MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

The Case of Donkey Kong 64 Sub-Areas
While inquiring about the Prima name of what we are now referring to as the Temple with Five Doors (discussion here), I posed another question. Why are the Temple with Five Doors and Llama's Temple (both parts of Angry Aztec) the only level-specific areas of Donkey Kong 64 to have separate articles? They date back to 2012, which is old, but not stone age old. Either way, it doesn't really make sense to have articles for just these two. So you'd think the obvious solution would to just give articles to every other sub-area. After all, we have articles for stuff like Surf Cabana and Sand Cabana, so why not? Well, there is one problem: names.

Super Mario Odyssey went so whole hog with naming everything aside from a few "bonus areas" that I had to make a proposal to decide what we didn't want articles for. Donkey Kong 64... does not do this. Wrinkly Kong mentions a few of them in her hints, but often in generic terms, so we're forced to rely on guides for many of them. Even then, the guides don't name every sub-area, so there are still some missing links in the chain. Using conjectural names to fill in the gaps would open a can of worms regarding creating articles for other nameless sub-areas such as the pyramid in Shifting Sand Land or the volcano in Lethal Lava Land.


 * Only split named sub-areas: Simply put, we only split the sub-areas that would not require a template. This avoids the issue of setting a potentially troublesome precedent involving nameless sub-area articles, but creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope. The rather expansive but unnamed underground crypt in Creepy Castle would not get an article, but the very small "Silo" from that same level would, purely because it and not the former was named in a guide with a seemingly arbitrary policy for naming and capitalizing things.
 * Split everything: Every sub-area gets an article, even if we have to use some conjectural names. I've already mentioned the can of worms this would open, but there's also just the fact that some of these areas, such as the crusher room in Frantic Factory, are very small and only house a single Golden Banana. Others may also prove challenging to come up with good conjectural names for. It does, however, avoid the arbitrariness of "whichever ones we can cite a name for" dictating which ones get articles and which don't.
 * Don't split any sub-areas: We'd just cover them on the main level articles. Llama's Temple and Temple with Five Doors will be merged with Angry Aztec. This avoids both the arbitrariness and the nameless sub-area precedent. Of course, many of these sub-areas are fairly large and even have different music tracks, so it could be seen as losing something. However, not having articles for DK64 sub-areas isn't that illogical to me. DK64 doesn't have much lore or world-building like Sunshine or Odyssey do, and this is reflected in how the game doesn't really name its sub-areas much, with a lot of the names coming from low-effort guides. Therefore, it's easier to justify not having an article for the Llama's Temple than it would be for Hotel Delfino.
 * Keep the status quo: Is there a valid argument for only having the specific two articles we have now? I really don't see how there could be one.

A list of the sub-areas and which ones have known names is included in the linked discussion page above. Note that the only guides I can reference are Nintendo Power and the Banana Guide, so anything from Prima or other guides is beyond me. If anyone could chime in about these, it would be helpful. Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64), Banana Fairy Island, and K. Lumsy's Prison will not be affected by this proposal. Also, I'm thinking that the Mechanical Piranha (from Gloomy Galleon) should get an article regardless of this proposal's outcome, since it is an active robotic construct and not "just another submap".

Proposer: Deadline: October 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Only split named sub-areas

 * 1) This is our primary choice, personally. If they bothered to get an official name, we might as well give them articles--or at the very least redirects, but, well, see our secondary option. This honestly wouldn't even be that much effort, as we don't believe there are too many named sub-areas as-is.
 * 2) It's not like consistency is a universal quality of life, we don't need all the sub-areas in the same format, if we can split an area into its own article, why not??
 * 3) Seems like the most straightforward solution to me. Per Camwoodstock.
 * 4) Per Camwoodstock. If they got an official name, I think we should give them an article.

Don't split any sub-areas

 * 1) To be honest, this is what I'm leaning towards, for the reasons I've given above and the flaws of both split options. I don't think this would result in bloated level articles either, since the two sub-area articles we do have aren't that long to begin with and many of these areas aren't as big as them.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) If that doesn't work out, we'd like to vote this with the caveat that we should retain redirects for named subareas, instead of a full-on deletion. We should also probably mention the official names for these sub-areas in the merged articles when it's appropriate to do so.
 * 4) Secondary choice.
 * 5) In general, I don't think a guide should be our sole determinant for whether to split or merge an article, at least not in these sorts of situations. And any size-based criterion would be fuzzy and subjective, which is also something I think we should avoid.

Comments
Regarding the point in the proposal that splitting named sub-areas "creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope", I think that we should set the baseline standard that areas with an official name should get an article, but I don't think this should mean that there should not be articles for large areas without an official name. There wasn't really an option to reflect this exact position, so I voted for the first option as I feel it's the closest. ToxicOJ (talk) 15:52, October 10, 2023 (EDT)
 * It's not just the size and scope oddities that would arise from this, it's the fact that the guide that would largely be dictating what sub-areas get articles and which don't is, naming-wise, a complete mess. For example, the short, one-way tunnel in Angry Aztec (which is not even a sub-area) containing a Stealthy Snoop barrel is given a proper name by the guide (Quicksand Tunnel) even though there's no reason for it to have one, many names are very generic (with capitalization being the only reason they can be considered names at all), and several more expansive areas are not named.


 * Regarding your other points: while areas with official names do usually warrant articles, not all of them do. The Super Mario Odyssey proposal I mentioned above is a perfect example of such, since the game's unprecedented "name every Checkpoint Flag" policy is the only reason it was an issue to begin with. Another example would be Windswept Valley, a specific section of a Mario 64 level I have never seen anyone vouch for splitting. About making exceptions for sufficiently large areas: we could do that, but then how "large" does an area have to be to warrant a conjecturally-named sub-area article? And that just leads us back to the slippery slope flaw of the "split everything" option. 16:36, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.