Super Mario Wiki

MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54: Difference between revisions

Project page Discussion

MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54 (view source)

Revision as of 10:19, April 19, 2023

75,926 bytes added ,  1 year ago
m
Text replacement - "(\[|\|)MW:" to "$1SMW:"
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "(\[|\|)MW:" to "$1SMW:")
(20 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template|current=yes}}
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}}


<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div>
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div>
Line 98: Line 98:


====Comments====
====Comments====
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 53#Recreate the numbered Mario Kart redirects|Here's the proposal in question]] in case anyone wants to view it before voting here. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 00:08, July 14, 2019 (EDT)
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53#Recreate the numbered Mario Kart redirects|Here's the proposal in question]] in case anyone wants to view it before voting here. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 00:08, July 14, 2019 (EDT)


[https://smallmariofindings.tumblr.com/post/186027177745/in-super-mario-party-birdo-can-be-encountered-in ''Super Mario Party'' does refer to itself as "the 11th party" in-game.] {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 00:14, July 14, 2019 (EDT)
[https://smallmariofindings.tumblr.com/post/186027177745/in-super-mario-party-birdo-can-be-encountered-in ''Super Mario Party'' does refer to itself as "the 11th party" in-game.] {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 00:14, July 14, 2019 (EDT)
Line 348: Line 348:
===Ban friend userboxes===
===Ban friend userboxes===
{{ProposalOutcome|cancelled}}
{{ProposalOutcome|cancelled}}
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 53#Ban certain cases of future tense from the wiki|No, not discourage. Ban.]]
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53#Ban certain cases of future tense from the wiki|No, not discourage. Ban.]]


I've seen users giving each other friend userboxes after a "friend request" (a talk page message).
I've seen users giving each other friend userboxes after a "friend request" (a talk page message).
Line 479: Line 479:
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} I don't see why not.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} I don't see why not.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
Line 499: Line 498:
@alex95: triple items have different probabilities and rarities on your placement than single items (triple green shells do not even appear in ds wifi matches), they also form a shield circling around your kart which makes them more functionality different than single green shells, despite the minor difference, and they take up their own slot separate from green shells. and explain how character exclusivity isn't an "argument" the fact that only some characters can use the specific set of items strengthens the argument for the split rather than not. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:53, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
@alex95: triple items have different probabilities and rarities on your placement than single items (triple green shells do not even appear in ds wifi matches), they also form a shield circling around your kart which makes them more functionality different than single green shells, despite the minor difference, and they take up their own slot separate from green shells. and explain how character exclusivity isn't an "argument" the fact that only some characters can use the specific set of items strengthens the argument for the split rather than not. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:53, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
:Alright, you may have a point on whether it circles the racer or not, though ''Double Dash'' is an already noted exception that makes Triple Green Shells handle like regular Green Shells, except you drop two if you take any damage. Not sure about probabilities and rarities, that can just be listed in the game section.
:Alright, you may have a point on whether it circles the racer or not, though ''Double Dash'' is an already noted exception that makes Triple Green Shells handle like regular Green Shells, except you drop two if you take any damage. Not sure about probabilities and rarities, that can just be listed in the game section.
:For character specific items, though, would that just mean {{fake link|Triple Green Shells (Koopa Troopa)}} gets its own page from [[Triple Green Shells]]? Just saying Triple Green Shells are exclusive to Koopa Troopa in ''Double Dash'' (which it already does) is enough. Character exclusivity isn't enough for a split, otherwise we'd split [[Metal Mario (form)]] between it and [[Metal Wario]]. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:03, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
:For character specific items, though, would that just mean {{fake link|Triple Green Shells (Koopa Troopa)}} gets its own page from [[Triple Green Shells]]? Just saying Triple Green Shells are exclusive to Koopa Troopa in ''Double Dash'' (which it already does) is enough. Character exclusivity isn't enough for a split, otherwise we'd split [[Metal Mario|Metal Mario (form)]] between it and [[Metal Wario]]. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:03, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
::the point about different probabilities is a point in its favor to make it a separate item from the single ones, since practically every other separate item has different probabilities and you obtain them in different placements and rankings. like, the red shell for example can be broken down to just a red-colored shell with homing, like the second upgrade missile from diddy kong racing, but that item also has different rates of obtaining them too. mario kart items don't have deeply nuanced differences from each other (fake item boxes are just see-through bananas with shell hitting capbilities, spiny shells are just red shells that home onto first place, chain chomps are just bullet bills, etc), and even the most minimal effects constitute as a big difference, so that includes the ability to orbit the character's kart in threes and that you obtain it in different positions with different probabilities than you do a single green shell. i don't think character specific items should get their own pages specific to their game appearances though but the fact is that koopa can sometimes get triples as his exclusive in a few games should solidify the point that the games treat triple green shells differently than they do singles. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 17:09, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
::the point about different probabilities is a point in its favor to make it a separate item from the single ones, since practically every other separate item has different probabilities and you obtain them in different placements and rankings. like, the red shell for example can be broken down to just a red-colored shell with homing, like the second upgrade missile from diddy kong racing, but that item also has different rates of obtaining them too. mario kart items don't have deeply nuanced differences from each other (fake item boxes are just see-through bananas with shell hitting capbilities, spiny shells are just red shells that home onto first place, chain chomps are just bullet bills, etc), and even the most minimal effects constitute as a big difference, so that includes the ability to orbit the character's kart in threes and that you obtain it in different positions with different probabilities than you do a single green shell. i don't think character specific items should get their own pages specific to their game appearances though but the fact is that koopa can sometimes get triples as his exclusive in a few games should solidify the point that the games treat triple green shells differently than they do singles. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 17:09, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
:::It seems like my comment was misinterpreted. What I meant is that in certain games for example, Triple Green Shells cannot be used by all characters, which is yet another difference between the two. It does not mean in any way that they should be split based off their game appearances, or that items that have no variants such as Golden Mushrooms should be split. I just meant that certain variants of items being exclusive to certain characters in certain games is another difference between them and their regular variants and thus is another reason why we should split the bunch items, and is not an individual basis for a split nor a split of a split. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 17:15, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
:::It seems like my comment was misinterpreted. What I meant is that in certain games for example, Triple Green Shells cannot be used by all characters, which is yet another difference between the two. It does not mean in any way that they should be split based off their game appearances, or that items that have no variants such as Golden Mushrooms should be split. I just meant that certain variants of items being exclusive to certain characters in certain games is another difference between them and their regular variants and thus is another reason why we should split the bunch items, and is not an individual basis for a split nor a split of a split. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 17:15, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
Line 506: Line 505:
:::::i'd argue that general availability for players is a decent argument for considering a split and not something that can be simply handwaved away {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 17:33, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
:::::i'd argue that general availability for players is a decent argument for considering a split and not something that can be simply handwaved away {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 17:33, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
::::::Fair point, I'll probably think about this more. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:40, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
::::::Fair point, I'll probably think about this more. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:40, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
===Make the archives for the proposals uneditable unless you are a Bureaucrat or Admin.===
{{ProposalOutcome|vetoed|Proposal was only created in reaction to an accidental old-revision edit proposer made on [[MarioWiki:Proposals]]. Additionally, protecting older revisions of pages is impossible; to do that you'd need to protect the entire page, and any registered user should have the right to start their own proposal (at most they can be hidden, but that's not what that function is for).}}
Somwhat recently, the proposal page was vandalized, and it was by me. I didn't know why or how I did it at first, but what happened was I went through a user page, and I found this. [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=2418372#Create_administrative_position_of_SUPREME]. I thought this was funny, and I added my name to the support list. However, I didn't realize that I had just edited the main proposals page, and not the archives. To keep this from happening again to another uneducated user, I think the wiki should have something in place to stop people from editing older proposals.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mad_Hunter_}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 28, 2019, 10:42 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Mad_Hunter_}} I agree with this proposal, because I don't want users that didn't know what they were doing to get banned or blocked.
====Oppose====
===Split articles/keep articles split if they have notable name and appearance changes. Merge articles if they have the same name and not enough changes from the original.===
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-12|do nothing}}
Currently, the wiki does not have a clear set guideline on how similar entites with different names or slightly different entities with the same name should be handled. If this proposal goes through I believe it will friendlier for new and exisiting wiki users as it allows content to be searched outside Mario Wiki and covered more cleanly.
I propose that articles covering similar  should be split in the following conditions.
* If there is a name change. This should be the most important factor in deciding an article split, as search engines such as Google rely on the name the most.
* It is considered a different entity by the game itself in addition to the name change. Direct replacements such as Power Star to Grand Star can be covered in the original article. Moves used by different characters count.
* If there are design differences in addition to the above, such as with Daisy Blossom and Goombo.
* If the same name is shared, but there are significant differences to the point where a seperate article is needed to cover them all. Examples like Mario and Sonic games from Wii to DS count.
Articles possibily affected include: [[Daisy Blossom]], [[Daisy Bomber]], [[Daisy Parasol]], [[Azure Roller]], [[Cyber Slick]], [[Goombo]] and the ports of games with the same name such as ''[[Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker]]'' and ''[[Luigi's Mansion]]''.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Memoryman3}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 27, 2019, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Memoryman3}} Not only do I think pages such as Azure Roller and Daisy Blossom should be split from Roller and Peach Blossom because they have different names and look different , they also don't appear in every game and share every single detail. Azure Roller appears in different CPU controller karts and time trials, and Daisy Blossom is all flowers and daisies and the background and frames are completely different, and also doesn't appear in games before [[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate|''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate'']]. There is also the issue of how search engines such as Google cannot easily link Daisy Blossom to Peach Blossom and a user searching up the move will not get relevant results unless it's on a seperate page. There are a lot of people searching up wheels such as Retro Off Road and Cyber Slick. For games such as ''[[Captain Toad Treasure Tracker]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze]]'' with the same name and a lack of drastic sweeping changes, I think they should be merged and exclusive content covered in the article itself, then it would be friendlier if Switch owners are looking for the content.
====Oppose====
#{{User|TheDarkStar}} The statement that there's no policy on splitting pages with the same name (prior to any editing) is downright false; policy ''and'' consensus have stated that if something has gameplay differences, it's splitting time. Azure Roller being merged to Roller doesn't even ''need'' a proposal, just a talk page discussion. Finally, this all seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the Daisy Bomber page being converted back to a redirect, seeing as it happened just yesterday.
#{{User|Lord Grammaticus}} Per DarkStar and my principle towards opposing proposals that are purely reactive and/or prioritize forcing through a user's personal opinion over all else. In support of the later, it's evident that the proposal's claim (at least prior to any editing) of the wiki lacking "a guideline on how similar entites with different names or slightly different entities with the same name should be handled" is poorly researched to the point of being blatantly false - for starters, we have [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Split Switch/3DS ports with substantial new content|this proposal regarding ports]], and with regards to slightly different entities and games bearing the same name, we have [[MarioWiki:Naming#Shared titles|this section on the "Naming" page of our writing guidelines]] and [[SMW:NA#Games|the "New Article" guideline on titling pages for ported games]], which I believe may have served as a basis for the aforementioned proposal.
#{{User|Trig Jegman}} per the above, but it really seems too subjective/non-concrete to me. I think it would create more inconsistency over less due to not being able to tell alternates in-page and alternates new-page. - 11:23, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} This proposal is extremely vague and your list doesn't even come close to how many articles this would affect, and is also confusing since it doesn't even mention which articles would be split and which ones would be merged if this passed. You're painting with far too broad of a brush here, matters like this should only be settled on a case-by-case basis. Also, like I told you before, having a different name alone is '''not''' an instant reason to split articles (on the other side of the coin, having the same name is also not an instant reason to merge articles) and would unnecessarily undo countless proposals over the years. I get that you really want Daisy Blossom to be split for whatever reason, but this is going way too far.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} As much as I'm actually extremely uneasy about merging Roller and Azure Roller, this proposal is just too vague to even consider supporting. Per all.
#{{User|Doomhiker}} To make my point clear, I do love echo fighters. However, that doesn't affect that fact that echo fighters are officially clones, and that point should be made clear as the proposer seems to think that the wiki has a bias against echos when it doesn't, as the only reason that they're treated differently is because of what they are officially considered. As a wiki we do not have any bias towards different characters, and reason why we would treat some differently is due to something official. On the other side though, this proposal seems to be made out of spite without much thought. Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per everyone. Way too vague for my support.
#{{User|Alex95}} - First point, name alone is not enough, otherwise [[Super Thwomp]] and [[Star Thwomp]] would be separate. Second point, I don't even understand, this is obviously going to get a new page. Third point, if ''all'' of those three points align (which is not the case for Daisy Blossom), then yes, different name + different game play attributes = new page. Fourth point, we already do this. The ''Mario Kart'' pieces should be a different, better put-together proposal.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{User|Obsessive Mario Fan}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all. There's absolutely no reason to split the same ability performed by a different character (the ability itself having an aethistic change).
====Comments====
We already split subjects with different names and appearances, such as with [[Goombo]]. Regardless, arguably Daisy's special moves are different than other variants, as Daisy is labelled as an echo fighter, contrary to other examples of variants which are often treated as their own separate thing. Due to that there is less ground to split Daisy's special moves when they are literally part of a official clone of a character. Regardless, the "and if there are less than four variants" thing is unnecessary, as really if a thing should be split than it should be split, merging stuff just because there is a lot of things would just be confusing and would pad out articles for no reason. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 09:24, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
There are more differences between Daisy's moves and Peach's moves than Goombos and Goombas. I believe Daisy still have a seperate Movelist page in the game than Peach has. In New Super Mario Bros U Deluxe, Blue Toad and Yellow Toad were similar enough to be merged and not seperately selectable in game, and literally call the same model. They have seperate pages on the wiki. Echo Fighters are more like how you copy a file and it still takes up extra space on your harddrive, rather than creating a file shortcut. The original Japanese meaning even references how derivative numbers are still different numbers despite being copied from. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 09:30, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:There isn't more difference though. If anything, that just comes off as biased.  As for Blue and Yellow Toad, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHcXqC2vOq0 you can actually select either of them]. The reason that they are in the same slot and thus cannot play as both Blue and Yellow Toad is because Toadette took the slot the Blue Toad had. They have separate pages on the wiki simply due to their previous appearances regardless. If you copy a file it is still the same file, and the comparison has nothing to do with wether or not Daisy's move should be split. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 09:40, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:Even if you could select Blue and Yellow Toad in different slots, the only difference between them is the color of their mushroom cap. No gameplay differences and no design differences other than that, Nintendo explictly kept them as similar as possible. They are still seperate pages. Like Peach and Daisy's moves the game appearances are a bit different. As for the copying thing, if the file is changed a bit, for all intents and purposes it is a different file. For Blue Toad and Yellow Toad I would probably keep them split for the search engine reasons.--{{user|Memoryman3}} 09:46, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
I have updated the proposal to more clearly reflect what I mean, and how this could be applied wiki wide. This is not reactive. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 10:29, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
Been following the matter on the talk page, and this is rather poor form to say the least. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 10:32, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
Generally poor form to make a proposal when you've been unanimously opposed on the talk page beforehand. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 10:37, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
Explain how Daisy's moves don't deserve their own pages when they have been given their own pages ingame, plus content such as the identical Mario Kart wheels, Goombo, and the two Toads allowed to have their own pages with even less differences? That does not make any sense to me. We can very easily merge Goombo with Goomba as it is just the Super Mario Land variant of a Goomba with an appearance change. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 10:40, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:Explanation.
*Azure Roller doesn't ''need'' a proposal, just a quick discussion.
*Daisy's specials are practically identical to Peach's save for visual effects.
*The Toads are separate characters, not the same toad in different hats.
:That is my explanation. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 10:44, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
In addition, Goombo and Goomba have different Japanese and English names, were explicitly described as relatives, and variants of existing enemies already have precedents for splitting. Try again. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 10:46, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
Yes, but Daisy's moves arguably fall under the Goombo and Goomba variants. Daisy's moves, whilst behaving the same as Peach's moves, have differences including visual effects. Visuals are still a difference worth noting. If Daisy's moves looked a bit different and had the same name it would make sense to keep them merged. However the naming being different means that in order for the move to be properly represented across the web, it needs to be split into a new article. If you type Daisy Blossom into Google you don't get relevant images easily, unlike with Peach Blossom. Additionally. Daisy Blossom does not appear in any other Smash game other than Ultimate. They are also technically seperate moves, such as how Blue Toad and Yellow Toad are seperate characters. Daisy is not a Peach costume, she is unlocked seperately. It is the same thing for Azure Roller and normal Roller. Different unlock times, different appearances, different names, different wheels. A split makes sense even though the function is the same. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 10:50, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:It makes no sense to make a duplicate page just to note the difference in visuals. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 10:59, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:The pages will not be duplicate pages however. Daisy Blossom's past edits had notable changes such as new images, new descriptions, and how it relates to Daisy's past instead of Peach's past. Daisy Parasol would show Daisy's 8 different parasol designs and how she uses it in her entrance animation and not her taunts and victory animations. The articles would also not be cluttered with references to previous games, like how Cyber Slicks and Azure Rollers don't reference Mario Kart 7. I plan to also revamp the Peach special pages along with this. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 11:04, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:Have to second DarkStar here: The matter regarding the Final Smash will probably change when sufficient proof of differences beyond the visuals and character references (which are tied to the visual appearance, if I recall correctly) is put forth on [[Talk:Peach Blossom|the Talk Page where things were initially being discussed the day prior to this proposal]]. The same should apply for the rest of the special moves in question as well, I'd imagine. Much more pertinent is the fact that how we handle enemies and how we handle fighting moves are two entirely different baskets of eggs, and using the splitting of similar-but-differentiated enemy variants as a basis for splitting move variants that have not been sufficiently differentiated doesn't strike me as a particularly sound argument. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 11:13, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
How so, it's literally the same thing. Goomba and Goombo have no differences beyond visuals and character references. Exact same thing with Blue Toad and Yellow Toad. You can easily merge Goombo with Goomba and no one would bat an eye. I have already put many arguments as to why Daisy's moves have merits to be seperated, and to be honest none of the reasons against it strike me as compelling or more substantial than "Daisy's just Peach in orange", and how in general there's an bias against Daisy in the wiki due to her fans. I've already provided external reasons such as search engines not correctly referencing Daisy Blossom and visual differences being important. When people are looking for Daisy Blossom, I'm pretty sure they DON'T want pictures of Peach's trophies --{{user|Memoryman3}} 11:22, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:If Daisy Blossom getting "proper web representation" is your main concern here, SmashWiki already covers it on its own page. And no, that's not a good reason to split, the "X wiki does it so we should do" argument has been shot down many, many times over the years. I don't know how many times we have to tell you that every single one of Daisy's moves is functionally identical to Peach's, the only differences are visuals which aren't enough to warrant a separate page. I'd also like to point out that, with the exception of her Final Smash, not even SmashWiki splits Daisy's moves and specifically mentions that there's no difference between them, and this is the same wiki that explains specific amounts of frame and knockback trajectories. Ultimate has been out for almost a year, if SmashWiki hasn't found any differences between Peach and Daisy's moves that actually affect gameplay, there aren't any. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 11:36, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
Gameplay is not an argument. In fact I would say that basing it only on gameplay is unfair, when there are visual differences that affect areas such as Google Images. Or how an end user is looking for a specific variant. In that case we can say that there's no difference at all between Blue Toad and Yellow Toad and that they don't deserve seperate articles. But we split them, because when someone is looking for Blue Toad or a specific variant of a wheel, they are looking for information on that Toad or wheel specifically. Merging Daisy's named moves benefits absolutely no one except the people who REALLY dislike clone characters in fighting games and think they should be erased. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 11:58, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:I noticed you curiously skipped over my suggestion that you first prove there are more than visual-based and character-reference differences, and WT's rebuttal seems to indicate why, but in any case, I'll add that your statement on Goomba and Goombo is a circular argument - as stated previously, they also have different names and a statement from a notable source (''Nintendo Power'') that indicates they're related but not ''exactly'' the same. And again, splitting/merging enemies and attacks aren't handled with the same exact policies - and to boot, there have been numerous cases of pages for heavily similar enemies being split upon the basis of a different Japanese name. Furthermore, Blue Toad and Yellow Toad are very visibly two distinct characters that have both clearly appeared separately from each other, and are thus treated separately regardless of whether or not they serve the same gameplay function. As you just said in contradiction to your earlier point, gameplay is not an argument, and once we humor that notion and remove it from the equation, there are ''only'' visual-based differences to distinguish Daisy Blossom and Peach Blossom - thus no split.
:In fact, you seem to be using '''only''' gameplay roles as the basis for suggesting that the aforementioned articles should be merged, with the implication that if Daisy Blossom isn't going to be split, then neither should those. This is a poorly constructed line of logic, per what I've just stated above: they're established as different characters by official material, with enough differentiation between them that is established by more than visuals. E.G. Goomba and Goombo are split on the basis of being similar-yet-distinct creatures with different names that exist in different locations, as has been established with many other regional variants ([[Beanbean Kingdom]] says hi), and Yellow and Blue Toad are split per being two different Toads that we see literally standing next to each other through the various cutscenes of the ''New Super Mario Bros.'' games they appear in, as has been established by viewing said scenes for at least five seconds. Therefore they deserve articles, contrary to what your opinion on that is.
:In addition, you're trying to use an amendment to wiki policy to enact some arbitrary form of "one true wayism" that conflates multiple wide and distinct established proposals, guidelines and precedents and blatantly flies in the face of them for the sake of trying to obtain a desired result on a small subset of articles and correct some perceived "innate bias" against a given character. The problem with this is, even assuming said bias existed, this would be categorical overcorrecting in the other direction: the existence of said bias being invoked as the basis for this is dubious to begin with per a simple application of Hanlon's Razor (i.e. it's infinitely more believable that the page isn't split due to policy than due to some imagined character-based bias), and overall the wiki has done pretty well in regards to ironing out character favoritism and its opposite. In addition, the correction of supposed bias in scenarios like this is very often a flimsy cover to enforce a more "preferable" one; nothing is being done with Daisy's special moves that wouldn't have been done with any other moves of the same nature, and attributing this to a desire for clone characters to be """erased""" is patently nonsensical and without merit, not least because (if I recall correctly) Daisy was among one of the more popularly desired characters for Smash, as was the case with many other newcomers and Echo Fighters.
:Finally, even ignoring that the stated "web search engine optimization" motive is evidently an ad hoc explanation trying to cover for the other less substantiated ones rebutted above, it would likely be far from high on the list of this wiki's priorities, well below maintaining a standard of encyclopedic integrity. And last I checked, I highly doubt ''that'' standard is worth sacrificing on the altar of Google results. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 12:12, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
That does not explain why the seperate wheel designs in Mario Kart are still covered seperately despite only having decal differences. I am not objecting to these but Daisy's is literally the only case of differently named moves being used on different characters, in a different list of games, being merged. I'm not arguing that every similar move and object should be merged. I'm arguing that they should stay seperate and Daisy's moves should be seperated too. The establishment of them being different is straight in game, where Daisy Bomber and Peach Bomber have their own pages. Smash in itself is not a traditional fighter either. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 12:23, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:Simple: Tires have separate articles because ''Mario Kart 7'' and ''8'' established the trend of tire choice affecting vehicle performance. And if you didn't object to them, then why invoke them at all and go so far as to claim some of those instances don't deserve articles?
:In addition, Daisy's likely seems to be the only case because she's the only Echo Fighter in Smash who's native to the Mario franchise - AKA the main reason her moves are covered on their own articles ''like all the other Mario characters''; if other cases come up, they will receive the same treatment, and in fact I recall Dr. Mario used to receive the same treatment prior to determining that his moves were different enough from Mario's to warrant splitting coverage accordingly. Smash not being a traditional fighter has no bearing on this, and more to the point was never brought up by anyone else before you mentioned it. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 12:30, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
That...still doesn't explain the wheels in Mario Kart. One user already explained merging the palette swapped wheels made them uneasy, despite them being identical in every other way. Also, I think being an Echo Fighter is not a good reason to merge the moves, when they are not exactly the same. Fighting game fans do have an inherent bias against clone characters and it ripples everywhere from message boards to tier lists. What benefit is there to keeping Daisy's moves merged, and do they outweigh the drawbacks, if there are even any? I agree though, I don't think I have made my point clear and this proposal is too vague. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 12:35, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:I know I said I'd support merging the recolor tires, but I'm starting to go back on that because of one reason, and that's the fact that they're Mario Kart 8 variants of tires that were previously introduced in Mario Kart 7, and merging them might be a bit messy. And no, this isn't the same thing as Daisy Blossom being introduced in Ultimate. Tires in Mario Kart have differing stats from game to game, and it would be awkward having a section talking about stats in Mario Kart 7 when that specific tire didn't even exist yet. Meanwhile, Peach Blossom has changed very little since its introduction in Brawl, and doesn't have any game-specific sections that would make Daisy Blossom's inclusion on the page feel awkward. Also, I don't think many users on this wiki hate clone characters. Personally, I welcome Echo Fighters because it gives a chance for more characters to get in the game. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:43, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:Peach Blossom's operation has changed notably between game to game however. In Brawl, it spawned thirteen small peaches, and did not affect users airborne. In Smash 4, it affected users airborne in exchange for shorter range and sleeping time, it also got completely redrawn and summoned three large peaches. Ultimate's variant had significantly increased sleeping time and new aesthetics in the background. Peach Bomber has changed drastically between games (startup, distance, damage, effects and knockback) and had custom move variants that Daisy's version obviously lacks. Peach Parasol also got tweaked quite a bit. Of course, information such as the trophies do not relate to Daisy's variant at all. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 12:51, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:And again with the circular arguing. On top of differences between MK7 and 8, the wheels are all distinct from each other and have a tangible effect on gameplay (i.e. changing the overall stats of the kart they're used on) that is not universally shared among each wheel type. The palettes of said wheels contribute absolutely nothing towards that, and thus are safe to merge. In short: tire choice affects vehicle performance, and the only way that doesn't explain it is if you didn't read it to begin with.
:''And again'', not only is MarioWiki not the place to try to correct biases against particular characters presumed or otherwise (because Righting Great Wrongs™ is not our job period, and should not take priority over encyclopedic integrity), the bias you're citing against this specific clone character is a non-factor in the moves receiving their current coverage. That's why I've referred to it with the air of "alleged bias" - not because it ''literally'' doesn't exist, but because there's absolutely no tangible proof of its influence on the matter at hand. And ''with regards to the matter at hand'', the discussion should have remained on the article's Talk Page, rather than used as a not-at-all-solid basis for enacting a vague policy change that steps on the toes of several well-established policies and guidelines before it. I will likely be making my cases there as well later on.
:The merge is not done for the sake of some arbitrary benefit, but because it is in accordance with established policies, guidelines and precedents on covering such things, which dictates it is not substantially differentiated enough to warrant a split. (Clarifying Edit: Peach Blossom has had various changes between games, yes - but Daisy Blossom has not, as it is directly based on the version used with ''Ultimate'', and there has yet to be any proof of difference between ''those two versions'', making the changes to Peach Blossom between games irrelevant.) And as we've painstakingly outlined, the drawbacks of blatantly and selectively ignoring these policies, guidelines and precedents in favor of a poorly-justified split whose reasoning has been shown to be thoroughly unsound rebutted far outweighs any of the similarly-debated-''and''-rebutted imagined benefits. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 12:57, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
That falls apart when you realise that quoted from the wiki itself, ''The only difference between the Roller and Azure Roller is the azure palette and the gray screw-like rims, surrounded by a yellow outline.'', Absolutely no stat differences whatsoever. Many wheels in Mario Kart have identical stats, yet they are seperated for consistency. By that precedent, all of Daisy's named specials should be seperated for encyclopedic intergity and a lack of bias. Arguing against it is essentially identical to arguing against WaluigiTime's point of keeping the wheels seperate.--{{user|Memoryman3}} 13:02, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
I wasn't going to comment further, but here's an Omega Tyrant-style deconstruction.
''Currently, the wiki does not have a clear set guideline on how similar entites with different names or slightly different entities with the same name should be handled.''<br>
No? [[Talk:Bull's-Eye Bill|Many]] [[Talk:Bean|discussions]] have decided by consensus that similar entities with different names should be merged.<br>
''If this proposal goes through I believe it will friendlier for new and exisiting wiki users as it allows content to be searched outside Mario Wiki and covered more cleanly.''<br>
You forget about the existing in-wiki search tool.<br>
''If there is a name change. This should be the most important factor in deciding an article split, as search engines such as Google rely on the name the most.''
That's already a candidate for moving by [[MarioWiki:Naming#Name changes|policy]].<br>
Also, why do search engines matter? The wiki is listed pretty high up on most searches, so it's kinda unnecessary.<br>
''It is considered a different entity by the game itself in addition to the name change. Direct replacements such as Power Star to Grand Star can be covered in the original article. Moves used by different characters count.''<br>
That's also normally a split, if it has ''gameplay differences''.<br>
''If there are design differences in addition to the above, such as with Daisy Blossom and Goombo.''<br>
Goombo's been confirmed to be '''related''' to Goombas. They are ''not'' the same thing.<br>
''If the same name is shared, but there are significant differences to the point where a seperate article is needed to cover them all. Examples like Mario and Sonic games from Wii to DS count.''<br>
That's already a split too. 3/4 of this list is completely unnecessary, and the other quarter is dubious at best. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 13:33, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
I agree about most of this propsal being vague. I want to delete it and make a talk page proposal on the relevant article. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 13:44, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:A lot of DarkStar's response is what I basically covered in my vote reason above, but it does bear repeating. In addition, note the context of your own statements.
<blockquote>
* It is considered a different entity by the game itself '''in addition to the name change.''' Direct replacements such as Power Star to Grand Star can be covered in the original article. Moves used by different characters count.
</blockquote>
:There is no name being ''changed'' - just the addition of a second Final Smash copied from a pre-existing one.
<blockquote>
* If there are design differences in addition to the above, such as with Daisy Blossom and Goombo.
* If the same name is shared, but '''there are significant differences to the point where a seperate article is needed to cover them all.''' Examples like Mario and Sonic games from Wii to DS count.
</blockquote>
:Goombas and Goombos were established as different species when they were mentioned in ''Nintendo Power''; if this had been untrue, a correction would have been made. Again, I point to the Beanbean Kingdom from ''Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga'' for an established case of regional variants, particularly the [[Beanerang Bro]] - who, prior to the game's remake, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Beanerang_Bro&diff=2295639&oldid=2295635 was covered in a separate article from the Boomerang Bro] for a significant amount of time, despite sharing its name and many aspects of its design.
:You've also backpedaled to the "Daisy Blossom isn't being split because of bias!!!" argument, when not only have you failed to prove the existence of said bias's influence in any decisions related to the move's coverage, this entire proposal and the Talk Page discussion that spawned it clearly display a lack of forethought and basic research on your part in trying to push through a change you see as desirable, despite it being rightfully contested even before the proposal was made not less than 48 hours later - in other words, trying to enact your own bias via policy change while using the correction of a supposed pre-existing bias as plausible deniability, as was pointed out and made apparent earlier. The evidence of your bias is easily visible in your actions, priorities and responses, while the evidence that the bias you keep citing had any significant influence on the coverage of Daisy Blossom (or indeed, ''any'' influence at all) is visibly ''lacking''.
:As a point of order, there is far a more relevant precedent to this case - [[Doctor Finale]] vs. [[Mario Finale]]. While based off the latter like Daisy Blossom is to Peach Blossom, there are actual functional differences beyond the appearance, particularly with regards to knockback and damage. Daisy Blossom and Peach Blossom do not have even those differences, and so it is determined there is no need to split them. Final Smashes and Mario Kart tires are also very much "apples and oranges", and as is indicated in the many and varied rebuttals, trying to paint things of this nature with the same brush does infinitely more harm than good, especially when they are already handled on a case-by-case basis. And this is a case where a changed appearance and references to aspects of character design alone do not sufficient cause for a split make.
:Your repeated attempts to conflate the standard established for the Mario Kart tires with the standard for Final Smashes is indicative of a "broad strokes" approach based on a generalization fallacy that further weakens your argument in light of all the other holes in your proposal. And in claiming that "arguing against it is essentially identical to arguing against WaluigiTime's point of keeping the wheels seperate", you acknowledge one of my previously made points while somehow simultaneously ignoring it: though not ''all'' of the tires affect kart stats, enough of them do so that it makes no sense to merge them ''solely'' based on stats anyway. It's also more than a bit disingenuous to lean on the notion of "if you're arguing against X you're also arguing against Y": If I was somehow arguing against keeping the wheels separate, what would it matter? I would cross that bridge when I come to it later. And considering I'm in ''agreement'' with him on that, this smacks of a manufactured dilemma (though I'm unsure if if would be a textbook "false dilemma", but I digress).
:In addition to the note of the Doctor Finale above, the nature of Echo Fighters provides an official basis of sorts for this: while they are indeed regarded as different moves by the game, there is not enough of a difference between the Final Smashes to justify a separate ''article''. This is far from suggesting they are ''literally'' the same thing, but while they are not, such is beside the point - different types of subjects receive different coverage, and the standard of coverage for the Smash Bros. moves we ''do'' cover suggest there is a lack of grounds for a split.
:And with sufficient evidence of such grounds ''still'' yet to be provided, and readily available evidence of an ulterior motive that undermines the legitimacy of the proposal being overwhelming - along with many an established basis for both the current nature of the coverage and the reason that such changes would run counter to current policy and efficient coverage overall - there is no reason at all that this proposal should pass. There is certainly no reason that things should have been "escalated" to this point, either: a Talk Page proposal should have been the course of action taken, and yet said discussion was shoehorned into a suggested policy amendment seemingly before the former option was even considered. That - on top of ''everything else'' about the proposed change - indicates that the result of the TPP will likely be the same. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 14:00, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
As for Star Thwomp and Super Thwomp, it is literally the same entity, but Prima gave it a different name. Peach's moves and Daisy's moves exist together as different entities with OBVIOUS VISUAL DIFFERENCES but function the same. 2 out of 3. That should be enough. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 17:12, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:It's not. Moves aren't entities, unlike with Star Thwomps. Both moves are the same. So really there is only still one argument for their split, which isn't enough. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 17:15, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
::So if Bowser and Donkey Kong got super moves which involved Bowser's fire breath and DK's barrel, but they had the exact same gameplay effect, would they be merged? --{{user|Memoryman3}} 19:12, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:::[[Special Shot#Mario Tennis Aces|Actually, yes]]. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 19:14, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
::::Fair point. However, there is no bias towards any variant on that page. Dry Bowser's Blazing Barrage is not merged with Bowser's Fire Breath in the table, despite being almost the same in every way. In the merged Peach/Daisy Blossom pages, there is a huge bias towards Peach's variant to the point where Daisy's is drowned out and can't be easily accessed outside the wiki, especially if the user is looking for assets. If we give equal spaces to them, it will look messy. It's a lose-lose situation. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 19:20, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
:::"However, there is no bias towards any variant on that page" because all of them are variants of the same Powershot move in one game, which originated in that game, and have all their visual and animation differences noted. With Peach and Daisy Blossom, there's only two variants to compare: one of them has existed for several games, and the other is a variant of the first one based directly and heavily on its latest appearance. And they ''also'' only have visuals and animations to differentiate them - that's not bias, there's just legitimately not much else to cover, and certainly not enough to split. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 19:25, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
YOU think that's not enough to warrant a split. What about if there are several roller wheels and they each got their own pages. despite having as you put it, only minor differences in the textures. The fact that Peach Blossom and Daisy Blossom only are two moves means that a split wouldn't look messy and unwarranted, because then the seperate content can be covered without making the page look cluttered. That is the point I want to get across, and seeing as how many other extremely similar cases are handled, I think there is a strong, strong personal bias. --{{user|Memoryman3}} 06:01, October 21, 2019 (EDT)
:I keep telling you there is no friggin' personal bias, stop going in circles groundlessly claiming that there is, it's immeasurably aggravating. Also "vehicle parts" are not the same type of entity to shared moves. This isn't apples and oranges, this is celery stalks and durians. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 06:14, October 21, 2019 (EDT)
:Yes, ''I'' think that's not enough to warrant a split - that's how opinions work. And I've backed up my opinion with actual relevant examples of naming and splitting policies being applied to such cases, as have several other people in their own dissenting opinions. This is including your constant circular argument of "but da wheels!!1!" and the repeated contesting that those scenario are exactly the same - despite the fact that I and others have repeatedly addressed them and explained how different types of subjects are and have been consistently handled with different types of coverage by the wiki (again, with ''actual'' citations of those examples). Your refusal to acknowledge that or other "inconvenient" facts are in no way evidence of any personal bias on our part, and to accuse others of bad faith at this point is both transparently sanctimonious and inflammatory. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 06:27, October 21, 2019 (EDT)
::Also, Doc, I understand this is aggravating, and a bit late in the process to give this kind of advice, but try not to get ''too'' heated. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 06:37, October 21, 2019 (EDT)
===Limit content for upcoming games===
{{ProposalOutcome|cancelled}}
This Wiki really doesn't hold back on spoilers for games that still have yet to come out, even if they're being leaked by people like Prosafiagaming what it seen is added to articles almost immediately which could also heavily spoil games for readers. This is also why I'm not contributing towards anything related to Luigi's Mansion 3 right now. So I think when putting information about games that still are not released officially yet, the only information that should be included are things seen in trailers or revealed by Nintendo themselves, which should hopefully cut back on spoilers and not ruin anyone's experiences with these games too badly, and then go all-out after it has released.
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Mario Sakuraba}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' November 5, 2019, 23:59 GMT<br>
'''Date withdrawn:''' October 29, 2019, 16:18 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Mario Sakuraba}} I just think even this wiki should be considerate to people who don't want to be spoilt.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} It's like spoiling something's name and/or physical appearance via fanart and/or in front of someone even before they could have seen the actual thing.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} We will not remove any spoilers, period.
#{{User|TheDarkStar}} - Per my principle of opposing proposals that exist solely to force through a personal opinion and are purely reactive in nature. We will ''not'' remove spoilers. End of story.
#{{User|Trig Jegman}} I feel like this has been explained through proposals before. Almost as though we have already made a judgement call on this.
====Comments====
[[User:Toadette the Achiever|Toadette the Achiever]] and [[User:TheDarkStar|TheDarkStar]] could you guys at least give a constructive argument or something rather than just saying "we're not removing spoilers"? And [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig Jegman]] where was this explained before? [[User:Mario Sakuraba|Mario Sakuraba]] ([[User Talk:Mario Sakuraba|talk]])
:[[MarioWiki:Courtesy#Censorship]] explains this nicely. "We're not removing spoilers" is a perfectly good vote reason, as this is a wiki. We don't censor info. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 10:54, October 29, 2019 (EDT)
::It's still coming off as pretty rude, which I really didn't want this to escalate too. [[User:Mario Sakuraba|Mario Sakuraba]] ([[User Talk:Mario Sakuraba|talk]]) 11:00, October 29, 2019 (EDT)
I should also point out that I'm not trying to be "forceful" about this, I'll accept without grudges if this doesn't go through. I at least want you all to be civilised here too. [[User:Mario Sakuraba|Mario Sakuraba]] ([[User Talk:Mario Sakuraba|talk]]) 11:12, October 29, 2019 (EDT)
:And what's to suggest they're being unconstructive and "uncivilised", aside from them perhaps being a bit more blunt than needed in making a valid statement? --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 11:21, October 29, 2019 (EDT)
===Impose stricter policies for renaming files===
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|4-7|no change}}
I think the wiki should have stricter policies for renaming files, and I will give reasons why. Before I start, I need to explain that I start the file renaming craze. In August 2018, I saw some bad file names on the ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'' page (e.g. KrashKlash.PNG) and felt it did not describe the article clearly enough. I moved the file name to [[:File:Krash DKC.png]]. While it doesn't specifically mention "sprite" in the title, it still gives us a rough idea of what the subject is about. My file renaming led to Porplemontage adding in an extra rule on the [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Image_use_policy&diff=2496268&oldid=2318154 image use policy].
Some months later, there has been a file renaming craze. Without getting into specifics here, this has not only led to correcting poorly named files. This has also led to minor things like "WW" being changed to ''[[Wario World]]'' simply because another game, ''[[Wario's Woods]]'', has the same abbreviation. However, [[Wild Swing-Ding]] is obviously not in ''Wario's Woods'', for others who know the game well enough.
Let's talk about the dashes/hyphens. Now I'm aware a recent rule has allowed them in subject name, but why should we move a file like [[:File:CharacterSelect-SSBMelee.png]] if it already describes the subject clearly enough? A hyphen or space, it won't describe the file name any more or less. I have seen a lot of file names with parentheses (ex. [[:File:Home-Run Contest (Super Smash Bros. Melee).jpg]]). Now for me, this isn't the most ideal way to name a file, but it still describes the article nonetheless. Sometimes it helps me not take a closer glance at the file name. For example, [[:File:Yoshi Artwork - Mario Party 6.png]]. If the file were named {{fake link|File:Yoshi Artwork Mario Party 6.png}} it would not separate the game name from the character and subject. This are other files that I believe should not be renamed. Again, we should only rename if it is evident that the image could use with a better name or is not described clearly enough.
Another issue is the category, [[:Category:Pages with broken file links]]. There's already 4,300+ pages in here, and if we keep renaming files unnecessarily, then it would only get larger and larger. I admit that I am guilty for adding to the list, since I have renamed/replaced many many images, but ultimately, does the average user want to be changing the file names on their userpage constantly? Only administrators can edit user pages as well, so users cannot fix the names of renamed images on their user pages.
Another thing is if I were quickly searching for a picture of, let's say, [[Rambi the Rhino]]. If all the images were named DKC Rambi or DKC2 Rambi, then it would be harder to find images on Rambi alone. Users could search on Rambi's article for images, but at least there's some diversity in file naming options. In my opinion, the diversity in file names corresponds to the inclusive nature of that Super Mario Wiki has.
File names are ultimately the backend to the wiki. It does not affect what the wiki is mainly about, providing content on the ''Mario'', ''Yoshi'', ''Wario'', and my favorite series of them all, the ''Donkey Kong'' series. The file is displayed the same whether it has a hyphen, a space, or even all the words lumped together (the lattermost option can be convenient in some cases, for instance, so that a user does not have to alternate between the Shift key and spacebar; i personally like the visibility for filenames, but I am just noting the option is there). The average reader will not notice the difference to a file name at all. If 50 files are being moved every hour, the poor administrators are being put to work deleting all the redirects, when we could be focusing on more important issues, such as [[:Category:Articles to be rewritten]], [[:Category:Articles that need an image]], or anything other under the [[:Category:Maintenance|maintenance]] category.
I think we could discuss some '''suggested''' naming standards to add to the image use policy. For example, I like the naming standard where it lists the subject, the game name/abbreviation, and then the type of image. The subject's name first because the image is about the character, the location, the item, etc. first and foremost. The game name or abbreviate shows the game that the character is in. Lastly, the type describes if the image is either artwork, sprite, screenshot, logo, etc. For example, Rambi DKC sprite.png . For the "type" part of the filename, i like to make it lowercase, since the 'type' is comparable to an identifier of an article. Words such as screenshot, sprite, and logo are common noun, so if I made them lowercase, it's quicker to distinguish the proper noun (like the game, character names) from the common noun (like the word 'sprite' or 'screenshot').
For screenshots, I tend to name based on whatever the context is about. For example, in ''Mario Kart Wii'', if Luigi is racing in Wario's Gold Mine, during the part where he encounters many Swoopers, I would name it like a sentence, e.g. "Luigi and Swoopers in Wario's Gold Mine MKWii.png". Keep in mind this is only an example and a suggestion on one of many possible ways I would clearly describe the file in shortest terms possible. For screenshots such as the start of World 1-1 in the 1985 ''Super Mario Bros.'' there would be less options for clearly naming the file as it's only Mario (or Luigi in 2P mode). For a file like this, I would name it "World 1-1 SMB1 start.png".
In short, the proposal is to more strictly regulate on when users can rename files, such as only if the extension is uppercase, or if the subject is not described clearly enough or has redundancy (e.g. "3293 mario 1.jpg" could be more accurately renamed to 'Mario in Castle Courtyard SM64.jpg'). All the examples for naming that I gave are suggestions, and I'd love to hear the community's input on this proposal.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 1, 2019, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Results May Vary}} - I am the person who made the proposal.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} My thoughts exactly.
#{{User|TheDarkStar}} - As someone with several gripes about the current file renaming craze (it floods the recent changes, breaks userpage files like crazy, and unnecessarily renames files), I have one word: ''Yes.''
#{{User|Metalex123}} - Tbh I don't really mind what kind of name a file has, as long as the name tells me what the file is about, then it's okay. If a file name uses the full name of the game instead of an abbreviated version, then no need to change the name, it still tells us what the file is about. If the file name is something like "File:9375073dk.PNG", then yeah, it needs to be changed cause it tells us basically nothing about what the file is about.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Alex95}} - See comment.
#{{User|Lord Grammaticus}} - Per Alex95 primarily - this seems more strict than would reasonably be necessary, and as indicated by Trig, even if he does somewhat agree with the sentiment I think it still would've been much more preferable to discuss this at length with him prior to immediately going for a shift in policy.
#{{User|Trig Jegman}} - I had to think long and hard about if I should make a statement here. Besides the comments I left, I want to be explicitly clear that '''we need a better system in place,''' <big>'''in my opinion.'''</big> However, this basically provides no real plan or structure to do so, and only really brings up the topic for people to be mindful of. I try my hardest to keep the impact of what I do as minimal as possible on both the Recent Changes page, and on the moderation staff's part. Until a formal plan that explicitly lists what actions will be taken to have a better naming scheme is made, I will be against the proposal.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all. I see no reason to change anything at all.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Proposed guidelines are too rigid to follow in my opinion, and I respectfully think Trig's solution is much better. Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Alex95.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Small improvement is still an improvement. If the wiki’s Recent Changes page is flooded with small improvements, it means that someone is hard at work doing the maintenance that will eventually help us in the long term. If it’s flooded with unneeded changes, then it’s better to clarify the issue directly with the user anyway, so ultimately this proposal might end up being redundant or even dangerous for people doing legitimate (and useful) maintenance work, as annoying as it might appear in the Recent Changes page. We have the “minor changes” flag for this purpose, after all, and guidelines that mandate its proper use.
====Comments====
Pretty sure the actual in-place rule is "don't rename files that are already named accurately," which has recently been broken to hell and back, <small>thus annoying ME to hell and back</small>. Anyways, I think that putting the game abbreviation before the subject makes infinitely more sense, as it's easier to find things in a licensing-based image category that way. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:11, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
:If that's one of the rules, this proposal should help make the rule stricter and more enforced. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 01:13, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
{{br}}
Well it's very ''very'' clear that this was targetted to me, or at least a majority of it is. I'm not necessarily upset about this, but I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that if I'm the main issue to you (the collective) here, that none of you would at least try to come to me about it? Hyphens were the only thing that were really ever brought up to me and even then a heavy majority of that conversation was more about what I was doing and not really asking ''why''. There's nothing stopping me from explaining why I choose to rename a file except that virtually nobody consults me on it. [[User talk:Trig Jegman|I have a talk page too, y'know]]. If something isn't working out, like hyphens or WW being split to Wario's Woods/Wario World (which I still deem as a valid change), I would be delighted to work it out and reach a consensus. ''Please don't assume I won't try and work with you.''
That's fine or whatever, I guess.
I'm close to supporting this, which may or may or not surprise you, with some exceptions in regards to Doc and I leaning more towards the Game-Object-Type format, and the disuse of parentheses in pages. I'm not sure if I would even stop there, either, as I think it would be better to rewrite/recreate the Image Use Policy to have a much clearer standard for the initial naming files, before addressing the rename of files as a new section.
To quote RMV, <small>''"Another thing is if I were quickly searching for a picture of, let's say, Rambi the Rhino. If all the images were named DKC Rambi or DKC2 Rambi, then it would be harder to find images on Rambi alone. Users could search on Rambi's article for images, but at least there's some diversity in file naming options. In my opinion, the diversity in file names corresponds to the inclusive nature of that Super Mario Wiki has."''</small> This statement is a part of why I have increased the general size of files I rename, because a lot of files have been along the lines of Mario1 or Waluigi3, which is not very descriptive.
EDIT (addition): Another interesting comment from TheDarkStar is <small>''"breaks userpage files like crazy"''</small>. I actually do sometimes make talk page comments about the files I change if I know offhand that the user is active. I can do this at a higher frequency if so requested of me.
In short, my biggest intent is that I should be able to look at a file name and know what is in the image and what game the image is from without seeing the picture.
I think overall if this had a little more structure to what would be changed, I would be happy to both help create a standard and to sign on said standard. As of now, however, this seems more of a concept than an action. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 10:46, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
:Pretty sure I've said it multiple times in edit summaries, and a few times amidst other complaints on your talk page. Anyways, when a subject that has appeared in a zillion games has a generic image title, that's one thing, but ones that appeared only once ages ago don't need that kind of specificity, and you've been treating them with equal importance. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:17, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
::I talked to Trig about this already, actually. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 12:21, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
First of all, we don't need to be strict about how we name things. Game-type-subject is a suggestion, not a requirement. As long as the image says what it needs to, the file name is fine. However, there can be multiple images with the same subject, such as [[:File:MP9 Mario.png]] and [[:File:Mario MP9.png]], so renaming them to be clearer is perfectly acceptable as well. The same holds true for images of subjects with both an artwork and a sprite image on the wiki, renaming the file to be distinct is helpful. But again, it's not a requirement, and it's up to the editor if they want to fix it.<br>As for files with certain punctuation, I believe the reasoning is not everyone has access to the same marks. You can see this in page redirects that use a different apostrophe, so renaming the file to remove hyphens, dashes, parenthesis, etc. when the file's subject ''doesn't use them itself'' is also helpful, and I actually recommend it happens.<br>For broken file links, things happen and time moves on. Images get deleted, moved, or replaced for a variety of reasons. There are [[Special:Statistics|199,923 pages, 27,883 users with most having userpages, and 115,370 images as of this proposal]]. That's a total of 343,176 pages of some type of content to look through, so I perfectly understand not wanting to look through everything and keeping it to just mainspace.<br>"Luigi and Swoopers in Wario's Gold Mine MKWii.png" - The Image use policy actually recommends against long names. Short and sweet is better.<br>To conclude, Trig's filename movement has been, I'll say, 92% helpful so far. There are a few points where I move file names back (not to mention personal images and 'Shroom images), but I have had no problem with his file changes otherwise. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:40, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
:::Look, the whole point of the proposal is for all of us to chill out about renaming too many filenames and let them be, so that we don't rename too many files. The proposal is not just about Trig but about all of us moving filenames. It's out of control. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 15:07, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
::::Then, instead of going straight to a proposal that can be seen as trying to force people's hands, perhaps an actual discussion with the people in question would probably help smooth things out, especially if you're worried about flooding Recent Changes or something similar. And in any case, trying to get people to 'chill out' by arguing for stricter rule enforcement tends to have the opposite of the desired effect, at least in my experience. --{{User:Lord Grammaticus/sig}} 15:23, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
:::::Alex95, The subject-game-type format for filenames was only me recommending a suggested format for naming a file. I know the proposal was long but if Trig's name scheme wants to be suggested in image use policy as well, then I'm ok with that. I'm not trying to dictate the wiki with my filenames. I can see why there's confusion, so I'm trying my best to explain myself. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 15:33, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
::::::For the most part, a majority of the file names have been to get them to work with our policy. They're only following rules, though I did add an amendment earlier to keep punctuation in the subject's name. If there's any major problem, an admin will say something to the mover. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:39, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
:::::::I was talking about dashes between words, for example: [[:File:Mario-amiibo-yoshi.png]]. moving a filename like this solely to remove the dashes are the main problems in my opinion [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 16:43, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
::::::::I don't see why they should stay, either. It's far easier to just hit the space key, and the dashes don't really add to the file name. Sure, removing them doesn't really change much, but they aren't all that necessary, either. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:49, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
I agree with the sentiment that images that already have clear titles shouldn't be renamed, and renaming titles specifically to remove things like dashes and hyphens is going overboard. That being said, this seems like something that needs a long discussion and probably shouldn't have been immediately rushed to the proposal stage. For that reason, I am remaining neutral. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 16:32, October 25, 2019 (EDT)
:I can see some are unsatisfied with my proposal. If it loses, can we settle on a compromise? for example only one change could be like: filenames with dashes should not be moved [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 19:07, October 26, 2019 (EDT)
::A discussion would be necessary for something like that. <small>Also, I'm for not moving filenames with dashes.</small> {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 19:17, October 26, 2019 (EDT)
===Create articles on the River Survival routes in ''Super Mario Party''===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|create}}
Honestly, I think there should be separate articles on the fifteen River Survival routes in ''[[Super Mario Party]]'', as they always have fixed layouts and are in fixed locations. After all, I already created the Challenge Road worlds due to a precedent already set with the Minigame Island worlds from ''[[Mario Party: The Top 100]]'', and this isn't too different.
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Toadette the Achiever}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' November 2, 2019, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Results May Vary}} - The more coverage the merrier <small>(I still need to make some more merchandise pages....)</small>
#{{User|TheDarkStar}} - Per proposal.
#{{User|Obsessive Mario Fan}} I think this seems necessary, given they are all separate areas in one whole mode. Per proposal.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Of course! Why didn't we think about that even before?
====Oppose====
====Comments====
This is the full list, in alphabetical order:
*[[Beyond the Jungle]]
*[[Blooper Pools]]
*[[Breakneck Pace]]
*[[Cheep Cheep Schools]]
*[[Cheep Cheep Swarms]]
*[[Eye of the Needle]]
*[[Gentle Beginning]]
*[[High-Flying Balloons]]
*[[Jumping Jeopardy]]
*[[Kamek's Curse]]
*[[Monster Attack!]]
*[[Rapids Run]]
*[[Rocky Sailing]]
*[[Rugged Ramps]]
*[[Waterfall Plunge]]
-{{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 18:02, October 26, 2019 (EDT)
===Clean up latest appearances for crossover characters===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|4-2|change latest appearances}}
Currently, the way we handle the latest appearance section on infoboxes for crossover characters in certain cases is a bit awkward. If the character's latest appearance is in a game that is a crossover with the Mario franchise, that game is listed alongside their latest appearance within their series. For characters who have not had installments in their series before a crossover installment, this becomes a bit awkward and we list both. Since I've probably lost you by this point, I'll provide some examples:
*Captain Falcon lists both F-Zero Climax (2004) alongside Super Smash Bros. Ultimate as his latest appearance.
*Samus and Ridley list both Metroid: Samus Returns (2017) alongside Ultimate as their latest appearance.
*Pit and Palutena list both Kid Icarus: Uprising (2012) alongside Ultimate as their latest appearance.
*Little Mac lists both Doc Louis's Punch-Out!! (2009) alongside a cameo in Luigi's Mansion 3 as his latest appearance.
(On an odd note, Banjo doesn't do this - maybe because his first appearance overall was Diddy Kong Racing? Not quite sure here)
This seems very odd to me because those crossover installments ARE their latest appearance, yet somehow it's treated as "lesser" solely because of its connection to the Mario series. This is especially awkward when we're dealing with "dead" franchises like F-Zero where the other "latest appearance" predates their true latest appearance by over a decade. Therefore, I propose that we remove these older games from the infobox '''solely in cases where the crossover installment in question was released after these games'''. Aside from Smash, this would probably affect a majority of our Sonic characters thanks to Rio 2020's very recent release. Characters who have since appeared in other games in their own series after the release of these crossover installments, such as Link and Kirby, would be unaffected by this proposal.
Frankly, I almost confused myself writing this, so if you have any questions please let me know in the comments.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 13, 2019, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal.
#{{User|TheDarkStar}} - Per proposal.
#{{User|WeirdDave13}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Obsessive Mario Fan}} Per proposal, which is also per all.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Tails777}} Honestly, I think it's fine the way it is. We're separating their appearances in their original franchises from their crossover appearances, regardless of the time difference between their latest appearances. Captain Falcon's last appearance in his own franchise was back in 2004. Most of the time, crossovers are their own franchises, so it still makes sense to list them separately. Smash Ultimate is Captain Falcon's latest appearance as a whole, but it's in a completely different series than F-Zero. Personally speaking, it makes sense to me. Though to speak for Banjo, as he did split off from Diddy Kong Racing, it's probably better to add his franchise into the mix as well, especially since he's now a third party character. In any case, I feel the current situation is fine the way it is.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Disagree to change anything.
====Comments====
@Tails777: I don't see why what franchise it is matters. What's your opinion on Kirby, who currently lists his latest appearance outside of crossovers as Link's Awakening for the Switch? No mention of the Kirby series there. Fox, Falco, and Wolf also list their latest non-crossover appearance as Starlink: Battle for Atlas, which isn't even a Star Fox game, but features the characters anyway exclusively on the Switch version. If we can neglect mentioning the Kirby/Star Fox franchises in those cases since their latest appearance in those franchises aren't ''actually'' their latest appearance, what's the big deal doing it for Smash/Mario & Sonic/any other Mario-relevant content? Are we really going to treat those games as "inferior" in some way just because they happen to be related to the franchise that this wiki is about? That doesn't make sense to me at all. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 16:10, November 6, 2019 (EST)
:Hmm, yeah, I see what you're getting at now. That is a bit of a tricky situation. I had two thoughts on solutions, though one isn't really correct and the other may make things look messier; my first thought would be to focus on the characters original franchise rather than dating their appearance in another different one, but that would end up leading to false information. My second thought was to simply add their latest appearance as a whole while retaining the latest appearance in their original franchises, but that would probably be a bit much. While I still disagree on removing an appearance in the home franchise that predates current crossover appearances, as I still stand by the whole original franchise thing, I can't truly speak for cases like Kirby and Fox, who's latest appearances aren't from their own franchises. Overall, I don't exactly know what to do in those cases. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
@FanOfYoshi: That sounds like a really weak vote to me. Do you have any reasons why you don't think it should be changed? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:15, November 12, 2019 (EST)
Lemme see if I have this right: You want to remove non-Smash latest appearances from the infoboxes if they are crossovers themselves, keep things just to their own series above and a Mario-related game below? I don't think any games are "inferior", but doing it that way, "latest" would be an inaccurate term. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 12:31, November 12, 2019 (EST)
:No, this would only affect characters where their "latest" appearance outside of a Mario-related crossover is not actually their latest appearance, like the examples listed in the proposal. So characters like Captain Falcon, whose "latest appearance" outside of these crossovers predates it by 14 years, would only show Smash Ultimate, while characters like Link and Kirby who have been in other games released since those crossovers are unaffected. Basically, the point of this proposal is to get rid of outdated latest appearances. Think Banjo and Kazooie, who for whatever reason already follow what I want to establish in this proposal and only list Ultimate in their infoboxes because that's the most recent game they appear in. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:35, November 12, 2019 (EST)
::Aaaand I just reread your comment and realized I misread it. Whoops. I have no intention of removing the Smash games from the infobox. As far as I care, they're just as related to the Mario franchise as other crossovers like Mario & Sonic are. What this proposal would do is remove games from their original franchise (or in awkward cases like the Star Fox characters currently, non-Mario games in general) from latest appearance in cases where that game is not actually their latest appearance. In most cases for affected characters, this would mean keeping only Super Smash Bros. Ultimate in their latest appearance section. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:43, November 12, 2019 (EST)
I know it's a bit late in the proposal for this, but I have created [[User:Waluigi Time/Sandbox#Proposal example|an example of the proposed changes]] in my sandbox if anyone's still confused. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 13:46, November 12, 2019 (EST)
===Decide how to name the ''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' for 3DS story mode episode articles===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0-0|descriptive title}}
Continuing with the clean-up of ''Mario & Sonic'' coverage, I've recently finished the last of the handheld event articles, so next I plan on moving onto creating articles for the episodes in the Story Mode of the 3DS version of ''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games''. For some context, the story mode is broken up into a number of episodes, each of which consist of a cutscene that sets up some events, a number of events or event medleys that must be completed to progress, followed by another cutscene. Based on that, the articles will consist of a summary of the plot, a list of the events including the rivals and entry characters for it, plus any special conditions certain events may have, and any other relevant information. However, before I can get started on any of this, there are a couple of issues that need to be resolved around the articles themselves- and first of these is the name. Each episode has three different names it goes by. One is a more descriptive title like the sort of thing you'd expect as an episode in a TV show, and is generally presented as the main one, as it usually appears in a larger font and in the centre of the screen, and I personally think that this is the best option. The second is a numbered title consisting of the character group and episode number, it usually appears as a subtitle but more closely matches the way that the episodes are referenced in badge descriptions outside of the story mode. However, while they are numbered roughly in order, it is a little muddled, for examples, there are an additional six episodes between Heroes Episode 2 and Heroes Episode 3, and Heroes Episode 2 is followed by Tricksters Episode 1, Tricksters Episode 2, Wild Ones Episode 1 and Wild Ones Episode 2. The numbers of each wildly vary as well, from two for the Wild Ones to five for the Heroes. Both of these titles also appear in the extra episodes without events. The last one is like a short form version of the second one, it only appears in events as a short way to identify which episode you're in. I really don't think we should use this one, but I'm just including it for the sake of completeness. Below is a table comparing the names of some of the episodes to more clearly show the difference.
{|border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 align=left
|-
!bgcolor="#dedede"|Descriptive
!bgcolor="#dedede"|Numbered
!bgcolor="#dedede"|Short Form
|-
|The Night Before
|Opening
| -
|-
|Stadium Blues
|Mario Episode 1
|Mario 1
|-
|Peach in a Pinch
|Girls Episode 2
|Girls 2
|-
|The Grand Showdown
|Final Episode
|Final Chapter
|-
|Junior Hits England
|Challengers Bonus 1
|Challengers +1
|-
|The Fog Returns
|Tricksters Bonus 3
|Tricksters +3
|}
{{br}}
Whatever the outcome, redirects of the other titles will be made to lead to the page. The names I'm using to refer to the titles are not official, but I'm just using these so that I don't have to use a long description every time I need it. If any of this is unclear or you'd like some more information, feel free to bring it up in the comments.
'''Proposer''': {{User|BBQ Turtle}}<br>
'''Deadline''': December 12, 2019, 23:59 GMT
====Descriptive Title====
#{{User|BBQ Turtle}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I feel like if I were to search for these articles, I would try looking for these names first.
#{{User|7feetunder}} Seems like the most logical option.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} As sensible as it gets. Not to mention that this option has precedent—[[User talk:Porplemontage/Archive 14#Mario Tennis Aces coverage issue|one that Porplemontage himself approved]].
#{{User|WeirdDave13}} Per all.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Since they are still in-game names, I’m fine with using the most descriptive ones
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|TheDarkStar}} - Per all.
====Numbered Title====
====Short Form Title====
====Comments====
As an extra note, there's a few other things that need to be sorted out before I can make these articles, but to try to save the number of proposals needed, I've got a [https://www.marioboards.com/threads/40067/page-2#post-2114224/ thread on the forums] that I would appreciate it if you could take a quick look at and share any thoughts you might have. Thank you! :) [[User:BBQ Turtle|BBQ Turtle]] ([[User talk:BBQ Turtle|talk]]) 16:38, December 5, 2019 (EST)
:Shouldn't there be a "Keep-as-is" option, in case of oppositions to change anything? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 11:55, December 7, 2019 (EST)
::There shouldn't. This is a proposal about what name to create the articles with, not a proposal to change the names of the articles. What would a "keep as-is" option do anyway? Create the articles without names? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 12:07, December 7, 2019 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/Special:MobileDiff/2780767...3895269"