MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
Ultimatetoad (talk | contribs) |
(A long ass comment about subject origins) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{/Header}} | |||
{ | |||
==Writing guidelines== | |||
=== Get rid of or heavily restrict the "Subject origin" parameter === | |||
I can already sense a murmur rising in the crowd, but hear me out. I've made it no secret on here that [[Template_talk:Species_infobox#Point_of_derived_subject.2Fsubject_origin.3F|I don't really like the Subject origin parameter]] on the [[Template:Species infobox|species infobox]]. The term "subject origin" is a bit of a misnomer. It really should've been called "design inspiration", because rather than explaining where the subject comes from ''in pieces of media'', it's only ever been used in instances where the subject took any sort of inspiration from another entity, either real or fictional. If that sounds oddly broad... then yes, it ''is'' '''very''' broad. | |||
This line of reasoning is used for bizarre classifications such as [[Mincer]]s being derived from [[Zinger]]s because they're both spiky enemies (is Mincer even an enemy, or just an obstacle?) that follow specific paths, or every "Bone" enemy variant being derived from [[Dry Bones]] even if they don't actually fall apart. There's even a few cases where "subject origin" has taken priority over confirmed relatedness between species, despite the term not in itself suggesting a close relationship between subjects, thus ''losing'' useful information in the infobox in these cases (e.g. [[Rocky Wrench]]es which were formerly [[Koopa (species)|Koopa]]s, [[Whomp]]s which are said to be "cousins" of [[Thwomp]]s, [[Krumple]]s being blue Kremlings that follow the same naming scheme as their predecessors [[Krusha]] and [[Kruncha]]). | |||
The most awkward instances, however, are easily the instances of a subject being "derived" from a generic concept. [[Kleptoad]]s, though based on [[frog]]s, have little to no relevance to any of the generic instances of frogs present in the Mario franchise. Similarly, [[Rabbid]]s are entirely separated from the Mario series' depictions of [[rabbit]]s, not only because they don't act like generic rabbits in the Mario series, but also because they're not even from the same ''franchise''. It's not even restricted to entities that actually ''have'' pages on the Mario Wiki. [[Kremling]]s are stated to originate from "crocodilians", a page that [[:Category:Crocodilians|only exists as a category]], [[Crazee Dayzee]]s are derived from "flowers" (which are in a similar situation), and [[Krimp]]s are listed as being derived from "dogs". Who's to say [[Boo]]s aren't derived from "ghosts", or that [[Flaptack]]s don't have "bird" as a subject origin, or that [[Octoomba]]s aren't based off of both "aliens" and "octopuses"? | |||
I hope you can see that the unrestricted references to generic or real-world species at the very least are a problem. But even for non-generic subject origins, the vast majority of the time (I'm tempted to say all of the time, but there could be an instance I'm struggling to think of that doesn't fall under this), this kind of info is covered sufficiently in the introductory paragraph, or the General information/Appearance section when applicable. I propose we deal with this in one of the following ways: | |||
'''Option 1:''' Axe the "subject origin" parameter entirely. (My primary choice)<br> | |||
'' | '''Option 2:''' Ban usage of subject origin to refer to generic species, in addition to switching priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects". (I'm fine with this)<br> | ||
'''Option 3:''' Simply ban usage of citing generic species as the subject origin.<br> | |||
'''Option 4:''' Ban usage of subject origin to refer to species from the ''Mario'' franchise.<br> | |||
'''Option 5:''' Just switch priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects" | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|DrippingYellow}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
==== Option 1 ==== | |||
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} As derived from my proposal. | |||
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal | |||
== | ==== Option 2 ==== | ||
=== | #{{User|DrippingYellow}} Secondary choice. | ||
==== Option 3 ==== | |||
==== Option 4 ==== | |||
==== | ==== Option 5 ==== | ||
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Second choice | |||
#{{User| | |||
==== | ==== Do nothing ==== | ||
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - I don't really see the issue. If anything, the "relatives" parameter not having directional counterparts is the weakest link. Plus the "listing Galoombas as Goomba relatives rather than variants because a source distinguished them from each other and happened to used the word 'related'"-type of thing might be itself getting out of hand... | |||
==== Comments ==== | |||
Oh, looks like I'm involved with this proposal to some degree. You see; I was the one who did the Kremling edit and especially the recent Dry Bones edits. For the latter, my explanation is that subject origin refers to things based on another entity ''while not actually being the entity.'' For example, Galoombas have been considered not Goombas, but they were meant to be inspired by them and even their [[Galoomba#Names in other languages|name]] reflects it. There are various subjects that are definitely inspired, while not considered relatives of the original entity. Goombrats are weird, because they are stated to be relatives, although it's not made clear if they are a variant, as ''Super Mario Run'' loved to throw a wrench at us. The initial existence of subject origin appeared to be more generic species that had multiple fictional variants off of it. I always had this issue with penguins on this, because the ''Mario'' franchise equivalent of penguins are meant to be based on those from ''SM64'', yet the derived section brings up entities that existed ''before it.'' The blue color seems to derived from Bumpties, so there's ''that'' [[MIPS]]hole for you. As for my Dry Bones edit, they've inspired various skeleton enemies over the years. It's obvious that Bone Piranha Plants were inspired by Dry Bones, because their designs have the same type of texture. The same applies to Fish Bones, because they are meant to be underwater Dry Bones, especially given in ''Maker'', where an underwater Dry Bones becomes a Fish Bones. Poplins are not confirmed to be relatives of Toads, but it's wrong to say that aren't inspired by Toads. Really, I got the impression that subject origin = inspiration. We know that Dry Bones and Fish Bones are definitely two different entities not even related, but we know one took inspiration from the other. I guess this type of logic would make Shellcreepers being the origin for Koopa Troopas, although Shellcreepers are retroactively considered part of the Koopa clan. Yeah, relatives is another thing. For me, if its unclear what came first, its a relative. Paragoombas have the ability to spawn Mini Goombas. Mini Goombas aren't really a variant of a Paragoomba, so the relative label fits there. To get back on topic a little bit, I'm surprised [[Moo Moo]] didn't get mentioned here; it's in the same boat of Kremling, except I made it link to the Wikipedia article for [[Wikipedia:Cattle|cattle]]. My thought process behind these edits, where to tell the viewer what the species is based off on. This is somewhat true for Kremlings, who are sometimes called [[Donkey Kong Country (television series)|reptiles or lizards]]. A person who isn't familiar with this franchise might not know what the hell a Kremling is meant to be based on, so I figured that I mention its inspired by both crocodiles and alligators (not sure if Kremlings tend to crossover with these two, like how Diddy and Dixie are crosses between monkeys and chimps). I guess this could get out of hand when talking about fictional animals such as dragons or aliens, so there's that. My thought process is that someone might not realize what the species is based on. Like, if there was a fictional species based off on a [[Wikipedia:Spider monkey|spider monkey]], which some people might not realize actually exists, ''that'' was the intended goal. Of course, it can resort to "well, no shit," situations regarding Kremlings who are just based on typical crocs and Moo Moos. So yeah, I'm not entirely sure what to choose here. I do want it to be obvious to non-''Mario'' readers what the subject is based on. Are we considering making Galoombas be considered comparable to Goombas? [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 23:55, June 11, 2024 (EDT) | |||
== | ==New features== | ||
=== | ===Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes=== | ||
Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being [https://www.mariowiki.com/images/2/26/Mario1c.jpg dumb], but hear me out. | |||
''' | A few years after [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/31#Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxes|this proposal]] passed, this wiki added a [[Template:Group infobox|group infobox]] for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would '''only''' be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having. | ||
''' | |||
I've come up with two options: | |||
*Option 1: [[Template:Character infobox]] and [[Template:Species infobox]] get a "member of" parameter, which would be used to link to groups they are, well, a member of. [[Goomba]] and the like would link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[Vivian]] would link to [[Three Shadows]], etc. This parameter would be used to list both memberships and leadership roles (the latter could maybe be distinguished by adding "(leader)" next to the link). | |||
*Option 2: these infoboxes would also get a separate "Leader of" parameter. [[Bowser]] would use this to link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[King K. Rool]] would use this to link to [[Kremling Krew]], [[Captain Syrup]] would use this to link to [[Black Sugar Gang]], characters and species-characters would link to the [[:Category:baseball teams|baseball teams]] they lead, etc. | |||
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with). | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Option 1==== | |||
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} First choice per proposal. | |||
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) The folly of the "affiliations" tab was that it was allowed to include characters, which led to nonsense like Fawful being affiliated with "himself" among other things. Restricting it to groups is perfectly fine. | |||
==== | ====Option 2==== | ||
#{{User| | #{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Second choice per proposal. | ||
==== | ====Do nothing==== | ||
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place. Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the [[Template:Character infobox]] is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. [[Excess Express]] passengers, [[Mario Kart 8]] racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances. In the [[Goomba]] example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions. What about the Goombas in [[Goomba Village]] or [[Rogueport]] or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas. You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per DrBaskerville. | |||
===Comments=== | ====Comments==== | ||
== | ==Removals== | ||
''None at the moment.'' | |||
==Changes== | |||
===Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary=== | |||
An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch)]], as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, ''very'' long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the ''TTYD'' remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and ''then'' go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new? | |||
''' | I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'']] or ''TTYD'' remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'', but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.) | ||
My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page. | |||
I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land|Kirby's Return to Dream Land]]'' and ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe|Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe]]'' that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like. | |||
''' | This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long ''TTYD'' section might, but something like ''Super Mario Advance'' could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable. | ||
'''Deadline''': June | '''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
#{{User| | #{{User|DryKirby64}} As proposer. | ||
#{{User| | #{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I agree with this proposal. | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game. | |||
#{{User| | #{{User|DrBaskerville}} Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found. | ||
#{{User| | |||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT) | |||
: | :Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. [[User:DryKirby64|DryKirby64]] ([[User talk:DryKirby64|talk]]) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:: | ::It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT) | ||
===Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' pages=== | |||
This is based on a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|proposal from last year about ''Super Mario RPG'']], which had passed. The proposal was about using (''Super Mario RPG'') as a disambiguation identifier over the full (''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'') title because not only does the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Nintendo Switch remake]] not use the "Legend of the Seven Stars" subtitle from [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|the original SNES title]] while still calling it just "Super Mario RPG", but it would also be easier to navigate and would look nicer due to the page title not being so overly long in comparison. | |||
This proposal is the same principle, but with articles concerning ''[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]]'' instead (in fact, this idea was also suggested in the aforementioned ''Super Mario RPG'' proposal). Both their respective [[Donkey Kong Country 2 (Game Boy Advance)|GBA]] [[Donkey Kong Country 3 (Game Boy Advance)|ports]] have entirely omitted the subtitles from the SNES originals, much like ''Super Mario RPG's'' Nintendo Switch remake, yet articles that make use of a disambiguation identifier still make use of the full title of the SNES originals (see [[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest levels]] per example). I think it'd be much easier to navigate if the identifiers went from (''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'') and (''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'') to simply (''Donkey Kong Country 2'') and (''Donkey Kong Country 3'') respectively. I believe this makes sense because both the SNES originals and GBA ports are still called ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'', and it's the same as what we have done with the ''Super Mario RPG'' identifiers. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Arend}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': June 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
''' | |||
====Support==== | ====Support==== | ||
#[[ | #{{User|Arend}} Per proposal | ||
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Makes sense to me. ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' at the very least is even officially abbreviated as just "DKC3", rather than "DKC3:DKDT", in Wrinky's dialogue in ''Donkey Kong 64''. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal | |||
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} The [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Discourage .22.28.5BTitle.5D for .5Bsystem.5D.29.22 disambiguation format when .22.28.5BTitle.5D.29.22 alone is sufficient to identify the subject|proposal]] to get rid of the need for specifying the console for remake-exclusive content had passed. Might as well extend that rule to shorten every game's dab terms. | |||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
| Line 197: | Line 120: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
==Miscellaneous== | |||
''None at the moment.'' | |||
Latest revision as of 23:55, June 11, 2024
|
|
Wednesday, June 12th, 04:49 GMT |
|
|
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
|
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.
How to
Rules
- If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
- Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
- Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
- Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
- Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
- Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
- If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
- All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
- If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
- Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
- All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
- If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
- Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
- Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
- Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Basic proposal and support/oppose format
This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "June 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]
====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]
====Oppose====
====Comments====
Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".
Talk page proposals
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.
- For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.
Rules
- All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
- All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
- Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
- When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
- Consider Spike Top derived from both Buzzy Beetles and Spinies (discuss) Deadline:
June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMTExtended to June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT - Split Samus from List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move attack info from Super Hammer to Spin Hammer and move the latter to Super Hammer (move) (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Add Mario Bros. as a related game to the Super Mario series (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move Chain Chompikins from Madame Broode to Big Chain Chomp (discuss) Deadline: June 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move List of Toad Town News in Paper Mario to simply "Toad Town News" (discuss) Deadline: June 18th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Young Link and Toon Link info to Link's article (discuss) Deadline: June 20th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move Baby Donkey Kong to Baby DK (discuss) Deadline: June 21st, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider Grifty to be a Little Mouser (discuss) Deadline: June 22, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider Whacka to belong in Category:Moles (discuss) Deadline: June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Move Category:Cats to Category:Felines (discuss) Deadline: June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
| Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022) |
| Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023) |
| Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023) |
| Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024) |
| Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024) |
| Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024) |
| Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing, DrippingYellow (ended May 26, 2024) |
- ^ Note: Requires action from admins.
| Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject, JanMisali (ended June 9, 2024) |
Talk page proposals
| Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021) |
| Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022) |
| Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023) |
| Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024) |
| Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024) |
| Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024) |
| Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024) |
| Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended June 9, 2024) |
Writing guidelines
Get rid of or heavily restrict the "Subject origin" parameter
I can already sense a murmur rising in the crowd, but hear me out. I've made it no secret on here that I don't really like the Subject origin parameter on the species infobox. The term "subject origin" is a bit of a misnomer. It really should've been called "design inspiration", because rather than explaining where the subject comes from in pieces of media, it's only ever been used in instances where the subject took any sort of inspiration from another entity, either real or fictional. If that sounds oddly broad... then yes, it is very broad.
This line of reasoning is used for bizarre classifications such as Mincers being derived from Zingers because they're both spiky enemies (is Mincer even an enemy, or just an obstacle?) that follow specific paths, or every "Bone" enemy variant being derived from Dry Bones even if they don't actually fall apart. There's even a few cases where "subject origin" has taken priority over confirmed relatedness between species, despite the term not in itself suggesting a close relationship between subjects, thus losing useful information in the infobox in these cases (e.g. Rocky Wrenches which were formerly Koopas, Whomps which are said to be "cousins" of Thwomps, Krumples being blue Kremlings that follow the same naming scheme as their predecessors Krusha and Kruncha).
The most awkward instances, however, are easily the instances of a subject being "derived" from a generic concept. Kleptoads, though based on frogs, have little to no relevance to any of the generic instances of frogs present in the Mario franchise. Similarly, Rabbids are entirely separated from the Mario series' depictions of rabbits, not only because they don't act like generic rabbits in the Mario series, but also because they're not even from the same franchise. It's not even restricted to entities that actually have pages on the Mario Wiki. Kremlings are stated to originate from "crocodilians", a page that only exists as a category, Crazee Dayzees are derived from "flowers" (which are in a similar situation), and Krimps are listed as being derived from "dogs". Who's to say Boos aren't derived from "ghosts", or that Flaptacks don't have "bird" as a subject origin, or that Octoombas aren't based off of both "aliens" and "octopuses"?
I hope you can see that the unrestricted references to generic or real-world species at the very least are a problem. But even for non-generic subject origins, the vast majority of the time (I'm tempted to say all of the time, but there could be an instance I'm struggling to think of that doesn't fall under this), this kind of info is covered sufficiently in the introductory paragraph, or the General information/Appearance section when applicable. I propose we deal with this in one of the following ways:
Option 1: Axe the "subject origin" parameter entirely. (My primary choice)
Option 2: Ban usage of subject origin to refer to generic species, in addition to switching priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects". (I'm fine with this)
Option 3: Simply ban usage of citing generic species as the subject origin.
Option 4: Ban usage of subject origin to refer to species from the Mario franchise.
Option 5: Just switch priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects"
Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Option 1
- DrippingYellow (talk) As derived from my proposal.
- DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal
Option 2
- DrippingYellow (talk) Secondary choice.
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
- DrBaskerville (talk) Second choice
Do nothing
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I don't really see the issue. If anything, the "relatives" parameter not having directional counterparts is the weakest link. Plus the "listing Galoombas as Goomba relatives rather than variants because a source distinguished them from each other and happened to used the word 'related'"-type of thing might be itself getting out of hand...
Comments
Oh, looks like I'm involved with this proposal to some degree. You see; I was the one who did the Kremling edit and especially the recent Dry Bones edits. For the latter, my explanation is that subject origin refers to things based on another entity while not actually being the entity. For example, Galoombas have been considered not Goombas, but they were meant to be inspired by them and even their name reflects it. There are various subjects that are definitely inspired, while not considered relatives of the original entity. Goombrats are weird, because they are stated to be relatives, although it's not made clear if they are a variant, as Super Mario Run loved to throw a wrench at us. The initial existence of subject origin appeared to be more generic species that had multiple fictional variants off of it. I always had this issue with penguins on this, because the Mario franchise equivalent of penguins are meant to be based on those from SM64, yet the derived section brings up entities that existed before it. The blue color seems to derived from Bumpties, so there's that MIPShole for you. As for my Dry Bones edit, they've inspired various skeleton enemies over the years. It's obvious that Bone Piranha Plants were inspired by Dry Bones, because their designs have the same type of texture. The same applies to Fish Bones, because they are meant to be underwater Dry Bones, especially given in Maker, where an underwater Dry Bones becomes a Fish Bones. Poplins are not confirmed to be relatives of Toads, but it's wrong to say that aren't inspired by Toads. Really, I got the impression that subject origin = inspiration. We know that Dry Bones and Fish Bones are definitely two different entities not even related, but we know one took inspiration from the other. I guess this type of logic would make Shellcreepers being the origin for Koopa Troopas, although Shellcreepers are retroactively considered part of the Koopa clan. Yeah, relatives is another thing. For me, if its unclear what came first, its a relative. Paragoombas have the ability to spawn Mini Goombas. Mini Goombas aren't really a variant of a Paragoomba, so the relative label fits there. To get back on topic a little bit, I'm surprised Moo Moo didn't get mentioned here; it's in the same boat of Kremling, except I made it link to the Wikipedia article for cattle. My thought process behind these edits, where to tell the viewer what the species is based off on. This is somewhat true for Kremlings, who are sometimes called reptiles or lizards. A person who isn't familiar with this franchise might not know what the hell a Kremling is meant to be based on, so I figured that I mention its inspired by both crocodiles and alligators (not sure if Kremlings tend to crossover with these two, like how Diddy and Dixie are crosses between monkeys and chimps). I guess this could get out of hand when talking about fictional animals such as dragons or aliens, so there's that. My thought process is that someone might not realize what the species is based on. Like, if there was a fictional species based off on a spider monkey, which some people might not realize actually exists, that was the intended goal. Of course, it can resort to "well, no shit," situations regarding Kremlings who are just based on typical crocs and Moo Moos. So yeah, I'm not entirely sure what to choose here. I do want it to be obvious to non-Mario readers what the subject is based on. Are we considering making Galoombas be considered comparable to Goombas? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 23:55, June 11, 2024 (EDT)
New features
Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being dumb, but hear me out.
A few years after this proposal passed, this wiki added a group infobox for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would only be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.
I've come up with two options:
- Option 1: Template:Character infobox and Template:Species infobox get a "member of" parameter, which would be used to link to groups they are, well, a member of. Goomba and the like would link to Bowser's Minions, Vivian would link to Three Shadows, etc. This parameter would be used to list both memberships and leadership roles (the latter could maybe be distinguished by adding "(leader)" next to the link).
- Option 2: these infoboxes would also get a separate "Leader of" parameter. Bowser would use this to link to Bowser's Minions, King K. Rool would use this to link to Kremling Krew, Captain Syrup would use this to link to Black Sugar Gang, characters and species-characters would link to the baseball teams they lead, etc.
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).
Proposer: Dive Rocket Launcher (talk)
Deadline: June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Option 1
- Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) First choice per proposal.
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) The folly of the "affiliations" tab was that it was allowed to include characters, which led to nonsense like Fawful being affiliated with "himself" among other things. Restricting it to groups is perfectly fine.
Option 2
- Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Second choice per proposal.
Do nothing
- DrBaskerville (talk) Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place. Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the Template:Character infobox is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. Excess Express passengers, Mario Kart 8 racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances. In the Goomba example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions. What about the Goombas in Goomba Village or Rogueport or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas. You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
- SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per DrBaskerville.
Comments
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary
An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?
I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)
My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.
I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.
This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.
Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk)
Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer.
- Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I agree with this proposal.
Oppose
- Nintendo101 (talk) I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
- DrBaskerville (talk) Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
Comments
This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. 
Dr. Baskerville 
18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
- Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
- It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Dr. Baskerville 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
- It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue.
Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages
This is based on a proposal from last year about Super Mario RPG, which had passed. The proposal was about using (Super Mario RPG) as a disambiguation identifier over the full (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) title because not only does the Nintendo Switch remake not use the "Legend of the Seven Stars" subtitle from the original SNES title while still calling it just "Super Mario RPG", but it would also be easier to navigate and would look nicer due to the page title not being so overly long in comparison.
This proposal is the same principle, but with articles concerning Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest and Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! instead (in fact, this idea was also suggested in the aforementioned Super Mario RPG proposal). Both their respective GBA ports have entirely omitted the subtitles from the SNES originals, much like Super Mario RPG's Nintendo Switch remake, yet articles that make use of a disambiguation identifier still make use of the full title of the SNES originals (see Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest levels per example). I think it'd be much easier to navigate if the identifiers went from (Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest) and (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) to simply (Donkey Kong Country 2) and (Donkey Kong Country 3) respectively. I believe this makes sense because both the SNES originals and GBA ports are still called Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3, and it's the same as what we have done with the Super Mario RPG identifiers.
Proposer: Arend (talk)
Deadline: June 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Arend (talk) Per proposal
- DrippingYellow (talk) Makes sense to me. Donkey Kong Country 3 at the very least is even officially abbreviated as just "DKC3", rather than "DKC3:DKDT", in Wrinky's dialogue in Donkey Kong 64.
- SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
- Pseudo (talk) Per all.
- DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal
- SeanWheeler (talk) The proposal to get rid of the need for specifying the console for remake-exclusive content had passed. Might as well extend that rule to shorten every game's dab terms.
Oppose
Comments
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.