MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m (these outcomes shouldn't really have contractions) |
||
(14 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
===The Case of ''Donkey Kong 64'' Sub-Areas=== | ===The Case of ''Donkey Kong 64'' Sub-Areas=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|4-0-5-0| | {{ProposalOutcome|passed|4-0-5-0|Do not split any sub-areas}} | ||
While inquiring about the Prima name of what we are now referring to as the [[Temple with Five Doors]] ([[Talk:Temple with Five Doors#Name revert?|discussion here]]), I posed another question. Why are the Temple with Five Doors and [[Llama's Temple]] (both parts of [[Angry Aztec]]) the ''only'' level-specific areas of ''[[Donkey Kong 64]]'' to have separate articles? They date back to 2012, which is old, but not stone age old. Either way, it doesn't really make sense to have articles for ''just'' these two. So you'd think the obvious solution would to just give articles to every other sub-area. After all, we have articles for stuff like [[Surf Cabana]] and [[Sand Cabana]], so why not? Well, there is one problem: names. | While inquiring about the Prima name of what we are now referring to as the [[Temple with Five Doors]] ([[Talk:Temple with Five Doors#Name revert?|discussion here]]), I posed another question. Why are the Temple with Five Doors and [[Llama's Temple]] (both parts of [[Angry Aztec]]) the ''only'' level-specific areas of ''[[Donkey Kong 64]]'' to have separate articles? They date back to 2012, which is old, but not stone age old. Either way, it doesn't really make sense to have articles for ''just'' these two. So you'd think the obvious solution would to just give articles to every other sub-area. After all, we have articles for stuff like [[Surf Cabana]] and [[Sand Cabana]], so why not? Well, there is one problem: names. | ||
Line 718: | Line 718: | ||
'''@Swallow:''' In what way would it clutter the infoboxes? It's the reason why I suggested including just the first playable appearance. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 14:27, November 15, 2023 (EST) | '''@Swallow:''' In what way would it clutter the infoboxes? It's the reason why I suggested including just the first playable appearance. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 14:27, November 15, 2023 (EST) | ||
===Rename pages with the full ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' title=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-4|rename articles to use shorter identifier}} | |||
Now that the Nintendo Switch [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|remake]] is out I think it would be a lot easier for pages like [[Spikey (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)|Spikey]], [[Pinwheel (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)|Pinwheel]] and many other like them to have their page titles to be shortened down to just ''Super Mario RPG''. I think it would not only make navigation much easier but would also look a lot nicer. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Annalisa10}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': November 25, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Rename the pages==== | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Super Game Gear}} Definitely sounds reasonable to me. | |||
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Easier, prettier, more recent and therefore more accurate. | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per all. I don't think anyone takes or should take "Super Mario RPG" to refer strictly to the remake just because it lacks a subtitle, especially since the phrase had been used for almost three decades as a shorthand for the original game. In fact, Nintendo themselves have referred to the two versions fully interchangeably (nintendo.com: "[https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/team-up-with-mario-and-an-oddball-group-of-heroes-in-super-mario-rpg-available-now/ the Paper Mario™ and Mario & Luigi™ series of games drew some inspiration from Super Mario RPG!]") | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per all; besides, the Japanese version for either game had always been called ''just'' "Super Mario RPG", without any subtitles. | |||
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|YoYo}} per all | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} As someone who's disappointed that Ted Woolsey, Aiko Ito, Rika Maruya and Noriko Wada were not directly credited in the remake despite the text largely being their handiwork (though it was to be expected that something like "Based on the Work of the Original Development Staff" would cover it) - I prefer keeping the originating version's subtitle, as we do with other identifiers. Removing the subtitle is more concise, but now, it can easily be confused with the remake of the same name, and give the wrong impression that the subject name originated there. (Of course, we could go the other direction per KCC's latest suggestion [[Talk:Scrapbook (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch)|here]], but that's out of this proposal's scope.) | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} For whatever reason, Nintendo seems keen to use simply ''Super Mario RPG'' to refer to the new Switch remaster, and the subtitle is stuck on the original release on SNES. To be honest, we're not quite sure what is best to do in this case, since no matter what it's likely going to sound at least a little clumsy. In lieu of a more elegant solution for disambiguating what belongs to the game as a whole and what's remaster-exclusive beyond simply putting a "(''Super Mario RPG'' for Nintendo Switch)" in the page title, like what we do for [[Scrapbook (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch)|the aforementioned scrapbook article]], we feel like we should probably just stick with that, as even if it is a little tacky, it's at least up-front and easily understood. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per | |||
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per all. I think we should address the way KCC suggested at the same time as this. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
So if this passes, would it also be applied to Donkey Kong Country 2 and 3? They similarly have subtitles for their original releases that later got ditched for their remakes. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:02, November 23, 2023 (EST) | |||
:I suppose it would make sense to do it for those as well. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:43, November 24, 2023 (EST) | |||
::No, because this proposal does not cover or even mention those games, and they're not the exact same case. ''Super Mario RPG'' is a Japanese-made game that had a subtitle tacked on for it's English release, while ''DKC2'' and ''3'' are English-made games that had their subtitles from the start. That would require a separate proposal. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 13:55, November 24, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::I was wondering if they could be changed because of the precedent that this would set without requiring their own near-identical proposal, which I don't think is unreasonable. And I'm not sure why language of origin matters here - as far as article titles are concerned, English names are always prioritised anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:12, November 24, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::Precedents established by a single proposal generally are not sufficient to justify making similar changes without so much as even a discussion. I've lost count of how many near-identical proposals we've had for merging ''Mario Party'' minigame modes. That's an extreme case that probably could have been handled more efficiently, but this is just a single proposal with a relatively small scope. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 15:44, November 24, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::I'm gonna echo Hewer and ask you to argue how language of origin is relevant here. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:57, November 24, 2023 (EST) | |||
===Move certain articles and galleries to subpages and create new disambiguation pages consisting of subpages=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|vetoed|This proposal violates [[MarioWiki:Lists]], our subpage policy. Passing this proposal requires a policy change, so this discussion should instead first focus on the general use of subpages, such as [[MarioWiki talk:Lists]]. The resulting proposal should be considered a writing guideline one (something like, request a change to how we generally deal with subpages), which lasts for two weeks.}} | |||
The Super Mario Wiki needs subpage articles and subpage galleries. I was wondering if there's a possibility to move certain articles and galleries into subpages. Here are some good examples: | |||
;Affected articles | |||
*[[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey bestiary|''Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey'' bestiary]] → {{fake link|''Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey''/bestiary|Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey/bestiary}} | |||
*[[List of Paper Mario enemy formations|List of ''Paper Mario'' enemy formations]] → {{fake link|''Paper Mario''/enemy formations|Paper Mario/enemy formations}} | |||
*[[List of drill spots in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam|List of drill spots in ''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam'']] → {{fake link|''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam''/drill spots|Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam/drill spots}} | |||
*[[Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope level up progressions|''Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope'' level up progressions]] → {{fake link|''Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope''/level up progressions|Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope/level up progressions}} | |||
*[[History of Shy Guys]] → {{fake link|Shy Guy/history}} | |||
*[[List of Bob-omb profiles and statistics]] → {{fake link|Bob-omb/profiles and statistics}} | |||
*[[List of Super Mario Galaxy quotes|List of ''Super Mario Galaxy'' quotes]] → {{fake link|''Super Mario Galaxy''/quotes|Super Mario Galaxy/quotes}} | |||
*[[List of Wii media]] → {{fake link|Wii/media}} | |||
*[[List of WarioWare: Twisted! media|List of ''WarioWare: Twisted!'' media]] → {{fake link|''WarioWare: Twisted!''/media|WarioWare: Twisted!/media}} | |||
*[[List of DS Airship Fortress tour appearances in Mario Kart Tour|List of {{classic|DS|Airship Fortress}} tour appearances in ''Mario Kart Tour'']] → {{fake link|{{classic|DS|Airship Fortress}}/tour appearances|DS Airship Fortress/tour appearances}} | |||
*[[List of Yoshi's New Island glitches|List of ''Yoshi's New Island'' glitches]] → {{fake link|''Yoshi's New Island''/glitches|Yoshi's New Island/glitches}} | |||
*[[List of Mario Party 7 in-game music|List of ''Mario Party 7'' in-game music]] → {{fake link|''Mario Party 7''/in-game music|Mario Party 7/in-game music}} | |||
*[[List of WarioWare: Move It! microgames|List of ''WarioWare: Move It!'' microgames]] → {{fake link|''WarioWare: Move It!''/microgames|WarioWare: Move It!/microgames}} | |||
*[[List of Super Mario Party minigames|List of ''Super Mario Party'' minigames]] → {{fake link|''Super Mario Party''/minigames|Super Mario Party/minigames}} | |||
*[[List of Super Mario Maker 2 pre-release and unused content|List of ''Super Mario Maker 2'' pre-release and unused content]] → {{fake link|''Super Mario Maker 2''/pre-release and unused content|Super Mario Maker 2/pre-release and unused content}} | |||
*[[List of Super Mario Bros. Wonder staff|List of ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' staff]] → {{fake link|''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''/staff|Super Mario Bros. Wonder/staff}} | |||
*[[List of Yoshi names in other languages]] → {{fake link|Yoshi/names in other languages}} | |||
*[[List of Cat Shine names in other languages]] → {{fake link|''Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury''/Cat Shine names in other languages|Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury/Cat Shine names in other languages}} | |||
*[[List of LEGO Super Mario set names in other languages|List of LEGO ''Super Mario'' set names in other languages]] → {{fake link|LEGO ''Super Mario''/set names in other languages|LEGO Super Mario/set names in other languages}} | |||
*[[List of Mario Kart Tour action names in other languages|List of ''Mario Kart Tour'' action names in other languages]] → {{fake link|''Mario Kart Tour''/action names in other languages|Mario Kart Tour/action names in other languages}} | |||
*[[List of Mario Party series music names in other languages|List of ''Mario Party'' series music names in other languages]] → {{fake link|''Mario Party'' (series)/music names in other languages|Mario Party (series)/music names in other languages}} | |||
*[[List of Mii Racing Suit names in other languages]] → {{fake link|Mii/Racing Suit names in other languages}} | |||
*[[List of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door quiz questions and answers in other languages|List of ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' quiz questions and answers in other languages]] → {{fake link|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door''/quiz questions and answers in other languages|Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door/quiz questions and answers in other languages}} | |||
*[[List of Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U) stamps|List of ''Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games'' (Wii U) stamps]] → {{fake link|''Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games'' (Wii U)/stamps|Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U)/stamps}} | |||
*[[List of Tayce T. recipes]] → {{fake link|Tayce T./recipes}} | |||
*[[List of Super Mario World (television series) songs|List of ''Super Mario World'' (television series) songs]] → {{fake link|''Super Mario World'' (television series)/songs|Super Mario World (television series)/songs}} | |||
;Affected galleries | |||
*[[Gallery:Mario artwork (media)]] → {{fake link|Gallery:Mario/artwork/media}} | |||
*[[Gallery:Mario artwork (miscellaneous)]] → {{fake link|Gallery:Mario/artwork/miscellaneous}} | |||
*[[Gallery:Mario scans]] → {{fake link|Gallery:Mario/scans}} | |||
*[[Gallery:Mario sprites and models]] → {{fake link|Gallery:Mario/sprites and models}} | |||
*[[Gallery:Mario screenshots]] → {{fake link|Gallery:Mario/screenshots}} | |||
*[[Gallery:Mario forms]] → {{fake link|Gallery:Mario/forms}} | |||
*[[Gallery:Luigi artwork and scans]] → {{fake link|Gallery:Luigi/artwork and scans}} | |||
*[[Gallery:Super Mario Maker artwork|Gallery:''Super Mario Maker'' artwork]] → {{fake link|Gallery:''Super Mario Maker''/artwork|Gallery:Super Mario Maker/artwork}} | |||
*[[Gallery:Super Mario Maker sprites and models|Gallery:''Super Mario Maker'' sprites and models]] → {{fake link|Gallery:''Super Mario Maker''/sprites and models|Gallery:Super Mario Maker/sprites and models}} | |||
*[[Gallery:Super Mario Maker screenshots|Gallery:''Super Mario Maker'' screenshots]] → {{fake link|Gallery:''Super Mario Maker''/screenshots|Gallery:Super Mario Maker/screenshots}} | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBB}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 2, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Most pages concerned in this proposal quite literally act as extensions to some bigger page, whether their title suggests it or not--reminder that [[List of Yoshi names in other languages]] was split off of the [[Yoshi]] article. Policy merely makes excuses for a reason I can only assume to be the continuation of this wiki's old practices or blind following of Wikipedia. With this premise in mind, I've got to ask how could one find the current titles more "natural and readable"? They contain superfluous words and may necessitate awkward and cumbersome phrasing to be able to get the message across under current policy, e.g. "List of Mario Kart Tour action names in other languages". Imagine if file addresses on your PC were identified with verbiage the likes of "This file is located in this folder on D drive of Mr. Chucklefuck's system" instead of the more elegant "C:/folder/file". | |||
#{{User|Super Game Gear}} I gave this some thought, and I think I'm going to have to agree with this proposal. Some of the list names are very long, and can be more annoying to type on certain devices, such as mobile. When it's subpages, it's also a better way of expressing that any list pages focused on a certain subject in particular goes with that subject, and by extension is giving you more information on that subject in particular. This could definitely solve an issue where the information would otherwise be scattered all over the place. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Koopa con Carne and Super Game Gear. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ <- What's the difference? Slashes are always more trouble than they're worth. Just like this change. | |||
#{{User|YoYo}} talk about overcomplicating things. not just is this an issue that doesn't need fixing, but the solution is also not that much more efficient. Also define "certain" because that heavily implies only ''some'' articles would be affected by this - creating an inconsistency as well. in the end, this creates more problems than it fixes. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per YoYo. The oddly specific applications across only a few articles makes this extremely confusing, especially since it seems like this will ''only'' cover the aforementioned articles, rather than just ''all'' bestiaries, or ''all'' lists of music, or ''all'' lists of glitches, or ''all'' history articles (haven't those things suffered enough naming issues??), or ''all'' pre-release content, or... well, you get the point. And, on top of that, the fact that some of the examples, such as the Mario Artwork ones, require nested slashes, is... Grody, to say the least. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per everyone, and myself: "There is no point in change for the sake of change." | |||
#{{user|Mario jc}} Per [[MarioWiki:Lists]]: "''The Super Mario Wiki does not use subpages in the main article namespace. This is because: Article titles should be as natural and readable as possible. Articles should be able to exist on their own merit and not just as an extension of an existing page.''" | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Subpages should be for userspace only. | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all. | |||
#{{user|Axis}} I never liked the idea of subpages in (Main). They're always more difficult to find, and the title doesn't look as good. Linking to them always felt off. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Not really sure why this is an issue that needs fixing (the proposal doesn't even argue the case beyond "This is a thing that needs to happen" with no explanation), and personally I think subpages are slightly ugly and more trouble than they're worth. I remember being very lost on WiKirby trying to find some information only to later realise it was hidden in a bunch of subpages with easily missable links. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
My proposal is being declined because subpages are for user pages only [[MarioWiki:Lists|per Super Mario Wiki policy]]. Can we cancel the proposal? {{User:GuntherBB/sig}} 12:13, November 26, 2023 (EST) | |||
:I don't think that's possible, seeing that there's already support for the proposal (me being one of the people supporting it). [[User:Super Game Gear|Super Game Gear]] ([[User talk:Super Game Gear|talk]]) 13:09, November 26, 2023 (EST) | |||
===Include primary Power-up sections for ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' courses=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|gray|canceled by proposer}} | |||
'''NOTE: This proposal affects all courses in ''[[Super Mario Bros Wonder]]''. | |||
Many users on the Mario Wiki, including myself have been creating articles for courses in the newest mainline ''[[Mario (series)|Mario]]'' game: ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''. One thing that hasn't been noted is what power-ups are primarily featured in the courses (e.g. [[Elephant Fruit]] in [[Welcome to the Flower Kingdom!]] and [[Bubble Flower]] in [[Missile Meg Mayhem]]). And so, I have presented three options for users to vote in: | |||
'''Option 1:''' Create a new section just for naming what power-ups are featured in the course. It would be listed under the "layout" section. | |||
'''Option 2:''' Have the power-ups mentioned in another section. The most likely section would be "Layout". If anyone has any more ideas, please make a comment. | |||
'''Option 3:''' Do nothing. Just do nothing. Simple as that. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 13, 2023, 23:59 (GMT) | |||
====Create a new section for the power-ups featured==== | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} My preferred option. It will let readers know what the primary power-ups are without it being buried in another section. | |||
====Have the power-ups mentioned in another section==== | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
This proposal could easily apply to all Mario platformers, not just Wonder. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 10:58, December 6, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Does it even ''need'' a proposal? A simple QoL feature can just be added. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:06, December 6, 2023 (EST) | |||
::Maybe it doesn't need a proposal at all. Maybe the power-ups can be put into the course template? {{User:Sparks/sig}} December 6, 2023, 11:10 (EDT) | |||
:::Probably just a list like the enemies get. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:12, December 6, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::Very well! I shall cancel this proposal. {{User:Sparks/sig}} December 6, 2023 11:15 (EDT) | |||
=== Have stricter policies for one-off generic species characters === | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|4-16|do not change policy}} | |||
[[File:Chanterelle.png|thumb|left|We have an article for [[Chanterelle (The Super Mario Bros. Movie)|this one Toad]] with very little information. Why? Because they have a name. Yep.]] | |||
What a mouthful of a title, but I don't know what to call this. This proposal concerns the articles [[Flaky]], [[Jerry (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story)|Jerry]], and [[Chanterelle (The Super Mario Bros. Movie)|Chanterelle]]. I'll add more if users keep bringing in more. The gist is that these are minor characters based on [[Flurry|their]] [[Magikoopa|respective]] [[Toad (species)|species]], which doesn't sound like a bad idea initially. Still, their articles aren't that useful. Flaky is a ''terrible'' article that is horribly padded on a minor Flurry and even explains things not relevant to them (I'm not even sure if the character has official pronouns). It also speculates that they appear in certain scenes, ''which is a bad sign''. Jerry's article is '''three sentences long''' and could see a merge with the regular Magikoopa article. And Chanterelle is a briefly seen Toad who appears for a few seconds. The justification for these articles is that they are named characters and should get articles unless you're [[List_of_implied_characters#Johnson_.28X-Naut.29|Johnson]]. | |||
This proposal isn't concerned about merging all these characters at this very moment; that can come in many different proposals. Instead, '''I suggest a [[User:TheUndescribableGhost/Incidental characters|policy]] to prevent these articles from coming into play here.''' With this policy, '''some articles that feature a rather generic representative of a species with very few character traits that would instead get a merge with their species articles or at least in a list.''' Currently, there doesn't seem to some policy that is against the idea of having these characters aside from the [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs|Minor NPCs]] policy which really only covers conjecturally named NPCs and not characters who ''are'' named but only have very few traits and not even a unique design. However, their redirects will still have categories so that users can know the different members of their species when browsing them. In a perfect world, [[User:TheUndescribableGhost/Examples of characters being merged with their species#The_Super_Mario_Bros._Super_Show.21|Flaky would get a mention in Flurry's article]], [[User:TheUndescribableGhost/Examples_of_characters_being_merged_with_their_species#Mario_.26_Luigi:_Bowser.27s_Inside_Story_.2F_Mario_.26_Luigi:_Bowser.27s_Inside_Story_.2B_Bowser_Jr..27s_Journey|we put Jerry in Magikoopa]], [[User:TheUndescribableGhost/Examples_of_characters_being_merged_with_their_species#Toad_.28species.29|and we would merge Chanterelle with Toad (species).]] It's worth noting that we have recently been creating history articles so that they can go there instead. An argument users may use is that they are named characters and, therefore, must get articles no matter what. So what I want to tell you is this: '''How helpful are these articles?''' Sure, they are pretty interesting one-off characters, but are people dying to see a whole article on them? | |||
Imagine if one Goomba was named Bob in one cutscene and had no other traits in some random ''Super Mario'' game. Then, one day, we made an article describing him and mentioning his bare-bones character traits. I don't know about you, ''but I learned nothing from it.'' We even merged [[Talk:Koopaphobia|Koopaphobia]], a fictional phobia, with [[Indiana Joe]] because he's the kingpin for that phobia, the entire thing is played as a joke, and nothing is getting lost by integrating it with him. Our lord and savior, [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Junior_(II)|Pink Donkey Kong Jr.]], is now merged with who his [[Donkey Kong Jr.|counterpart was]], and not everything was lost through the merge. [[Cowboy Jed]] has a son who does not get a separate article, but we mention it in his article. And all three ''[[List of Boos in Luigi's Mansion|Luigi's]] [[List of Boos in Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon|Mansion]]'' [[List of Boos in Luigi's Mansion 3|games]] have lists for each of the named Boos. We aren't missing much by merging these fellas; no offense to them, especially the pink little guy. | |||
Note that we aren't merging these articles right now but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles. That way, we don't have to create concise articles that say nothing. After this, we can create proposals to merge certain articles that feature a named character with very little traits that make them unique from their species. It is worth noting that if they do return in a later work and have tons of new character traits, they ''can'' finally get their articles. It's the curse that set [[Ashley]] and [[Red (WarioWare series)|Red]] free. | |||
'''EDIT 12/1/23:''' I have some new clarifications, as well as some new additions as well. [[Baby_Penguin#Super_Mario_64_.2F_Super_Mario_64_DS|Firstly, Tuxie is yet another case of us merging a rather minor character.]] So there is that for you. Lastly, some new additions people have suggested: | |||
*[[Kuribo]]: Member of some Sockops who is part of a group of character rather than his own. | |||
*[[Gary (Super Paper Mario)|Gary the Goomba]]: [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Characters#Goomba_.28Super_Paper_Mario_character.29|Infamous for his best friend]] [[Talk:Goomba_(Super_Paper_Mario_character)|at one point having a hilarious article.]] Just some generic grunt really. | |||
*[[Socially Awkward Piranha Plant]]: Literally a goddamn meme. | |||
*[[Johnson (Super Paper Mario)|Johnson the Koopa Troopa]]: Generic Koopa Troopa with no notable traits other than his name. | |||
*[[Hammer Bro captain]]: Uses a conjectural name. Even if this proposal failed, you can make a good argument for not even needing this article. | |||
*[[Private Koopa]]: Not too sure about this but the description doesn't convince me otherwise. Just a secret agent Koopa who doesn't even use a unique design. | |||
The only one I did not include was [[Red Shy Guy (character)|Red Shy Guy]] and that's mainly because of his unique history section. Therefore, I don't think it's that big of a deal. That being said, the name is quite generic, so there's that. I admit I haven't played the RPG games, so there's that. I'm also not putting Izzy on here because he's connected to some event. Sure, his article is pretty short but to claim he's an incidental character is incorrect. At the very most, he could be merged with The Play Nintendo Show and at the very least, he could stay. On another note, I have finally made a conceptual [[User:TheUndescribableGhost/Incidental characters|policy]] for what it could look like if this proposal is a success. I'll occasionally update this when given certain suggestions. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|TheUndescribableGhost}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per all; I've been wondering for a while why Gary from ''Super Paper Mario'' gets to stay when he's even less of a character than his unnamed Goomba friend that got merged with the prime Goomba article a while ago, also due to proposal. | |||
#{{User|Super Game Gear}} Per Sparks and others. | |||
<s>#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal, but especially Arend--why [[Gary (Super Paper Mario)]] keeps his article but we have long since merged his unnamed partner that was ''more substantial than him'' is beyond us. It just seems kinda silly to have all these full articles for one-off characters with absolutely zero distinctions to them beyond their name, and while there's a few notable exceptions that hold key relevancy to part of a game's plot (such as, say, [[Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King)]], a character where a lot of the point is that he is entirely indistinguishable but ''trying'' to be unique through his actions), they are absolutely few and far between and you can count them on basically one hand.</s> | |||
<s>#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.</s><br> | |||
<s>#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Makes total sense to me. Gary, come home... to the main Goomba article...</s><br> | |||
<s>#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} I've adressed Koopa Captain not so long ago, and this proposal pretty much sums it up, so definitely up for it. Per proposed.</s><br> | |||
<s>#{{User|Sparks}} These characters, especially Jerry are just articles of very short information because they are "unique" compared to their species. Per all.</s> | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Mario}} Oppose mostly on technicality: there are too vague of provisions on this proposal. This proposal identifies an issue which I agree with. But it doesn't outline a clear method of action to take besides "delete articles of subjects that are too minor to justify a page". I believe deleting one-liner tiny pages of non-notable members clearly meant as a throwaway name to establish a world is already fairly standard wiki practice, but admittedly inefficient (you either hope your talk page comment gets enough replies to swiftly delete or you run a proposal that runs for two weeks that gets a pretty good consensus in like, under 24 hours). Also as this proposal mentions, several of these pages are being dealt with in talk pages more than a few times, such as named Scarescraper ghosts, "Koopaphobia", Pink Donkey Kong Jr., and whatnot. Enacting this proposal due to its vague provisions is going to be a challenge, and while the current examples are obvious, we may run into some articles that might bring up disagreements (Will the minor friendly NPCs in the Paper Mario games be affected? All? A few? Most? One example. People are already bringing up other examples in the comment section that just seems better off on case-by-case discussions) and we already have a bit of a backlog of these kinds of proposals. The proposal ends with "but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles." What policy? Can we see a draft of it? Where will it go? I'd like to see what this policy entails in before the proposal is made. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Mario. I don't have a problem with these types of articles myself, but I'd rather have an addition to [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs]] that would allow for discretion that we can then address on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket proposal like this. | |||
#{{User|Axis}} Even with the updated proposal, I do not believe the guidelines for which character should or shouldn't have a page are clear enough, the current policy is consistent and understandable for everyone. Would we need to go through every character and individually discuss every single minor NPC from this point on? Would minor NPCs from the Paper Mario series be merged now, and which ones should stay? I believe consistency takes precedent over redundancy. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} This only makes it harder to determine which characters do and don't get merged and generally has the potential to make it harder to find information. I think the logic behind the current policy that an individual name means an individual character is fine, and I don't really see what the problem is with having these articles, short or otherwise. Something being minor or obscure is a bad reason for it to not get a page in my opinion. | |||
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Hewer. | |||
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} I can agree to sorting out which minor, one-off characters deserve articles or not, especially with the meme in the examples, but I kinda have to agree with the opposition here. Per Mario and Axis notably. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Ninja Squid}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} I Changed my vote to Oppose. As weird as it is that these characters have articles, I can agree with the others here about which characters would be affected by this proposal. It's too vague and would cause a lot of confusion if this passes. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} It would be tedious to redirect evry affected minor charatcer article to its "list of" section. Opposing. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Joining the "changed our vote" club; as Mario pointed out, this is likely something we'd be better off addressing on a case-by-case basis first. Once we've gotten most/all the cases covered, ''then'' we can talk about a more generic policy to instate that fits with what we found. Until then, though, this just runs the risk of hitting way too much, way too hard. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
BIS also has [[Kuribo]], instead of logically redirecting to [[Goomba]]. In my opinion, it is hands-down the worst offender of this. Another thing all have in common is being throwaway names in group scenes, so no individual plot importance. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:20, November 30, 2023 (EST) | |||
Would [[Gary (Super Paper Mario)|Gary (''Super Paper Mario'')]] also fit? His unnamed partner with about as little story relevance [[Talk:Goomba (Super Paper Mario character)|was merged]] into [[Goomba]] (now [[History of Goomba]]) a while back. We'd barely even have to change the [[History of Goomba#Super Paper Mario|''Super Paper Mario'']] entry in question — just replace the link on Gary's name with bold markup. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 15:48, November 30, 2023 (EST) | |||
@TheUndescribableGhost: I guess you could include [[Socially Awkward Piranha Plant]] too lol. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:53, November 30, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Oh my gosh, that one NEEDS to be on BJAODN! The title alone is already hilarious. {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:58, November 30, 2023 (EST) | |||
::The [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Characters|Characters]] page on BJAODN is getting quite long as-is, so I'm thinking about creating a "Minor/incidental characters" page for BJAODN with every character that ends up getting merged through this proposal as well as [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Characters#Goomba (Super Paper Mario character)|Goomba (''Super Paper Mario'' character)]] and [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Characters#Koopa (Mario Party DS)|Koopa (''Mario Party DS'')]]. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 16:06, November 30, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::Well, I guess there's no need for that BJAODN page! I agree with the idea of merging these incidental characters and thus choose to abstain rather than oppose, but we should look at them on a case-by-case basis rather than creating a policy with no cutoff point for notability. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 13:06, December 3, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Eh, I'd say that one's as valid as [[Izzy]]. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:03, November 30, 2023 (EST) | |||
::Izzy actually co-hosted an official Nintendo show with a series of episodes, though. Socially Awkward Piranha Plant is just an obscure meme only posted on Nintendo's social media once. I'm for merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant, but Izzy can stay. [[User:Super Game Gear|Super Game Gear]] ([[User talk:Super Game Gear|talk]]) 16:41, November 30, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::^I agree with you on merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 17:40, November 30, 2023 (EST) | |||
Maybe also [[Johnson (Super Paper Mario)]] who was only named to be part of a running gag of the series. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 15:58, November 30, 2023 (EST) | |||
:On that note, the [[Hammer Bro captain]] (whose name is ''conjectural'') and [[Private Koopa]] could be included as well. {{User:Arend/sig}} 09:25, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
Maybe [[Sunset Express Shy Guy]] too? His article is definitely more detailed than the others mentioned, so maybe he won't be affected by this proposal. He doesn't offer much to the story though unlike [[Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King)]], so who knows? {{User:Sparks/sig}} December 1, 2023, 09:37 (EDT) | |||
@Supporters: Thank you so much for the help I'm getting on the proposal! I wasn't expecting this one to get a lot of support. Special thanks to Doc von Schmeltwick, SolemnStormcloud and Koopa con Carne for helping me here. And yes arend, I would totally love a section like that. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 12:29, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
@Mario: Thanks for mentioning this as I may have not made it that clear. My intent is to enforce a policy that states that if a incidental character in question doesn't have enough traits to be notable on having a wiki article, they'll be merged elsewhere. Currently, there isn't a policy on this aside from a similar one regarding [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs|Minor NPCs]] which judging by its description, would pretty much allow instances ''if'' that character has a name. The examples I provided where characters who don't have that many traits as of now to make an article actually useful. Keep in mind we aren't doing anything to the articles right now; that will happen if this proposal ends up being successful. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 13:34, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Isn't the scope of this proposal just kind of the general aim for this policy page anyway? There's already an implicit guideline concerning potential conjecturally-named NPCs: "if a minor NPC '''can be shown to have importance to the game or story'''" There even is an old revision to the page that might've been made to deal with these kinds of articles (although insufficient admittedly)[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Minor_NPCs&oldid=221393] but later removed to allow for user disrection[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Minor_NPCs&diff=232399&oldid=221393] (and yeah individual discretion seems like my way to go with these kinds of pages). So would this proposal effect changes to this page? {{User:Mario/sig}} 13:41, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
::Well, that policy only mentions Minor NPCs that don't have a name. Plus, I also brought up two character are from a TV show and a movie who aren't NPCs by technically because they aren't video game characters. The Minor NPCs policy is rather vague on this and only exists to make sure Goomba (''Super Paper Mario'' character) doesn't happen. I guess I can look into what Waluigi Time suggested. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 14:08, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
I do think that NPCs in standard gameplay of the first three Paper Mario games should be exempt, as they all have tattles that provide some insight into who they are. Not so much the ones from the glorified cutscenes in Castle Bleck. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:07, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
:^Agreed. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 15:29, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Which ones are you talking about? [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 16:17, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
::All of the named minor characters you can tattle on the field in PM, TTYD, and SPM. For instance, the people of [[Flipside]] who all have their own little personalities despite just being "talk to" characters. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:06, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
@Axis Can you name character that you're confused about in regards to this proposal? [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 15:36, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
I'll have to address an error to one entry of the list of additional suggestions in your latest edit: "Johnson the Hammer Bro". Johnson is actually a Koopa Troopa, as stated in his article, and it's also made clear in the caption of the article image that Johnson is on the very ''right''. The Hammer Bro on the very ''left'' of the same image is actually still the [[Hammer Bro captain]] (he's Johnson's captain, which is the reason for his conjectural name in the first place). {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:44, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
@Hewer: "This only makes it harder to determine which characters do and don't get merged and generally has the potential to make it harder to find information." The proposal clearly mentions that it'll to be easy find certain information. For example, if one wants to find Flaky, they can type their name in the search box and be redirect to the section of the Flurry article. "and I don't really see what the problem is with having these articles, short or otherwise. Something being minor or obscure is a bad reason for it to not get a page in my opinion." The proposal is concerning articles that are so short, they aren't helpful in the slightest. Why is the [[Chanterelle (The Super Mario Bros. Movie)|Chanterelle]] article is totally fine to keep when they just say hi to Toad? If they were merged with the Toad species, nothing is getting lost here. Or Flaky in which the article tries speculating where they appear. I mentioned the hypothetical Bob the Goomba example. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 16:16, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Why is the Chanterelle article not fine to keep when they're a named character? If we were to merge [[Toad General]] with the Toad species, or [[Chef Toad]], or [[Toad]], no information would be lost. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the best choice for organisation. I don't see what the issue would be with the hypothetical Bob the Goomba - there not being much to say about a subject doesn't make it an invalid subject to have its own article. And Flaky's article should be improved to not have speculation, that's not really an argument for or against this proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:31, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
::Toad General is fine to keep because he actually has some unique characteristics. Ditto for Chef Toad. Really, I can't make more arguments since you think it's perfectly okay to have these articles which is fine; I just can't really refute these points. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 17:48, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
I'm going to try to review the proposed policy page [[User:TheUndescribableGhost/Incidental characters]]. I'd like to add that if an incidental character/object is recurring despite of a meager role and a simple subject of a running gag (say for instance, some Toad is called Sam in a random joke and then you see someone refer to Sam again in the ending of the game, or you see Sam being mentioned again in a sequel; this is like Johnson but you see "Sam" the couple of times he's mentioned) it probably should be also worth an article. Try not to be too disappointed if this proposal fails, okey dokey? Even if this doesn't pass, it's probably worth keeping these "notability" guidelines in mind and still attempt articles for deletions and whatnot with that framework. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:30, December 1, 2023 (EST) | |||
:It's fine, Mario; I think it's really cool we're having these discussions and I can sorta see why people are hesitant because it's hard to draw the line. The Sam example I do agree with to some degree. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 10:52, December 2, 2023 (EST) | |||
An idea just dawned upon me. Why don't we have a page titled "List of named incidental characters" or something like that where we can put the content of all of these pages, like what we have for implied characters? There wouldn't be any information lost, and the content of a named character wouldn't be awkwardly merged with the species article if it caused any problems. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 00:11, December 3, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Because the line between incidental and not is much harder to draw than the line between implied and not. How minor does a character have to be to be "incidental"? There's no real metric that can be used. Not to mention it may end up being a very big page depending on where that arbitrary line gets drawn, especially since these characters all have images unlike most of the implied characters. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:46, December 3, 2023 (EST) | |||
::Yeah, a list is a bad idea. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 11:56, December 3, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::I did make it a point to specify ''named'' "incidental" characters, which I don't think are nearly as numerous as you seem to worry. And I think this proposal already provides a good guideline for what characters could be considered incidental. Heck, I'd argue that an "incidental" character list would be more clear-cut than the implied characters list, which includes characters ranging from King Croacus IV's [[Flora Kingdom royalty|predecessors]], which actually have visible paintings of them, to a name-drop of [[List_of_implied_characters#Mr. Bean|Mr. Bean]] clearly intended as a throwaway pop culture reference, and even [[List_of_implied_characters#Johnson (X-Naut)|Johnson]], who isn't "implied" at all; he actually appears in-game, more like the "incidental" characters we're talking about if anything. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 13:52, December 3, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::I've thought for a while that Johnson (and also King K. Rool's wife) should be split from the implied characters list since they aren't implied, and I'm not sure what the Croacus rulers are doing there seeing as they have their own page. In theory, though, "is never seen" is a much more objective definition than "is minor". The number of "minor" characters could vary greatly depending on where we arbitrarily draw the line (there's a reason we have a [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs|policy page]] on them, after all). You specifying named characters doesn't really help, it just makes me question what the fate of any conjecturally named NPCs would be if we deem them too "minor" to stay. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:56, December 4, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::Doesn't the Mario Wiki already "draw a line" by merging generic characters into the species article simply based on whether they have a unique name or not? I'd argue that throwaway characters like [[Chanterelle (The Super Mario Bros. Movie)|Chanterelle]] are due for a merge/deletion by most of the same reasoning used for [[Talk:Goomba (Super Paper Mario character)|Goomba (''Super Paper Mario'' character)]]. Sure, maybe using the name as a base isn't "arbitrary", but I think the "arbitrary" drawing of a line would make for a better wiki. I don't see how these short articles being compressed into a list is a bad thing, either. It's more convenient, and if anything being taken to a four sentence-long page can be annoying. This is a sort of Mario Wikipedia after all, and Wikipedia itself seems to have restrictions against making individual articles that are niche from a global perspective.<br>And as for conjectural NPCs, I don't see how making a definition for "minor" characters would change anything. Arguments about when conjecturally titled characters stop becoming notable have been happening since the dawn of the wiki. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 13:51, December 4, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::::I'd say having an individual name is a pretty good way to determine that it's an individual character, and disagree that being redirected to a big list page is more convenient than having an individual, non-implied character get an individual page. I just generally don't see what the problem is with having articles like this or why the policy should be changed. And you can't compare the policies of Wikipedia, which needs guidelines on how notable things have to be to get covered, with the policies of a wiki intending to provide complete coverage of everything in the Mario franchise. The two wikis have different policies because they have different goals. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:18, December 4, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::::Characters being "individual characters" isn't the main factor that gives them their own articles. Just look at the implied characters list: Chief Quimby very much is an individual, and he also contributes to the plot of [[Defective Gadgetry]] by calling Inspector Gadget. I think the main reason he doesn't have his own article, aside from the fact that the implied character list exists, is because he has a one-time role in the Mario series, and has basically no information given about him in the Mario franchise. Though with that said, a couple of the examples given above ''do'' have a notable amount of information (namely Jerry, Gary, etc.), an amount of information roughly equivalent to that of a Paper Mario NPC like [[Bozzo]], so I guess I've kind of come around to opposing the proposal. Now, Kuribo and Chanterelle? I don't agree with those, but they will likely be handled in a talk page proposal. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 16:03, December 4, 2023 (EST) | |||
=== Stop separating alternate -VISUAL- media artwork in image galleries === | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-8|Keep them separated}} | |||
Something that's been bothering me for a while is that singular character/species/item artwork for non-game -VISUAL- media (for instance, ''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show'' and ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'') are separated from game artwork and usually awkwardly crammed into a "miscellaneous" section for stock images (another issue for later) and random things like concept art, icons, and official memes. I see no reason why these pieces of artwork created for a defined piece of -VISUAL- media should be shunted below the others just because of the medium used; after all, computer applications like ''[[Super Mario Bros. Print World]]'' do get to be included among the games. | |||
'''Clarification:'''<br> | |||
{{color|NO MERGE:|red}} Screenshots, sprites/models/cels, full scans - including game cards reusing pre-existing stock art, generic-nonspecific-promotional artwork, box art, photographs<br> | |||
{{color|DO MERGE:|green}} Promotional artwork for characters and objects specifically made for and associated with a particular show/book/movie/non-video-based game | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 11, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per. | |||
#{{user|DesaMatt}} - Per proposal. | |||
#{{user|Super Game Gear}} Great points made. Per proposer. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} While you could argue there are some edge cases where a case-by-case basis is warranted, '''''in general''''' there isn't really a case where these things exceed enough appearances for their own subset of the gallery except for like... Maybe [[Mario]] and [[Bowser]], who ''already'' have parts of their galleries (namely the screenshots) split off into entire media categories because of stuff like [[King Koopa's alter egos|Bowser's copious amount of alternative costumes in the cartoons]] or Mario being the titular character of a multimedia franchise; in the case of galleries where this ratio is a lot slimmer, however--like, say, [[Gallery:Bowser artwork and scans|Bowser's character art in specific]] only having one image for DiC King Koopa instead of ''a notable percentile of the page'', melding the non-game media in with their overall game appearances rather than into their stock art sections would make more sense to us. And, as we mentioned, in any sort of edge-case, we can pretty easily handle that in the future; especially since said "edge cases" most likely pertain to the largest galleries on the site, which are generally impacted the least by already having the multimedia split for different reasons. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Cramming them into the often much larger game installments section isn't much better either. They are not games, so I think they are fine where they are. If anything, an option to separate them from both games and miscellaneous would fare better. | |||
#{{User|Okapii}} Per LadieSophie. I wouldn’t be opposed to creating a separate gallery section for more prominent non-game media, but shoving them in alongside models and renders from the games would be messy. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} Concerns here. Are we going to organize Fake Mario Show by episode or by when the show launches? Are there instances where game installments have been released in between episode windows? Should we try to fill every episode for the show? Is it a good idea to apply this proposal to all character galleries or only particular ones (like [[Gallery:Mario artwork (media)|Mario's gallery]] vs [[Gallery:Paragoomba|Paragoomba's gallery]]); this has been brought up in a ''support'' vote by Camwoodstock which should be a provision in a proposal ''first''. How is "alternate media" or "nongame media" defined? Are we going to also merge scans and merchandise images? Is promotional art in general gonna be merged? Will the group art in Mario's gallery be merged? There's definitely something pictured in the proposer's head like cartoon screenshots, Mario Supershow individual art, and comic book scans, but it's not defined in the proposal. As I said with "Have stricter policies for one-off generic species characters", this proposal has an issue that I think brings up valid points, but the solution outlined is too vague. Enforcing this can end up creating unforeseen problems. It doesn't help that this proposal's title is "Stop separating alternate media artwork in image galleries" which suggests that ''all alternate media artwork'' should be merged (such as group art taken from a photograph of an airport; [[:File:MarionFriends NintendoCheckin.png]]; good luck trying to arrange that chronologically with the rest of the page) but seems to concern with "singular character/species/item artwork" rather than all sorts of media, which can be easily misread in archives.<br><br>I emphasize that getting wiki discussion first is important before creating a committing to a proposal like this and then suddenly people are deciding on something and agree to a proposal (and sway the vote that can happen literally overnight; everyone has different schedules; they're not going to know when an proposal has cropped up and then like 7 people already support it) that has a lot of unanswered questions that need to be addressed within a week time span. That being said, and to be fair for the authors of proposals I've been criticizing, MarioWiki seems to not have a lot of places to do this. Proposals generate discussions more easily than talk page comments but can be daunting to subject your suggestions to a vote. I've tried to bring up a general discussion in [[Talk: Main Page]] regarding our editing field, and maybe that's the place to go for this sort of thing (it seems like the most logical place). It's just, again, a matter of who will respond to your discussion? I don't know if it's a prevalent issue of not having discussion until the proposal comes, but eh. | |||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Per. | |||
#{{User|Seandwalsh}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Opposition I had thought of that, but a majority of subjects with non-game art have maybe one or two instances of it, which is too little to have a designated section of a large gallery. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:40, December 4, 2023 (EST) | |||
:For the record: my vote has been made after this comment. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:13, December 4, 2023 (EST) | |||
[[File:SSKoopa.png|thumb|When I bring up the cartoon, I mean stock artwork created for it]] | |||
@LGM Considering we've been putting new/retouched Mario Portal artwork with the game it represents despite coming years after, presumably when the show first aired. I've been thinking through this for a while. As for the scope of "alternative media," things like TV, books, film. Scans of random merchandise and wall art would not count. I'm using "medium" by the definition of "able to tell a story." I would not count things like - say - full trivia cards, food wrappers, or action figures as "media" by any stretch, and I'm honestly not sure how we got there. Anyways, I'll amend the proposal by specifying that it is -VISUAL- media, which is generally understood to be animation/books/film/games; also, please note, this proposal is only for artwork, not for screenshots or standard scans. While I ''suppose'' animation cels could be counted as sprites, that is out of the scope of this proposal. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:11, December 4, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Can this be clarified in the proposal? Will this proposal merge only art from TV, film, and comic books? You can expand the scope later as needed. Also, on a tangent that wouldn't directly apply to this proposal; it's just a thought experiment: why should merchandise not be merged? I'm just curious. I don't think it should be merged either since it isn't immediately from a particular installment, but arguably there's a release date associated with these things, a particular portrayal of these characters, and there's perhaps even narrative to some of these. And it's not like game applications like [[Mario no Photopi]] or little basic digital games like [[Luigi's Hammer Toss]] have narratives tied to them, but let's say a hypothetical Mario DnD game comes around. It has a specific launch date, has a narrative, Mario plays a role, and Mario gets art of it. It has all the markings of a game like Fortune Street except it's a physical board game. This art would go on the merchandise aspect probably. But why not put it with the rest of the games? And if this one, why not [[Super Mario Level Up!]] or Super Mario Blow Up! Shaky Tower Balancing Game? {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:25, December 4, 2023 (EST) | |||
::OK, clarifying above. Presumably art for toys would go with box art if we were merging all of that. Now, if'n a TTRPG ''were'' to come out and have artwork created specifically for it, I'd absolutely be fine with merging it, but most board/card games we ''do'' have on the site don't have isolated art unique from pre-existing video game art; any that do, sure, I see no problem with it (and on the Triforce wiki I include art from a Milton-Bradley board game in the standard image galleries). Now, for generic unspecified art used on a variety of products ([[List of rumors and urban legends#Mario Party: Star Rush cover artwork|and ''Mario Party: Star Rush'']]), like, say, "promotional render of pink-colored Yoshi sitting down (not associated with any game)," I also want those merged at some point in the long run, but it's more difficult in figuring out when it was first utilized. I suppose the main reason I want the alt-media art merged is because it's ultimately irrelevant what the source media was; unlike a screenshot, a piece of artwork created for it makes no difference what the source media was. It's still just artwork created as supplement to something else. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:34, December 4, 2023 (EST) |
Latest revision as of 00:35, January 14, 2024
Reconsider Nintendo's website filenames being used as a sourceconsider filenames as a source and create redirects 6-0-1-0
Redirects, on the other hand, is something I'm unsure about. Proposer: Axis (talk) Support, use these names as redirects as well
Support, but these names shouldn't be used as a redirectOnly cite them in case of no other source being available
Oppose
Comments@Camwoodstock: Why is it that the obscurity of the names means we should ignore them? There's plenty of obscure content on the wiki, if anything it makes it more interesting to note them if it's obscure and not many people know about them. I don't understand why this proposal and the previous one were opposed with arguments along the lines of "too obscure, no one will see these" when that's never been a factor in anything else on the wiki to my knowledge. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:31, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
Create an article for Tetris 99 and add it to the list of gamescreate Tetris 99 article 6-2 There is direct precedent for this in the form of Tetris DS. Like Tetris 99, Tetris DS features many Super Mario- and Nintendo-themed elements, and as a result, it has an article on this wiki and is included in the List of games, List of games by date, and List of games by genre articles. Examples of other games that feature Super Mario elements and thus have articles and are in the list of games articles include Minecraft, Rhythm Heaven Megamix, NES Remix, NES Remix 2 , Ultimate NES Remix, Nintendo Land, Captain Rainbow, SSX on Tour, and NBA Street V3. Proposer: ToxicOJ (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsPlease note that there was just a proposal that determined that the NES Tetris does not count as a full appearance or a guest appearance but rather a standard reference; it includes direct appearances of Mario, DK, Luigi, Bowser, and Peach outside of gameplay. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:02, August 19, 2023 (EDT) I think Art Style: PiCTOBiTS should be a good comparison for games that don't have playable Mario characters or interactible Mario elements.
If the answers to these questions are comparable to Art Style: PiCTOBiTS, then we could say it is a guest appearance. Also take a look at the proposal Doc von Schmeltwick linked, as what is and isn't a guest appearance is very much up for debate. What do you think? Axis (talk) 12:10, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
@Ray Trace: "In context of the puzzle game (where there wouldn't be playable characters to begin with)" I beg to differ. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:55, August 23, 2023 (EDT) Trim requirements for elemental creatures categoriestighten the second half 1-8-1 PROPOSAL EDIT: Addition of another option to keep the second half but tighten it. This will lead to usage of the categories if the subject isn't composed of the element but is still strongly associated with it such as Bowser remaining categorised under Fire creatures for his fire breath, and one-off RPG enemies that cause status effects with these elements such as Poison Pokey and Flamin' Stooge. Proposer: Swallow (talk) Remove second half entirely
Tighten the second half
Do nothing
Comments
What do you think should be defining terms for "tightening" the second half? Like, where would we draw the line? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:10, September 9, 2023 (EDT)
Delete the {{wp}} and {{fandom}} templatesDo not delete templates 1-11 Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) SupportOppose
Comments@Axis Doesn't that logic mean the previous proposal should have passed, though? The templates proposed there had shorter parameters to type out, but people decided it was unnecesary. Shouldn't the same apply here? S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 13:31, September 25, 2023 (EDT)
Do not rename articles until the relevant media has releasedwait until release 15-3 EDIT, PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING: I get the feeling a lot of people are going to see this and completely misunderstand my motive here, I'm not saying that we should completely ignore or distrust all pre-release marketing, this proposal is solely aimed at returning subjects in games and if they are eligable for a rename, all I hope to accomplish is establishing a rule like with latest appearances and infobox images, in that the move doesn't happen until release. Obviously it would be impossible to apply this to new subjects and I would not try and halt the creation of those articles, any form of official pre-release marketing for those would be perfectly acceptable. Proposer: Swallow (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@PaperSplash I'm not saying to distrust official social media and pre-release marketing, I'm just saying to hold off from moving article titles until release like with latest appearances and infobox images. Nightwicked Bowser 15:56, September 28, 2023 (EDT)
The Case of Donkey Kong 64 Sub-AreasDo not split any sub-areas 4-0-5-0 Super Mario Odyssey went so whole hog with naming everything aside from a few "bonus areas" that I had to make a proposal to decide what we didn't want articles for. Donkey Kong 64... does not do this. Wrinkly Kong mentions a few of them in her hints, but often in generic terms, so we're forced to rely on guides for many of them. Even then, the guides don't name every sub-area, so there are still some missing links in the chain. Using conjectural names to fill in the gaps would open a can of worms regarding creating articles for other nameless sub-areas such as the pyramid in Shifting Sand Land or the volcano in Lethal Lava Land.
A list of the sub-areas and which ones have known names is included in the linked discussion page above. Note that the only guides I can reference are Nintendo Power and the Banana Guide, so anything from Prima or other guides is beyond me. If anyone could chime in about these, it would be helpful. Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64), Banana Fairy Island, and K. Lumsy's Prison will not be affected by this proposal. Also, I'm thinking that the Mechanical Piranha (from Gloomy Galleon) should get an article regardless of this proposal's outcome, since it is an active robotic construct and not "just another submap". Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Only split named sub-areas
Split everythingDon't split any sub-areas
Keep the status quoCommentsRegarding the point in the proposal that splitting named sub-areas "creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope", I think that we should set the baseline standard that areas with an official name should get an article, but I don't think this should mean that there should not be articles for large areas without an official name. There wasn't really an option to reflect this exact position, so I voted for the first option as I feel it's the closest. ToxicOJ (talk) 15:52, October 10, 2023 (EDT)
Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"leave as is 7-1-10 So to summarise:
Proposer: YoYo (talk) Rename the section
Don't rename it and enforce the "latest" part
Leave it as it is
CommentsWe feel like defining a "notable" protrayal isn't all that hard, honestly--just kinda spitballing one way we could handle it, it could feature both the first portrayal*, and anyone who's played the character for some amount of time (be it in terms of chronology or in terms of games/media). The finer details and any exceptions (such as, say, putting Kevin in there despite him having only voiced one game thus far on the grounds that this was a formally-announced thing, or putting Chris Pratt in as his most recent film protrayal) could probably be determined at a later date in a future proposal (possibly one after this if "rename to notable" passes?) ...Of course, all of this is moot if we simply choose to enforce the "current voice" moniker in the first place, which we can definitely understand. We just wanna make sure people realize what they're doing when they say to do that and what that entails, in case it turns out down the road that the "simpler" option really, really wasn't for the best. Personally, failing what we mentioned above, we feel like if we had to limit it, the smartest option would be to simply have a "first protrayal/latest protrayal" thing like we do with the games*--just a little something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one. * doing either of these would have the objectively hilarious side-effect of potentially putting either Harris Shore from a few TV ads or Pat McBride from Donkey Kong Goes Home, both of which have Mario performances so obscure they currently lack their own articles, in the infobox on the Mario page, seeing as the two of them seem to both be contenders for first voice in our admittedly cursory searches. which we would permit on the grounds that that is, in fact, notable, even if it's very funny to jumpscare people with that album in particular ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:13, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Come to think of it, this proposal might need to be restructured a bit. As I've already pointed out, the situation where Mario had three actors listed at the time this proposal was written was not based on any existing wiki standards and is no longer the case. I assume the leave as-is option was based on the assumption that this actually was standard. Otherwise, there's not much difference between the latter two options. Even though I voted for "enforcing" this, I'd be okay with having multiple actors listed at the same time if we get another TSMBM situation where what's technically the most recent portrayal clearly isn't meant to be across the entire franchise. Unless anyone is strongly opposed to that, it's unnecessarily splitting the vote when this could probably work fine as a standard support/oppose proposal. As an aside, I have to wonder if we should be listing Kevin at all since Wonder hasn't released just yet. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT) How would it be handled if a future game only uses old voice clips from Charles Martinet, such as a re-release like Super Mario 3D All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, or the remastered Mario & Luigi games? I feel like it would be strange to keep swapping back and forth between Charles and Kevin if we exclusively list the voice actor from the most recently released game. On a related note, how would the years active be listed if Charles' voice is reused in a future game? ToxicOJ (talk) 07:57, October 17, 2023 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler: The information will still be there, there's a portrayals section further down the page that does list every person who has ever portrayed Mario for anyone who wants to see that. This proposal affects the listings in the character infobox and nothing else. That field also specifically says "latest portrayal" and lists the years, in this case 2023-present, so no one should be confused about it. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 11:43, October 19, 2023 (EDT)
Remove Creeper Launcher Link from Princess Daisy's Pagedo not remove link 1-7 Proposer: TimonLeslieBerkowitz (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThis should be a talk page proposal in Daisy's talk page. Nightwicked Bowser 16:19, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Runleave as is 5-16-0-10 For starters, my main source on this argument came from Nintendo's official timeline page, which alongside the games most commonly agreed to be mainline, included Maker and Run. In the time since, this page has been updated, and with the inclusion of games that are unambiguously re-releases of existing games, such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe and Super Mario 3D All-Stars, it raises the question of if this is a reliable list of "distinct entries in the mainline Super Mario series" at all. Additionally, in official dev interviews released in the buildup to the release of Super Mario Bros. Wonder, Wonder is treated as the first mainline 2D Mario game in 11 years, with both Maker games being brought up as if they're something else entirely. I could also bring up the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, which treats Maker as a spin-off as well. So, if being on Nintendo's official timeline doesn't necessitate a game being a distinct mainline entry, and official material from Nintendo treats the Maker and Run games as spin-offs, then should we still include them as mainline entries in the Super Mario series? Under this proposal, the Makers and Run would be treated as "Related games" in a similar vein to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and New Super Luigi U, and would be excluded when numbering the mainline Mario series (Wonder would be treated as the 19th mainline game rather than the 22nd). It would also, somewhat annoyingly, lead to us having to reorganize the "History" section for pages on a bunch of characters, objects, and enemies, so apologies in advance. Relevant pages are Super Mario (series), Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run. Proposer: WayslideCool (talk) Stop considering all three games mainline
Change nothing, keep all three games as mainline
Consider Maker and Maker 2 mainline, but not RunConsider Run mainline, but not Maker and Maker 2
OtherCommentsPersonally, I think the Mario Maker games are just games where players around the world could share and post levels online (I know Mario Maker 2 had a story mode but still), but Super Mario Run is different. It's not a sandbox game and has worlds, levels and many playable characters. I'm kinda leaning towards keeping Run as a mainline Mario game, but I'll think it over first. Sparks (talk) October 31, 2023, 12:46 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick: Question: Would you consider the Run and Maker games, and maybe even the Land games, spinoffs of the Super Mario Bros. subseries? All of them feature 2D platformer gameplay in the same vein as other Super Mario Bros. games (in fact, they all feel closer as Super Mario Bros. titles than even Super Mario Bros. 2), with Run in particular featuring the same style of graphics and similar music as New Super Mario Bros. U, and Maker in particular featuring four gameplay styles based directly on four Super Mario Bros. games. I personally feel it would be wrong to not consider them Super Mario Bros. titles (or at least Super Mario Bros.-adjacent titles) purely because there's no "Bros." in the title. Keep in mind that we have dozens of Mario spinoffs despite the main series and franchise as a whole being called Super Mario, and that 90% of these spinoffs don't include "Super" in front of "Mario" in each title, so the full "Super Mario Bros." name having to be in the title shouldn't be the deciding factor IMO.
I kinda feel the need to draw attention to a pretty major point I made in the proposal, which is "How much can we really trust the Nintendo of America Super Mario Website as a canonical list of which games should be considered mainline?" This list excludes Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels, includes Super Mario 3D All-Stars but not Super Mario All-Stars, treats recent rereleases like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe as distinct entries, but not earlier ones like Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3. I get the impression what we're seeing is less "canonical Nintendo-approved list of which games should be counted as distinct mainline entries" and more "Nintendo is a corporation that wants to promote their recent titles and is throwing in anything recent that vaguely falls under the Super Mario banner". Like, I don't know how bold a stance this is, but I don't think it's completely out of the question that a game can be a Super Mario game without being a mainline entry. (Hi Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island!) WayslideCool (talk) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I think whether a game counts as mainline or not boils down to platforming. This is the core of the mainline Mario series. And in the case of the Mario Maker games, platforming is not at the core of it. The central concept, the critical quality of these games, is creating levels. Sure, platforming is a part of it, but say you open up one of the games for the first time. You've already played most of the 2D Mario games, and you're excited to see what this game has to offer. You don't go into course world and start playing levels, you explore the new, central concept of the game: Making levels. That's why it's called Super Mario "Maker" and not Super Mario Player. Sure, you can play user-created levels, but how would you be able to do that without users creating levels?!? Think about it. Users create levels, users play user-created levels. If it weren't for the creating aspect of the game, there would be no game! BOWSER... (talk) 10:49, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Make coverage of playable Toads and playable Yoshis consistent with each othermerge Blue Toad and Yellow Toad into a shared article 2-9-13-1-3 Here are what I consider to be the main options for how to resolve this inconsistency:
Personally, I think of these the third option is the most sensible, and would be the least disruptive.
Proposer: JanMisali (talk) Create new articles for individual playable Yoshis
Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad (species)
Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad into "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad"
Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad, and move coverage of individual playable Yoshis to Yoshi
No change
OtherCommentsClarify and expand coverage of recurring musical themespassed 10-2 Definitions
This proposal that passed back in 2018 created the groundwork for the creation of articles about recurring musical themes. I think that this was a great first step in establishing coverage of a very important aspect of the Super Mario franchise. However, I feel that the standards it set need some improvements and clarifications. This proposal set the following standard for what qualifies a theme for an article: “the theme must be renditioned in at least 8 games, not counting remakes or reissues.” The term “renditioned” has been interpreted to mean that the game includes an entirely new arrangement. It doesn’t make sense to limit what counts as an appearance to entirely new arrangements, because whether or not a theme is “recurring” has nothing to do with it being an arrangement, a past arrangement, or the original version. For example, a theme that has been included in exactly 8 games, each featuring an arrangement, would qualify for an article as a recurring theme. However, a theme that has been included in 20 games, but only 6 of those feature arrangements, would not receive an article as a recurring theme. It doesn't make any sense to say the the first theme is recurring but the second one is not. Additionally, I think that we should include appearances in other pieces of media, such as The Super Mario Bros. Movie, rather than just limiting it to strictly games. For these reasons, I propose this new standard to be used going forward: For a recurring theme to qualify for an article, it must appear in at least 8 pieces of Super Mario-related media. Appearances of the theme in retro services do not count towards the threshold requirement. Appearances that do not count towards the article creation threshold should still be noted that within the recurring theme's article, such as appearances in retro services and non-Super Mario-related media. Here are examples of what would and would not count towards the “8 pieces of media” threshold under this framework:
Proposer: ToxicOJ (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsMegaBowser64 (talk) Sonic123 isn't my username, but other than that, I agree. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:28, November 3, 2023 (CST) Regarding SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk)'s point, the standard regarding remakes is that the only appearance that doesn't count is when original theme is in a remake of the original game (i.e. Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.). This distinction only applies to remakes of the game where the theme first appeared. Appearances of the original theme or arrangements of the theme in remakes of subsequent games does count (i.e. Super Mario 64 DS or Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury). The intention behind this is to ensure that a theme does not end up qualifying solely based on the game of origin being rereleased in its original form over and over again. In other words:
Ok. Thanks! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:38, November 3, 2023 (CST) In response to your question Conradd (talk), I define an arrangement as "a new rendition of a theme that features different instrumentation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, or timbre than the original version," and I define an original version as "a theme as it was originally heard in its very first appearance with no audible alterations." Under these definitions, if a game includes a perfect, 1-to-1 match of how the theme sounded in its original game, then it is considered a reuse of the original version of the theme, and if it is not a perfect, 1-to-1 match, then it is considered an arrangement or remix, depending on the nature of the changes. The distinction comes down to audible differences. If the "Ground Theme" sounds different in any way for another game such as Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, then that would be considered an arrangement. Regarding differences in soundchips between regional versions of the NES and Super Mario Bros., I've not seen anything to suggest that the theme was not directly ported as an exact match of how it sounds in the original Japanese version, even though different regions technically use different soundchips, so that would be considered a use of the original version of the theme unless an audible difference between regions could be shown. ToxicOJ (talk) 01:52, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
I don't mean to be rude to you, Toxic, but I think you should have thought more about your proposal before making everyone vote. We now need to compare your old proposal with the rearanged one to see if we still agree with our votes, and I think it's annoying. Has anything substantial changed? If yes maybe we should reboot the counter. --Conradd (talk) 01:56, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
To address your point TheUndescribableGhost (talk), "Any form of a theme in a piece of non-Super Mario-related media" refers to pieces of media that are not covered by the Wiki (such as Lego City Undercover). The other examples you cited, full coverage crossovers (like Mario + Rabbids), selective coverage crossovers (like Super Smash Bros.), and guest appearances (like Sonic Lost World) would all count as Super Mario-related media since they are covered in some form by the Wiki. ToxicOJ (talk) 12:50, November 4, 2023 (EDT) @TheUndescribableGhost: Short articles aren't necessarily stubs if they have all the relevant information on the subject. I don't see a problem with that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:47, November 4, 2023 (EDT) @7feetunder: What exactly is the issue with what you have described? The only games likely to have seven different remakes are old ones without very many themes in them anyway, and whose themes are likely to be recurring anyway. It's still repeated appearances of the theme at the end of the day. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:46, November 5, 2023 (EST)
Remove conjectural treasure names from Wario Land stage articlesRemove Wario Land II names only 4-0 Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk) Remove Wario Land II names only
Do nothing
CommentsI'm a little confused with what the second option aims to do. Is it just the remaining few conjectural Wario Land 3 names? Because I can get the rest of those from the Shogakukan guide. I can also double-check the Shogakukan guide of the second game, but I'm pretty sure the treasures are still unnamed there. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:09, November 12, 2023 (EST)
@MegaBowser64 The problem I have isn't that these all have unfitting names, the problem is that there's not really any reason to give them a name. It's like giving all the Stamps conjectural names: their uniqueness is purely attributed to their visuals, so if you want to give them identifiers, just... describe them. The treasure names being descriptive is honestly all the more reason why they shouldn't be there, since you can just refer to treasures as what they are, rather than as unique entities with Proper Names (e.g. "The hidden treasure, a goblet" VS. "The hidden treasure, the Goblet"). And as a bonus, the conjectural names also provide some awkwardness in assuming what something is when it is normally unclear, like with the Pearl Idol, the Tome, and the Cave Cone. It's not as if there's a standard being maintained by giving the treasures official-sounding names, either, since again, every single treasure has a conjectural name. Names made up for the sake of neatness just don't feel in line with the spirit of MarioWiki to me. DrippingYellow (talk) 23:57, November 12, 2023 (EST)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articlesAdd tabbers to articles 7-4 Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsTo clarify, is this about expanding the recent talk page proposal for Mario Party microgames that declared we'd add tabs for multiple images in the case of Mario Party minigames specifically, so that this will cover other templates? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 17:26, November 11, 2023 (EST) Is this proposal about allowing the use of tabber template on those articles or setting a specific precedent for using them on said type of articles? The template documentation broadly says that it should not be used for anything other than infobox images. Super Game Gear (talk) 17:35, November 11, 2023 (EST) Is this proposal really necessary? I thought this was already agreed upon in the minigame infobox talk page proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:50, November 11, 2023 (EST)
I also want to point out that Porple, the proprietor, said he doesn't want to see tabber used on the wiki on its talk page. Granted, that was some time ago. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:11, November 13, 2023 (EST)
@Doc Von: So, we fired up our rinkydink Windows XP Virtual Machine, opened Firefox 52.9.0, and went to an article with a tabber (specifically, the version of Thwomp before it had its tabber stripped.) And uh, it worked. We... Genuinely were not expecting it to run--we had issues with that VM a few days ago and about a week ago went through a nightmarish program setup regimen on it that felt like it only worked by a hair, but this worked without literally any fuss whatsoever. We would wager any system too old to load tabbers are too old to connect to the internet at this point--pretty much only leaving severe bandwidth issues causing them to fail to load outright or devices specially configured to prohibit JavaScript in the first place as the only scenarios where tabbers wouldn't work. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:13, November 13, 2023 (EST) @Koopa con Carne & MegaBowser64: Generally why I suggested earlier in the comments that we should probably discuss where to expand and/or limit the scope for the Tabber template. As I stated, using it for the Mario Party minigames, Mario Kart courses and WarioWare microgames is fine, and using it for video game boxarts (a la WiKirby) should also be fine as long as we put a limit on which regions should be shown, but using it for any character, object and species as well would be a bit silly. Aside from cases such as Thwomp and Fire Piranha Plant, the most recent artwork for those kinds of subjects should still be adhered IMO. I don't think any of us in support of the Tabbers would want cases like the Zelda Wiki, where literally every iteration for literally any subject is featured in an infobox. rend (talk) (edits) 14:12, November 13, 2023 (EST)
On merging and/or splitting Super Paper Mario's implied charactersmerge Croacus rulers into one article 5-3-1-0 First and foremost, our sincerest apologies if the following proposal is a little scatterbrained in its initial descriptor: we are writing this at Literally 2AM. So, we were reading random Wiki articles before bed (as we are want to do), and we stumbled upon this, and it jogged our memory, because this is something that's always confused us. In Super Paper Mario, in the leadin to the bossfight against King Croacus IV, you get little glimpses of the prior Croacus leaders. Now, this is a cool detail and all, but these guys never... Physically appear, in the flesh. Because they're dead and all that. Usually, when there's just a minor character whose presence is only implied, they just get clumped in to the List of implied characters--we do this with a few characters in SPM that only hold worldbuilding relevance and never get to appear in-game already, namely King Sammer I and the Legendary Pixl. ...And then there's the Tribe of Ancients. Merlimbis, Merlight, and Merloo all get lumped into this article whereas only Merlumina (the only one to appear in-game) gets her own article all to herself. Now, granted, the Tribe of Ancients are extremely important to the game's overall backstory. But the other three just get one article together, whereas the three prior Croacus leaders all get unique articles? So, like, what's the right way to handle this, and why is (are?) the other article(s?) wrong? This has been driving us batty for a little bit, and we feel like it's about time to do something about it. We can think of a few ways to handle it:
Articles this could potentially impact: Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Merge Croacus royal family into one article
Split Tribe of Ancients into three additional articles for missing members
Merge the Croacus Royal Family, Tribe of Ancients, and Squirpina XIV into List of Implied Characters
Do NothingCommentsI can see where you're going with this. All of these characters mentioned do not physically appear in the game, but they have artwork that is found during the story. As someone who has completed Super Paper Mario, I can safely say that all of these characters have such little information on them to give them their own articles. King Croacus's family all should have their own article to share, or they could be moved to the list of implied characters just because they do not physically appear in the game. For Merlumina's case, she appears as a spirit to Mario to give him one of the Pure Hearts, so she actually appears in the game. The rest of the Ancients do not though. For Squirp's mother, a statue of her appears in the game, but she herself does not. Seeing as there's too little information for King Croacus's family, I think giving them an article to share would be the best idea. The list of Ancients already has their own page and to me that makes sense. Squirp's mother I think should be moved to list of implied characters just because she does not physically appear in the game. I have a suggestion to add in an option where only Squirpina should be moved to "List of Implied Characters". As for now, I think merging all of King Croacus's ancestors is the way to go. Sparks (talk) November 12, 2023, 7:58 (EDT)
Thanks, the Croacus royalty vs the Ancients seen in the gateway between Flipside and Flopside having, erm, lopsided coverage always bothered me... I just always forgot to make a proposal about it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:56, November 12, 2023 (EST) It just occurred to me that this proposal is missing the do nothing option. Isn't that mandatory? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:59, November 12, 2023 (EST)
@LinkTheLefty (and we guess pretty much just everyone): Having looked at the text at Not 2AM, we can say that a better article name for option 1 would probably be "Flora Kingdom royalty" seeing as it's expressly called the Flora Kingdom in at least King Croacus I's in-game painting text. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:23, November 14, 2023 (EST)
Add playable appearance of a character in their infoboxinclude neither 1-0-4
Here, an onlooker will be able to find out the first playable appearance of the Super Mario character within their franchise. For crossover characters, the article will list their origin playable role, alongside their first appearance in a game we cover on the wiki. For characters whose debut appearance is also their playable appearance (Mario in Donkey Kong), only their first appearances will be listed, as it would be redundant. For crossover characters, rather than listing both of their first appearances (non-Super Mario and Super Mario appearances), it'll only list their Super Mario appearance. We only need their first playable appearance, but there is another option to include their latest one. Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Include only their first playable appearance
Include both their first and latest playable appearanceInclude neither
Comments@Hewer: You are right; some people can interpret what is playable quite differently. I knew I would get something in the comments about the Yoshis being playable in Super Mario World, which I did state, which I was I mentioned that Super Mario Kart was the first game where Yoshi was playable without anyone riding him. You could make an edge case on whether Yoshi is a playable character in Super Mario World because you can technically control his tongue. The captured thing is another excellent point, and my initial response was that Mario/Cappy controls the entities, so it could technically not count. The Dr. Mario one is probably the most headache-inducing since you can go either way on that debacle. Dr. Mario 64 addresses this, as playable characters can compete against each other. I don't play the RPGs, so I can't answer the question on Minion Quest. Even if I did, I will admit that one got me perplexed. Also, what I meant for the crossover section was if the first appearance tag would be redundant. For example, Link appeared in The Legend of Zelda, his first playable appearance. Since we have two separate sections for both his first Super Mario appearance and his first playable one, we would format it like this:
If we were to include both, this would be the formatting:
And, of course, that opens a new rabbit hole on whether or not we should even consider guest appearances to count. Thanks a lot, Hewer; I do appreciate your feedback on this! TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 14:27, November 15, 2023 (EST) @Swallow: In what way would it clutter the infoboxes? It's the reason why I suggested including just the first playable appearance. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 14:27, November 15, 2023 (EST) Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars titlerename articles to use shorter identifier 8-4 Proposer: Annalisa10 (talk) Rename the pages
Do nothing
CommentsSo if this passes, would it also be applied to Donkey Kong Country 2 and 3? They similarly have subtitles for their original releases that later got ditched for their remakes. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:02, November 23, 2023 (EST)
Move certain articles and galleries to subpages and create new disambiguation pages consisting of subpagesvetoed by the administrators The Super Mario Wiki needs subpage articles and subpage galleries. I was wondering if there's a possibility to move certain articles and galleries into subpages. Here are some good examples:
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsMy proposal is being declined because subpages are for user pages only per Super Mario Wiki policy. Can we cancel the proposal? GuntherBayBeee 12:13, November 26, 2023 (EST)
Include primary Power-up sections for Super Mario Bros. Wonder coursescanceled by proposer NOTE: This proposal affects all courses in Super Mario Bros Wonder. Many users on the Mario Wiki, including myself have been creating articles for courses in the newest mainline Mario game: Super Mario Bros. Wonder. One thing that hasn't been noted is what power-ups are primarily featured in the courses (e.g. Elephant Fruit in Welcome to the Flower Kingdom! and Bubble Flower in Missile Meg Mayhem). And so, I have presented three options for users to vote in: Option 1: Create a new section just for naming what power-ups are featured in the course. It would be listed under the "layout" section. Option 2: Have the power-ups mentioned in another section. The most likely section would be "Layout". If anyone has any more ideas, please make a comment. Option 3: Do nothing. Just do nothing. Simple as that. Proposer: Sparks (talk) Create a new section for the power-ups featured
Have the power-ups mentioned in another sectionDo nothingCommentsThis proposal could easily apply to all Mario platformers, not just Wonder. Nightwicked Bowser 10:58, December 6, 2023 (EST)
Have stricter policies for one-off generic species charactersdo not change policy 4-16 What a mouthful of a title, but I don't know what to call this. This proposal concerns the articles Flaky, Jerry, and Chanterelle. I'll add more if users keep bringing in more. The gist is that these are minor characters based on their respective species, which doesn't sound like a bad idea initially. Still, their articles aren't that useful. Flaky is a terrible article that is horribly padded on a minor Flurry and even explains things not relevant to them (I'm not even sure if the character has official pronouns). It also speculates that they appear in certain scenes, which is a bad sign. Jerry's article is three sentences long and could see a merge with the regular Magikoopa article. And Chanterelle is a briefly seen Toad who appears for a few seconds. The justification for these articles is that they are named characters and should get articles unless you're Johnson. This proposal isn't concerned about merging all these characters at this very moment; that can come in many different proposals. Instead, I suggest a policy to prevent these articles from coming into play here. With this policy, some articles that feature a rather generic representative of a species with very few character traits that would instead get a merge with their species articles or at least in a list. Currently, there doesn't seem to some policy that is against the idea of having these characters aside from the Minor NPCs policy which really only covers conjecturally named NPCs and not characters who are named but only have very few traits and not even a unique design. However, their redirects will still have categories so that users can know the different members of their species when browsing them. In a perfect world, Flaky would get a mention in Flurry's article, we put Jerry in Magikoopa, and we would merge Chanterelle with Toad (species). It's worth noting that we have recently been creating history articles so that they can go there instead. An argument users may use is that they are named characters and, therefore, must get articles no matter what. So what I want to tell you is this: How helpful are these articles? Sure, they are pretty interesting one-off characters, but are people dying to see a whole article on them? Imagine if one Goomba was named Bob in one cutscene and had no other traits in some random Super Mario game. Then, one day, we made an article describing him and mentioning his bare-bones character traits. I don't know about you, but I learned nothing from it. We even merged Koopaphobia, a fictional phobia, with Indiana Joe because he's the kingpin for that phobia, the entire thing is played as a joke, and nothing is getting lost by integrating it with him. Our lord and savior, Pink Donkey Kong Jr., is now merged with who his counterpart was, and not everything was lost through the merge. Cowboy Jed has a son who does not get a separate article, but we mention it in his article. And all three Luigi's Mansion games have lists for each of the named Boos. We aren't missing much by merging these fellas; no offense to them, especially the pink little guy. Note that we aren't merging these articles right now but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles. That way, we don't have to create concise articles that say nothing. After this, we can create proposals to merge certain articles that feature a named character with very little traits that make them unique from their species. It is worth noting that if they do return in a later work and have tons of new character traits, they can finally get their articles. It's the curse that set Ashley and Red free. EDIT 12/1/23: I have some new clarifications, as well as some new additions as well. Firstly, Tuxie is yet another case of us merging a rather minor character. So there is that for you. Lastly, some new additions people have suggested:
The only one I did not include was Red Shy Guy and that's mainly because of his unique history section. Therefore, I don't think it's that big of a deal. That being said, the name is quite generic, so there's that. I admit I haven't played the RPG games, so there's that. I'm also not putting Izzy on here because he's connected to some event. Sure, his article is pretty short but to claim he's an incidental character is incorrect. At the very most, he could be merged with The Play Nintendo Show and at the very least, he could stay. On another note, I have finally made a conceptual policy for what it could look like if this proposal is a success. I'll occasionally update this when given certain suggestions. Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsBIS also has Kuribo, instead of logically redirecting to Goomba. In my opinion, it is hands-down the worst offender of this. Another thing all have in common is being throwaway names in group scenes, so no individual plot importance. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:20, November 30, 2023 (EST) Would Gary (Super Paper Mario) also fit? His unnamed partner with about as little story relevance was merged into Goomba (now History of Goomba) a while back. We'd barely even have to change the Super Paper Mario entry in question — just replace the link on Gary's name with bold markup. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:48, November 30, 2023 (EST) @TheUndescribableGhost: I guess you could include Socially Awkward Piranha Plant too lol. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:53, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Maybe also Johnson (Super Paper Mario) who was only named to be part of a running gag of the series. Nightwicked Bowser 15:58, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Maybe Sunset Express Shy Guy too? His article is definitely more detailed than the others mentioned, so maybe he won't be affected by this proposal. He doesn't offer much to the story though unlike Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King), so who knows? Sparks (talk) December 1, 2023, 09:37 (EDT) @Supporters: Thank you so much for the help I'm getting on the proposal! I wasn't expecting this one to get a lot of support. Special thanks to Doc von Schmeltwick, SolemnStormcloud and Koopa con Carne for helping me here. And yes arend, I would totally love a section like that. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 12:29, December 1, 2023 (EST) @Mario: Thanks for mentioning this as I may have not made it that clear. My intent is to enforce a policy that states that if a incidental character in question doesn't have enough traits to be notable on having a wiki article, they'll be merged elsewhere. Currently, there isn't a policy on this aside from a similar one regarding Minor NPCs which judging by its description, would pretty much allow instances if that character has a name. The examples I provided where characters who don't have that many traits as of now to make an article actually useful. Keep in mind we aren't doing anything to the articles right now; that will happen if this proposal ends up being successful. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 13:34, December 1, 2023 (EST)
I do think that NPCs in standard gameplay of the first three Paper Mario games should be exempt, as they all have tattles that provide some insight into who they are. Not so much the ones from the glorified cutscenes in Castle Bleck. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:07, December 1, 2023 (EST)
@Axis Can you name character that you're confused about in regards to this proposal? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 15:36, December 1, 2023 (EST)
@Hewer: "This only makes it harder to determine which characters do and don't get merged and generally has the potential to make it harder to find information." The proposal clearly mentions that it'll to be easy find certain information. For example, if one wants to find Flaky, they can type their name in the search box and be redirect to the section of the Flurry article. "and I don't really see what the problem is with having these articles, short or otherwise. Something being minor or obscure is a bad reason for it to not get a page in my opinion." The proposal is concerning articles that are so short, they aren't helpful in the slightest. Why is the Chanterelle article is totally fine to keep when they just say hi to Toad? If they were merged with the Toad species, nothing is getting lost here. Or Flaky in which the article tries speculating where they appear. I mentioned the hypothetical Bob the Goomba example. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 16:16, December 1, 2023 (EST)
I'm going to try to review the proposed policy page User:TheUndescribableGhost/Incidental characters. I'd like to add that if an incidental character/object is recurring despite of a meager role and a simple subject of a running gag (say for instance, some Toad is called Sam in a random joke and then you see someone refer to Sam again in the ending of the game, or you see Sam being mentioned again in a sequel; this is like Johnson but you see "Sam" the couple of times he's mentioned) it probably should be also worth an article. Try not to be too disappointed if this proposal fails, okey dokey? Even if this doesn't pass, it's probably worth keeping these "notability" guidelines in mind and still attempt articles for deletions and whatnot with that framework. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:30, December 1, 2023 (EST)
An idea just dawned upon me. Why don't we have a page titled "List of named incidental characters" or something like that where we can put the content of all of these pages, like what we have for implied characters? There wouldn't be any information lost, and the content of a named character wouldn't be awkwardly merged with the species article if it caused any problems. DrippingYellow (talk) 00:11, December 3, 2023 (EST)
Stop separating alternate -VISUAL- media artwork in image galleriesKeep them separated 5-8 Clarification: Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Support
Oppose
Comments@Opposition I had thought of that, but a majority of subjects with non-game art have maybe one or two instances of it, which is too little to have a designated section of a large gallery. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:40, December 4, 2023 (EST)
@LGM Considering we've been putting new/retouched Mario Portal artwork with the game it represents despite coming years after, presumably when the show first aired. I've been thinking through this for a while. As for the scope of "alternative media," things like TV, books, film. Scans of random merchandise and wall art would not count. I'm using "medium" by the definition of "able to tell a story." I would not count things like - say - full trivia cards, food wrappers, or action figures as "media" by any stretch, and I'm honestly not sure how we got there. Anyways, I'll amend the proposal by specifying that it is -VISUAL- media, which is generally understood to be animation/books/film/games; also, please note, this proposal is only for artwork, not for screenshots or standard scans. While I suppose animation cels could be counted as sprites, that is out of the scope of this proposal. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:11, December 4, 2023 (EST)
|