MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Tuesday, June 25th, 22:18 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 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

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

• Consider Podley and Podler to be Beanish (discuss) Deadline: June 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Decide if Gallery:Ground should be deleted (discuss) Deadline: July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door bestiary into a separate article for the Nintendo Switch remake (discuss) Deadline: July 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move The Old Psychic Lady to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens (discuss) Deadline: July 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Bowser's Brother to Fake Bowser (Blue) (discuss) Deadline: July 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

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)

Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject, JanMisali (ended June 9, 2024)

^ Note: Requires action from admins.

Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes, Dive Rocket Launcher (ended June 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)

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

Get rid of or heavily restrict the "Subject origin" parameter

I can already sense a murmur rising in the crowd, but hear me out. I've made it no secret on here that I don't really like the Subject origin parameter on the species infobox. The term "subject origin" is a bit of a misnomer. It really should've been called "design inspiration", because rather than explaining where the subject comes from in pieces of media, it's only ever been used in instances where the subject took any sort of inspiration from another entity, either real or fictional. If that sounds oddly broad... then yes, it is very broad.

This line of reasoning is used for bizarre classifications such as Mincers being derived from Zingers because they're both spiky enemies (is Mincer even an enemy, or just an obstacle?) that follow specific paths, or every "Bone" enemy variant being derived from Dry Bones even if they don't actually fall apart. There's even a few cases where "subject origin" has taken priority over confirmed relatedness between species, despite the term not in itself suggesting a close relationship between subjects, thus losing useful information in the infobox in these cases (e.g. Rocky Wrenches which were formerly Koopas, Whomps which are said to be "cousins" of Thwomps, Krumples being blue Kremlings that follow the same naming scheme as their predecessors Krusha and Kruncha).

The most awkward instances, however, are easily the instances of a subject being "derived" from a generic concept. Kleptoads, though based on frogs, have little to no relevance to any of the generic instances of frogs present in the Mario franchise. Similarly, Rabbids are entirely separated from the Mario series' depictions of rabbits, not only because they don't act like generic rabbits in the Mario series, but also because they're not even from the same franchise. It's not even restricted to entities that actually have pages on the Mario Wiki. Kremlings are stated to originate from "crocodilians", a page that only exists as a category, Crazee Dayzees are derived from "flowers" (which are in a similar situation), and Krimps are listed as being derived from "dogs". Who's to say Boos aren't derived from "ghosts", or that Flaptacks don't have "bird" as a subject origin, or that Octoombas aren't based off of both "aliens" and "octopuses"?

I hope you can see that the unrestricted references to generic or real-world species at the very least are a problem. But even for non-generic subject origins, the vast majority of the time (I'm tempted to say all of the time, but there could be an instance I'm struggling to think of that doesn't fall under this), this kind of info is covered sufficiently in the introductory paragraph, or the General information/Appearance section when applicable. I propose we deal with this in one of the following ways:

Option 1: Axe the "subject origin" parameter entirely. (My primary choice)
Option 2: Ban usage of subject origin to refer to generic species, in addition to switching priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects". (I'm fine with this)
Option 3: Simply ban usage of citing generic species as the subject origin.
Option 4: Ban usage of subject origin to refer to species from the Mario franchise.
Option 5: Just switch priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects"

Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. DrippingYellow (talk) As derived from my proposal.
2. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal
3. 7feetunder (talk) This parameter is, as it is currently written, not well defined at all. It was originally meant to be only for connections to real-world species, but was given a wishy-washy, vague rewording so it could be used to make flimsy claims like Bazuka being based on Kutlass because they're both "small Kremlings with oversized weapons" or the aforementioned Mincer thing (which I was unaware of before this proposal).
4. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, and especially per 7feetunder. It's an awkwardly named, unnecessarily confusing, arbitrarily used, unhelpfully broad parameter that feels like it's spiralled and descended from its intended purpose to uselessness (plus random speculation at worst), and it feels weird for the fictional species that something's a variant of (like with Galoomba) and debatably necessary listings for the generic real thing it's based on (like with Crazee Dayzee and Moo Moo) to use the same parameter. In short, this subject is the origin of much confusion, and little good can be derived from it.
5. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per all.
6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all and my comments below.
7. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) After enough consideration, I'll go with this option. This category got flanderized.
8. Somethingone (talk) As the person responsible for revitalizing the parameter in the first place (it was used before my proposal and fell off before my proposal too), sure. Just as long as the real world species are kept out of the "comparable" parameter.
9. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per everyone.
10. Biggestman (talk) Per proposal, I want this thing DEAD.

Option 2

1. DrippingYellow (talk) Secondary choice.

Option 4

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) I think, right now, it's a little confusing, myself. Back when I thought to have the parameter revived, I thought of only using it for genericized subjects, and this option seems to be closest to what I had in mind. For that matter, we don't need to list every single variant of something under derived subjects; just the base version is fine. I'd rather not go back to listing generic subjects broadly listed under comparable again, and insist that the parameter would benefit from focus.
2. Somethingone (talk) Second choice - my original intent with that old proposal.

Option 5

1. DrBaskerville (talk) Second choice

Do nothing

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I don't really see the issue. If anything, the "relatives" parameter not having directional counterparts is the weakest link. Plus the "listing Galoombas as Goomba relatives rather than variants because a source distinguished them from each other and happened to used the word 'related'"-type of thing might be itself getting out of hand...
2. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per Doc

#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.

Comments

Oh, looks like I'm involved with this proposal to some degree. You see; I was the one who did the Kremling edit and especially the recent Dry Bones edits. For the latter, my explanation is that subject origin refers to things based on another entity while not actually being the entity. For example, Galoombas have been considered not Goombas, but they were meant to be inspired by them and even their name reflects it. There are various subjects that are definitely inspired, while not considered relatives of the original entity. Goombrats are weird, because they are stated to be relatives, although it's not made clear if they are a variant, as Super Mario Run loved to throw a wrench at us. The initial existence of subject origin appeared to be more generic species that had multiple fictional variants off of it. I always had this issue with penguins on this, because the Mario franchise equivalent of penguins are meant to be based on those from SM64, yet the derived section brings up entities that existed before it. The blue color seems to derived from Bumpties, so there's that MIPShole for you. As for my Dry Bones edit, they've inspired various skeleton enemies over the years. It's obvious that Bone Piranha Plants were inspired by Dry Bones, because their designs have the same type of texture. The same applies to Fish Bones, because they are meant to be underwater Dry Bones, especially given in Maker, where an underwater Dry Bones becomes a Fish Bones. Poplins are not confirmed to be relatives of Toads, but it's wrong to say that aren't inspired by Toads. Really, I got the impression that subject origin = inspiration. We know that Dry Bones and Fish Bones are definitely two different entities not even related, but we know one took inspiration from the other. I guess this type of logic would make Shellcreepers being the origin for Koopa Troopas, although Shellcreepers are retroactively considered part of the Koopa clan. Yeah, relatives is another thing. For me, if its unclear what came first, its a relative. Paragoombas have the ability to spawn Mini Goombas. Mini Goombas aren't really a variant of a Paragoomba, so the relative label fits there. To get back on topic a little bit, I'm surprised Moo Moo didn't get mentioned here; it's in the same boat of Kremling, except I made it link to the Wikipedia article for cattle. My thought process behind these edits, where to tell the viewer what the species is based off on. This is somewhat true for Kremlings, who are sometimes called reptiles or lizards. A person who isn't familiar with this franchise might not know what the hell a Kremling is meant to be based on, so I figured that I mention its inspired by both crocodiles and alligators (not sure if Kremlings tend to crossover with these two, like how Diddy and Dixie are crosses between monkeys and chimps). I guess this could get out of hand when talking about fictional animals such as dragons or aliens, so there's that. My thought process is that someone might not realize what the species is based on. Like, if there was a fictional species based off on a spider monkey, which some people might not realize actually exists, that was the intended goal. Of course, it can resort to "well, no shit," situations regarding Kremlings who are just based on typical crocs and Moo Moos. So yeah, I'm not entirely sure what to choose here. I do want it to be obvious to non-Mario readers what the subject is based on. Are we considering making Galoombas be considered comparable to Goombas? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 23:55, June 11, 2024 (EDT)

This very well could just be me, and I do not want to disregard the hard work of my fellow users. However, in my personal experience, the "subjects origins", "relatives", etc. entries for the species infoboxes have become so diluted and bloated with loosely-affiliated species that I usually just ignore whatever is written in those sections completely. This is a bit of a shame, because I remember them being quite fun and informative years prior. Today, I don't really trust/value the information written there because it seems either: (A) very subjective and promoting of drive-by edits; (B) derived from a proposal drawn chiefly from subtle similarities in Japanese nomenclature, to the point that they ignore everything about the species' physical appearance or canonized taxonomy; (C) declares it to be derived from a subject that is pretty apparent just by looking at the subject; (D) based on mechanical similarities within their respective games, which is not something that I think inherently means they are related, variants, or subjects of origins, and are details best left in the body paragraphs; or (E) are so long that it makes the whole concept of the infobox - something to quickly condense information - completely useless.

I do not know what would be the best amendment for the species infoboxes. Something to return them to their prior useage would be nice - it's not really clear if any of DrippingYellow (talk)'s options would really do that. (Possibly something to address D, I think.) But I am interested in sort of change. Too often, it feels like people are going out of their way to look for connections that are not real, rather than noting ones that unambiguously exist. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:43, June 13, 2024 (EDT)

Abstaining from voting, but while I don't really have a problem with axing the subject origin parameter (we can move the information from that parameter to relatives or comparable), I do realize that by doing so, we're basically undoing this proposal about fixing how to handle the relations of generic/real-life species in infoboxes, meaning we might need a new solution for this issue. Do we have to list some of the fictional species as variants to the real-life species, related to the real-life species, or perhaps introduce a new parameter to replace subject origin that is far clearer and stricter in its definition? (e.g. "real life inspiration" or "real life counterpart"... okay tbh these aren't the best replacements, I'm basically spitballing) rend (talk) (edits) 15:16, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

I don't remember if randomly listing the real thing that something is based on even if it doesn't have an article (like on Crazee Dayzee) was already being done before that proposal, but either way that kind of thing shouldn't be in the infobox at all in my opinion. As for "real-world species" that we do have articles for, we can probably just treat them like we would any other species in these infoboxes. To quote Nintendo101 here, "A seagull is just as derived from real gulls as Goonies, and just as divorced from real-life components of those animals. It is inaccurate to present them as otherwise." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

Wait, just to clarify, option 1 also involves removing the counterpart parameter "derived subjects", right? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:59, June 23, 2024 (EDT)

With the impending retirement of these parameters, would anyone else be up for a "relative to" parameter below "variant of" and above "variants"? I don't think the Goombrat's larger counterpart should take priority over their relation to Goombas, for example. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:22, June 24, 2024 (EDT)

...I personally don't think a Goomba's relation to Goombrats should take priority over all the Goomba variants (Paragoombas, Bone Goombas, etc), though. rend (talk) (edits) 13:35, June 24, 2024 (EDT)

I don't, either. My idea would not affect the "base" relative in that way, and the relatives parameter's original definition for unclear base variants (like with Spoing and Sprangler) would still follow status quo. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:42, June 24, 2024 (EDT)

Oh, I see now. Yeah, I suppose a new "relative to" parameter wouldn't be that bad of an idea. rend (talk) (edits) 13:54, June 24, 2024 (EDT)

On the other hand, this parameter may need additional criteria to consider before implementation. While subjects with obvious design progenitors like Galoomba and Whomp probably wouldn't cause any issues, it'd be a little weird to use such a parameter for more loosely related species, like Cheep Chomp to Porcupuffer. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:30, June 24, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Trim the list of Snake's codec conversations and list of Palutena's Guidance conversations

This is something that stuck out to me while I was adding profiles to Samus's article. These articles, List of Snake's codec conversations and List of Palutena's Guidance conversations, include the conversations for every fighter in the Super Smash Bros. series, even all the non-Super Mario characters. About a year ago, a proposal to remove non-Super Mario trophies from the lists of trophies passed with no opposition, and most, if not all, of the points brought up in that proposal also apply here. You can read that proposal if you want to see the arguments in full, but to summarize for this proposal:

• This content does not involve anything from Super Mario and its related franchises, it is purely flavor text about non-Mario characters spoken by non-Mario characters
• We have a precedent for trimming non-Mario Smash content
• Aside from the trivia, this content isn't original to this wiki, it's flavor text pulled straight from the game itself, and you would get the exact same content from just going to SmashWiki instead

With that in mind, I think the conversations for all non-Super Mario characters should be axed from these lists. The conversations for non-Mario characters that have their own articles, like Link and Samus, would still be included in their profiles/statistics along with their trophies, since I think the question of whether or not those should also be removed is best saved for a separate proposal.

Proposer: Dive Rocket Launcher (talk)
Deadline: June 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Trim the lists to only the conversations about characters from Super Mario and its related franchises

1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Per proposal.
2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
3. Hewer (talk) My first instinct was to think of moving the non-Mario conversations to the sections for each fighter in the fighter lists, but seeing as we didn't do that with other things like their trophies, it's sadly pretty hard to justify keeping a ton of dialogue about non-Mario characters said by non-Mario characters in a non-Mario setting.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. For every Guidance/Codec call for an actually relevant character, such as the infamous Viridi speech about Piranha Plants that has been outright cited in proposals that resulted in tangible splits or merges, there's Snake's thoughts on Fox McCloud. Take a guess which one we think should stay, and which one we think should probably just stick to being covered on SSBWiki instead.
5. Somethingone (talk) My thoughts are best summarized in that one essay I wrote for the character proposal; if we trim Smash content to just Mario stuff in some areas, we should trim it that much in all areas.
6. DrBaskerville (talk) Per all.
7. Axis (talk) Per proposal.
8. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer and others
9. SeanWheeler (talk) On a Mario Wiki, we should keep the Smash content relevant to Mario.
10. Mario (talk) Should be in the same way the Taunt page is now.

Comments

Relatedly, it's probably time we do something about List of Smash Taunt characters (perhaps a merge to the stage lists like what was done with the Multi-Man enemy teams). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:45, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

I'll be honest, I kinda think the Mario characters should also have this stuff moved to their profile & statistics sections. That feels more natural to me than making a page for something in Smash and then giving it incomplete coverage. Ahemtoday (talk) 19:07, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

Changes

Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary

An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?

I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)

My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.

I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.

This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.

Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk)
Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer.
2. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I agree with this proposal.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
2. DrBaskerville (talk) Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all.

Comments

This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. Dr. Baskerville 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Dr. Baskerville 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in Super Mario 3D All-Stars would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for three games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)

In my eyes, the change list for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. DandelionSprout (talk) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)

Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in Mario Sports Superstars article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

Just for reference, the current size of the TTYD remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). Scrooge200 (talk) 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

Split Wario Land: Shake It! bosses into boss levels

This proposal is similar to the one that passed. As you see, we have Motley Bossblob and Hisstocrat boss levels from Super Mario 3D World, the boss levels from the Donkey Kong Country series, even boss levels Yoshi's Crafted World where each boss guards a Dream Gem. Right now, you might be wondering how we can create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split:

• Rollanratl → Rollanratl Battle
• Hot Roderick → Hot Roderick Race
• Chortlebot → Chortlebot Challenge
• Bloomsday → Bloomsday Blowout
• Large Fry → Large Fry Cook-Off
• Shake King → VS the Shake King

Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk) (banned)
Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Hewer (talk) I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
3. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see Bowser's Sourpuss Bread, which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)

#GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Comments

Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? Dr. Baskerville 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

Looking at "Short Pages, when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or Mario Kart Arcade GP items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split Speed Mario Bros.. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when Pesky Billboard is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.