MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59

Decide how to cover Mario Kart Tour bonus challenges on course articles
The layout of each bonus challenge in Mario Kart Tour (e.g. Ring Race) depends on the course in which it is set. It tracks, therefore, that these challenges should be covered in detail on their relevant course articles in addition to their parent article. If you wish to see how a course article would look with coverage of its bonus challenges, scroll down to the "Mario Kart Tour" section in the "History" section here.

However, bonus challenges have been observed to appear multiple times across the game's tours, sometimes with changed objectives, which prompts wiki users to regularly update their list entries. Simply copying and pasting these entries onto another article would make it more difficult for users to be aware of which needs to be updated where. On the other hand, adding a way to transclude entire entries (allow information entered on a page to be automatically transferred to another) would spaghettify the original code and potentially deter users from updating it with new information. For instance, this is how the code for an average bonus challenge entry currently looks:


 * MKT Tour1 YoshiCupChallenge.png
 * New York Minute
 * MKT Icon Yoshi.png Yoshi
 * MKT Icon PipeFrameLimeGreen.png Pipe Frame
 * MKT Icon SuperGliderLimeGreen.png Super Glider
 * 5
 * 8
 * 12
 * New York Tour
 * 12
 * New York Tour

(source: Do Jump Boosts article)

and this is how it would look with a transclusion mechanism in place:

A bit ugly, innit? On average, this would only save a small number of bytes on the target article--less than 100, really. Picture, now, an entire table with the same code plastered repeatedly. I believe the wiki should account for editor friendliness too, especially when the returns of optimisation are disappointing.

I am not sure how to proceed here. I am unwilling to go ahead with either option unless I have a clear-cut vision of each one's net advantages. I will thus be resorting to the community's choice.

Proposer: Deadline: June 9, 2022, 23:59 GMT June 16, 2022, 23:59 GMT June 23, 2022, 23:59 GMT June 30, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Transclude sections

 * 1) I'm not very well informed on MKT since I don't play it, but from what I can see, transclusions seem preferable to copy-pasting and having to update multiple pages. The transclusion code, while a bit bulky, is hardly impenetrable and I don't see how it would complicate updating the tables. It's not like the updates would require overhauling the table code, just adding a new line or two.

Leave as is (bonus challenges will continue to be listed in image galleries)

 * 1) While both options are doable, both unfortunately have their own setbacks. Transcluding, while it may be better, also takes longer than copy-pasting stuff, especially since the formatting has to be precise. It might be a bit better to discuss with the admins which option would be best.

Comments
Mario Kart Tour's tables tend to be pretty sloppy overall (no offense but this ranked cup table is rather monstrous though other tables don't fare much better) though I'm not really understanding this proposal. Probably repetitive content? Maybe the table format just isn't suitable for this sort of thing? 10:55, June 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * The tables' designs aren't what the proposal is about (though, if you have suggestions for their improvement--here for instance--by all means state them somewhere appropriate). The proposal is to decide on an optimal way the already existent table sections on bonus challenge pages can be reproduced on relevant course articles. Both the copy-pasting and the transcluding methods come with their disadvantages, so I was hoping we would decide on the one option with less. I could simply go through with an option I see fit, but if it later proves to be less optimal or editor-friendly than the other (e.g. the bulky transclusion code would discourage editors who typically update these bonus challenge pages) I'd have to re-edit tens of pages. Why not pre-empt that with wiki consensus? 11:17, June 9, 2022 (EDT)

Do not use Mario + Rabbids "introductory taglines" as top quotes in articles
The main reason I am proposing this is because in every one of these pages, not only is the tagline used as the page's top quote, but that same tagline also appears in two other areas of the same article: the splash screen image and statboxes, the former of which is often towards the top as well. To me, it makes it look like we're forcing these onto readers by having it as a quote as well, especially on the Rabbid Kong article which uses that and another quote. If Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope does this as well, then this proposal will also apply with that game's subjects.

Proposer: Deadline: July 24, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.

Comments
Not really sure this needs to be a proposal to be honest, I think we can just use discretion to remove them if they're already displayed elsewhere. -- 13:27, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * If it was on one or two articles, I probably would have gone and done it right away while leaving an explaination in the edit summary, but because this applies to every Kingdom Battle enemy article, I didn't want to do it without getting some approval first, which I think a proposal is the best way to do. 19:09, July 17, 2022 (EDT)

Stop considering reissues to be a reference to the original game and vice versa
This issue is something that is somewhat bothering me. On the Super Mario Wiki, a reference is when something unique in a previous game returns in a later one. For example, the Super Mario Bros. 2 ground theme in later Mario games references that game. We know that because, unlike the ground theme from SMB1, it isn't part of a character's theme song or anything. What isn't considered a reference is when something in a previous game appears quite often. For example, Yoshi appearing in a game isn't a reference to Super Mario World because he has become a significant part of the franchise. The same applies to sequels and follow-ups, such as Super Mario Galaxy 2 not being a reference to Super Mario Galaxy.

Reissues, on the other hand, don't get this exception. On both of the pages that talk about Super Mario 64 and its remake, both articles list the remake and original game, respectively. The same also applies to Diddy Kong Racing and its remake. Referring to the same game in the article, oddly, does not apply to Super Mario 3D World and its rerelease nor NSMBU with its reissue. The thing is, it's pretty evident that a reissue is going to take elements from the game it is copying. We don't need to mention it in the references sections of the articles.

What this proposal suggests doing is to stop considering reissues as references, just as much as we don't consider sequels, prequels, or any follow-ups as references because that's what most of these follow-ups do. It's like if we consider the Star Wars Special Edition to be a reference to A New Hope. Also, we should put this in the guidelines for for the page regarding references.

Proposer: Deadline: July 26, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) Per proposal, for consistency with how sequels are treated.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) I swore this was policy already but it apparently isn't. Ah well.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Yeah, no need to state the obvious as if it were a reference.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
I do want to say that DKC2 GBA lampshading how Kerozene wasn't in the original should stay. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:59, July 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * It is parodying the idea of a remake adding something new for a change, so I think that would stay at least. 21:08, July 16, 2022 (EDT)

I mostly agree with the proposal, but I would argue this about Yoshi in Super Mario 64 DS. His appearance is recontextualized such that having him on the castle's roof in the opening sequence (rather than the very end) is a reference to the original game in a new subplot, not content rereleased verbatim. Still, I'm conflicted on whether it's sensible to list such details in references sections. What do you all think? AgentMuffin (talk) 20:27, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * That Yoshi example could be mentioned in the trivia or plot section. In that case, we'd say it in the article, just not in the references section. That is an excellent example to bring up. Wikiboy10 (talk) 16:09, July 18, 2022 (EDT)

Fix how we handle infobox relations on generic species
No, not "change" or "decide", fix.

The way we currently list relations between real-world species and specific enemies based on real-world species is an issue I've had on the back of my mind for a bit now. To better understand what my problem with it is, let's quickly take a look at what the four relevant syntaxes are for:

So with this in mind, we should ideally be using "variants" for the specific species that are based on a real-world species, but that is not what we do; we instead list the specific species as merely "comparable" to the broader generic species, despite the specific species being a type of said generic species.

Take a look at Bee, for instance, and you'll see this in action. Things like Bzzap!, Stingby, Honeybee, Super Bee, Buzzer, Bumbler(which is just called "bee" in japan), Big Bee, etc. are all listed as "comparable" to the generic bee article. Strangely, the one Yoshi's Story Bumblebee is the only variety of bee to be listed as "variant" instead of comparable, and heck it might even be the only specific species to be listed as a variant of a generic species on the infoboxes. I don't know why that specific bee enemy has priority over literally any other variety of bee, as there's like three other varieties simply called "bee" in English (and one which shares the Japanese name of the YS bumblebee), and all of those are listed as "comparable". And it's not just bees that have this trait about them; Butterfly, Crow, Clam, Frog, Jellyfish, etc. all do this as well, listing the specific species as just "comparable". Note how those last 3 examples also list their generically-named Yoshi's Story counterparts as "comparable", so I have literally no idea why that specific Yoshi's Story bumblebee has special status with its real-world counterpart compared to any other enemy.

The thing is, this kind of organization as stated before is unhelpful in the context of real-world enemies; a Crowber is definitely a crow and was even called simply a "Crow" at one point, but we list it as "comparable" in the Crow page's infobox. Comparable means "similar but unrelated", making it seem like it's not actually a crow when it is. Heck, this is even contradictory to how the individual pages handle it; they all have the real-world species they're based on mentioned in the intros and placed as categories on the bottom, so the individual pages are saying "Yes it is an x" while the real-world species' infoboxes are saying "It's similar to x but isn't an x". This may be a small issue, but it's a ridiculous one when it's so contradictory to what is said otherwise.

And with that, I see 4 possible ways to go from here;

1. List the specific species as variants on the R.W.S. page. This is the most accurate way of depicting the relation between R.W.S. and the specific species based on it, because...I just said why a lot of times, didn't I?

2. List the specific species as relatives on the R.W.S. page. You could say that using "variant" between R.W.S. and specific species is confusing compared to how we use it for specific species to other specific species, since Nintendo probably wasn't thinking of the R.W.S. as a specific parent and instead as just an R.W.S. to base the enemies on. This method will account for that while still stating the relationships correctly.

3. Use an about on the top of the R.W.S. page. Let's be honest, these parameters were designed with unique species in mind. Mixing R.W.S. up with unique enemy species is what caused this confusing happenstance to happen, and with this method, we'd be making things a whole lot simpler. Take the Clown page for instance; instead of listing every clown in the greater Mario franchise as "comparable" to the Wario World enemy, we have an about on the top saying to check Category:Clowns for clowns across the Mario franchises. This method will do that for all the R.W.S., simplifying things and also helping us clean up whatever happened with Dragon (which is a specific Yoshi's Story species and not exactly meant to be representative of all dragons, but the comparable conundrum is also there somehow.).

EDIT: Doc suggested to repurpose the subject_origin parameter to link to the R.W.S. On the individual species pages, and since options 1 & 2 would counter this I'm adding it to option 3.

EDIT 2: Also adding another option just for the subject_origin itself.

4. Do nothing. We all collectively agree that it is fine as it is now and leave the infobox saying that all the specific species are "similar to x-real-world-species but aren't actually an x-R.-W.-S." except for that one YS Bumblebee which has a special status for...no reason at all.

So, with that all said and done, let's answer this question; How do we list specific species on the infoboxes of R.W.S. pages?

Proposer: Deadline: July 24, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 31, 2022, 23:59 GMT

List specific species as relatives of R.W.S.

 * 1) Second choice, per proposal.

Repurpose subject_origin for the specific species pages, use an about template for the R.W.S. Pages

 * 1) Preferred choice.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.

Just repurpose the subject_origin for the species pages

 * 1) Agreed about the repurposing of subject_origin, even its name suggest such an use would be appropriate, and it would be the link to the category page we need, without adding another use of the "about" template that can get cluttered good luck with Yoshi tho
 * 2) Per Mister Wu.
 * 3) Per Mister Wu.
 * 4) A while back, I wanted to do something similar, and this seems closest to that idea. I think the "about" option would be suboptimal since, unlike the infobox, the categories don't distinguish between species and characters or groups.

Comments
There is actually a "subject_origin" parameter last I checked that is the remnants of the old "species_origin" parameter, and as it is now, it is barely used. Course, it may be removed now, but seems like a good compromise. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:12, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * Is the subject_origin used on the individual species pages or the real world species page? 14:16, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * I think it's only used on one or two pages in total right now. Can be used to link to the "real world" ones from the fictional types. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:33, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * That seems like a good idea! 14:38, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * I still think the subject_origin field should get its own voting option, you can safely edit proposals at their beginning so don't worry about adding other options, in this case I think this repurposing has a lot of merits.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:06, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * done, you mean an option to just enact the subject_origin and nothing else, right? 06:58, July 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yes, thanks for adding it.--Mister Wu (talk) 17:32, July 21, 2022 (EDT)
 * Not sure if this is beyond the scope now, but presuming the "just repurpose subject_origin for species pages" option, could we maybe add a new equivalent parameter to replace the "comparable" portion of real-world species articles? LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:02, July 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * That's definitely possible, it's just be adding a new parameter to the infobox and clarifying it's to be used instead of comparable for R.W.S., right? 10:46, July 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * More or less. Something like "subjects" or "origin_of" might work. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:20, July 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Sounds perfect to me! That would definitely help fix up the weird relation issue this proposal deals with. 13:55, July 31, 2022 (EDT)