MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Cactus King and Ghastly King. (Discuss) Passed.
 * Delete List of cartoon voice actors. (Discuss) Deadline: October 23, 2015 23:59 GMT
 * Recreate Junior (II). (Discuss) Deadline: October 23, 2015 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Do not consider ports for an article's most recent name
At the moment, there are a few articles that have had their names changed due to rereleases, including Super Mario Bros. 3's worlds, which was put into place due to a proposal held on a single talk page, and Spiky Gloomba (to Spiked Gloomba), which was put into place after citing SMB3 as precedence (there are likely other examples, but I can't recall them at the moment). To use the Gloomba as an example, it was "Spiked" in Paper Mario, but was renamed to "Spiky" in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and the article followed suite. However, with the Virtual Console release of Paper Mario, the article changed names once again. The logic behind it is that, since the re-release is technically the most recent game, the names of our articles should reflect that. I don't agree with that.

First of all, it'd be incredibly off to only apply this to names, and there are quite a few other aspects that would have to be changed, namely the general order of the games in history sections and every article's latest appearance. It's seems odd to arbitrary exclude everything but the names in our changes. Also, how surreal would it be to see an article with their first appearance listed as "Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)" and then its latest appearance listed as "Super Mario Bros. 2 (2012)"? It presents the idea that there's a whole new game called SMB2, but it's really the exact same game with minimal differences (I'm not exaggerating). This idea of being misleading is another reason I dislike the idea: having a game carry the same name as it did twenty years ago is not a change; it's an example of preservation. If a museum was commissioning a replica of the Mona Lisa, with the intent of presenting it as it was originally depicted, would you want them to paint a giant clown nose on it? While it'd be a bit funny, it'd completely lose the intent and disappoint a large amount of people looking forward to it. With that said, preserving something is not the same thing as presenting it as something new. Attitudes at Nintendo have not changed by re-releasing an old game, and the wiki's attitude should likewise not change. It's not even as if they're a "new" game; for all intents and purposes, these games are the same games that were once available a few years ago, just for a different platform.

In the case of the Super Mario Land enemies whose names were changed in the Virtual Console, those are different to what's being discussed here. Those names were changed with the re-release itself; it's not a matter of the same name popping up again and clashing with a later game, it's a matter of the same game containing different names than it did previously. One is about staying true to the source, while the other is about a clear change in though. Basically, per what was said by me and Walkazo on the forums.

This proposal intends to revert the Lands proposal and the Gloomba move (and any other ones that may be out there), as well as set a precedent for the future.

Proposer: Deadline: October 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Definitely, this makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why they were renamed back to the old ones in the first place.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal, Especially because re-releases' modifications are kept to a minimum. The name could have been changed from one game in the series to another, but the developers didn't modify the original game for a re-release. If it was modified to a new name, then this name automatically becomes the newest.

Comments
I think it's dumb a name from a re-release of a predecessor has replaced the sequel's name, but I'm not extremely sure about standalone games, so I'm still iffy on applying a blanket standard to disregard all ports. 16:23, 22 October 2015 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.