" I've ever seen in official media: Super Smash Bros. 4). 15:09, 5 June 2015 (EDT)

Commenting on the Shady Paratroopa part, I think we should just use the most basic enemy and say its a derivative (or whatever word we decide on using) of Koopa Troopa.

Super Mario Land 1 and 2 confirmed apart of the main series by Nintendo: Super Mario wiki should change accordingly
For years it has been debated whether Nintendo considered the Super Mario Land games apart of the main Mario series or not. Super Mario Wiki, and rightfully so, chose that the Super Mario Land games are not apart of the main Mario series but rather considered its own series most likely because of the Nintendo sources below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzERrLY-_9s 

As one can see, Nintendo did not include the land games as part of the main Mario series titles during Mario's 25th anniversary 5 years ago. This has lead people such as myself to believe that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of their own series. However, as of May 29, 2015. Nintendo has updated Mario's 30th anniversary site to include all the main series Mario titles. In this list is Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. As shown, this is included in both the American and Japanese versions of the site.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/ http://supermario.nintendo.com/#/history/

Due to this confirmation by Nintendo, all articles on Super Mario Wiki should be changed to fit this new information. Such articles as the Super Mario Series articles should be changed to add the two Land games, and articles such as Super Mario Land Series articles should most likely be deleted entirely due to their interference of the first two Super Mario Land games being apart of the main Mario series. Other changes being the chronological order of Mario titles. An example being, changing "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." To. "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth installment in the Super Mario series."

These things might change from time to time, but it's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. This is why the Super Mario Land games should now officially be considered apart of the main Mario series by Super Mario wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: June 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal. Due to the recent confirmation by Nintendo themselves, the wiki should have articles changed to fit this new confirmation.

Oppose

 * 1) - While the 30th anniversary stuff is more recent, the fact that the 25th anniversary excluded the SML games shouldn't be ignored, and it should be kept in mind that unlike the Super Mario History 1985-2010 booklet (which is more complete than the linked-to poster and video), the 30th anniversary stuff leaves out all the remakes (i.e. SMAS and the SMA series), and the US version of the website also leaves out Lost Levels. Plus, neither celebration included all the random SMB remakes and whatnot, whereas we do need to take everything into account, from the remakes to the conflicting and ever-changing stances Nintendo takes on its material, and then organize them in the way that makes the most sense. And I still think it makes more sense to keep the SML games separate in History sections, templates and categories (this is actually a big change with far-reaching consequences being proposed here: not just Super Mario (series) and a few articles' opening lines), given how different the series is, its historic separation from the rest of the games, and most of all, the fact that the series straddles both SM and Wario Land (awkward at the best of times, but it'd be worse if no bridge series is used or acknowledged). And for all we know, the 35th anniversary will be back to separating them anyway. But I do think the SM series page should include SML (and Yoshi's Island) somehow, like how it's got the remakes listed separately - but certainly not instead of the SML series page, especially considering that WL:SML3 and VB:WL definitely aren't SM material, yet should still be grouped with the first two games somewhere, as well as in appropriate History sections (same reason why SMA gets its own series page, despite being mostly part of SM and otherwise part of Yoshi).
 * 2) Per Walkazo

Comments
@Walkazo. Potential change does not warrant the act of keeping something the same. The wiki is to be based on current viewpoints of Nintendo which is the lore creator. It's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. If we were to not follow Nintendo's viewpoint, any viewpoint could be established based on the person's own imagination. "What if Nintendo decides to officially change Birdo to Ostro to avoid confusion?" This is irrelevant as it is based on what Nintendo finds true and not true. "If" cannot be a factor of whether or not we apply the land games or not. That would be based on our own assumptions and our assumptions are endless. We must use Nintendo's current viewpoint to stay relevant in the Mario franchise. If not the wiki becomes outdated with old information.
 * My point isn't that Nintendo might change their minds again, but rather, that they really doesn't give a crap about "lore", "true"ness or keeping its stories straight when it comes to Mario: they flip-flop about stuff all the time and information is often inconsistent, and as a result, the only way to maintain easy, logical organization is for the wiki to think for ourselves sometimes, like with splitting, merging and grouping enemies based on facts other than plain names, or deciding on how to organize our game pages. For in-universe stuff like the Kooplaings' paternity, our hands are tied and we need to give the new story prominence (but still mention the old story), but this is a different matter: as long as we acknowledge on all the relevant pages that Nintendo currently considers SML 1 & 2 as part of the SM series, and didn't before, whether or not we follow up with shuffling History sections, categories, lists and templates is up to us, based on whether we think it will or won't be a better way to present and organize the information. -

Whether Nintendo cares about the Mario canon or not is not for us to decide. We can mention how Nintendo used to not consider the Land games being apart of the main series, but we must also tell the reader Nintendo's current stand point. An example being starwars. The lore is changing all the time, however, the star wars wiki does not keep the old lore as canon. It mentions how it used to be canon, but supports the current standpoint of lucas film if we like it or not. There is much Mario lore that Nintendo has dropped that has been official in the past. This is not a situation like the koopalings where the creator of Mario says they are not Bowsers kids, but this is the whole company of Nintendo saying that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of the main series. Both in Japan, and all over the World. I know it sounds like a lot of work for us to have to update so many articles. If there is official information with no way to disprove it, it CANNOT be denied. All official Mario information must be used in Mario wiki. One could argue that the past has more info, but that does not make it relevant. Over time things become outdated and it is Nintendo that updates it. We must accept what Nintendo updates.

@Walkazo - I'm not completely confident in either choice right now, but remakes/rereleases were never a necessary mention in official celebrations since it's understood that they're not exactly the original titles (we certainly don't count them as such, either), so I'm not sure why they're factored in the counter-argument... (I must say, Super Mario 3D Land makes sense with its namesake included.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Ban the term beta * and rename pages in the Beta namespace
There was a proposal suggesting to change the name of the "beta elements" page to something more accurate. Despite being close to succeeding, it was vetoed by the admins with the reason being that "it's not meant to be taken literally" and "it works".

Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why

1: It's a bad, innacurate term: "Beta" in programming language refers to a prerelease build that's feature-complete and is being bugtested. It's not even a particularly representative term: the beta period happens near the end of development, long after production ideas are shot down, games are overhauled, unique characters and objects are removed... etc, which is what the "beta" pages usually cover.

Some may argue that "language evolves" and that "beta as it is used here is not meant to be taken literally", but I don't think it's a strong arguments. Sites focused on the documentation of unused/prelease content such as Unseen 64 and TCRF have mocked the usage of "beta" as a catch-all term and lower-quality ressources that use it that way. Other fan wikis like SegaRetro also do not use "beta" as a generic term. Fact is, "beta" is nowhere near accepted in professional circles and that's what the wiki claims to be - a professional ressource. Furthermore, why would you use an inacurate and potentially misleading term when dozens of accurate, non-misleading alternatives exist?

2: It leads to muddy, vague writing. Whenever you see "beta" used on other pages, its catch-all nature muddies the information. "Dread Kong did not exist in the beta version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat" - nevermind that referring to a singular "beta version" betrays a gross ignorance of how game development works, what's the "beta" in question? A preview in a magazine? A proto leaked on the internet? Something suggested in pre-production that was rejected and never programmed into the game? Banning the generic beta and forcing editors to be more specific (as opposed to the current wishy-washy stance that "we know it's bad, but we still use it because reasons I guess") will improve the quality of the information.

3: The "grandfather clause" is never a good excuse: Similar to this case, "sub-species" is a long-used term that was found to be innacurate and cause inconsistencies, and the current community concensus is that it should be replaced despite its longstanding nature. "It's what we've always used" is not a good refutation when the usage of a term is proven to lower the credibility and quality of the information, as is the case here.

As a replacement, I propose beta pages to be renamed List of prerelease and unused content. "Prelease" perfectly encansuplates the varieties of content that's not present in the final code, and it's wordier, yes, but not overly so. Generic mention of "beta" should not be robotically replaced with a generic "In prelease/unused content of [game]", but rather with a specific term ("magazine preview", "prototype", "unused"), with a piped link to the "List of..." pages.

( * : This of course doesn't apply to actual beta builds, but as none of the specific builds documented here are specifically said to be real betas, that precision is kinda irrelevant.)

Proposer: Deadline: June 15, 2015

Move beta pages to "List of prelease and unused content" and ban the generic "beta" in mainspace articles

 * 1) Simply because something works does not make it professional or the most efficient. The simple term beta used on the wiki goes against basic definition and term of the word that is beta.
 * 2) "Beta" probably could be validated if it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal.
 * 1) "Beta" probably could be validated if it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.