MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Update the Manual of Style to discourage contractions on the wiki
First of all, I'm aware this proposal might sound pedantic. It's perfectly fine to use in every day speech and writing because it's easier than to use the whole structure when it doesn't matter that much; see, I just did that four times now. However, they do sound unprofessional on a site that is treated as an encyclopedia. Using structures such as "it's" and "don'ts" in main space sentences create the impression of a personal addressing to the reader, much like the use of "you's" would. Therefore, I propose that the manual of style be updated to simply state that contractions are not really welcome on the wiki, and that current instances should be expanded to their full forms when spotted. I'm not saying the manual should downright enforce writing without contractions because that would be a colossal maintanance undertaking. But really, what you do when you contract a structure is basically replace one letter with an apostrophe. I don't think omitting one letter reduces the effort, and frankly, sometimes it's annoying to see that so aggressively put in practice.

Proposer: Deadline: October 27, 2018, 16:45 GMT

Do it

 * 1) This can't, I mean cannot be accepted much longer.
 * 2) I agree. It should not be 'Mario can't do it'. It must be 'Mario cannot do it.'
 * 3) - I've been writing like this anyway when it comes to content pages, so I guess I've already agreed.
 * 4) I’ve recently been removing some contractions when preforming maintenance edits to articles, so I do not have a problem with doing this.
 * 5) I know we aren't (are not) Wikipedia. However, it does do this. And if it works there, it should work here too. As long as it doesn't effect official contractions (quotes and article titles), I am ok with this. Even though, I am part of the problem thus far. So, I per the proposal.
 * 6) *looks forlornly at the glitch pages*
 * 7) This change would definitely improve the overall quality of the writing on the wiki, and saying Donkey kong did not do it sounds a lot better than Donkey kong didn't do it, in my opinion.
 * 8) Contractions are a type of slang, which already contradict most style guides anyway. Support.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) I will admit, I fall a bit short of being able to say I support this fully, however I believe I will cast a vote of approval. While it could propose minor problems for those with less integrity in their sentence form, I do believe it can still be put into effect, especially if every change, major and minor, is examined for contractions. It would take quite an effort, but in the end, I do see this significantly improving the appearance of the Wiki’s pages. You have my approval.

Don't

 * 1) While I'm not entirely against this proposal, I feel that, as Super Radio mentioned before, it is huge maintenance to remove contractions, and monitor their use on this wiki. It is somewhat contradictory to enforce a rule against the usage of contractions, because the manual of style uses contractions quite a lot for its explanations. We just need to discuss when contractions will not be tolerated, and when they're just fine to use.
 * 2) I think contractions are fine. I do agree that they can get out of hand sometimes, but it's better to just fix a few small instances of contraction overdose than discourage contractions entirely.
 * 3) Changing vote, as this seems unnecessary.
 * 4) I seriously do not see why our not being able to use contractions whenever necessary would be unprofessional. The only thing that's a definite standard is not using the word "you" in mainspace articles since this is to be treated like an "encyclopedia site". So I'm voting no here.
 * 5) While I prefer in most cases that contractions not be used, I feel drawing a hard line is going too far, as there are cases where it actually does make a sentence flow better, in my opinion. It should be a suggestion, not a rule. This is like that coin capitalization debacle from a year or so ago.

Comments
While I certainly agree, I don't think we should draw a hard line on using contractions, just notify users when they use them, like what we already do for users who forget to use proper italics. 13:01, 13 October 2018 (EDT)
 * True, maybe I should have worded my proposal this way... -- 13:04, 13 October 2018 (EDT)

@MarioManiac1981: The proposal only addresses content in main space articles (Super Mario Bros., Princess Peach, Super Mushroom etc.), not talk pages and project pages, like this one or the guidelines. -- 15:18, 13 October 2018 (EDT)

@Yoshi the SSM: Don't be so harsh on yourself :) -- 16:46, 13 October 2018 (EDT)

Merge most game modes into their respective game articles
There has been some debate over whether certain game modes deserve to have separate articles. I disagree. does too, but he suggested that I still discuss this first. My rationale for proposing this might not be a good CliffsNotes version, however, so I'll use a rather large rationale formulated by here roughly two years ago: "Ok (directed primarily at ), so I keep reverting edits because some people (cough3DPlayer2010coughcough)think Toad Scramble, Coinathlon, Boo's Block Bash, etc. deserve to get their own articles. I firmly don't, and I'll explain why. First of all, your comparisons are very weak. Lab Brats for starters is'' a selectable minigame in the minigame mode alongside the other rare minigames like Seer Terror, Dunk Bros., so that's the reason it gets its own article. Super Duel Mode is far more in-depth and plays a lot differently than any mode of this game, and the only reason it got an article compared to Coinathlon because it has its own set of unlockables, maps, stats, and well, tons of separate content in this mode that can easily make it into a designated article without bloating the page up. Here, Boo's Block Party is a simple side mode in a similar vein to the side minigame games like Treetop Bingo, Battle Bridge, etc and it doesn't have enough content in it to justify its own article without being redundant or information that can be easily stated in this article. For Beach Volley Folley, it's in a similar situation as Super Duel Mode, but it has appeared in more than one game as well as being classified as a minigame rather than its own mode like Coinathlon. All modes easily fit in this article: Toad Scramble is the main meat of the game and the article should cover it without splitting things up. Coinathlon isn't a hard-to-understand mode with tons and tons of its own content, its analogous to Balloon Battle from the Mario Kart games. Balloon Bash plays very similarly to Toad Scramble except there's a different goal and some slightly different mechanics here and there. Rhythm Recital is in the same situation as Coinathlon, it doesn't have enough separate content in there to justify its own article, just like the minigame side modes in Minigame Modes in earlier Mario Parties. Challenge Tower can fit in this article too, everything that is needed to be said about Challenge Tower, this article covers. Hell, the rest of the modes are like that: everything that needs to be said can be said in the Gameplay section of this article and it doesn't look too overly bloated. The only mode that got its own article was the Character Museum, and for good reasons too, because it's a collectible list thing of the game like the Star Bank or something like that."''

That also sums up my rationale for why these should not warrant articles. I should also add that we already don't have articles on Mario vs. Luigi, Free-for-All, Monster Megamix, Wario Interrupts, etc., something to keep in mind. Therefore, I propose we merge any minor game modes into their parent articles. There are a few exceptions, such as Super Duel Mode, Challenge Mode (New Super Mario Bros. U), and Character Museum, as those are distinct modes that are too expansive to include in the parent articles; other than the exceptions, I think we're doing the wiki a favor by merging these game modes into the parent articles.

Proposer: (banned) Deadline: October 22, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) As this would improve the overall consistency on the wiki, I agree with this proposal.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) I agree with this.
 * 4) Per proposal. I also made additional quips here if anyone is interested.

Oppose

 * 1) Not sure I like the honestly rather vague and often opinionated differentiation criteria listed above. The whole thing is honestly rather vague. Personally, I'd prefer anything that isn't an archetypical game mode (ie "single player," "story mode," etc) get separate consideration case-by-case.
 * 2) I’m afraid I cannot say that all minigame-type articles should be limited to their respective games. Rather, would it not be more logical to simply condense all specific minigames and modes of a particular game into another article, with the commonly used “Main Article” link? This would open up a lot of room for more detailed information as well. I believe that would be the ideal compromise...
 * 3) At it's current stage this proposal is to vague. Does it only cover those articles specifically mentioned by the proposer? WHat is the criteria laid out to decide which modes should be merged if they aren't covered in this proposal?

Comments
We need to set an actual limit we can work from rather than use the weasely "most" game modes. But even if we just do end up have a case-by-case purge, having a list would be useful, and for subsequent game modes, it would require discussion. 22:25, 15 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, was about to say so myself. In my support vote, I did link to my post of a list on what is expected to be merged as a result from this proposal. Feel free to provide a more comprehensive one than mine. 22:27, 15 October 2018 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.