39,990
edits
MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/64: Difference between revisions
m
Protected "MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/64": Archive ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))
7feetunder (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
m (Protected "MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/64": Archive ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 8 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 151: | Line 151: | ||
Might also be worth pointing out that the Koopa is not in the BIS remake at all. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 15:34, December 10, 2023 (EST) | Might also be worth pointing out that the Koopa is not in the BIS remake at all. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 15:34, December 10, 2023 (EST) | ||
:Added. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 15:35, December 10, 2023 (EST) | :Added. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 15:35, December 10, 2023 (EST) | ||
===Changing Sic Rules=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
(Note: I'm not pushing anything at all. I just want to see what MarioWiki thinks about this proposal.)<br> | |||
A LOT of MarioWiki users, like me, see [sic] on articles. Sic basically means that the error was made by the publishing, not the wiki. I want to replace [sic] with something else. [[wikipedia:Sic|Sic]] on Wikipedia explains 3 ways to replace sic. So, how should we do it? | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperMarioGolf}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 30, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Replace sic with [''recte'' whatever it should be]==== | |||
#{{User|PaperMarioGolf}} Per proposal, primary option. | |||
====Do [sic: read 'whatever it should be']==== | |||
#{{User|PaperMarioGolf}} Per proposal, secondary option. | |||
====Replace the text==== | |||
#{{User|PaperMarioGolf}} Not recommended. | |||
====Use a mix of recte and read==== | |||
#{{User|PaperMarioGolf}} I guess we could use this? | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We don't really see the issue with retaining the "(sic)" labels, personally; especially since, unless we missed something, it's not like there's any specific issue with the current usage of "(sic)"? Replacement sacrifices accuracy to the source material, which makes acknowledging typos in said source material a total nightmare, and appending either "recte" or "read" don't really add any further clarifications than what would, presumably, already be provided, as well as naturally take up more space. And using "recte" or "read" interchangeably would be a complete nightmare; there's no worse standard than having ''zero formal attempt at a standard'', it'd almost universally just be as if "recte" was the victor by the fact that "recte" is shorter than "sic, read". The "(sic)" label is just a concise, clearly-understandable label that pretty much anyone can understand in an extremely brief manner; it's super simple, which none of the other options are despite yielding no further benefits to them. | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Wikipedia is not a guideline. What they're listing in that article are merely observations of how erroneous text has been rectified in quotes and transcripts throughout editorial history--and, to be honest, it's not immediately clear to me if the "[sic: read]" example even passes Wikipedia's own notability standards in the first place. If one wishes to correct factual inaccuracies in quotes on this wiki, they could just use the sic template and then employ the {{tem|footnote}} template or a "ref" tag or something like that. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
===Restrict drive-by templating and major changes to proposals and talk page proposals=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
I was informed on July 19 this year that per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Discourage drive-by templating part 2|this proposal]], I must start a discussion or proposal in the talk page first. This time, I've come up with a proposal to restrict major changes and drive-by templating to '''proposals''' and '''talk page proposals'''. As you can see, the {{tem|talk}} template will recommend that users make a proposal for a major change in order to try to help and resolve the issue. I was wondering if there's a possibility to restrict major changes and drive-by templating to proposals and talk page proposals. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBB}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per proposal | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Going straight to a proposal isn't always a good idea. Discussion can be very helpful to determine if a proposal is even necessary. Sometimes the suggestion may get strong support and can be done without a proposal, or it may be heavily opposed and the user who made the suggestion will decide not to pursue a proposal at that time. Complex issues may warrant a discussion first to determine the specifics of the proposal. Also, not allowing these templates to be used for active discussions will make them less visible and more likely to go unnoticed. This change will likely only harm discussion outside of proposals and the proposer makes no argument why we should do this. As for restricting major changes to proposals, this is basically done already and it's a completely separate issue from drive-by templating, so I'm not sure why they're being clumped together in this proposal. | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Per Waluigi Time, if there's an active discussion then these templates do help direct users to those. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Going straight to a proposal is never a good idea; it is always a bad idea. Can we cancel this proposal that I made? {{User:GuntherBB/sig}} 15:56, December 26, 2023 (EST) | |||
:It's not ''always'' a bad idea, if you want to cancel this proposal you can just cut and paste it straight into the archive now. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 17:43, December 26, 2023 (EST) | |||
===Rework the "lookalikes" categories=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|9-1|Restrict categories to actual copies of these subjects}} | |||
This proposal affects [[:Category:Mario lookalikes]], [[:Category:Luigi lookalikes]], [[:Category:Bowser lookalikes]], [[:Category:Princess Peach lookalikes]], and [[:Category:Donkey Kong lookalikes]]. I feel these have recently become one of many category types that have started to be over-abused just because certain characters bear some slight resemblence to another which can be subjective. Recent examples include [[Special:Diff/4086957|this character wearing a pink dress and blonde hair]], [[Special:Diff/4086376|Foreman Spike's sprite looking like Mario's]], even [[Special:Diff/4086972|Daisy]]. I'm proposing we trim down usage of these categories to use them solely on subjects that are actual copies or clones of these characters such as [[Dark Bowser]] or [[Dreamy Mario]]. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Swallow}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 27, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Proposal per | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} After giving it some thought, it would be better if these categories affected characters who look '''exactly''' like who they're meant to copy. I don't know everything about the Mario franchise, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of lookalikes out there. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} I'd honestly be in favor of deleting these categories as I feel they're too broad to be useful, but as that's (currently) not an option, I can live with trimming the definition. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} These categories are at the risk of becoming way too broad to even be useful; there's a world of a difference between [[Robot Princess|a robotic copy of Princess Peach]] that's basically just Peach with a few metal-y textures on her visually, and... [[Terrormisu|an entirely different princess character from an entirely different spin-off series]], that serves as the primary antagonist of a game and is capable of growing in size and changing elements, who just ''happens'' to have a superficial color resemblance to Princess Peach in her boss fight. We have to be putting down hard barriers for what counts as "resemblance" here, because otherwise, you could make an argument that in the article's current state, and due to events in ''Superstar Saga'', that [[Luigi]] is a peach look-alike. And that is a sentence that hurts to type. | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - This is getting ridiculous. Abuse of categories like this is why we had to get rid of [[:Category:Villains]], among others. Let's be sane, OK? | |||
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} : Seeing these lookalike categories listing characters like Ditto or Master Shadow just for being able to copy the appearance of the character is ridiculous. There's a clear difference between characters designed to be lookalikes or copies of a character and characters that use similar design tropes as the original character, but not an exact clone or lookalike. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Characters happening to share some design elements isn't a useful category, it's trivia at best. | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per excessive ambiguity. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Conradd}} This category is named '''lookalikes''', meaning they resemble a certain character, they're not specifically clones. They are related because of certain design traits or ideas. This category hasn't been "abused", mind you. What you are asking is a different category. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Having played ''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam'' recently, there are paper versions of pretty much every character (including Luigi, because of Paper Luigi in the music player). King Boo also temporarily turns into Paper Princess Peach and Bowser before the fight with him. It might be a stretch for King Boo, but would the Paper versions count in this proposal? {{User:Sparks/sig}} December 20, 2023, 7:13 (EDT) | |||
:Within Paper Jam's context at least, I would also consider the paper characters' lookalikes. It is the only game King Boo shapeshifts so I wouldn't agree with adding these categories for him either, compared to Doopliss who turns into Mario's form for quite a large amount of time. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 07:19, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::Okay. Is there a category of Mario/Luigi/Peach/Bowser clones? If there isn't, then many of these characters would fit that category. Conradd's oppose vote does have me on the fence about voting though, they kinda do look like Mario and Peach, but there's no way Daisy is a Peach lookalike. {{User:Sparks/sig}} December 20, 2023, 7:22 (EDT) | |||
:::Daisy was lookalike of Peach if you consider her original design from Super Mario Land. Luigi was a lookalike of Mario because, for a time, he was indistinguishable from Mario in either sprite form or promotional material. Neither of them resemble their originals design now, but Luigi is still consider a lookalike, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case for Daisy too. --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 07:35, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::But Peach never appeared in ''Super Mario Land'', so I don't understand the point you're trying to make. {{User:Archivist Toadette/sig}} 07:40, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::Wasn't Daisy a reskin of Peach until she wasn't? Isn't the connection between Peach and Daisy evident enough? Luigi never appear alongside the Fury Shadow in Bowser's Fury. --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 07:52, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::::No, I don't see it that way. The developers of ''Super Mario Land'' likely never saw it this way either. {{User:Archivist Toadette/sig}} 08:03, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::::Are you seriously arguing with me that Daisy's original design from Super Mario Land wasn't based on Peach's classic design and that this is all just coincidence? --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 08:09, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::::::Why future games keep entertain this connection if they are unrelated? The most recent example that comes to my mind being Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with the echoes fighter thing. --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 08:14, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::::::Isn't Wario appearance based on Mario? Guess what, Wario is in the Mario lookalikes category. Isn't Waluigi appearance based on Luigi? Guess what, Waluigi is in the Luigi lookalikes category. This isn't new infos guys. Come on. --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 08:25, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::::::::Being a perversion of their design isn't the same as being an uncanny doppelganger. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:09, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::::::::If we go that route, we better removed Luigi, Wario, and Waluigi from the categories then. --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 11:17, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::::::::::I'd be good with that actually. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 11:22, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::::::::::Wait, they're actually ''in'' those categories? (actual pause of us checking) ... ''Oh my goodness''. Um, no offense, but we feel like these should've been gone before this proposal even began. Mario's even has Luigi ''and'' Wario! (Somehow--thankfully--not Waluigi, though? We guess Waluigi is the result of a Ship of Theseus of Mario...) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:29, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::::::::::I could see Luigi being on there, since early on he actually ''was'' a palette swap of Mario, right down to the artwork. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:38, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::::::::::::No. If we are changing this to only accept clones we should remove Luigi also. I can't believe some of you are ok to include Green Mario but not Orange Peach. --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 11:43, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::::::::::::@Doc Von: We guess? ...But given Luigi has his own category for look-alikes, we feel like having them in each others' categories is a little silly. And also, to play devil's advocate, please ''don't'' actually take this as a serious suggestion, given Luigi's debut was in ''[[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)]]'', you could technically argue that a Luigi Look-alike (and for that matter, a Mario look-alike due to [[Mario's Cement Factory]]) is... [[Mr. Game & Watch]]. <small>also holy cow maybe we should like. have this conversation in another part of this comments section. that is ''14'' colons there and our right hand's already getting carpal tunnel-themed flashbacks to a certain Dino Piranha on fire from that alone</small> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:52, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::::::::::::Daisy was never a full-on palette swap of Peach; she always had some distinct aspects of her design, even in the early art. Peach having a color swap ''resembling'' Daisy in ''Smash'' isn't the same as it ''being'' Daisy. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:13, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::::::::::::Ok dude --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 12:17, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
You forgot [[:Category:Donkey Kong lookalikes]]. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 09:09, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:I was on the fence with including deletion on this proposal, still not sure if want to add that at the moment. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 10:17, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::In spite of your vouching for shapeshifter characters on these categories, such characters are actually one of my primary reasons for wanting these categories deleted. Not only is it weird to call Ditto, a creature from a completely different franchise, a "lookalike" of Mario, Luigi, etc. for example, it's also somewhat redundant with [[:Category:Shapeshifters]]. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 11:53, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::Honestly, I agree at that point. You all agree to rework these categories without having correctly defined what is a clone and what is not. Y'all know what's going to happen next? This proposal will likely pass, and not too long after that, someone will make another proposal requesting a new rework because they find these categories to be vague, contradictory, or nonsensical. --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 12:16, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::I've decided to remove that part in the proposal and focus on actual copies of characters, which I'm pretty sure we have decided on already. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 12:21, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::Y'all do whatever you want. I don't want to be part of this stupid conversation anymore. --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 12:26, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
Would Mechakoopas no longer be a sub-category to Look-alikes for Bowser if this goes through? We feel like they should, considering they hardly look like him outside of ''SMW'' and have kinda gradually become their own thing, but we feel like we should bring that one up in a formal capacity. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:54, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Mechakoopa design is almost certainly derived from Bowser's original weird sprite, so in a sense, they are. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:53, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::I believe Mechakoopas are often stated to be mechanical Bowsers or something. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 14:00, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::Fair point. We see that on a few occasions they're even called Mecha-Bowsers. But, given the article for Mechakoopas themselves is absent, it still strikes us as weird... ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:12, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
Silly question that we swear is related; we're working on a ''huge'' dissertation of every article in these categories, just to sort through our thoughts on each of these and hopefully serve as a resource for where we could draw the line. The problem is that this thing is currently '''10,000 characters''' and we haven't even covered Peach or DK's categories! We're literally giving these a sentence or two tops aside from extreme exceptions, we're trying to keep things brief for once! ...Should we, like, put these elsewhere, or what should we do so we don't completely dominate the comments section with this thing? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:12, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Maybe a userspace page? Your dissertation probably won't change my opinion, but it should still be shared nonetheless. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 14:53, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::'''[[User:Camwoodstock/Lookalike Dossier|That works for us!]]''' A 15k-character whopper of a page, a full enough description of every page in the five mentioned categories by the proposal, and if we feel the pages should stay, go, or something we could decide in a future proposal in weird edge cases. We don't expect anyone to fully read this and type up a full counter-point to everything here (and to be completely honest here, please don't; we wrote these with the idea of "if another proposal occurs, we will elaborate then" in mind, and any clarifications right now would just be us re-iterating our exact points all over again, and to be real here, our wrists are mad enough at us for this one!), but we hope you can see our through-line with this one and have a rough model of how a trim-down ''could'' look like; though, of course, nothing in this is final, this is all the opinions of one body that is very, very frazzled all things considered. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:52, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::Nicely done! If it's worth mentioning, the current consensus on the shapeshifters is to exclude them. As for how to handle the Mechakoopas in [[:Category:Bowser lookalikes]], we could probably just include [[Mecha-Bowser]], [[Bowser???]], and ''maybe'' the standard [[Mechakoopa]], but none of the Mechakoopa variants. I have no idea how to handle [[Eddie the Mean Old Yeti]]... [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 18:00, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::We missed Mecha-Bowser and Bowser???, good eye. Those should probably also go in there, seeing as "Bowser-themed Mecha" is its own genre of Bowser look-alike (like all the weird robo-Peaches and duos that are vaguely based on the Mario brothers)... We have already reached a mini 5-stages of grief about Eddie the Mean Old Yeti, and have accepted he's ''probably'' best to exclude by default just because his article currently makes it unclear if he's a Kong or a full-on Yeti, but we should likely hold a proposal to determine if we add him in after the fact. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:06, December 20, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::If "Kongs" can be gorillas, monkeys, chimpanzees, and orangutans, then they can be yetis, too. (I'm still convinced Candy is a sasquatch.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:41, December 23, 2023 (EST) | |||
===Split the "[remake title] + [completely new game title]" games=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|9-0|Split completely new games from remakes}} | |||
Something that's been itching on my mind for a while. In the case of games (predominantly remakes) where there is what amounts to two separate games on one pack, we cover them both on one page, despite the needless bloat and resultant detail-cutting this causes. The games I am talking about specifically are ''[[Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions]]'', ''[[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey]]'', and ''[[Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury]]'', though I want this to create a precedent for any later releases to come. The respective title mentioned after the "+" is, for all intents and purposes, a completely new game that shares a pack and assets with the former (along with a storyline and setting for the M&L ones, albeit with a different focus). The gameplay itself is radically different for each, and along with being given their own titles, they are treated as a "two games in one" style multipack, like, say, ''Zelda''{{'}}s ''A Link to the Past + Four Swords'' (which were also the only way to play GBA-type ALttP and FS prior to the latter's limited-run DSiWare enhanced port, I may add). | |||
I suppose the main reason they aren't split is that we generally discourage splitting modes from the game pages. And while that's fine in, say, ''Mario Party'' games where different modes amount to a different set dressing and order of what is done, these have radically different features and play styles, so it's not comparable. Plus, one particular mode in one ''Mario Party'' game, [[Super Duel Mode]], ''is'' so massively different from the rest of the game it gets its own page. | |||
I also find this to be similar to the ''[[Mario Bros. (Game Boy Advance)|Mario Bros. Classic]]'' included on GBA games; though of course, it ''has'' to be split considering it was on no less than ''five'' carts. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 28, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support + ''Toadsworth's Trials''==== | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} This was something I considered proposing myself a little while ago but was a bit hesitant to do so. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} ''Per Proposal'' + ''Solemn's Solitude''. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all + ''Cam & Tori's Puzzle League''. We feel like these "side-modes" they keep adding in these re-releases (which, let's be real here, these are basically new full campaigns) generally go less documented just because we have to fuse them together into articles. It'd be like if every article on Inkipedia had to combine Octo Expansion with base Splatoon 2; we feel like how they handle things would be a good model for what these split articles could look like, actually. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} ''Per Everyone + Dr. Crygor's Mix-Ups'' | |||
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all, particularly Camwoodstock. | |||
#{{User|Jdtendo}} ''Per all + Jdtendo's New Campaign that Could Be a Game in and of Itself'' | |||
#{{User|BMfan08}} Follow the riveting tale of one user's vote in ''BMfan08's Decision + Baby Mario's Quest for a Bottle of Milk'', available in most retail stores! (Per all.) | |||
====Oppose + ''Waluigi's Warpath''==== | |||
====Comments + ''Pauline's Concerto''==== | |||
Just to be certain, if we split articles like ''Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury'', that means the original ''Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury'' gets to stay too, right? Of course, the relevant ''Bowser's Fury'' information would get its own article, but the game is still sold as the ''Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury'' package, and ''Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury'' also boasts several differences in the ''Super Mario 3D World'' half compared to the original Wii U release.<br>On another note, games like ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions'' and ''Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey'' are actually called ''Mario & Luigi RPG 1 DX'' and ''Mario & Luigi RPG 3 DX'' in Japan, so I think in their case, it's more appropriate to use the game mode's name for the respective latter halves' articles... which in ''Bowser's Minions'''s case, would be ''Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser''. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:30, December 23, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Of course. Though with that note on the Japanese names, I suppose we won't need to split the M&L campaigns as well, unless they're lacking the DX on the in-game select. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:53, December 23, 2023 (EST) | |||
===Merge the "Microgames" sections of ''WarioWare'' hosts into their "History" sections=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|4-0-0|Merge into History}} | |||
This proposal will affect these articles: | |||
*[[Jimmy T]] | |||
*[[Dribble & Spitz]] | |||
*[[Kat & Ana]] | |||
*[[Orbulon]] | |||
Look at the "Microgames" sections in articles for [[WarioWare (series)|''WarioWare'' series]] hosts; they are basically multiple one-liner paragraphs that describe what the microgames of the host are about, and how the player can play them. It is rather un-encyclopedic for a section to have paragraphs with only one or two sentences each; moreover, the writing is blah. The general host's "microgames" section goes like this (take a long good look at [[Jimmy T#Microgames|Jimmy T]]'s section for example): | |||
<blockquote>[Y] comes with their own set of microgames in all games of the ''WarioWare'' series except [X]. | |||
In [X], [Y] hosts [Z] microgames, which involve [A] microgames. | |||
[...] | |||
In [X], [Y] hosts [Z] microgames, which involve [A] microgames. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
The second sentence in the above appears repeatedly per one-liner paragraph, marking the need for these "paragraphs" to be relocated to the host's "History" section. Ideally, a paragraph corresponding to "This Game" will be relocated to the section named "This Game". And so on. Before the writing of this proposal, Mona, Dr. Crygor, and 9-Volt already had their "microgame" sections incorporated into their "history" sections. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|PnnyCrygr}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 28, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Merge "Microgames" sections into "History" sections==== | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Per my proposal | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|BMfan08}} I had not known about the lack of consistency about this until this proposal came up. I'm all in favor of unity. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. | |||
====Expand paragraphs in "Microgames" sections==== | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
===Allow the {{tem|tabber}} template to be used with infobox images for {{tem|game infobox}}=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|canceled}} | |||
I just saw something on [[wikirby:Kirby Wiki|WiKirby]], and game pages have box arts, cover arts, and logos in different regions. Right now, I was wondering if the Super Mario Wiki could allow the {{tem|tabber}} template to be used with infobox images for the {{tem|game infobox}} template. I created some samples for ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' and ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars]]'', that way you'll never need to go to the [[Gallery:Super Mario Odyssey#Box art|respective games']] [[Gallery:Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars#Box art|image galleries]]. Here's an example: | |||
<div class="contentbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"data-expandtext="Show sample for Super Mario Odyssey"data-collapsetext="Hide sample for Super Mario Odyssey"> | |||
{{game infobox | |||
|title=Super Mario Odyssey | |||
|image={{tabber|title1=North American box art|content1=[[File:SuperMarioOdyssey - NA boxart.jpg|250px]]|title2=Brazilian box art|content2=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey Brazil boxart.jpg|250px]]|title3=European box art|content3=[[File:SMO Box EU.png|250px]]|title4=Dutch box art|content4=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey NL.jpg|250px]]|title5=German box art|content5=[[File:SMO Box DE.png|250px]]|title6=Russian box art|content6=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey Russia boxart.png|250px]]|title7=Japanese box art|content7=[[File:SMO Box JP.jpg|250px]]}} | |||
|developer=[[Nintendo Entertainment Planning and Development|Nintendo EPD Tokyo]], [[1-UP Studio]] | |||
|publisher=[[Nintendo]]<br>Tencent Games (China) | |||
|release={{release|Japan|October 27, 2017|USA|October 27, 2017|Mexico|October 27, 2017|Europe|October 27, 2017|Australia|October 27, 2017|HK|October 27, 2017|South Korea|December 1, 2017|ROC|December 1, 2017|China|March 16, 2020}} | |||
|languages={{languages|en_us=y|fr_fr=y|fr_ca=y|es_es=y|es_latam=y|de=y|it=y|nl=y|ru=y|jp=y|kr=y|zh_simp=y|zh_trad=y}} | |||
|genre=3D [[Genre#Platform games|platformer]], action-adventure | |||
|modes=Single player, two-player co-op | |||
|ratings={{ratings|esrb=E10+|pegi=7|cero=B|acb=PG|usk=6|dejus=L|rars=6+|grac=all|gsrr=p|fpb=pg|gcam=7|nmc=7|cadpa=8+}} | |||
|platforms=[[Nintendo Switch]] | |||
|media={{media|switch=1|switchdl=1}} | |||
|input={{input|joy-con=1|switchpro=1|switchgcn=1}} | |||
}} | |||
</div> | |||
<div class="contentbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"data-expandtext="Show sample for Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars"data-collapsetext="Hide sample for Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars"> | |||
{{game infobox | |||
|title=Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars | |||
|image={{tabber|title1=Key artwork|content1=[[File:Tipping Stars artwork.jpg|250px]]|title2=English logo|content2=[[File:Mario Vs. Donkey Kong - Tipping Stars.svg|250px]]|title3=Japanese logo|content3=[[File:MvsDK Wii U JP Logo.png|250px]]|title4=British English box art|content4={{tabber|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title5=European Spanish box art|content5={{tabber|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Spanish box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Spanish box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title6=European French box art|content6={{tabber|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU France box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU France box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title7=Italian box art|content7={{tabber|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Italy box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Italy box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title8=Dutch box art|content8={{tabber|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Netherlands box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Netherlands box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title9=German box art|content9={{tabber|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Germany box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Germany box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title10=Japanese box art|content10={{tabber|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario-vs-donkey-kong-tipping-stars-boxart-jp.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario-vs-donkey-kong-tipping-stars-boxart-jp-3ds.png|250px]]}}}} | |||
|developer=[[Nintendo Software Technology Corporation]]<br>[[Nintendo Software Planning & Development#Group No.3|Nintendo SPD Group No.3]] | |||
|publisher=[[Nintendo]] | |||
|release={{release|USA|March 5, 2015|Japan|March 19, 2015|Europe|March 20, 2015|Australia|March 21, 2015}} | |||
|genre=[[Genre#Puzzle|Puzzle]] | |||
|ratings={{ratings|esrb=E|pegi=3|usk=0|acb=g}} | |||
|modes=Single-player | |||
|platforms=[[Wii U]]<br>[[Nintendo 3DS]] | |||
|media={{media|wiiu=1|wiiudl=1|3ds=1|3dsdl=1}} | |||
|input={{input|wiiu=1|3ds=1}} | |||
}} | |||
</div> | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBB}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Super Game Gear}} I love the feeling of easily toggling between thumbnail-size images whenever possible rather than refer to tiny gallery images, which makes it hard to compare without opening in separate tabs. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We feel like tabbers should be used sparingly--namely, when (hopefully a small amount of) different designs for things are used at the same time, concurrently. Boxart and logos would be much better suited for a gallery; there's just too many of them, and they aren't really "different"; it's almost always the same core design, just with different text. Sure, there's exceptions to that, but they're just that--exceptions--that is definitely not the norm for localized boxarts. Just because we ''have'' tabbers doesn't mean we ''need'' to use them all the time, y'know... ;P | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Tabbers may seem like a convenient idea on paper, however since I heard that it only works with java script which not all devices may support, it may be best for the courtesy of any kind of reader to refrain from using tabbers period. | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} One variant of the box art is enough. Setting aside my personal dislike of the tabber format, it's best to only employ it when the subject has different concurrent appearances--or, concerning Mario Party/Kart levels, when the image in the infobox depicts a more modern rendition of the level's original appearance. Per Camwoodstock. | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Camwoodstock and Swallow. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} No, and tabbers should not be used in the wiki unless there's an absolutely good scenario which I have yet to see. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} If one turns off javascript the infobox will just be a paddy column full of images | |||
====Comments==== | |||
i think it should only be used when there's two very different boxarts. if we're gonna be toggling between a bunch of nearly identical boxes with different stamps on the bottom we might as well not have the tabber at all. now, a game like [[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island|yoshi's island]], where the japanese and international boxarts are VERY different, it might be worth considering. is there a way to solve the javascript tabber issue, anyways? [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 21:53, December 29, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Just ask [[User:Porplemontage|Steve]]. He'll be able to solve the javascript tabber issue. {{User:GuntherBB/sig}} 23:44, December 29, 2023 (EST) | |||
===Clarify stance on Japanese-derived internal names=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|Consider Japanese, use over internal names}} | |||
The wiki's policy on official name priority seems to suggest that they are only to be used if there is a distinct lack of official English names. However, there's a notable grey area in this policy: what are we intended to do when the internal names are derived from Japanese words, but typed out in English letters? There are a few article titles that come to mind where the official Japanese name is used instead of the internal name: several ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'' enemies, including [[Suppoko]] (formerly "Uminoko"), and a few ''[[Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat]]'' enemies such as [[Gōrumondo]] (known as "Garigari" in the files). ''Uminoko'' and ''Garigari'' are clearly derived from Japanese words, so the question is: should we consider these kinds of internal names Japanese names, or English names? | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DrippingYellow}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Consider them Japanese names, use names in official material over internal names==== | |||
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} I don't think we should consider these English names, even if they are written in English characters for the purposes of file organization. | |||
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I would even say that "English letters" is a misnomer: those are actually Latin letters, and they are used to write numerous languages besides English. Just because a word is written in Latin script does not mean that it is in English. | |||
#{{User|Biggestman}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} I've never been a fan of this, tbh. Per my stance, my Hatopop proposal, and all. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. I don't really care, but whatever. | |||
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all. | |||
====Consider them English names, use internal names over Japanese official material==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
This proposal passing wouldn't really change how we generally do things. Is this just to establish something more formal? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:11, December 31, 2023 (EST) | |||
:Indeed, I'm pretty sure we've HAD a proposal on this very subject before. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:03, January 1, 2024 (EST) | |||
::That was the proposal which [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Add an Internal Name syntax to Template:Foreign names|gave internal names their own tables]]. This proposal would give more weight to moving pages like [[Disaster Neko]] to its Famitsu guide name. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 05:06, January 1, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::I'm not sure it would. This proposal does not specify whether it would apply to internal names containing both Japanese and English words. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 05:57, January 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
::::My take is that if the name is by the Japanese, the name is Japanese. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 15:09, January 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Disallow the use of individual promotional artwork in character -- history -- sections=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-15|Keep}} | |||
[[File:Nocoverart.png|thumb|An illustration of a video game controller with the words "Image not available" overlaid above it, used as an image placeholder in the Super Mario Wiki]] | |||
To see what I am talking about, check out [[History of Mario|Mario's history]] article. There are a bunch of white/transparent backdropped promotional artwork thumbnails spread across the whole article. They are pointless, why such? Such these mainly pad the article and serve no purpose other than to ornament the section with color or illustrations. Worse, some have captions that state the obvious or lack thereof. In History of Mario (example again) there is a picture of Mario jumping in ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' section, only for the caption to say: "Mario in ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''". Others like the images in article's sections for ''[[History of Mario#Dr. Mario World|Dr. Mario World]]'' and ''[[History of Mario#Super Mario-kun|Super Mario-kun]]'' lack captions and are just promotional art. | |||
There should be a rule in the (MarioWiki) name space that should probably state that | |||
<blockquote>In the character's respective "History" section, images should have a useful purpose to exist in the section (e.g. clearly explain the role of the character in the game) rather than merely illustrating or decorating the section. Promotional images ''depicting the character's appearance only'' are discouraged in order to prevent padding.</blockquote> | |||
This proposal concerns '''image use in history sections''', NOT every section in the character articles. If this proposal wins, these transparent image thumbnails in history sections should be replaced with screencaps, have some sort of plot device depicted concretely, or be captioned usefully. How would it feel? | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|PnnyCrygr}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Per proposal | |||
<s>{{User|Sparks}} Per PnnyCrygr. Showing screenshots definitely beats past artwork without gameplay.</s> | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} not all promo artwork illustrates a character's appearance in a game the best it can, but that doesn't invalidate the ones who do. Case in point, the Super Mario Wonder render very concisely shows how Mario was also subjected to that game's unique aesthetic direction; an entire screenshot with various extraneous elements wouldn't communicate that as efficiently. The choice of a particular image for a section should fall under the editors' discretion and, at most, be discussed individually among users. | |||
#{{User|Biggestman}} Per Koopa con Carne. also it's just more fun to read something if there are images. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} While I can agree that these are overused and that screenshots from the game may sometimes be better for illustration than promotional artwork, a full ban from using them for history sections at all is overkill and probably going to do more harm than good. If a piece of artwork isn't illustrating something well, then it can just be replaced, that's the collaborative nature of the wiki. | |||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} This doesn't sit well with me. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Per all | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per KCC--in plenty of games, screenshots can generally end up ''super'' noisy with other elements to them; not just UI, but entire enemies, other items, other ''characters''... A screenshot is only as clear as it is focused on exactly one element, and if literally anything else is in frame, it kinda falls flat. While we can understand maybe replacing, say, Super Mario-kun's image with a scan from the manga itself, there's no real reason in the case ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' to force a screenshot of Mario in that game, when a render that is very specifically of Mario in that game would do the trick just as well. | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} Changing my vote to oppose. The characters' artwork does show how the character has evolved over the years as well. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} In Mario's page, I did look over the images used in the history section and Ive personally justified their inclusion. We should be trimming images on these longer pages though. We don't need a promo render for every New Soupy Goomba in the history section when Goomba hasn't changed in the slightest. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, this would be a pretty pointless limitation that would hardly solve anything. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. Having those images does show how a character has evolved over the years, which is an important feature to have. It makes sense as it's supposed to be a history page, and images are history too. | |||
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} Per all | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. While I prefer using screenshots, the promotional artwork still does often show how a character has evolved. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Fine. I consider now that images should be in the history section to illustrate a characters evolution over the games, with one subsection having a promo art for that. Proposal shall be failed inevitably and shall keep all those images. <small><small>it isn't ripe for cancelling</small></small> {{User:PnnyCrygr/sig}} 18:17, December 29, 2023 (EST) | |||
===Delete [[Template:LM portrait infobox]]=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|0-1-8|Do not delete}} | |||
Okay, so I'm really not a fan of infoboxes that are solely focused on one game, considering how we had the ''Super Mario RPG'' bestiary infoboxes, but when the remake was announced, those suddenly had to be done away with. The 3DS version of Luigi's Mansion is faithful to the original, so there isn't as much infobox clutter, but its purpose, if anything, feels similar to those vertical bestiary infoboxes, like the ''Super Mario RPG'' ones that had to be done away with. | |||
If this passes, all instances of the portrait ghost infobox will be replaced with the standard character infobox. My idea is that we convert it into a horizontal infobox (which should be fine, considering pages like [[Gobblegut#Statistics|Gobblegut]] do this), but I'll also leave an option for those who want to vote for its deletion entirely. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Game Gear}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Delete the template==== | |||
<s>#{{User|Super Game Gear}}: Per my reasons above.</s> | |||
====Convert into horizontal infobox==== | |||
#{{user|Super Game Gear}}: Actually, this option is preferable over deleting it outright. | |||
====Leave as-is==== | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really get what the benefit is of removing an infobox designed to convey the information as efficiently as possible. The only argument given by the proposal is that an infobox specific to Super Mario RPG got removed, [[Template:DDRMM song infobox|des]][[Template:DK64 level infobox|pite]] [[Template:DKC level infobox|there]] [[Template:DKC3 world infobox|still]] [[Template:DKJB kingdom infobox|be]][[Template:DKR course infobox|ing]] [[Template:LM ghost infobox|sev]][[Template:LM room infobox|er]][[Template:M+RSOH battle infobox|al]] [[Template:M+RSOH planet infobox|other]] [[Template:M+RSOH quest infobox|game]] [[Template:M&L attack infobox|and]] [[Template:M&S event infobox|series]]-[[Template:M&S episode infobox|spe]][[Template:SSB fighter infobox|ci]][[Template:NSMB2 pack infobox|fic]] [[Template:MSM court infobox|in]][[Template:MKDD kart infobox|fo]][[Template:MGTT character infobox|box]][[Template:MPA quest infobox|es]] ([[:Category:Infobox templates|that wasn't even all of them]]). <s>Also, as an aside, if your plan is to change the design/layout of the infoboxes, why not just make that this proposal instead of needlessly splitting it up?</s> | |||
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Hewer. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - Per Hewer, especially on that last point; we'd get it if this was a general "convert game-specific infoboxes to horizontal templates, and then introduce more standardized infoboxes for these articles in the future" proposal, but to change only ''one'' of those infoboxes feels... A little silly, right? | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} It is better than adding a lot of parameters to a standard infobox that would only be relevant to one game. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} This infobox template is fine. | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all; this template works just fine. | |||
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
You should make horizontalizing an option, then. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:49, January 2, 2024 (EST) | |||
:I don't know how to do that, and even if we were to make something consistent across all 23 portrait ghosts (i.e. horizontal infobox in a statistics section), that would eliminate its purpose of being a vertical infobox. I'll let this proposal run its course, but would we still get consensus on converting the portrait ghost infobox into a horizontal infobox? [[User:Super Game Gear|Super Game Gear]] ([[User talk:Super Game Gear|talk]]) 12:31, January 3, 2024 (EST) | |||
::As long as it's within three days of the proposal's creation, you can edit it to add another option in addition to the current support and oppose options. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:45, January 3, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::Did I do it correctly? [[User:Super Game Gear|Super Game Gear]] ([[User talk:Super Game Gear|talk]]) 19:08, January 3, 2024 (EST) | |||
::::Yep! {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:22, January 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Create a article for List of television networks=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-11|Do not create}} | |||
Hi, i was wondering if a article can be made listing all the television networks that the Mario and Donkey Kong TV Shows and Movies aired on. | |||
The reason we need this article on the wiki is i want to document the networks that aired the shows in every region in a list so that it can be well-documented here on the wiki and also preserved for the future for anybody that wants to know what networks aired the shows on in other regions such as Jetix for example. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|MarioKartFan4863927}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|MarioKartFan4863927}} Per | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} I think a better idea would be just to list those in the relevant articles rather than creating a whole new page for it. | |||
#{{User|Super Game Gear}} Per Swallow. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} "''Oh no, not again!''" to quote [[Ashley]]. Also per all. | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} I understand your idea for the networks, but there may not be that many to warrant a category for them. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Swallow--while this isn't ''useless'' information, it almost definitely doesn't need to have a whole article to itself <small>(we're ignoring the idea of making YouTube it's own disambiguation page in this proposal because it is way out-of-scope for "just the DiC Mario cartoons")</small>. Just expand the "Distributor(s)" section of the infobox, within reason of course (so like, don't put just straight-up "YouTube" in it.), and we don't think anyone would particularly bat an eye. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} Reminds me of your failed proposals in [[Talk:WildBrain]], [[Talk:Netflix]], [[Talk:YouTube]], [[Talk:Hulu (streaming service)]], [[Talk:Amazon Prime Video]], [[Talk:NCircle TV]], [[Talk:Jaroo]], and [[Talk:WildBrainTV]]. The information you want is too oddly specific and ultimately tangential to MarioWiki. If you want to keep a personal list, then probably do it on your userpage. | |||
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Biggestman}} "Here we go! Again? Again?" Again? Again? Again? Again? Again? You have already tried and failed very similar things through 8 DISTINCT TPPs, just give up. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} While this isn't entirely useless (to be honest, it ''is'' a better idea than the eight different proposals about adding pages for the streaming services that could've easily been made into a single proposal (could be a BJAODN contender?)), I'm also not sure if it's entirely necessary for this wiki, either. I'd take up to Camwoodstock and Mario's suggestions if I were you. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Mario: I don't necessarily think we need this article but I disagree with the notion that this information is too irrelevant to cover on the wiki. Couldn't it be seen as the equivalent of what consoles a game can be played on? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:06, January 6, 2024 (EST) | |||
@Arend: NGL, we already have a drafted proposal for a YouTube disambiguation page locked-and-loaded on our Notepad++. We're just waiting for the 28 day cooldown between proposals on the same topic to expire before actually, y'know, putting it to a vote. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:43, January 10, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Create a navigation template for non-''Mario'' characters=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|Create template}} | |||
There are several characters documented on the Super Mario Wiki whom did not originate from the ''Mario'' universe, but rather an external series/franchise. These crossover characters range from [[Sonic|Sonic the Hedgehog]] (and others from the titular series), [[Link]], [[Kirby]], [[Mega Man]] and [[:Category:Third-party characters|more]]. Instead of having to scroll through a multi-paged category or searching and hoping they're here just to find one article, wouldn't it be more convenient for readers and editors to be able to access all of these characters via a neatly-organised navigation box? | |||
The navbox could be sorted by either series of origin, their roles in their crossover appearances, or both. I think this would be a good idea because, as I said before, the only alternatives right now are to scroll through a giant category page or search the character's name in the search bar and hope for the best. If this proposal is approved, leave it to me to create the template; it would be my responsibility due to the idea originating from me. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|RetroNintendo2008}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Super Game Gear}} Sounds like a good idea. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal. There's no harm in voting now — redefining [[:Category:Third-party characters]] can happen in a later proposal. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} While the prototype sandbox version is a little rugged, actually improving the aesthetics and giving its character roster another skim is something that can be done in due time. Off the immediate top of our head, no thoughts just going, a lot of the comics characters could easily qualify, but things like that are better suited for ''after'' the template is voted into existence. What we've got so far, we think looks nice and is, above all else, easy to navigate--which, y'know, is a big thing for a navbox to do right. | |||
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Just realized I hadn't supported this yet. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per all, btw | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Tangentially related, but we just took a look at the category linked in "more", and it's a ''doozy''. In addition to characters that are from external series altogether, such as say, [[Plok]], characters that are from games that happen to have been co-developed by non-Nintendo companies are also clumped in here. We'd guesstimate roughly half of this category is just stuff from either Smash or ''Super Mario RPG'', and while you can argue the former makes some sense to include, the latter absolutely shouldn't be here; especially seeing as we sure don't clump together every last ''Mario Party'' original character despite those being primarily by Hudson. If they really had to be included, the ''[[Wario Blast]]'' bosses are only included via their category being a subcategory--sure, we don't have a blanket "Super Mario RPG characters" category, but we feel like you could easily make one even if just for this. Why the hey is this not already the case for either partially or fully third-party games? | |||
More directly related, however, with the category in its current state, we're almost hesitant to vote on this... At all. Would we just have a section that's "Here's every original character to ''Super Mario RPG'' because Square Enix isn't Nintendo! This is a helpful navbox when you're looking for [[Dr. Wily]]." Yes? Then we don't want to even think about that navbox. Are we going to hopefully repair the category and use that as a basis for the navbox? Yes? Then we might be on-board. But until then, we literally don't feel like we can vote either way in good conscience because hopefully, now that we've brought it up, this category can get all its gunk fixed. <s>also sorry if we sound dismissive, we're not trying to be! we just want to make it clear this category is in a BAD state rn.</s> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:01, January 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
:[[Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars#Original characters third-party categorization|I recently had a discussion]] with fellow user Juju1995 on how to handle the original characters of ''Super Mario RPG'' and ''Diddy Kong Racing'' for [[:Category:Third-party characters]]. We didn't come to any conclusion, however. Other than the idea to add subcategories I gave there, another possible solution to fixing Category:Third-party characters would be to tighten the definition to characters that are both not owned by Nintendo or its subsidiaries ''and'' come from a series also not owned by Nintendo or its subsidiaries. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 15:24, January 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
::We feel like the requirements kinda need to be tightened, because in the current state the category is just ''flooded'' with Smash and ''SMRPG'' characters... And redirects to Mega Man's article as various forms he's taken on in the different spinoff series, just because of his Final Smash. (...Do any articles at all actually use these redirects? We might need to make a proposal on that.) ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:15, January 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::You'd also have to apply the definition change to [[:Category:Third-party species]] and [[:Category:Third-party locations]], even though neither category is in quite as bad a state as the one for characters. The fact we even have more than one "third-party" category makes my idea about adding subcategories no longer viable. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 23:49, January 4, 2024 (EST) | |||
:I understand that the category is currently in a higher priority as of now in terms of fixing, reorganization and whatnot. Therefore, wouldn't a navbox ''also'' be convient in that scenario too? It's obviously gonna take a while to fix the category, so users and readers currently have to just wait for the issue to be resolved for an easier method of finding this type of characters. As I said before, the navbox would be far more organized than how the category currently is. So, it wouldn't really make sense to not do it in many regards. {{User:NintendoFan08/sig}} 07:07, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
::We suppose that makes sense, we just wanna make it abundantly clear that copy-pasting the category 1:1 for the navbox is a ''Terrible, Awful, No Good Idea™'', since... well, you've heard us gob about the state of the category for a bit now, we hopefully don't need to repeat ourselves. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 09:22, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::You are correct, but the navbox obviously wouldn't include ''every'' article from the category. Firstly, any redirects wouldn't be included. Secondly, there are a few characters that wouldn't count as necessary (e.g. the ''Super Mario RPG'' characters arguably don't exactly count as third-party since they only appear in a ''Mario'' game). {{User:RetroNintendo2008/sig}} 10:00, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
::::Touche, not including redirects is kind of a given, and odds are the ''SMRPG'' characters are not long for the category. We're still a little too concerned to vote one way or the other, seeing as we'd like to see a draft of what the template ''could'' look like before making any solid decisions, but this has our provisional approval now, now that that's been made clear. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 10:32, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::::''"...we'd like to see a draft of what the template could look like before making any solid decisions..."'' If you do want me to do this, I'd happily make a proof-of-concept in my user sandbox page. {{User:RetroNintendo2008/sig}} 11:14, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
::::::That'd work for us! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:22, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::::::I've finished making the navbox, and it can be viewed in my [[User:RetroNintendo2008/sandbox|sandbox]]! {{User:RetroNintendo2008/sig}} 13:13, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
::::::::We like what we're seeing here! While there's a few characters that got missed in the absolute chaos that is the article in its current state--mostly characters that are only in various comics (pouring one out for my boy [[Plok]] right now and obligatory mention of the true Classics of Article that is [[Chuckie]])--there's ample time to remedy that and manually cross-check everything; hopefully once the category's pruned of all the ''SMRPG'' stuff and is easier to review, we can get to adding what was missed, but we definitely like the list we're seeing. We think it's a good sign that we're thinking of what else we can ''include'' for the sake of thoroughness, rather than asking what we need to ''remove'' for the sake of pruning extraneous characters that shouldn't have been added in the first place. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:03, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::::::::Thank you for your feedback! I know the proof-of-concept isn't exactly the highest quality, and I am aware there are many characters I missed (keeping track of them all is harder than you think), but I'm glad it at least strengthened this proposal's chances of being approved! {{User:RetroNintendo2008/sig}} 06:01, January 6, 2024 (EST) | |||
A silly question; we'd like to potentially release a proposal that ''would'' impact the Third-party characters category, albeit only in regards to articles that are present to it via redirects--specifically about the presence of many copious redirects to [[Mega Man]] just because of his Final Smash. Could we start that now, or should we wait for this proposal to conclude first? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 10:32, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:I see no problem with doing so. Go ahead! [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 11:49, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
There seems to be a lot of talk about the third-party characters in this proposal for a non-Mario characters navigational template. However, I'd like to remind everyone that characters such as [[Link]], [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Bubbles]], [[Inkling]] and [[Villager]] are ''also'' non-Mario characters, being from ''The Legend of Zelda'', ''Clu Clu Land'', ''Splatoon'' and ''Animal Crossing'' respectively. Since only third-party characters are being discussed here, I thus have to ask if [[:Category:Characters from other Nintendo games]] will also be included on the navigation template, since they aren't Mario characters either. I have to assume as such because Nintendo characters like Link and Kirby ''are'' mentioned by the proposer, but ''no one else'' seems to talk about it!<br>I can imagine that the template would get subcategories like "Nintendo characters" and "Third-party characters" and then go from there, and then have an "Other" subcategory for the ''Smash Bros.'' character lists since these lists contain both Nintendo and third-party characters from ''Brawl'' onwards. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:02, January 6, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Oh my goodness, you're right! My apologies, I was completely unaware of this category until now. I also have to admit I completely forgot about characters such as Bubbles and more, so while I did account for characters such as Link, Kirby and Villager, it's even more obvious how many characters I overlooked. The prototype I made is merely a proof-of-concept and doesn't entirely reflect how the navbox will look if this proposal is approved. Therefore, I wasn't too worried about including ''every'' character in case it took too long or I made some inaccuracies. However, I may make a second revision to accompany for these additions just for the sake of convenience. {{User:RetroNintendo2008/sig}} 07:58, January 7, 2024 (EST) | |||
I definitely see the reasoning behind sorting characters in the navbox by what ''Mario'' media they appear in, but the issue with that is that they can easily appear in multiple things. I see you have them listed in multiple places on the navbox, but I just feel like we're bound to end up with a bunch of duplicate entries. Do you think it would make more sense to categorize them by their source series, instead? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 13:32, January 7, 2024 (EST) | |||
:I can see how that makes sense. I did say above that I will make a second revision, so I will keep that in mind. {{User:RetroNintendo2008/sig}} 14:42, January 7, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-0|Remove}} | |||
A bit of an extension of [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Trim requirements for elemental creatures categories|this proposal]], but this time focusing solely on ''Super Mario RPG'' enemies and bosses. Lots of enemies in this game can use exact same spells such as [[Flame Wall]] and [[Water Blast]], which then leads to [[:Category:Fire creatures]] and [[:Category:Water creatures]] being added to every single article of enemies that use those attacks (this even leads to [[Czar Dragon]] being in Water creatures, and look at the amount of categories [[Valentina]] falls under). I still think this is taking these categories a bit too far and because these spells are shared between lot of different enemies I don't think they fit too well. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Swallow}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Swallow. There are too many enemies that can do lots of elemental attacks, such as [[Czar Dragon]], a fire enemy that can do [[Water Blast]]. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Heh, the [[Earth Crystal|''Earth'' Crystal]] is an air and water creature... Per all. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Now that you've pointed it out, we can't unsee it. How is [[Zombone]], the undead version of the fiery Czar Dragon, ''only'' an Air creature? This ought to have been done awhile back, frankly--per proposal. | |||
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} If Pokémon has taught us anything, it's that move attributes aren't necessarily indicative of monster types. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} Just imagine if Mario and Pokemon had a crossover. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Way too many elemental abilities per enemy, so going with Spark's vote. Imagine if those categorized enemies were airbenders, waterbenders, firebenders, et cetera, or even Avatars. | |||
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Well, yeah, definitely the spells that they can cast don’t necessarily define what they are. I’m still not sure why they thought that the Czar Dragon should be able to cast Water Blast, though… | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
You think Valentina's bad? [[Exor]] falls under ''almost all'' of the elemental creature categories, only missing Category:Air creatures. Category:Water creatures isn't listed, but Exor's <s>Neosquid</s> Mouth can use [[Water Blast]]. Yeah, that's excessive. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 16:09, January 6, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Rename the "List of <cartoon> episodes with <character>" articles to "History of <character> in <cartoon>" (and also, don't category-ify them)=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-1-4|Do nothing}} | |||
The following proposal covers the following articles: | |||
*[[List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa]] | |||
*[[List of The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 episodes featuring Mario]] | |||
*[[List of Super Mario World episodes featuring Mario]] | |||
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country episodes featuring Donkey Kong]] | |||
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country episodes featuring Candy Kong]] | |||
Since categories have apparently become talk of the town, we thought we'd revisit a proposal we made ourselves. It's been over a month since [[Talk:List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa|a proposal we created]] to convert the [[List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa]] article (and later, a few others) to categories, and while the changes from the proposal haven't been implemented, but in the time since then, we've had second thoughts about that proposal in the first place. So, we thought we'd put it into a new proposal, seeing as we can't exactly withdraw a proposal that's technically already passed. | |||
Originally, the plan was to convert this article, as well as the aforementioned articles, into categories. But having looked at them now, we feel like we understand what they're trying to do better. In Hip Koopa's case, this was information already present elsewhere, but in the other articles' cases, this is actually split off from their History articles, and in Candy Kong's case, it's just split off from her article outright. We don't think a category cuts it for coverage anymore; especially since a merge to the pre-existing History articles, or in Candy Kong's case, to her article, would actually be ''more'' cumbersome than what we're doing. These were split off for a reason, mostly for the sake of size. People can get a general overview of, say, Mario in the DiC Cartoons in the [[History of Mario]] page, and then go to the subpages to learn about his role in every episode individually, since it'd otherwise take up too much space in the article. In the extreme case with poor Candy Kong, her article length would literally be doubled by a merge! | |||
There's just three options this time, and hopefully, they're easier to understand too: | |||
* '''Keep the articles, and rename to "History of <character> in <cartoon>":''' The change is simple enough--just rename the articles! These are already functionally history articles, which are only really "list" articles in the sense that they divide things up by episode; the only change would be to the name! And, you know, not saying that we're going to turn these into categories later. | |||
* '''Keep the articles, but keep the "List of" name:''' Alternatively, we could simply overturn the proposal to turn these into categories, but retain the current names they have. We don't see why you'd do that but then not rename, but to each their own, we suppose. | |||
* '''Do nothing:''' The prior proposal will still need to be done in this case, seeing as this is to overturn a proposal that, while it passed, hasn't been enacted yet. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Keep the articles, and rename to "History of <character> in <cartoon>"==== | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We think we've made it clear this is our choice by now. These articles do have merit in existing as split articles, something we failed to see back then and have been kicking ourselves for (that's an exaggeration, but it's irked us!). However, we wish to address that naming misnomer, and hopefully clear up these articles' intent in the future; both to prevent stuff like this from happening again, but also to make it easier to find these articles for people who need them. It's a little silly how, as far as we've been able to find thus far, these are the ''only'' articles that go over a character's history, yet are named "List of". | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} I still don't think it's really necessary to keep these split from the history sections/articles but I do see the argument for it and this is a better naming choice if that's what we're going with (and we should probably also make more of these articles for other characters if this passes). | |||
====Keep the articles, but keep the "List of" name==== | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If all else fails, while we dislike the "List of" name and feel it's a misnomer, we dislike the idea of these becoming categories and being merged even more now that we've had time to reflect. Especially now that we've seen other such problem categories; this has the potential to get out of hand, fast, and we'd like to nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem for some poor user in 2033. | |||
====Do nothing (Proceed with categorization per previous TPP)==== | |||
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} I'm not really convinced by articles being longer — in my mind, if there are more things to cover in an article, then... yeah, it ''should'' get longer. This goes double for the History articles, which basically exist '''because''' they're huge — if they weren't, then they wouldn't be necessary; they'd just be part of the main article. And it seems silly to me to have the [[Mario]] article, which then splits off into [[History of Mario]], and then '''that''' splits off into {{fake link|History of Mario in ''The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3''}} and {{fake link|History of Mario in ''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show''}}. You'd need a dedicated proposal encompassing a lot more than just the cartoons to convince me we should do something like that. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Can't decide whether this is my first or second option but per Ahemtoday (and if ''this'' option passes then we ought to expand the history sections/articles of other characters to also cover their roles in every episode). | |||
#{{user|Okapii}} Per Ahemtoday. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} After further consideration, I have decided to oppose this change because it is confusing; per everyone. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
Why not make categories anyway while still keeping the split articles? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:35, January 6, 2024 (EST) | |||
:If there's enough demand, we could add that as an option; though personally we're worried about over-complicating this proposal as-is, when the original was already probably needlessly over-complicated in retrospect. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:27, January 6, 2024 (EST) | |||
::I feel like it might even be doable without a proposal, I just wanted to make clear that I don't think making categories and keeping the pages are mutually exclusive. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:57, January 6, 2024 (EST) | |||
I think in the end we should just have a list of episodes they appear, plus perhaps a sentence or two of their roles in in a collapsible, similar to [[Koopa Paratroopa]] having these lists of levels they appear in. There's no need to provide exact summaries of their particular roles in these episodes. It works well enough for Yoshi, see [[History_of_Yoshi#Super_Mario_World_television_series]] which I think the list is presentable enough. Now, for characters like Mario, it's probably better to list what episodes he ''doesn't'' appear in or doesn't play a big role anyway, buuuuut I still don't think the split episode pages are useful even for Mario in the end. {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:03, January 6, 2024 (EST) | |||
WTF, why do any of these pages exist? How many AOSMB3 episodes DON'T have Mario in them, or DKC episodes without DK? I don't think you need to do any restructuring or renaming of any of these, just '''delete''' them all. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 00:13, January 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
:[[Talk:List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa#Expand the scope of or nix the Hip Koopa filmography|See the previous proposal on them]]. Despite their names, the purpose of these articles isn't just to list episodes that the characters are in, it's to be like a history section explaining their roles in each episode. Hence why the aim of this proposal is to fix the misleading names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:55, January 9, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Create a category for cowhands=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-0|Create a category for cowhands}} | |||
Howdy pardners! I was taking a look at the current discussion going on in the [[Category talk:Pirates]] page, and [[User:Mario|Mario]] made a suggestion to create a category for cowboys (but to address to both genders, I've decided to name it cowhands). | |||
The problem is, I don't know how many cowhands there are in the ''[[Mario (franchise)|Mario]]'' franchise. The only one I can think of is [[Bravado]], because it was from ''[[Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope]]'', a game I have played. So as such, I would kindly request that any viewers who see this proposal to add characters in the comments. If this proposal passes, a category on cowhands will be created and added to all necessary characters. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} Per proposal. YEE-HAW! | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} No less limited than [[:Category:Annelids]], so I'm fine with this. | |||
#{{User|Dark-Boy-1up}} I really dont see any reason not to. Per DrippingYellow. | |||
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Never hurts to have more organization. Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} On second thought, maybe it's for the best; organization allows for greater convenience of finding what character you want to find. In this case, cowhands. If this proposed category weren't there, there would be no convenient spot to find cowhand character articles. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Mario Cowboy Artwork - Mario Party 2.png|40px]] Stick 'em up. We have pirates and ninjas. Might as well have something for the cow people. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Alright, you're now as ready as you'll ever be to experience "The Mario Wiki Category With No Name". Good luck. (per all) | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} I've been thinking it over for a while and I have supported the idea from the get go, but I do believe making sure other similar categories are organized properly first so that this one can follow suit. Cause there's a difference between being a cowboy/cowgirl and dressing up as one. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all, because why not | |||
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
<del>#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Probably unnecessary, and I too think the number of ''Super Mario'' cowhands featured here are scarce.</del><br> | |||
<del>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per PnnyCrygr.</del><br> | |||
<del>#{{User|Swallow}} I can't think of any western characters either. EDIT: maybe the three Paper Macho outlaws in ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' even if they're basically dressed and named that for a theater performance, and still wouldn't be enough to warrant a category.</del> | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Opposition I take it none of you have looked through [[:Category:Saturday Supercade characters]]. Not that I blame you. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:58, January 14, 2024 (EST) | |||
Might need a different name so it wouldn't be confused for "Characters made in Western countries". Because that's what I first thought of instead of anything related to the Wild West, Old West or Western Frontier. {{User:Arend/sig}} 01:18, January 15, 2024 (EST) | |||
:I guess I can change it to "Old West characters". That would be better and less confusing. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 08:44, January 15, 2024 (EST) | |||
::Cowboys still exist in real life, though, that wasn't solely a frontier/goldrush occupation. That's just where they had (or for many fictional depictions, still have) the most popularity; note that some of the included characters aren't really 'old' West-themed. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 10:35, January 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::Perhaps the name "Category:Cowhands" could work instead? [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 11:02, January 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
::::Maybe '''cowhands''' is the right word, but does it fit all of these characters? {{User:Sparks/sig}} 11:06, January 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::::Name changed to "cowhands" for the time being. If someone has a better name idea you're welcome to speak it. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:30, January 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
Might as well put this here. Here is a list of all characters that would be affected by this proposal if it passes (please note that I'm not super familiar with Saturday Supercade, so I apologize in advance): | |||
* [[Bravado]] | |||
* [[Paper Macho Goomba Outlaw]] | |||
* [[Paper Macho Spike Outlaw]] | |||
* [[Paper Macho Snifit Outlaw]] | |||
* [[Billy Bob]] | |||
* [[Colonel Culpepper]] | |||
* [[Belle]] | |||
* [[Bean (Mobile Golf)]] | |||
* [[Cowboy Jed]] | |||
* [[Calamity Clam]] | |||
Anyone is welcome to add to this list because there are probably characters I'm missing here. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 08:09, January 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
:There's also [[Cowboy Jed]] and [[Bean (Mobile Golf)]]. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:44, January 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
::Noted! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:46, January 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
'''Note for the above list:''' Please don't add in any of [[King Koopa's alter egos]] that fit the category, because the article is a list and even has alter egos that would fit other categories like Category:Pirates. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 21:22, January 16, 2024 (EST) | |||
===Legitimize the usage of tabber to compare between appearance iterations of locations and minigames in general=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-10|do not change}} | |||
This proposal aims to legitimize the use of the [[Template:Tabber|tabber]] template based on the two already approved cases: minigames in the ''Mario Party'' series and race courses in the ''Mario Kart'' series. Both of these pre-approved cases compare the different iterations of a minigame and race courses respectively. | |||
I'm aware that there's been conflict and confusion over the use of the tabber template. For example, recurring ''WarioWare'' microgames have not been approved when the case for using them is very similar to the ''Mario Party'' minigames. It's difficult to determine what the fine line is, but the documentation shows a rule of thumb that's based on the pre-approved cases. If the proposal passes, this will allow using tabber solely for the purpose of comparing between different iterations of locations and minigames. The exception to this is major recurring locations that do not exist in the same iteration and form throughout their appearances, such as [[Bowser's Castle]] and [[Peach's Castle]]. Tabber will continue to be used '''only''' in infoboxes. | |||
Here are some examples of what will be allowed and what counts as "comparing between appearance iterations," if this proposal passes, and anything very similar to these cases will be allowed: | |||
*Courses and rooms in a game with a remake (i.e. Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS, or Luigi's Mansion GCN to Luigi's Mansion 3DS) | |||
*Microgames in the WarioWare series | |||
*Levels in the Super Mario games and Donkey Kong Country games | |||
*NPC locations like [[Brothers Bear]] areas in DKC3 | |||
And just so it's clear, proposal is not about allowing the use of tabber to compare between different formats (e.g. artwork to sprites to models), and those will remain disallowed even if this proposal passes. | |||
'''Edit:''' I think the number of images in tabber for the proposed cases above should be no more than five, meaning pages such as World 1-1 from ''Super Mario Bros.'' won't get the template. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer. | |||
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per SMRPG. | |||
#{{User|Somethingone}} Maybe it's because I'm currently much more active on a different wiki with different rules that does use tabbers often, but I don't see why this should be an issue? From what I can understand, "Tabbers need JavaScript to even work" is a bit of a non-issue when the [[Template:Tabber|Tabber]] page plainly says "For users without JavaScript, all tabbed imaged will be stacked vertically, so their infobox experience should remain unchanged." - so either it works or it's as if the Tabber wasn't there, neither of which cause significant issues. Maybe the Tabber just looks off to some people because right now, it takes the form of a basic link? A tab border and a little font change would go along way if that's the case. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} While we see some merit in some tabbers, we don't really like... well, um, any of these. For "levels shared between remakes", see the state of [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Bowser_in_the_Fire_Sea&oldid=4090923 this old revision of Bowser in the Fire Sea] to see how that can backfire--if that link didn't work, it was set up with a tabber that is for Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS, yet the images provided are ''both Super Mario 64 DS'', meaning it's functionally 2 images for the same thing; even if that were resolved in a way that was not just "removing the tabber", we don't see any substantial reason to include it when a gallery does just as good, if not better at conveying the information anyways. For Microgames, while there are ''some'' Microgames that have merged infoboxes like, say, [[Eject Reject]] where this could maybe work, it certainly doesn't# work for Microgames that function noticeably differently across their incarnations like [[Gold Digger]] that have their infoboxes split. We genuinely don't understand what is meant by "Levels in the Super Mario games and Donkey Kong Country games"--is it like Bowser in the Fire Sea above, or is it something else entirely? Nowhere is this clarified in the proposal, so we don't actually know what we're voting on here... As for NPC locations, this just kinda falls back into the remade course dilemma where the images are just too similar, and a gallery would be better fit. There are places where tabbers fit and make sense and have something over a traditional gallery, but basically all of these are not it. We've said it before, and we'll say it again; just because we ''have'' tabbers does not mean we need to ''use'' tabbers whenever one can fit. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} I'm opposed to tabber creep on the wiki. Tabber I think overall hinders usability in the wiki and has javascript issues. | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Mon, just remove it from the places you shouldn't have put it. I'm tired of this. | |||
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} <s>Wait, if I'm reading this correctly: this wouldn't even allow tabber in just an infobox, but in ''any'' situation where locations are being/could be compared. I mean, when has an "NPC Location" ever appeared in an infobox? Besides, 99 times out of 100, a "(left) Original game, (right) remake" should suffice. Hard oppose.</s><br>My initial complaint has been addressed, but I still don't see the value in comparing levels in the infobox that are identical in terms of layout and only vary visually. | |||
#{{User|Swallow}} Per all, because of javascript we should be strictly limiting usage of tabbers rather than using it in way more areas. | |||
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all. I don't like tabbers | |||
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Tabbers are the worst. All they do is hide important pictures behind the maintext. | |||
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Yeah, no. If this was just "use tabbers in infoboxes", then yeah, I would support, but otherwise no, sorry. | |||
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. This requires JavaScript, and everyone is aware this is a very annoying requirement that some users may not have. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} That's a no from me, dawg. Per all. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Camwoodstock: Levels in the Super Mario/DKC means articles like [[World 7-2 (Super Mario Bros.)]] and [[Barrel Shield Bust-Up]]. It doesn't have to be used for microgames with separate infoboxes. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 22:12, January 17, 2024 (EST) | |||
:...Wait, do you mean like. A tabber that'd cover both SMB1 World 1-1's appearances in ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'', ''[[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]]'', the 25th anniversary edition, ''[[All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.]]'', and even potentially its remakes in ''[[Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3]]'', ''[[New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'', and ''[[New Super Mario Bros. 2]]''? We just woke up and it's been a week, so correct us if we're wrong, but that'd be a tabber with at the very least '''5''' entries and potentially '''''8''''' of them. To us, a tabber is already extremely questionable when there's 3 entries--5 is literally a "gallery preview for a larger gallery that got split off" quantity of entries! | |||
Tangentially related: We'd honestly just like to let the record state, in completely unambiguous terms, we personally think that in addition to the Mario Party and Mario Kart tracks it's already permitted on, the ''only'' other place we can think of off the cuff where we should put tabbers is the [[Thwomp]] article and nowhere else, because they seems to be the ''only'' thing Nintendo has 2 concurrent designs for that they regularly fluctuate between, which is like. The primary reason to even use tabbers. <small>Nothing in this proposal has been a concurrent design that Nintendo flips back-and-forth between, if we might add, which also probably contributes to our vote rationale, but it's already so long and we'd feel bad for adding onto it. ;P</small> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 10:39, January 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Okay, I've added in the hard limit of five for this proposal, and I clarified that this will only apply to infoboxes. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 11:47, January 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
:[[Fire Piranha Plant]]? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:32, January 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
::<small><small>''How could we forget him so soon,,, our socially awkward son,,,''</small></small> You're right, our apologies! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:34, January 18, 2024 (EST) | |||
@SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) To be fair, the author did clarify that this proposal only applies to infoboxes after I raised my concern about that. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 17:58, January 19, 2024 (EST) | |||
@Somethingone "It either works or it's as if the tabber wasn't there" isn't quite accurate in practice; If the tabber doesn't work, then you can definitely sense it is missing by the fact that the infobox has images haphazardly stacked together with no identification. [[Face-Lift (minigame)|Worst-case scenario]], the stacked images actually stretch the infobox vertically to more than half the length of a moderately short article. You ''could'' put labels underneath the image that show up regardless of whether javascript is on or off, but they could be seen as unnecessary while the tabber is functional. And therein lies the problem: what looks nice with tabber enabled does not necessarily carry over when JavaScript is disabled, and vice versa. We should not be relying on something external to the text and image viewing in order to make the article visually appealing. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 23:57, January 22, 2024 (EST) | |||
@DrippingYellow I think you misunderstood. I said that if it was JUST "use tabbers in infoboxes". I MEANT "use tabbers in infoboxes" WITHOUT RESTRICTION ala SONIC RETRO! {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 08:24, January 23, 2024 (CST) | |||
===Cull categories from or delete the various Mega Legends & Mega Man moveset redirects=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-3-0-0|Remove all categories, retain redirects}} | |||
[[File:SSBU Mega Legends.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pictured: Mega Man, and 6 redirects to him.]] | |||
Full disclosure, we made this with the approval of the person currently running a proposal about the Third-party characters category. If this is an overstep for whatever reason, we can cancel this and launch it later on. | |||
This concerns the following redirects: | |||
* [[Proto Man]] | |||
* [[Bass]] | |||
* [[Mega Man X]] | |||
* [[MegaMan.EXE]] | |||
* [[MegaMan Volnutt]] | |||
* [[Star Force Mega Man]] | |||
* [[Rush]] | |||
* [[Beat (Mega Man)]] | |||
And concerns the following categories: | |||
* [[:Category:Third-party characters]] | |||
* [[:Category:Robots]] | |||
* [[:Category:Mega Man series]] | |||
* [[:Category:Super Smash Bros. for Wii U trophies]] | |||
* [[:Category:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS trophies]] | |||
* [[:Category:Super Smash Bros. Ultimate spirits]] | |||
All of these redirects exist to lead back to one spot--[[Mega Man]]'s final smash. MegaMan.EXE, Volnutt, and Star Force Mega Man are all entirely identical category wise; Mega Man series, Third-party characters, Smash 4 3DS and Smash 4 Wii U trophies, and Smash Ultimate spirits. And then Mega Man X is in all of those, and ''also'' in Robots. Protoman and Bass lack the 3DS trophy category, but have the Robots category. Rush and Beat are also part of the custom special moves categories, and robots, and the rest. | |||
We'd get these redirects being in these categories if any of these guys had appeared in a comic or cartoon relevant to Mario like Mega Man himself did, but as far as we can tell, none of them do; they're exclusive to either Mega Man's final smash, or his Up+B move--and poor Proto Man and Bass only get to be there for Ultimate, while Beat, bless his robot bird heart, he's only here for a ''custom'' move in Smash 4! The result is that a few of these aforementioned categories just kind of get clogged with needless Mega Man's final smash or Up+B redirects--in a few cases, some of these are literally right next to one another alphabetically! | |||
Now, we do acknowledge a counterpoint that we have categories for Smash 4 custom special moves, as well as Smash 4 trophies and Smash Ultimate spirits. This is way out of the scope of this proposal, but while we feel as though the trophies categories are largely redundant nowadays since we've been gradually scaling back Smash coverage to things that aren't related to the Mario series, we understand those categories ''do'' still currently exist, and they have trophies and spirits; those inclusions do make sense. In addition, in Rush and Beat's case, we understand their presence in [[:Category:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U special moves]] entirely--they exist entirely to be the focal point of the move, and the move with Beat is literally named after him. But um... Look, we're going to be real here; outside of them being in those categories, which seem to be outdated as-is as our [[List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U|trophy li]][[List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS|st articles]] have culled any non-Mario trophies, we can't think of any other compelling category to put these guys in. Though, since they ''are'' reasonable to put them in, we have an option to retain those categories for the time being. | |||
Now, while putting these things in categories is ''beyond'' us, we can understand keeping the redirects themselves for the sake of the Wiki search function--there's likely someone out there who's been getting to Mega Man's final smash by simply searching one of Mega Man's variants (or Proto Man and Bass), and Rush and Beat are valid names for Mega Man's Up-B in Smash. But having these all fully categorized feels... a ''little'' overkill, right? | |||
And even worse, and our ultimate point here; having all these redirects in these categories where they don't really fit in causes certain categories to decay heavily in usability. Yeah, this is mostly about [[:Category:Third-party characters]], but also the [[:Category:Robots]] category get rather gunked up because of this. Which is pretty silly when Mega Man himself is in both of those categories! So, there's a few options we can understand taking: | |||
* '''Remove all categories period, keep the redirects:''' This would effectively leave the redirects solely to catch searches. We feel this may be extreme in the case of Rush and Beat's cases, but we understand. We didn't bring it up, but the [[:Category:Mega Man series]] category is related to his Smash appearances, so those would ''also'' vanish. We refuse to comment further on the state of that category, this proposal is long enough, but uh... It's a thing, alright. | |||
* '''Remove the Third-party characters and Robots categories, keep the trophy/spirit/custom move/Mega Man series categories and keep the redirects:''' Like the above, but we leave an exception for the explicitly Smash-related categories. | |||
* '''Remove all categories ''and'' remove the redirects:''' The full-on nuclear option. DELETE EVERYTHING!!! This feels a little extreme, especially in Rush and Beat's case, but we figure it's worth acknowledging it. | |||
* '''Do nothing:''' We'll just... Keep every category as they are. We don't really like this, considering Mega Man is currently linked to ''9 times'' in the Third-party characters and Robots categories (once for his actual article and 8 redirects), but hey, we are required to have this as an option, so we're not going to decline it just because we dislike it. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': <s>January 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to January 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to January 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Remove all categories, retain the redirects==== | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our secondary choice, but this definitely feels like a rather nuclear option (somehow even moreso than the "delete the redirects" one!). | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} <s>Per proposal.</s> Secondary choice. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} These just take up space in the category. Them being redirects is also pretty obnoxious (if you're searching these on the wiki, maybe to check if they have any appearance in some obscure German comic the way Mega Man did, they're just all going back to that trivial part of the article) and I wouldn't be opposed to deleting these either. | |||
#{{User|YoYo}} per all. | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all! | |||
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all. | |||
====Remove the Third-party characters and Robots categories, retain the redirects and Smash categories==== | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} This is our primary choice, if we haven't made it clear. We do see the value in retaining those categories while they still exist in their current states, and removing them would only make sense if we began pruning Smash-related categories--not exactly unlikely, but definitely not right now, and way out of the scope of this proposal. But the Third-party characters and Robots categories should've been pruned long ago if you ask us; There's literally 8 redirects to Mega Man in these categories at the moment. Besides, even if it is ''true'' that Beat is a robot, that's not exactly ''helpful'' information when his only Mario presence is as a custom special move. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, seeing as Mega Man already being in the categories makes the bunch of redirects a little redundant. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Primary choice. | |||
====Delete redirects wholesale==== | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
I'd move to pruning the Smash Bros redirects in categories such as [[:Category:Pokémon series]]. It'll probably happen sooner or later but worth thinking about. {{User:Mario/sig}} 12:31, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:I agree, we need to get rid of all non-''Super Mario'' content in ''Super Smash Bros.'' [[User:Super Game Gear|Super Game Gear]] ([[User talk:Super Game Gear|talk]]) 12:34, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
::Don't get carried away. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:45, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::''sharpens axe'' 🪓 I'm still looking at those bloated list pages with red in my eyes. {{User:Mario/sig}} 12:53, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
::::Not to derail the discussion, but I still think we should merge those list pages on a per-game basis rather than covering the entire series, like I have partially done with the page for the original ''[[Super Smash Bros.]]''. That way, it covers their existence and basics without needing to go into detail. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:03, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::::Yeah, your idea seems okay. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:16, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:We saw that, and it's a '''''nightmare'''''. We explicitly want to save that for a future proposal, since it's way out of the scope for this proposal (which, believe us, we just made originally for Third-party characters before a category-themed rabbit hole dropped us inside it and we had to climb out of it), but in the meantime, let's play a game; how many times does [[:Category:Mega Man series]] redirect you to [[Mega Man]] after several distinct article merges? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:38, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
::I counted 28. '''''Twenty-eight.''''' <small>(29 if you count the [[Charge Shot]] disambiguation page.)</small> That's as many pages as most Robot Masters have hit points. Also, why do we even have redirects for Elec Man's Thunder Beam and Zero's techniques? Elec Man and Zero are not playable characters but Assist Trophies, which don't even have individual pages anymore. We also don't have redirects for moves used by non-playable Pokémon like Eevee's Take Down (nor do we ''need'' them), and I highly doubt anyone would be looking for these moves on this wiki. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 14:57, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:::We initially counted ''29'' (not even including Charge Shot!), which we think is terrifying that we somehow came out with different answers (the culprit was Thunder Beam, we forgot Elec Man was an assist trophy, probably because he isn't even in this category. Poor guy.). We think the only reason redirects like the special weapons even exist is just because of legacy--awhile back (and we mean ''awhile'' back, like, pre-Smash Ultimate), Smash moves were split into their own articles. They've somehow never been questioned until right now. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:27, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
::::That's true for the Special Weapons Mega Man uses, yes, but the redirects for Thunder Beam and Zero's techniques were created pretty recently — September 24, 2023, to be exact. We had long since merged the Assist Trophy summons to the Assist Trophy page. '''EDIT:''' I discovered redirects for many other named Assist Trophy moves, also created on September 24, 2023. I don't know why we should have redirects for them but not the non-playable Pokémon's moves — or better yet, why we need them at all. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 15:47, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
I noticed you put [[:Category:Super Smash Bros. for Wii U trophies]] a second time instead of [[:Category:Super Smash Bros. Ultimate spirits]]. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 12:44, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||
:Oops! Our bad. That's been fixed now. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:38, January 5, 2024 (EST) | |||