MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Changes: Archived)
 
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 using the code <nowiki>{{user|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. '''Signing with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki> is not allowed''' due to technical issues.


<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.
''None at the moment.''
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#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.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#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).
 
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.


Also,
==New features==
<br><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:30px;line-height:30px;font-weight:900;">NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES</span> -The Management.
===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.


__TOC__
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.


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
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.


==New Features==
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).
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}}<br>
===Remove Automatons, Machinations, Ghosts, Ghouls, and Specters from the "Species" Category===
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
It is true that a species is a group of of living things.  It is also true, that undead things, and robotic things, are not ''living'' things, and do not constitute a species.  Since common sense often fails, I'll included dictionary definitions of a species in my comments below.
Now, many of you who are reading this will think I'm just getting bogged down by semantics, but any errors in the wiki reflect on the wiki (and us, the users) and I think an error as large as this one greatly detracts from the credibility of this wiki.


'''Proposer''': [[User:Goomb-omb|Goomb-omb]]
====Option 1====
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} First choice per proposal.


'''Deadline''': June 27, 2008, 20:00
====Option 2====
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Second choice per proposal.


====Support====
====Do nothing====
#[[User:Goomb-omb|Goomb-omb]] per my reasoning above and below
#{{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|Soler}} —Accuracy is key, and "Character Type" (see comment by Goomb-omb below) seems to be an adequate term.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per DrBaskerville.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Stumpers}} I'm afraid this is nitpicking, but I'm usually all for that.  What I'm thinking of is a page like [[Bow]] or another notable Boo.  What should we put in the species section of the character infobox?  If you have another word we should use instead of species, that would help.
#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] Per Stumpers. Also, Boos are a species. Thirdly, if we change 'species' on any robot family and the like, we should change it to something like 'series'.
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per Stumpers. This seems a bit... Particular... about what we should add to our articles. Also, the Mario Bros. series is not the most scientific series (Being able to float in space? :O), so I think that this would not be necessary.
#{{User|Pikax}} - "Species" is simple enough to understand and, like Stumpers said, this is nitpicking.
#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Pikax and IS. Mario isn't exactly the most scientifically-correct out there.
#{{user|Toadette 4evur}} Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{User|The.Real.Izkat}}-A boo is a speices though. and i mean its really simple anyways. Per Blitzwing about the scientific thing.
#{{User|reecer6}} - Why would you take them out? they are a kind of species! all species, NO MATTER WHAT, goes in the species section.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Definitions of species according to two credible dictionaries:According to ''Encarta World English Dictionary'' a species is <nowiki>''a subdivision of a genus. . .containing individuals that resemble one another and that may interbreed''</nowiki>
And in ''Websters New Revised Dictionary of the English Language'' species is defined as <nowiki>''A category of animals or plants. . .with the capacity of interbreeding only among themselves.''</nowiki>
I don't think [[MeowMaid|MeowMaids]] fit any of that criteria.
{{user|Goomb-omb}}
:Stumpers, I think something along the lines of "Character Type" would be sufficient.{{user|Goomb-omb}}
::Sorry I didn't respond to your comment sooner!  That would be cool... I think there's a pretty clear concensus already, though... :( {{User|Stumpers}}


Ninjayoshi, the 12:02, 13 June 2008 (EDT) revision of the [[Boo]] article quotes [[Goombario|Goombario's]] tattle for [[Igor]] thus: " ‘''He probably was a merchant before he became a Boo,''’ " and goes on to speculate that "Boos may be a species of ghosts [''sic''—ghosts cannot belong to a species] who were once living." It is therefore possible that Boos are ghosts, and so do not belong to a species. —{{User|Soler}}
==Removals==
:Should have checked my sources, my bad.-[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
''None at the moment.''
Actually, Soler's quote proves this proposal's wrong: clearly there ''can'' be species of ghosts in the ''Marioverse'', or they (the writers) wouldn't've made that tattle. Besides, "Character Type" sounds more like when you say whether or not a player's a Power Character or a Technique Character, etc. in sports/kart racing titles. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:Er... no, sorry, the quote does nothing of the kind. A ''ghost'', in this context, is "the disembodied spirit of a dead person, supposed to haunt the living as a pale or shadowy vision; phantom." (''Collins English Dictionary'', third edition). ''Spirit'', for the record, in this context means "the force or principle of life that animates the body of living things". As far as I know, '''''<u>"life forces/principles" can't breed</u>''''', and according to BOTH of Goomb-omb's dictionaries, members of a species may interbreed. The ''article'', not the tattle, used the word ''species'', and thus contradicted itself: that's why I used "''sic''" (There is, however, still the possibility that Boos are not ghosts, but a ghost-like species that one can transform into in place of dying; however, in SM64DS, the message "Ghosts don't DIE!" sometimes appears after defeating a Boo, which would seemingly refute this argument.) Perhaps my first comment was ambiguous: I should've probably used single ''and'' double quotes on the first quotation, to show a "double quotation", and only used double on the second quote. I'll fix that now. —{{User|Soler}}.
::And about Mario not being scientific, that is completely irrelevant--this wiki should still strive be scientific.  Isn't the goal to make an encyclopedic catalog of everything Mario?  You can't accomplish that without being scientific, errors like this just make it look like the people who work on the wiki don't actually care enough to make sure that everything is correct (no offense to any one of course!!). {{User|Goomb-omb}}
:::Hear hear. —{{User|Soler}}.
::::I object. Since when was a mushroom making Mario grow to double his size (or sometimes even bigger) scientific? Since when was a turtle flying in a cloud, holding a fishing rod and dropping spiked eggs scientific? Since when was racing on a giant pinball table scientific? The Mario Wiki already has plenty of material that isn't scientific, so changing "Species" to something like "Character Type" is going to make hardly any difference at all. {{User|Pikax}}
::::If you read what I wrote, I just said Mario not being scientific is irrelevant.  As in, Mario isn't scientific.  The goal of a wiki is provide a encyclopedic database, and to be encyclopedic one must scientific cataloging, such as dividing articles into categories, (which we do) and to use proper terminology (which we do not) {{User|Goomb-omb}}
:::::Wait, you're saying that we should be scientific about something that isn't scientific? That's like saying we should make a rock solid flannel. {{User|Pikax}}
::::::'''''No, it isn't.''''' "''Scientific''" here refers to a type of ''accuracy'', and inaccuracy '''borders on giving misinformation'''. —{{User|Soler}}
:::::::About the Boo thing, [[Boo|there]] [[Portrait Ghost|is]]  [[Eerie|multiple]] kind of Ghost. In a way, the Boos are a "species" of Ghost, uh. {{user|Blitzwing}}
::::::::The Boos would be a '''type/form/kind''' of ghost, rather than a ''species'', unless the Marioverse had the (somewhat disturbing) distinction of allowing its ghosts to breed... —{{User|Soler}}.
 
If this were a wiki about, oh say, Dora the Explorer, would we write about how Swiper the Fox is a kleptomaniac? I think you're looking at it a bit too hard..... - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:If Swiper ''is'' a kleptomaniac, why not? —{{User|Soler}}
You said scientific meant a type of accuracy? Why not just use the word accurate to describe the situation in the first place? {{User|Pikax}}
::I did. See my vote. Other people started using the word ''scientific''. —{{User|Soler}}.
 
==Splits & Merges==
===Star Rod===
The [[Star Rod]] article is currently about both the Star Rod that [[Bowser]] stole in ''[[Paper Mario]]'' and the item used in the ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' series that originated from the ''[[Kirby]]'' series. Should the article be split in two articles, or remain as one article about two subjects?
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' June 30th, 17:00
 
====Support (split article)====
#{{User|Stumpers}} - Historically, multiple subjects have only been on the same page if they are minor ([[Board (Super Mario Galaxy)]]) or they are very closely connected ([[Ashley & Red]]).  The two Star Rods are neither: they are prominent subjects from different video game series.  Each has its own distinct history.  I have heard the arguement that the ''Paper Mario'' Star Rod is a reference to the ''Kirby'' Star Rod,  but this arguement has no source behind it, official or otherwise.  Even if it was a reference, I fail to see why the two should be merged.  The [[Devolution Gun]] isn't merged with the [[Super Scope]], for example, as both have significant, distinct roles in the ''[[Mario (series)|Super Mario]]'' series.
#{{User|MegaMario9910}} - Both have had different roles, and are complete different things in the Marioverse. One SSB (which is also the same one from Kirby), and the one from Paper Mario. Per Stumpers.
#{{User|MC Hammer Bro.}}-Good point. Both have different powers and different uses. And plus only one is used in SSB while the other isn't.
#{{User|The.Real.Izkat}}-Per MegaMario9910 which inadvertatley means Per Stumpers.
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per Stupmers.
#{{User|PeteyPiranhaLover}} - Per Stmpers.
#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - Per Stumpers.
#{{User|Starry Parakarry}}- Per Stumpers. Shouldn't we have the MP 8 Star Rod included in the PM Star Rod article as well?
#{{User|Dryest bowser}}- per stumpers
#{{User|Reecer6}}- I wasn't going to per stumpers 'till i saw his reason. so now: per stumpers
#{{User|ItameMarioFan}} - Per Stumpers. Both have their own history, both differ with powers, etc.
#{{User|luigi3000}} - Per Stumpers.Stumpers has a good idea.
====Oppose (keep as one article)====
 
====Comments====
We need to decide what we're going to do about the split if it happens.  When someone types in "Star Rod," should it go to a disambiguation page or to the ''Paper Mario'' Star Rod?  I'm inclined to think the latter.  If we do that, the ''Paper Mario'' Star Rod can be left on the "Star Rod" page and the ''Kirby'' Star Rod can go to "Star Rod (item)" Sound good? {{User|Stumpers}}
:There was a comment about a Star Rod from ''[[Mario Party 8]]''.  For now, the above proposal would only split out the ''Kirby'' Star Rod.  If it would better the article to have it removed, a follow-up proposal splitting the article further is in order.  We'll have to see. ~{{User|Stumpers}}


==Changes==
==Changes==
===The Notability Standard===
===Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject===
To quote one of the standards for a Featured Article as established by [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles]], to become an FA an article must, "…be notable and have significant content – some complete articles like [[Spiny Shroopa]] do not have enough information to become FAs." On a number of Featured Article Nominations, including [[Smithy]] and [[Alien (Club Nintendo)]], the nomination has been questioned on the basis of this rule.  If a single user feels that a subject is too minor, he or she can stop the nomination in its tracks by casting an oppose vote.  In my opinion, the quoted standard leaves too much up to opinion of a small group of users and defeats the purpose of an oppose vote.  The point of an oppose vote is to help the supporters to make improvements on the article (as established by MarioWiki:Featured Articles).  The supporters cannot make a subject more notable.  In addition, the rule may hinders desire to edit an article about a minor topic.  However, I do appreciate the need for a featured article to be longer than Spiny Shroopa if the Wiki is to look established and appealing to new editors and casual readers.  Therefore, I propose that we replace the above condition with the following: '''to become an FA, an article must have at least 4,000 characters (letters, spaces, etc.) not including templates, categories, quotes, images, and "official profiles and statistics" sections.  Text in an image thumbnail is included.'''  Examples of articles that just make this limit are [[Baby Daisy]] and [[Booster]].  I am currently open to increasing the minimum character limit or removing non-breaking spaces (the ones the spacebar puts in) from that limit; please discuss.  Microsoft Word includes a statistic feature that allows a user to easily find the character count with and without spaces.
These past months, there have been some remakes that share titles with the games they're remaking. This has led to a few new articles with titles ending with "([Title] for [system])", such as [[Scrapbook (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch)|Scrapbook (''Super Mario RPG'' for Nintendo Switch)]] and [[Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch)|Gold Medal (''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' for Nintendo Switch)]]. However, this long-winded double-disambiguation format is not always strictly necessary, and both of these example articles fall outside of the specific use case [[MarioWiki:NAME]] recommends using this format in. There isn't a Scrapbook in the original ''Super Mario RPG'', and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door''. These are not cases where "two different games share the same title but appear on different consoles and the identifier '''needs''' to distinguish between them" (emphasis added).
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' June 30, 17:00
 
====Support (replace standard)====
#{{User|Stumpers}} - See proposal.  This proposal would limit the amount of pointless discussion without allowing short articles to hinder the appearance of the Wiki further.
#[[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]] This is a good Idea. Having a length requirement sort of ensures that the chracter is "important", without allowing arguments over chracters that only appeared in one game.
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Great idea. Per Stumpers.
#{{User|Soler}} —Having a definite standard would in all probability speed up the process and avoid petty disputes. Great idea.
#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - Yeah, some pointless articles have been nominated. Per Stumpers.
#{{User|Cobold}} - Sounds like the best solution, no more fights on what's important enough and what not.
#{{User|Starry Parakarry}}-Pretty good idea! I like it, a lot actually! Per Stumpers!
 
====Oppose (maintain standard)====


===Comments===
I propose a change to the naming policy to explicitly discourage using this disambiguation format in such cases. If the game title alone is enough to specify the subject, including the system in the article title is unnecessary and awkward. Those details belong in the article itself, not the title.
Not a bad idea. However, do you have plans to do a Byte limit as well? That would wear it down to an even finer point. I dunno, just a suggestion. Thought I'd throw it out there. :P {{user|InfectedShroom}}
:Do you know how you find the byte count for the articles?  If so that might work better. {{User|Stumpers}}
::Yeah, just go into the history and it's right in the last edit message: (cur) (last)  11:18, 24 June 2008 Ninjayoshi (Talk | contribs) ('''18,397 bytes'''). ;) {{User|InfectedShroom}}
:::Awesome.  Let me experiment with that a bit and see if it's a better alternative. I really like that we can check that on-website, but I'm worried about users adding lots of quotes or screenshots to make an article meet the requirement. {{User|Stumpers}}
Bytes could be difficult to determine. I'd go with a bottom limit of 4000 characters, including spaces. {{User|Cobold}}
:Okay, I'll keep the proposal as it is, then.  Thanks for the support, everyone. {{User|Stumpers}}


==Miscellaneous==
'''Proposer''': {{User|JanMisali}}<br>
===Write Articles in the Same Tense===
'''Deadline''': June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT


Here I go: I mean tense as in ''past, present, future.'' Now, I've been looking at quite a few character articles, but this also applies to game articles, in the Story sections. I've noticed that the older games and characters' articles seem to be written in past tense, as in "Mario then defeated Bowser and then went psycho" - but more recent games/characters (e.g. Rosalina, Super Mario Galaxy...) are in present tense, like "Mario defeats Bowser and returns peace to the kingdom." So, I think it makes sense to have them all in present tense, no matter how old the character/game is. It's all about consistency, if you ask me. This is my first proposal, so I've probably done it wrong and it might get deleted...oh well, I tried.
====Support change====
#{{User|JanMisali}} As proposer.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Erring on this for the time being. We get the counter-arguments, but it's usually clear from the article's body itself that the content is exclusive to a given remake of a video game that happens to hold a similar name, and it's not like we even apply these nametags consistently anyways--if a thing has a more specific name that isn't already shared with something else, like [[Hottest Dog]] or [[Goomboss Battle]], we don't append these "<name> for <console>" tags. As it stands, if you ''need'' the title to clarify it's exclusive to a remake, then something's probably wrong in the article itself.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Trim! Trim the excess!
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all. And uh, sorry for accidentally roasting this proposal with my comment lol.
#{{user|Dive Rocket Launcher}} I find it strange that this additional disambiguation is used for version-exclusive content ''only'' if the article already needs a distinguisher. [[Nostalgic Tunes]]'s title doesn't have to clarify that it's exclusive to the TTYD remake specifically, so why does [[Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch)|Gold Medal]] need to? <s>Or maybe we need to go the Nintendo route and call it "Gold Medal in the ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' game for the Nintendo Switch family of systems"</s>
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per Camwoodstock and Dive Rocket Launcher.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all for nintendo switch
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Better to shorten the titles than to add unnessarily long parentheticals. No need to disambiguate when the subject only appears in one version. The "(<title> for <console>)" parenthetical should only be used for subjects with different pages for each version, like [[100m (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Wii)]].
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all</s>


'''UPDATE:''' OK, I'll admit I kind of confused myself with what I wrote at first. OK, after reading the Comments and Oppositions...here's my change:
====Oppose change====
 
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - "There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door" ...that is precisely ''why'' this is needed, or else it's confusing as to why something that isn't in the actual, original game is identified as though it is.
There should be a rule that determines how to write an article...such as a rule about how old the game/event/whatever is. Or the rule could be that certain Sections, such as Story or History, are always consistent for any article, but that same article may have the more appropriate tense in other sections. Does that make sense?
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per Doc. It doesn't make it more clear, it's just confusing because it implies it's in the original game.
 
 
'''Proposer''':[[User:Dom|Dom]]
 
'''Deadline''': June 27th 20:00 PM.
 
====Support====
#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Dom.
#{{User|MegaMario9910}} - Per Dom. It would cause confusion if an early game article had the past tense, while the new ones would have the present tense.
#{{User|Cobold}} - all sections should be in the same time. But for flashbacks within a section, the past tense still should be used. (like explaining the preface of PM:TTYD in Peach's article)
 
====Oppose====
#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - No. Mario '''does''' have a timelime.  In some games, they even reference back in the timeline.
#{{User|Stumpers}} - Past tense always sounds better for a history section in an encyclopedia.  Also, enforcing this will be very difficult if it is passed -- you've got about 800 pages that will need to be changed.
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} Yeah, sorry for the vote change. Anyway, Past tense makes things flow more easily. IMO, we should do the lead in Present and the body in Past.
#Per all. {{user|Toadette 4evur}}
#Per all {{user|RedFire Mario}}
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per IS.


====Comments====
====Comments====
'Wouldn't this cause confusion' if Super Mario World and Super Mario World 2 were written as if they were happening at the same time?[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I disagree. "Gold Medal (''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'')" is not a name that implies the subject appears in the GameCube game ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door''; that would be "Gold Medal (''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' for Nintendo GameCube)". All the "(''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'')" identifier suggests is that the subject appears in ''some'' game with that title. The body of the article can specify which game. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
:Should this really be generalised for all? For the character bios I wrote, I wrote about story-relevant events in past tense, independent of how new the game is, since these events already passed. I have to agree with Ninjayoshi's demur. --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 12:11, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:Common sense dictates the game title refers to the original, not the George Lucas'd Special Edition (that verbiage may be cruel, but I'll stand by it). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:26, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
::Ninjayoshi: if you write both sections in the past tense, no, it won't. {{User|Stumpers}}
::Would you recommend moving [[Switch (Donkey Kong)|Switch (''Donkey Kong'')]] to "Switch (''Donkey Kong'' for Game Boy)" then? Or [[Floor (Mario Bros.)|Floor (''Mario Bros.'')]] to "Floor (''Mario Bros.'' for arcade)"? {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:33, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
:::[[Floor (Mario Bros.)]] is a bad example; "Floor (Mario Bros. for arcade)" implies that it ''only'' appears in the arcade original, yet it actually appears in ''all'' versions of ''Mario Bros.'', so it being called just "Floor (Mario Bros.)" is actually justified. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:45, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
::::But it ''doesn't'' appear in [[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|the original]]. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:46, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
:::::...the ''lesser known'' one, to the point that its identifier is "(Game & Watch)" instead of simply "(game)" that's attached to the arcade version? I feel like if there were floors in the G&W game, such an article is more likely to be called something like "Floor (Mario Bros. for Game & Watch)" simply for how well-known and widespread the arcade version is in comparison. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:56, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Therefore, it is not always reasonable to assume that a title without specifying system always refers to "the original". {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 21:02, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::My impression of the (<game> for <system>) identifier is to use it when one feature appears in one version of a title, but not in another version (or is different in another version), and when it's identical in both versions (or multiple versions), just (<game>) may be used as normal. [[Special:Diff/4035332|this revision]] justifies the (<game> for <system>) for consistency with article such as [[100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS)]] - which would have to have such a name because [[100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Wii U)]] also exists. This kind of identifier is also used after [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|this proposal]] has passed in which to opt out the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier in favor of the shorter (Super Mario RPG) one, since the remake is simply called "Super Mario RPG" and enemies with the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier clearly appear in both games; with (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) being used for features that weren't in the SNES original, and presumably using (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) for features that weren't in the Switch remake. {{User:Arend/sig}} 21:20, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Yes, that does appear to be the current way it's being used. The premise of this proposal is to discourage this in cases where it's not strictly necessary, as it makes the article titles longer and less convenient for little to no benefit. This practice of specifying that a subject is exclusive to a later game isn't used consistently anyway (see [[Switch (Donkey Kong)|Switch (''Donkey Kong'')]]), and as the proposal states it falls outside the use case that [[MarioWiki:NAME]] recommends using this format in. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 09:00, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
:::::That ignores that the arcade one was ''in development'' first, the G&W one just beat it to the release punch on account of being simpler to program and manufacture. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Do you have a source for that? If so, you should put that source on the ''Mario Bros.'' (game) article. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 09:21, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Considering it's been repeatedly said Miyamoto created Luigi for the arcade game and the G&W games were created without his involvement, it seems pretty self-explanatory. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 10:22, June 3, 2024 (EDT)


Hey, I forgot to say stuff about articles to do with future games or characters...maybe that should also be discussed? {{User|Dom}}
Only tangentially related, but why ''are'' the three [[Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch)|Gold]] [[Gold Medal (Super Paper Mario)|Medal]] [[Gold Medal (Yoshi Topsy-Turvy)|items]] split anyways? Sure, they all function differently, but it seems like a fairly generic concept all things considered, and we don't split articles like [[Apple]]s just because they happen to work differently across games. And then [[Medal]] is ''also'' split up even further, but makes no mention of Gold Medals? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:52, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
:Have badges ever been merged with other items? As far as I can tell, basically every badge from the first two games has its own article, even ones that are clearly related to and similar to items in other games ([[Power Plus (badge)]] and [[Power Plus (Super Paper Mario)]] for example). [[File:Modern Rocky Wrench SM-k.png|35px|link=]] [[User:Dive Rocket Launcher|Dive]] [[User talk:Dive Rocket Launcher|Rocket]] [[Special:Contributions/Dive Rocket Launcher|Launcher]] 02:16, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
::This reminds me to back when [[Talk:Cog (obstacle)#Merge Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) and Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) into this page and move to "Cog"|this failed proposal]] tried to merge [[Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!)]] and [[Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)]] to [[Cog (obstacle)]], even though the former two are collectables and the latter one is an obstacle or platform. I had suggested in my oppose vote to merge the former two in a new article "{{Fake link|Cog (item)}}" instead (which I stand by after finding out there's [[Gear Up|a mission]] in ''[[Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon]]'' where gears had to be collected, which would also fit perfectly for a potential "Cog (item)" page), but proposer Super Mario RPG never added an option for such a thing despite many others agreeing that it would be a good idea. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:30, June 3, 2024 (EDT)


I'm confused about this proposal. Stumpers wrote in his support vote that past tense should be used for passed events, and I think the same. However, this proposal is about present tense in every case, isn't it? I'm for consistency, but not for present tense everytime. What is it all about now, really?? --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 07:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
<s>This might just be the most unanimously opposed proposal in Mario Wiki history. No offense to the proposer or anything, but no matter how good this sounded in their head, it would never work out in real life.</s> [[File:Bowsersm64.png|33px]] [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) [[File:BowserNSMBU.png|35px]] 19:36, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
:That was my fault. I misread the proposal and though this was to make all tenses be consistent in each sub-section. Sorry about that. You're going to want to oppose if you want to be allowed to write in the past tense still. {{User|Stumpers}}
: ??? Did you mean to post this on the above proposal? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:09, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
::By the way, I'm really not sure how one would enforce this rule, even after you spend countless hours fixing each tense.  I've done some tense fixing before, and let me tell you: its like rewriting the entire thing.  It will probably take you one half the time that it took the contributor to write the original text.  Let's think about this then: on the first part of the history section for Mario up to Super Mario Bros. 2 USA, it took me probably a total of five hours to write. That means that for one third of one third of one article, (one ninth of an article), you're gonna need roughly 2 hours. As the proposer, you and the other supporters are going to have to put this into effect.  Do you really want to be in charge of changing all the past tenses into present and then changing every new edit by a user who doesn't know about this proposal? {{User|Stumpers}} 10:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::Uh, yeah. Whoops. [[File:Bowsersm64.png|33px]] [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) [[File:BowserNSMBU.png|35px]] 10:25, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
:::We couldn't find if the "rename the wiki" proposal is the proposal with the most opposes, but we can tell you right now [[Talk:Alien (Club Nintendo)#ANTI-ALIEN ALARM!!! (Delete this article)|it'll ''never'' have the most opposition by percentage]]! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:54, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
::::[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66#Forbid the use of images without captioning them|You sure there aren't better options?]] {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:59, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
:::::We'd argue that the Alien (Club Nintendo) example is funnier just because we opposed it out of the gate despite ''being the creator of the proposal'', whereas the Images proposal lost its vote via means of retracting it after having been talked out of it. The latter at least had (past tense) a vote--the former had none, ever. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:22, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I don't think [[Talk:Toad Brigade#TPP: Toad Brigade in SMS or not?|this one]] ever had a supporting vote either. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 20:49, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Include physical appearance in an infobox|This]] is another example. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:57, June 5, 2024 (EDT)


'''Make sure you read my UPDATE before any more comments.''' {{User|Dom}}
==Miscellaneous==
:I meant that if they were both written in present tense, because I support writing in past tense.-[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
''None at the moment.''
 
It doesn't take a long time to fix tenses with the ctrl+f function (find). Just type in ed, ing, etc. in the find window. {{user|Clay Mario}}
:If only English were that simple!  Take "is," one of the most common verbs.  It's past tense is "was."  Don't forget about "are" and "were," too.  There are other verbs like that, too.  "Run" vs. "ran," for example.  The only way to do it right would be to go through line by line and fix it, although yours would work for an initial fix, I have to admit. {{User|Stumpers}}
::Yo, CM, one more thing. My computer is limited just to finding things ''outside'' of the edit box. Which conveniently takes away that option for me and other Mac users. ;) {{user|InfectedShroom}}
:::You'd have to copy it into a word processor and use the find fuction, then, right? {{User|Stumpers}} 02:43, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
 
 
I'm a Mac user and I made the Proposal...but I never thought of issues related to finding words to change. {{User|Dom}}
 
===Allow cameo '''appearences''' to be documented in character articles===
 
This is fairly simple. Looking on the [[Cameo]] page I noticed that we have two different types of "cameos" listed there.
 
One is ''references'': The SMB theme playing during a show, a character mentioning playing ''Super Mario Bros.'' etc. 
 
The other kind is actual ''Cameos'': such as Mario's appearence in Robot Chicken or Futurama.  I propose that whenever a character actually '''appears''' in another franchise, it should be mentioned in that characters main article. We need to have every bit of info relating to these chracters in their articles, and this one way to do it.
 
'''Proposer''': [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
'''Deadline''': July 1, 2008, 17:00
 
====Support====
#[[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]per above
 
====Oppose====
# No.  First of all, give reason to your votes.  Second, that would make the Character pages too cluttered. -[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
 
====Comments====
 
I dunno. If we listed '''every''' time Mario has been seen/mentioned in a tv show, the page would be (even more) horribly long. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
I am not suggesting that we mention every Mention, or even every appearence. For instance several series feature characters who dress in a style similar to Mario: these can be left out of the article. However, when Mario (or any other character, for that matter) makes a full-fledged appearence and has an actual role in an episode, it should be mentioned. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:Maybe we should cover official cameos on that page and leave unoffical ones out? It would keep it short. {{User|Stumpers}}
 
 
Hmmmmm..... what would classify as an official cameo? - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:Indeed, what's an official cameo? One put into a non-Mario game by Nintendo themselves? One Nintendo gave permission to? (those sports games for the GameCube with Mario, Luigi and Peach in it). - {{User|Cobold}} 13:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
::That was what I was thinking.  Thanks for defining it! {{User|Stumpers}}
 
Ultimatetoad, please always add a reason to your votes, even if you're the proposer. {{User|Time Q}}
 
But I don't '''wanna''' - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:As much as I'm all in favor of forcing voters to give their reasons, this is ridiculous. {{User|Blitzwing}}
 
I was just joking. I dit put a reason, even if it is just : please refer above (ok, so maybe it's just "above, you know what it means.
 
I think that Stumpers had a good idea: non-mario games which Mario appears in (and games which are made by nintendo) should be incorporated into the character page. Everything else can stay on [[Cameo]]. I will change my proposal to reflect this. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]

Latest revision as of 11:00, June 9, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, June 10th, 08:05 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.
  • "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 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. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  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 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.
  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: "June 10, 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

  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 article 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

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.

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)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 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)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

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 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:

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

  1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) First choice per proposal.

Option 2

  1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Second choice per proposal.

Do nothing

  1. 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.
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per DrBaskerville.

Comments

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject

These past months, there have been some remakes that share titles with the games they're remaking. This has led to a few new articles with titles ending with "([Title] for [system])", such as Scrapbook (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) and Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch). However, this long-winded double-disambiguation format is not always strictly necessary, and both of these example articles fall outside of the specific use case MarioWiki:NAME recommends using this format in. There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. These are not cases where "two different games share the same title but appear on different consoles and the identifier needs to distinguish between them" (emphasis added).

I propose a change to the naming policy to explicitly discourage using this disambiguation format in such cases. If the game title alone is enough to specify the subject, including the system in the article title is unnecessary and awkward. Those details belong in the article itself, not the title.

Proposer: JanMisali (talk)
Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support change

  1. JanMisali (talk) As proposer.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Erring on this for the time being. We get the counter-arguments, but it's usually clear from the article's body itself that the content is exclusive to a given remake of a video game that happens to hold a similar name, and it's not like we even apply these nametags consistently anyways--if a thing has a more specific name that isn't already shared with something else, like Hottest Dog or Goomboss Battle, we don't append these "<name> for <console>" tags. As it stands, if you need the title to clarify it's exclusive to a remake, then something's probably wrong in the article itself.
  3. Shadow2 (talk) Trim! Trim the excess!
  4. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. And uh, sorry for accidentally roasting this proposal with my comment lol.
  5. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) I find it strange that this additional disambiguation is used for version-exclusive content only if the article already needs a distinguisher. Nostalgic Tunes's title doesn't have to clarify that it's exclusive to the TTYD remake specifically, so why does Gold Medal need to? Or maybe we need to go the Nintendo route and call it "Gold Medal in the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door game for the Nintendo Switch family of systems"
  6. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
  7. DrBaskerville (talk) Per Camwoodstock and Dive Rocket Launcher.
  8. EvieMaybe (talk) per all for nintendo switch
  9. SeanWheeler (talk) Better to shorten the titles than to add unnessarily long parentheticals. No need to disambiguate when the subject only appears in one version. The "(<title> for <console>)" parenthetical should only be used for subjects with different pages for each version, like 100m (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Wii).

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all

Oppose change

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - "There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door" ...that is precisely why this is needed, or else it's confusing as to why something that isn't in the actual, original game is identified as though it is.
  2. Scrooge200 (talk) Per Doc. It doesn't make it more clear, it's just confusing because it implies it's in the original game.

Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick I disagree. "Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)" is not a name that implies the subject appears in the GameCube game Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door; that would be "Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo GameCube)". All the "(Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)" identifier suggests is that the subject appears in some game with that title. The body of the article can specify which game. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Common sense dictates the game title refers to the original, not the George Lucas'd Special Edition (that verbiage may be cruel, but I'll stand by it). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:26, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Would you recommend moving Switch (Donkey Kong) to "Switch (Donkey Kong for Game Boy)" then? Or Floor (Mario Bros.) to "Floor (Mario Bros. for arcade)"? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:33, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Floor (Mario Bros.) is a bad example; "Floor (Mario Bros. for arcade)" implies that it only appears in the arcade original, yet it actually appears in all versions of Mario Bros., so it being called just "Floor (Mario Bros.)" is actually justified. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:45, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
But it doesn't appear in the original. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:46, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
...the lesser known one, to the point that its identifier is "(Game & Watch)" instead of simply "(game)" that's attached to the arcade version? I feel like if there were floors in the G&W game, such an article is more likely to be called something like "Floor (Mario Bros. for Game & Watch)" simply for how well-known and widespread the arcade version is in comparison. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:56, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Therefore, it is not always reasonable to assume that a title without specifying system always refers to "the original". jan Misali (talk · contributions) 21:02, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
My impression of the (<game> for <system>) identifier is to use it when one feature appears in one version of a title, but not in another version (or is different in another version), and when it's identical in both versions (or multiple versions), just (<game>) may be used as normal. this revision justifies the (<game> for <system>) for consistency with article such as 100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS) - which would have to have such a name because 100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Wii U) also exists. This kind of identifier is also used after this proposal has passed in which to opt out the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier in favor of the shorter (Super Mario RPG) one, since the remake is simply called "Super Mario RPG" and enemies with the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier clearly appear in both games; with (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) being used for features that weren't in the SNES original, and presumably using (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) for features that weren't in the Switch remake. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 21:20, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Yes, that does appear to be the current way it's being used. The premise of this proposal is to discourage this in cases where it's not strictly necessary, as it makes the article titles longer and less convenient for little to no benefit. This practice of specifying that a subject is exclusive to a later game isn't used consistently anyway (see Switch (Donkey Kong)), and as the proposal states it falls outside the use case that MarioWiki:NAME recommends using this format in. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:00, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
That ignores that the arcade one was in development first, the G&W one just beat it to the release punch on account of being simpler to program and manufacture. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Do you have a source for that? If so, you should put that source on the Mario Bros. (game) article. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:21, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
Considering it's been repeatedly said Miyamoto created Luigi for the arcade game and the G&W games were created without his involvement, it seems pretty self-explanatory. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:22, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

Only tangentially related, but why are the three Gold Medal items split anyways? Sure, they all function differently, but it seems like a fairly generic concept all things considered, and we don't split articles like Apples just because they happen to work differently across games. And then Medal is also split up even further, but makes no mention of Gold Medals? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:52, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Have badges ever been merged with other items? As far as I can tell, basically every badge from the first two games has its own article, even ones that are clearly related to and similar to items in other games (Power Plus (badge) and Power Plus (Super Paper Mario) for example). A Rocky Wrench in volume 45 of Super Mario-kun Dive Rocket Launcher 02:16, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
This reminds me to back when this failed proposal tried to merge Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) and Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) to Cog (obstacle), even though the former two are collectables and the latter one is an obstacle or platform. I had suggested in my oppose vote to merge the former two in a new article "Cog (item)" instead (which I stand by after finding out there's a mission in Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon where gears had to be collected, which would also fit perfectly for a potential "Cog (item)" page), but proposer Super Mario RPG never added an option for such a thing despite many others agreeing that it would be a good idea. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:30, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

This might just be the most unanimously opposed proposal in Mario Wiki history. No offense to the proposer or anything, but no matter how good this sounded in their head, it would never work out in real life. Super Mario 64 promotional artwork MegaBowser64 (talk) Artwork of Bowser in New Super Mario Bros. U 19:36, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

??? Did you mean to post this on the above proposal? Shadow2 (talk) 23:09, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
Uh, yeah. Whoops. Super Mario 64 promotional artwork MegaBowser64 (talk) Artwork of Bowser in New Super Mario Bros. U 10:25, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
We couldn't find if the "rename the wiki" proposal is the proposal with the most opposes, but we can tell you right now it'll never have the most opposition by percentage! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:54, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
You sure there aren't better options? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 18:59, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
We'd argue that the Alien (Club Nintendo) example is funnier just because we opposed it out of the gate despite being the creator of the proposal, whereas the Images proposal lost its vote via means of retracting it after having been talked out of it. The latter at least had (past tense) a vote--the former had none, ever. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:22, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
I don't think this one ever had a supporting vote either. I need more wrenches... Dive Rocket Launcher 20:49, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
This is another example. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:57, June 5, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4254646"