MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tag: Mobile edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
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 with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==Writing guidelines==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
===Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables===<-Requesting cancelling
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen [[World 6-B (New Super Mario Bros.)|here]], this is awkwardly written as
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
*"[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
*"[number] + (∞ x [number]),"
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
<br>(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]"
#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 a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.


The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
 
'''Deadline''': September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
 
__TOC__
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
 
== New Features ==
 
''None at the moment.''
 
== Removals ==
===Spriting Refrence===
On the wiki, many people add in articles refrencing about spriting and models. I know what these mean, but not all guests or users who don't care about the community side may not know what exactly sprites are, and the differences with models. So should we allow this kind of talk? Or shall we make this only for people who know about this stuff?
 
Examples of these articles would be [[Beta Elements]] and sorry to say but parts of [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]].
 
:'''Proproser:''' [[User:Crypt Raider|Crypt Raider]]
:'''Deadline''': 20:00, 1 Febuary 2008 (EDT)
 
====Let's not add spriting refrences====
#{{User:Crypt Raider/sig}}My reasons above.
 
====Keep spriting refrences====
#&nbsp; [[User:Tykyle|Tykyle]] - spriting references are essential to explaining the beta elements some games
 
====Comments====
I still haven't quite understood what you are talking about? Could you say where in the Brawl article exactly there is a reference? The Beta Elements would be a different story, it's vital to the article and could perhaps be explained for that. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 18:03, 25 January 2008 (EST)
 
I don't really understand this proposal... Spriting is a legetimate videogame term, refering to 2D models of characters and items, it's not just a community thing. Same things for Model. What's the point of removing mentions of something perfectly legetimate? {{User:Blitzwing/sig}}
 
==Splits & Merges==
 
===Merge of the same stages/courses into one article and split the the different ones===
I propose to merge the various courses from the spin-off series that have their own articles. This also goes for those who have appeared in main games before, and ''only'' have changed layouts, with (almost) identical names. One great example of this is [[Bowser's Castle]] from the main-games which has individual pages for [[Bowser Castle|the stages named Bowser('s) Castle in ''Mario Kart'']] and even [[Bowser Castle (Mario Superstar Baseball)|the Bowser Castle stadium in ''Mario Superstar Baseball'']] while the Bowser Castle-stage for ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'' is STILL in the main-game's article of Bowser's Castle.
 
I also propose to split the pages that have two or more entirely different stages in the same article, mostly the [[Super Smash Bros. (series)|''Super Smash Bros.'' stages]], such as the article with [[Super Smash Bros.|the original's]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Melee|''Melee's'']] [[Mushroom Kingdom (stage)|Mushroom Kingdom]], two ENTIRELY different stages. Well, you may think "But they have the same name and design!" No, they don't. All stages based on ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' would have that design and the Melee versions is called Mushroom''':''' Kingdom, with "'''Mushroom'''" being the stage location and "'''Kingdom'''" the name.
 
(BTW, I is not neutral to English and this is the first time I porposes so if anything is spelled wrong or wrong in any other way, feel free to edit this.)
 
'''Proposer''': [[User:KingMario|KingMario]]
 
'''Deadline''': January 26, 2008, 20:00
 
'''EDIT 20/01''': Looks like i forgot the idea to add a category in which users can support one idea only.


====Support====
====Support====
#[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] Per KingMario.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User:Xluidi/sig|per KingM}}  
#{{User|Altendo}} - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] Per King Mario.
<s>#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.</s><br>
#[[User:RedFire Mario|RedFire Mario]] Per KingMario
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.</s>


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
 
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|i have to oppose cause those are '''''completley''''' different places.}}
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Hewer.
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} I like your second idea, not so much the first. I wouldn't think you'd want to combine an article about a race track in a city and the city itself, would you?  Bowser's Castle is larger than most cities in the Mario series, so...  I wouldn't think that you'd want to combine these based on the fact that they have the same name.  Oh, and remember that we have articles on individual rooms in Luigi's Mansion?  We've already combined the clearly different racetracks, so at this point it'd be like making the article about the individual Toad a sub-portion of the article about his species.  Remember, we even split the [[Mr. E]] article (two minor subjects w/ same name = two articles). Merging is only applicable when you have minor subjects with different names, not major subjects with the same name.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#[[User:huntercrunch|huntercrunch]] Per Stumpers.
#{{User|Axii}} Per Hewer
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per Stumpers. Bowser's Castle isn't the same castle in most games, anyway. It is a place in ''Super Mario World'', a flying building in ''Paper Mario'' and a Bowser-Statue-formed Battleship in ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga''.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Stumpers.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} we don't need to throw a mathematical equation at people
#Nay to the First, Yea to the second. Per Stupers, in other words. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User:Glitchman/sig2}} Per Stumpers.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I realized that this only makes sense if you have it explained to you like in the proposal description, which defeats the purpose.
====Supporting ''one'' idea====
#{{User|Arend}} I feel that "[number] (+ [number] infinite spawn points)" would be less awkward to write than what we currently do ''and'' more understandable fir most people than what is proposed here
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Are you gonna vote, KM? {{User:Dodoman/sig}}
{{@|Hewer}} - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:I'm split. No to the first, yes to the second. Where do I put my vote? O_o {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
:I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)
::If we're merging areas in the spin-off games with the main games, than shouldn't the same be done for ''Super Smash Bros.'' stages? Your argument about how they're different places is valid, however the same could be said for al the other spin-off places (i.e. [[Bowser Castle (Mario Superstar Baseball)|MSB's Bowser Castle stadium]] is certainly not the same as the [[Bowser's Castle|Castle]] he actually ''lives'' in). Also, the individual stages of most games (except more obscure games like the Japanese-only ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'') already have articles and not all of them have corresponding main-game areas, so it's going to be difficult acting on this Proposal. Then there's the other option of cramming all these odd-ball stages together into lists of stages for each game, which would also have links to the main-game artciles for the stages that were merged in that fashion. It's a very big and daunting undertaking, but I still don't want to vote against it, since if it's done right it ''could'' be beneficial... [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]


InfectedShroom, you may want to put your vote in oppose so that the proposal doesn't go through?  If you don't you might lose both of your arguments. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 13:02, 21 January 2008 (EST)
If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like <code><nowiki>{{infinite respawn|5|3}}</nowiki></code> that would produce "{{hover|5 + (∞ × 3)|5 (not including the 3 infinite spawning points)}}". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
:I think we should split this proposal into two different ones, people's votes shouldn't be influenced by only offering one rating on two different issues. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:05, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)
:Stumpers: You have a point. Thank you. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}


=== Snifit or Snufit? ===
I'll refrain from voting because I have a visceral reaction to anything that resembles a math formula, and I want as little as possible for personal preference to seep into my vote. That's not to say I don't understand what's being proposed, in fact it makes perfect sense if you're aiming strictly for concision, but you'd need to take into account how accessibly that information is communicated--you'd need to establish that "infinity symbol" stands for infinite enemy spawning point, which is not immediately clear. At that point, you'd go for a relatively lengthy explanation nonetheless. Though, I agree that the phrasing in that page you linked doesn't sound inclusive. I think something like "5 individual, 3 infinite spawning points" works better if we're going down this path.<br>If the proposal passes, I'd like to see it implemented in the manner Jdtendo suggests above.<br>EDIT: I'm aware there's [[Mario Kart Tour race points system#Bonus-points boost|already plenty of math on this wiki that has potential to confound people]], but in that case, not only is its succinctness a better way to explain how the game's scoring system works (as opposed to paragraphs-long descriptions), but it's taken straight out of the game as well. I'd say, use math formulas only when you're sure prose would be of less service to its intended audience: people looking up how many enemies are in a level aren't necessarily interested in complex gameplay dynamics. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:12, September 19, 2024 (EDT), edited 14:55, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
''Note: Message is edited from [[Talk:Snufit]]''


So, um, according to TMK, these guys' Japanese names are exactly the same as a normal Snifit's. On top of that, i and u are right next to each other on most English keyboards. They look nearly identical (especially in the remake, which makes almost all enemies look more like their traditional forms), and, floating aside, act identical as well--and the originals could jump and hover for a short time anyway. And this very wiki says that they were "accidentally" referred to as Snifits in one of the MPs anyway.... Considering all that, can we really say that they're intended to be different enemies? I'd suggest a merge.
I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "{{hover|3ω+5|3 infinite spawn points and 5 others}}", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
:This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; {{wp|Ordinal arithmetic#Multiplication|multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers}} is not commutative. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)


'''Proposer:''' [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] and [[User:Knife|Knife]]<br>
Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline:''' 26 January, 2008, 20:00
:That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)


==== Keep as Snufit ====
===Figure out how to handle <nowiki>{{classic}} and {{classic-link}}</nowiki> templates when discussing ''Mario Kart Tour'' classic courses===
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - See comment below.
This wiki has two templates used to format classic courses in the ''Mario Kart'' series: <nowiki>{{classic}} and {{classic-link}}</nowiki>. These templates convert text like "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" into a format that closer resembles the one seen in games, with the prefix being written as such, a prefix, and not part of the courses name. So "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" becomes "{{classic|3DS|Shy Guy Bazaar}}". However, there's an exception this wiki seems to have regarding this template: classic courses in ''[[Mario Kart Tour]]''.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per below.
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|PER ALL. A snifit has ''legs''. A snufit is like a ghost snifit, but theyre different :P}}
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig|Per everyone. And the fact that they umm.. don't have freaking legs is a big part.}}
#[[User:Tykyle|Tykyle]] - Per all
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} Any name change deserves notation as a separate subject.
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} Isn't there the [[Boo Guy]] article?


==== Merge to Snifit ====
This is because the game does not structure the title of courses in such a way: instead it writes the prefix as large as the rest of the name, so it's written as "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar". However, I feel this creates a lot of inconsistency and confusion here on this wiki. For example, the page for a course like [[3DS Rock Rock Mountain]], a course featured as a classic in and out of ''Tour'' structures fellow course names both ways, with and without the template, simply because of the game the classic course appears in. To make things more confusing, when a ''Tour'' section on a course's page discusses classic courses outside of ''Tour'', it uses the template, as seen in a few course pages. Additionally, page titles for courses that are only classics in ''Tour'' still use a smaller font for the page name, such as [[GBA Lakeside Park]]. Finally, some courses in ''Tour'' don't even adhere to this rule that has been enforced before, such as [[Wii Maple Treeway]].
#[[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] - Per above. Per below. Per common sense.  Per logic.  And, most importantly, per the designers' own designation!
#[[user:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] - The fact that they were refered to as Snifit in Mario Party kind ofp oint out to the fact that those things are infact Snifit. I think the proposer could be more polite and reasonable, thought.
#Per the above guys. [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]


==== Comments ====
(I cannot find the edit log, however I was informed by a moderator here that it is a rule that is enforced a while back)
They're different species, but I do see what you're getting at with your arguments on the talk page. I agree that it's strange how Koopa Troopas started out quardrupedial and are now totally different but retain the same name. If it were up to me, the 4-legged ones would be called [[Shellcreeper]]s and only the anthropormorphic turtles would be Troopas, but it's not up to me, it's up to ''Nintendo'', and they say they're all Koopa Troopas. It's the same case with the [[Paratroopa]]s: they're just [[Koopa Troopa]]s with wings, but they've been given different names so we have to say they're different species, and the same goes for [[Snifit]]s and [[Snufit]]s. Of course, I'd still want to list Paratroopas as their own species (or at least sub-species) anyway, since they look and act different from Koopa Troopas, which are the main criteria for determining species in biology (aside from genetics, which doesn't really apply here as this is the '''fictional''' ''[[Marioverse]]'' where DNA means squat and anything can happen, including a species getting its wings knocked off and ''magically'' turning into another species). Maybe Snifits and Snufits ''were'' meant to be the same thing, but they're not. They act and look different, just like the two kinds of Koopa Troopas, and just like Paratroopas and Troopas; but like the latter, they got seperate names. It doesn't matter if it was a typo, ''Nintendo'' has spoken and we're obligated to follow it. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]


I just want to point out that if this proposal pass, we should also perhap split the [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Goomba&action=edit&section=5 Super Mario World Goomba] from the [[Goomba]] article since they act differently and haves a different name in the Japanese localisation, which is kinda the opposite of this "Snifit = Snufit?" deal. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:22, 20 January 2008 (EST)
So this proposal is asking for one thing: an enforcement to be decided on.


The options are simple:
*Use the templates for all references to classic courses.
*Not use the template when referring to classic courses in ''Tour''.


Exactly.  Whether NoA screwed up the localization or not, they were designed as the same characters (Snifit example) and different characters (Goomba example), and we should respect that.  I mean, come on--Bloopers were known as Bloobers in a few games, but we aren't rushing to make new pages for those!  You say it's up to Nintendo, Walkazo--well, Nintendo says they're the same.  Just because NoA typoed doesn't change that fact.  [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 13:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)
RMX courses will not be affected by this since the "RMX" is established to be part of the course's name.
:Your Blooper example doesn't work: Blooper and Blooper look and act '''exactly''' the same way. Snufit and Snifit are obliviously different (If similar) creature, beside, we are an english-speaking wiki, I think it make sense to follow the American localisation. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 13:17, 20 January 2008 (EST)


::Come on. The Japanese creators of a Japanese game say they're the same species.  The American translators change one easily-typoed letter, be it by accident or otherwise, and redesign them even less drastically than others that remain the same species. They then proceed to call them by the "other species"'s name even in American publications. Where's the logic in saying they're different? There is not a single argument for keeping it Snufit that doesn't apply to dozens of other changes you never questioned. The American localization has screwed up in the past.  We don't follow those mistakes.  What makes this one different?  [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 13:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|YoYo}}<br>
:::The difference between this case and [[Pakkun Flower]] (which is a half-translated Piranha Plant), is that Snufits actually ''look different'' and have ''different abilities'' (flying). So as there is already an official name for this sub-species, we should use it. Because these are a sub-species, not regular Snifits. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:26, 20 January 2008 (EST)
'''Deadline''': October 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
::::NoJ says otherwise. [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 15:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::I was not referring to the name, but the appearance. Check again. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 08:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::And your point is?  NoJ says they're the same species.  NoJ designed them.  NoA may have said they're the same species with a minor typo, or they may have been foolish enough to try to make a new species out of something that's clearly not supposed to be so.  Either way, what's the point?  Every single creature in 64 that I can think of except the goombas changed in some major way from their previous selves.  "It isn't like the old snifits" is NOT a valid argument unless you're completely blind to all forms of common sense and pattern recognition.  There is not a single reason to say it's different--except for a ONE-KEY-OVER LETTER, which was later corrected anyway!  You people are being completely irrational! [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 14:26, 21 January 2008 (EST)


:::::::Keep a cool head. Anyway, do they fix this typo in SM64DS? If not, then they were meant to be a separate species. If they did, then they are Snifits. Either way, I think their official name in SM64DS should be the deciding factor here.{{User:Knife/sig}} 15:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
====Use the templates for all classic course links====
#{{User|YoYo}} per my proposal, I think that the template formats them in a way that distinguishes the prefix from course name, and I think consistency is important here.


::::::It should be noted that, even when they are called Snifits, the "Snufits" are a sub-species nethertheless. They just have features regular Snifits don't, or better the other way round, they are lacking Snifit bodies. They are a subspecies, it is just the question whether they have an ''official name''. The Bloober <-> Blooper example doesn't really fit here because of that. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:09, 21 January 2008 (EST)
====Do not use the templates for ''Mario Kart Tour'' classic course links====


:::::::Cobold, you're entirely missing my point.  Every enemy in SM64 has features they didn't before, so that is NOT a valid argument. Knife, are they ever even named ingame?  And I'd keep a cool head if these people would stop acting so ridiculously dense. -_- But hey, what do I know?  I'm only following the original creators' obvious-as-(censored)intentions, after all. Sheesh... [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 19:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
====Comments====


==New features==
''None at the moment.''


Okay, so having looked at SM64DS's revamped model (it has a TAIL!), it's clearly intended as a subspecies.  This, however, does not prove anything.  After all, was not Bubba turned into a different species (Big Bertha, IIRC?) for the DS one?  Yet we still have the Bubba article for the original game's sake.  So, while it seems that 64's Snifits were apparently retconned into Snufits, they were Snifits in the original game. [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 19:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
==Removals==
:Well.. if you look at this image  [[Image:Snufit.jpg]] they do look pretty different from normal Snifit, they don't even have feets! --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 17:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)
''None at the moment.''
::Right, and any self-respecting biologist knows that an animal without feet is not the same as an animal with feet. I like your Goomba point too, SMW Goombas don't look like any other Goombas, but like bipedial/quadrupedial Koopa Troopas I thought that since they have the same name we're stuck saying they're the same species, however if they have different Japanese names I say we ''should'' split the article. Besides, we don't just have to go by names, we can still use common sence where we can. Like with the Koopalings: [[Ludwig Von Koopa]] and [[Kooky Von Koopa]] have different names, but we know they're about the same person and therefore we only have one article for them/him. And Dazuro, no swearing. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]


=== Split [[Luma]] into Hungry Luma ===
==Changes==
 
=== Add film and television ratings to [[Template:Ratings]] ===
Currently, we do not have an article on Hungry Lumas. Although Hungry Lumas are simply Lumas that are hungry, I believe they should get a separate article because they appear so consistently in the game and their name is official, with a capitalized Hungry in front of Luma. They also affect the gameplay a lot by forming new planets, new galaxies, or even Mushrooms. Of course, they are still the same species as Lumas (not subspecies), but should that be reason that they have to stay on the same article?
Regarding ratings on the games we cover on this wiki, it's usually done very well and even shows off obscure rating companies hardly anyone talks about. It's educational and shows how the world rates a Super Mario game. However, when it comes to television shows and movies, they do not get the same treatment. Television shows ''don't even have ratings in their infobox.'' And while the movies do, they not only list ''just'' the MPAA, which for people who live in the United Kingdom or other countries, is '''not''' representative of the majority of the world, it's ''just'' the text, "PG". Sure, most people know it means "Parental Guidance," but imagine if we included more ratings. It's not super easy to find ratings for films and television shows in general, other than IMDB and there are no sources for proof of these ratings. When it comes to the Canadian Home Video Rating System, I can hardly find what rating was applied to that particular movie/TV show and I remember not being lucky for searching any other ratings for other movies (personal experience, but I remember searching on one of these websites and the site was rather buggy or didn't have the film/show in question).
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User:Knife/sig}} <br>
'''Deadline:''' January 29, 2008, 17:00


====Support====
The better solution is to '''add film and television ratings to the [[Template:Ratings|rating template]] so we can provide a wide variety of ratings for movies and television shows.''' In this case, users from around the world can view how movies are rated in almost every country. As for what ratings we add, it's a bit tricky. Because there is a lot, I would need some help here. Regardless, I got some EFIGS ratings in question. If you have more ratings, please let me know and I'll add it to the proposal These are split up into film and television.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig|Yeah, I agree. They are big in finding more stars, and the fact that they can transform into ''galaxies'' is very big, especially when the galaxies have seperate pages.}}
#{{User:Crypt Raider/sig}} Per InfectedShroom.
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} Well, we do have that Koopa article.


====Oppose====
<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Film </div>
#{{User:Glitchman/sig2}} True, but they're basically regular Lumas and do not have any separate abilities, so it would be best to just create a large section on the Luma page dedicated to Hungry Lumas, to show what they do and where they appear in the game.
*[[Wikipedia:Motion Picture Association film rating system|Motion Picture Association film rating system (MPAA)]]
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] They are just lumas, not any different except they eat. Do we make articles for Koopa without a shell? [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]
*[[Wikipedia:British Board of Film Classification|British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)]]
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|TEH PER ALL-NESS.}}
*[[Wikipedia:Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft|Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft (FSK)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Canadian Home Video Rating System|Canadian Home Video Rating System]] (It can also apply to DVDs of TV shows as well.)


====Comments====
<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Television </div>
Hypertoad:[[Beach Koopa|Yes.]] --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 11:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)
*[[Wikipedia:TV Parental Guidelines|TV Parental Guidelines]]


Hey, Knife, you gonna support your own proposal? {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
My list so far is not comprehensive, but my idea is to add these ratings (and potentially others) to the template and make the infoboxes look much prettier and more visually educational. I have nothing else to say, so that's about it.


==Changes==
'''Proposer''': {{User|TheUndescribableGhost}}<br>
''None currently''
'''Deadline''': October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
== Miscellaneous ==
 
===Character Stats and Descriptions===
I find it rather odd that semi-minor characters such as [[Daisy]] and [[Waluigi]] have extremely detailed stats and character descriptions from recent spinoff games such as [[Mario Party DS]] and [[Mario Superstar Baseball]] while main characters such as [[Mario]] and [[Wario]] have very vague stats and no descriptions for games such as [[Mario Party DS]]. It seems like a minor complaint, but for the Super Mario Wiki, it seems kind of unfair and silly not to include thorough stats for everyone, especially main characters such as those mentioned. For those who can not find out for themselves (such as myself), the Mario Wiki should definitely include the information to live up to its reputation as a thorough database. All who support should be for attempting to locate these stats or finding one who is able to.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Have A Rotten Day!|Have A Rotten Day!]] <br>
'''Deadline:''' January 28, 2008, 17:00


====Support====
====Support====
#[[User:Have A Rotten Day|Have A Rotten Day]] - Per myself
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} Rated PR for per proposal.
#{{User:Glitchman/sig2}} Per Have a Rotten Day!
#{{User|Technetium}} Never noticed ratings were missing from TV and movie coverage until now. It feels obvious ratings should be included like they are with games. Per proposal.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} This is something I never noticed, but I completely agree. I'm happy that there are observant people in this world! Per proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} Per all (fun fact: the Dutch rating system for movies and television, Kijkwijzer, is being utilized by {{wp|Netherlands Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual Media|NICAM}}, which happens to ''also'' rate games in Europe using PEGI. In fact, PEGI's ratings appear to be based on those of Kijkwijzer)
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====


====Comments====
====Comments====
The main reason for that, is 'cos Daisy and Waluigi's articles are hit by incredibly over-zealous fanboys, who put all their time to that one article. That's awesome for us, cos' we need all the info we can get, but other articles are ignored in this way. I'm only commenting to give the reason why this has happened, sorry. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} So, anyway, what exactly are we Supporting and Opposing here?
Wait, couldn't this just be a talk page proposal on the template itself? It would affect many pages, yes, but this is specifically about editing a template… I'm honestly not so sure. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 15:52, September 24, 2024 (EDT)


I don't think this is even proposal-worthy, yes it's odd, but like Pokemon Dp said, some off our users here are ''*ahem*'', more dedicated to certain characters. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 18:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)
==Miscellaneous==
:Couldn't Have a Rotten Day just do it himself?  Even if this passes the only thing that will change is that he will HAVE to do it himself.  Not just could. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 18:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)
''None at the moment.''
::Good point, Stumpers.  He says in his proposal that he does not own all of the Mario sports title and cannot find all of the info by himself, but if the proposal passes he's going to have to do it anyway. {{User:Glitchman/sig2}} 18:54, 22 January 2008 (PT)
:::No, I totally agree with you guys. I'm not horrendously concerned over this, I just think that when it comes to stats that people have obviously gotten hold of, that they should include all of the characters over time. I really have been trying to locate the info myself and trying to locate people I know who may have the information but I haven't really met anyone who has the info. I am more than willing to include the info myself, I just don't own the games or know anyone who does. If I get the info, I'd be happy to personally apply it to the proper pages. I just really feel that when it comes to information like that, that all characters need to be included, regardless of popularity, in order to fufill the Mario Wiki's reputation as a thorough database. [[User:Have A Rotten Day!|Have A Rotten Day!]]
::::The proposal page is for things that can alter the working of the MarioWiki (New rules, deleting/merging an article), if you think some articles lack informations, [[MarioWiki:Trouble Center|there's the Trouble Center]] --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 06:42, 25 January 2008 (EST)
 
Ugh, are you serious? Just because CERTAIN PEOPLE [ugh-huh, ME!] were willing to do it for characters they liked doesn't mean other characters are by your opinion MORE deserving of the same information. I don't have to add info to certain pages if I don't feel like it. I can indeed do this with ease, it's just that no one seems to care as much about MArio and Luigi's spin-off information as they do for characters like (i.e Waluigi et Daisy). I have no problem with doing this, it's just frustrating the way you put it. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]

Latest revision as of 22:39, September 24, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, September 25th, 07:19 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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(s) 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.
  6. 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.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. 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.
  9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for writing guidelines and talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. 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.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. 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: "September 25, 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

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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:
  3. 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.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  5. 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 the "Blurp" and "Deep Cheep" in the Super Mario Maker games an alternate design of Cheep Cheep with the former twos' designs as a cameo rather than a full appearance of the former two, in line with the game's own classification (discuss) Deadline: September 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Add English to {{foreign names}} and retitle to {{international names}} (discuss) Deadline: September 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Allow usage of {{Release}} as a generic "flag list" template (discuss) Deadline: September 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Prune "sports" games from Black Shy Guy in line with White Shy Guy and Red Boo (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge Preying Mantas with Jellyfish (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Create article(s) for the SM64DS character rooms (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Create an article for the Peach doll from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Remove the remaining non-Super Mario "stage gimmicks and hazards" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Remove non-Super Mario "stage cameos" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Rename {{Manga infobox}} to {{Publication infobox}} (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge Play Nintendo secret message puzzles (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge categories for Donkey Kong Country remakes with their base game's categories (discuss) Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Refer to this enemy as "Bull's-Eye Banzai" for coverage in New Super Mario Bros. Wii (discuss) Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Rename Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia to Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten (discuss) Deadline: October 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)
Do not use t-posing models as infobox images, Nightwicked Bowser (ended September 1, 2024)
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)
Rename the remaining baseball teams to their current titles, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 19, 2024)
Create MarioWiki:WikiLove and WikiLove templates, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 2024)
Only add in the current voice actor in the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes, Altendo (ended September 21, 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)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Split truck article into cargo truck and pickup truck articles, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)
Merge Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64) with Crocodile Isle, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)

Writing guidelines

===Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables===<-Requesting cancelling Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen here, this is awkwardly written as

  • "[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"

and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of

  • "[number] + (∞ x [number]),"

with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Altendo (talk) - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.
#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Hewer.
  3. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
  4. Axii (talk) Per Hewer
  5. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) we don't need to throw a mathematical equation at people
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I realized that this only makes sense if you have it explained to you like in the proposal description, which defeats the purpose.
  9. Arend (talk) I feel that "[number] (+ [number] infinite spawn points)" would be less awkward to write than what we currently do and more understandable fir most people than what is proposed here
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Hewer - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)

If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like {{infinite respawn|5|3}} that would produce "5 + (∞ × 3)". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". Jdtendo(T|C) 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)

I'll refrain from voting because I have a visceral reaction to anything that resembles a math formula, and I want as little as possible for personal preference to seep into my vote. That's not to say I don't understand what's being proposed, in fact it makes perfect sense if you're aiming strictly for concision, but you'd need to take into account how accessibly that information is communicated--you'd need to establish that "infinity symbol" stands for infinite enemy spawning point, which is not immediately clear. At that point, you'd go for a relatively lengthy explanation nonetheless. Though, I agree that the phrasing in that page you linked doesn't sound inclusive. I think something like "5 individual, 3 infinite spawning points" works better if we're going down this path.
If the proposal passes, I'd like to see it implemented in the manner Jdtendo suggests above.
EDIT: I'm aware there's already plenty of math on this wiki that has potential to confound people, but in that case, not only is its succinctness a better way to explain how the game's scoring system works (as opposed to paragraphs-long descriptions), but it's taken straight out of the game as well. I'd say, use math formulas only when you're sure prose would be of less service to its intended audience: people looking up how many enemies are in a level aren't necessarily interested in complex gameplay dynamics. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:12, September 19, 2024 (EDT), edited 14:55, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "3ω+5", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers is not commutative. Jdtendo(T|C) 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. Salmancer (talk) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

Figure out how to handle {{classic}} and {{classic-link}} templates when discussing Mario Kart Tour classic courses

This wiki has two templates used to format classic courses in the Mario Kart series: {{classic}} and {{classic-link}}. These templates convert text like "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" into a format that closer resembles the one seen in games, with the prefix being written as such, a prefix, and not part of the courses name. So "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" becomes "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar". However, there's an exception this wiki seems to have regarding this template: classic courses in Mario Kart Tour.

This is because the game does not structure the title of courses in such a way: instead it writes the prefix as large as the rest of the name, so it's written as "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar". However, I feel this creates a lot of inconsistency and confusion here on this wiki. For example, the page for a course like 3DS Rock Rock Mountain, a course featured as a classic in and out of Tour structures fellow course names both ways, with and without the template, simply because of the game the classic course appears in. To make things more confusing, when a Tour section on a course's page discusses classic courses outside of Tour, it uses the template, as seen in a few course pages. Additionally, page titles for courses that are only classics in Tour still use a smaller font for the page name, such as GBA Lakeside Park. Finally, some courses in Tour don't even adhere to this rule that has been enforced before, such as Wii Maple Treeway.

(I cannot find the edit log, however I was informed by a moderator here that it is a rule that is enforced a while back)

So this proposal is asking for one thing: an enforcement to be decided on.

The options are simple:

  • Use the templates for all references to classic courses.
  • Not use the template when referring to classic courses in Tour.

RMX courses will not be affected by this since the "RMX" is established to be part of the course's name.

Proposer: YoYo (talk)
Deadline: October 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Use the templates for all classic course links

  1. YoYo (talk) per my proposal, I think that the template formats them in a way that distinguishes the prefix from course name, and I think consistency is important here.

Do not use the templates for Mario Kart Tour classic course links

Comments

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings

Regarding ratings on the games we cover on this wiki, it's usually done very well and even shows off obscure rating companies hardly anyone talks about. It's educational and shows how the world rates a Super Mario game. However, when it comes to television shows and movies, they do not get the same treatment. Television shows don't even have ratings in their infobox. And while the movies do, they not only list just the MPAA, which for people who live in the United Kingdom or other countries, is not representative of the majority of the world, it's just the text, "PG". Sure, most people know it means "Parental Guidance," but imagine if we included more ratings. It's not super easy to find ratings for films and television shows in general, other than IMDB and there are no sources for proof of these ratings. When it comes to the Canadian Home Video Rating System, I can hardly find what rating was applied to that particular movie/TV show and I remember not being lucky for searching any other ratings for other movies (personal experience, but I remember searching on one of these websites and the site was rather buggy or didn't have the film/show in question).

The better solution is to add film and television ratings to the rating template so we can provide a wide variety of ratings for movies and television shows. In this case, users from around the world can view how movies are rated in almost every country. As for what ratings we add, it's a bit tricky. Because there is a lot, I would need some help here. Regardless, I got some EFIGS ratings in question. If you have more ratings, please let me know and I'll add it to the proposal These are split up into film and television.

Film
Television

My list so far is not comprehensive, but my idea is to add these ratings (and potentially others) to the template and make the infoboxes look much prettier and more visually educational. I have nothing else to say, so that's about it.

Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk)
Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Rated PR for per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Never noticed ratings were missing from TV and movie coverage until now. It feels obvious ratings should be included like they are with games. Per proposal.
  3. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This is something I never noticed, but I completely agree. I'm happy that there are observant people in this world! Per proposal.
  4. Arend (talk) Per all (fun fact: the Dutch rating system for movies and television, Kijkwijzer, is being utilized by NICAM, which happens to also rate games in Europe using PEGI. In fact, PEGI's ratings appear to be based on those of Kijkwijzer)
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

Wait, couldn't this just be a talk page proposal on the template itself? It would affect many pages, yes, but this is specifically about editing a template… I'm honestly not so sure. Technetium (talk) 15:52, September 24, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4375409"