MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48: Difference between revisions

This may seem like a trivially minor issue, but at the same time, this is an issue that has yet to reach a decisive conclusion. I fail to see a reason why we shouldn't strive for consistency, especially since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_28#Minigame_or_Mini-game|we've already had a proposal]] to decide on a set spelling for [[minigame]] (spoilers: we decided on minigame).  

When it comes to the proposal archives, in which we write down the date each proposal ended, it's standard to use the date a proposal was canceled by its proposer or withdrawn for whatever other reason, rather than the proposed deadline ([[Template:PArchive|as documented here]]). This makes sense: it wouldn't be accurate to say that a proposal had concluded a week later than it actually did, and the point of the archives is that we're documenting each proposal exactly as they played out (which is why we make note of proposals that themselves failed but whose proposed changes later passed, and vice-versa). With that in mind, why do we only make note of this in the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|broad]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Talk Page Archive|archives]] and not within the proposals itself? Sure, it's possible to find the date it was canceled by going through the page's history, in the same way it's also possible to find the original proposer through the history page, but we still make note of it within the proposal itself. Leaving only the proposed deadline by itself is also rather misleading and non-informative, considering that any users reading through the proposal wouldn't be able to obviously tell when it actually closed. Even with the proposal outcome saying it was canceled, that doesn't help people find out ''when'' it was canceled. We should strive for accuracy, especially when all we'd need to do is make note of one more date.

:I think that this was discussed at some point in the past, but I can't seem to find any trace of it... At the very least, it's one of those rules that's been around [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals|for a long time]] and nobody has really bothered to question it. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

Also, why is this a talk page proposal? Aren't these bulk changes the kind of thing best suited for the main proposal page, especially when it (potentially) involves merging? [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_45#Move_Mario_Party_3_Duel_Maps_back_to_their_old_capitalization|One proposal]] was even called out for deciding to rename multiple pages in a talk page proposal. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:19, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

''[[Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic]]'' is, to make a long story short, a game that was altered to become ''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]''; though it did not originally contain any ''Mario'' subjects, [[Shy Guy]]s, [[Pokey]]s, [[Bob-omb]]s, [[Birdo]], and others all originate from this game. Due to the impact this game had on the ''Mario'' franchise, we cover it on the wiki, and I think we can agree on keeping it that way. At the same time, it currently exists in a limbo where we don't know to what extent we should cover it. There was [[Talk:Yume_Kōjō:_Doki_Doki_Panic#Merge_Imajin.2C_Mama.2C_Lina.2C_Papa.2C_and_Poki_and_Piki_with_this_article|a proposal]] that decided that covering the game's characters was too much, but at the same time, the article is a part of [[:Category:Games not originally in the Mario series]], with an emphasis on ''not originally''; if it's currently a part of the ''Mario'' franchise, then we should cover it to that extent. [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] doesn't even bring up the game, so there's no help there. Still, if we use the sections of the policy page as a guideline, we may be able to decide for ourselves what is ''Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic''. Here are the logical options:

I'm proposing this in light of the comment {{user|Baby Luigi}} made [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam|here]]^{[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 48#Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam|(backup link)]]}. Same deal as the other proposal, except now we're splitting off info on the [[Trouble Center]].

What strong difference is there between these items and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_44#Split_the_Mario_.26_Luigi:_Superstar_Saga_and_Partners_in_Time_badges_into_separate_articles|the game's badges]]? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 20:06, 23 September 2017 (EDT)

Here's a simple problem: when it comes to navigation templates for games, some of them include a colon in their name (such as [[Template:ML:SS|Template:ML''':'''SS]] and [[Template:MP:IT|Template:MP''':'''IT]]) and others do not (such as [[Template:PMTTYD]] and [[Template:LMDM]]). Unlike [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_47#Standardization_of_Species_Templates.27_Endings|my previous proposal]] about nav templates, this one's more of an issue: it is incredibly annoying for editors when they have to guess whether or not the template they're adding in has a colon or whether the new template they're making should have one in its title. Leaving things as they are just makes things confusingly inconsistent. Given that [[mb:posts/1780440|there's no rhyme or reason for the inconsistency]], it'd be best for this to be settled for prevent any further inconvenience. There are two options for tackling this: applying a colon to every nav template that lacks it (assuming the game it's covering has a colon in its name, naturally), and removing a colon from every template that has it. I'd personally advocate not having them in the titles: though it's a part of the game's name, it doesn't convey any information that would help editors recognize the name, making it effectively wasted space. Since these templates will be constantly used by editors, it also helps to compactify them in any way we can. I also highly doubt that there will ever be a case in the future where the acronyms of two games can only be distinguished by the colon in one of their names. It also doesn't hurt that the majority of the (applicable) templates alreadny don't have a colon in their titles.

**{{tem|WWDIY Microgames}}

**{{tem|WWDIYS Microgames}}

**{{tem|WWIMM Microgames}}

**{{tem|WWSM Microgames}}

:There's already a rule that allows you to cancel your proposal without a reason ''early on'', especially with [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_48#Double_the_amount_of_time_a_proposer_can_edit_their_talk_page_proposals|this recently passed proposal]]. If you learn "immediately" that your proposed change wasn't a good idea, then you're free to cancel it. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_42#Stop_Listing_Sub-Species_on_Generic_Real-World_Species_Pages|Didn't this proposal already happen?]] {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 02:27, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

:Well, the story is pretty complex, actually, as the wording of the story of ''Super Mario Bros.'' allowed various translations, not all of which were actually consistent with what the following games showed us. This is the actual text:<br/>

:<br/>

:キノコ達の住む平和な王国に、ある日、強力な魔法を操る大ガメクッパの一族が侵略して来ました。<br/>

:<br/>

:Essentially, now that we know what are the Japanese naming conventions, we can finally see what the manual said:<br/>

:<br/>

:''One day, the tribe of the great turtle Koopa who uses powerful magic invaded the kingdom of the mushrooms who live in peace.''<br/>

:<br/>

:but since 「の」 has various meanings and the translators couldn't simply know what would have been the actual depiction of the various characters, races and so on, this still technically appropriate translation ended being the translation found in the manual:<br/>

:<br/>

:''One day the kingdom of the peaceful mushroom people was invaded by the Koopa, a tribe of turtles famous for their black magic.''<br/>

:<br/>