MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Tag: Mobile edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
===Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables===<-Requesting cancelling
Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen [[World 6-B (New Super Mario Bros.)|here]], this is awkwardly written as
*"[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"
and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of
*"[number] + (∞ x [number]),"
with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
<br>(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)


==New features==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
===Create interwiki link for RayWiki===
'''Deadline''': September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
This is similar to, and inspired by the Minecraft.wiki interwiki link proposal above, but with the [https://raymanpc.com/wiki/en/ RayWiki] instead. The ''Rayman'' series has gotten relevance in the ''Super Mario'' franchise thanks to the [[Rayman in the Phantom Show]] DLC campaign for ''[[Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope]]''. The DLC campaign harbors a multitude of ''Rayman'' cameos and references, and currently, we can only link to articles of the most relevant wiki for ''Rayman'' using external weblinks, which... doesn't look all too great on an article, IMO.
 
Since this wiki has interwiki link support to wikis that are part of NIWA, but which series otherwise have little to no relevance to ''Super Mario'' in general (e.g. [[kovopedia:Main Page|Kovopedia]], a ''Magical Vacation'' wiki), I think it would be fair to have interwiki link support to wikis about franchises that ''are'' relevant to ''Super Mario'' in some way.
 
As for the interwiki link code, it could be something like <code><nowiki>[[raymanpc:]]</nowiki></code> (from the URL domain, since the RayWiki is hosted by the Rayman Pirate Community), simply <code><nowiki>[[raywiki:]]</nowiki></code> (from the wiki name itself), or both.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Arend}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Arend}} Per proposal
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Arend. There are plenty of Rayman references throughout the DLC. What better way than to link to RayWiki for more information?
#{{User|Altendo}} - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Thank you for making this. I strongly agree to RayWiki being added.
<s>#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.</s><br>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} <s>get bent fandom. again</s> Per proposal--we should be acknowledging these independent wikis whenever possible, and Rayman has a notable enough presence for this template to make sense.
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.</s>
#{{User|Mario}} I like this idea (also again I don't think we absolutely need proposals to effect this but just in case)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, and also, RayWiki seems to fully cover the Rabbids series, so this could be useful for other Mario + Rabbids content beyond just that DLC.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per sticking it to Fandom (and per proposal).
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Swallow}} Per proposal (though for some reason I'm getting error pages when I try to search anything in that wiki)
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Very well written wiki that deserves to be linked from here. Hell, I even found a link to us in their ''Sparks of Hope'' article! Per proposal.


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


====Comments====
====Comments====
{{@|Hewer}} - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)
If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like <code><nowiki>{{infinite respawn|5|3}}</nowiki></code> that would produce "{{hover|5 + (∞ × 3)|5 (not including the 3 infinite spawning points)}}". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
:I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)


===Make a YouTube Disambiguation(!!!) page===
I'll refrain from voting because I have a visceral reaction to anything that resembles a math formula, and I want as little as possible for personal preference to seep into my vote. That's not to say I don't understand what's being proposed, in fact it makes perfect sense if you're aiming strictly for concision, but you'd need to take into account how accessibly that information is communicated--you'd need to establish that "infinity symbol" stands for infinite enemy spawning point, which is not immediately clear. At that point, you'd go for a relatively lengthy explanation nonetheless. Though, I agree that the phrasing in that page you linked doesn't sound inclusive. I think something like "5 individual, 3 infinite spawning points" works better if we're going down this path.<br>If the proposal passes, I'd like to see it implemented in the manner Jdtendo suggests above.<br>EDIT: I'm aware there's [[Mario Kart Tour race points system#Bonus-points boost|already plenty of math on this wiki that has potential to confound people]], but in that case, not only is its succinctness a better way to explain how the game's scoring system works (as opposed to paragraphs-long descriptions), but it's taken straight out of the game as well. I'd say, use math formulas only when you're sure prose would be of less service to its intended audience: people looking up how many enemies are in a level aren't necessarily interested in complex gameplay dynamics. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:12, September 19, 2024 (EDT), edited 14:55, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
[[File:Luigi Runs the Nintendo 2DS Factory for a Day.jpg|thumb|200px|Pictured: How we feel after trying to make a half-comprehensive list of YouTube videos by Nintendo.]]
Before you hit "Oppose (edit)" and scream "NOT AGAIN", hear us out here.


YouTube, as a whole, almost certainly does ''not'' deserve an article to itself. Unless we were to make a sweeping move to create pages for every Social Media page associated with the Mario brand, or every video distribution platform that's released a Mario video on it, it would be very silly to do that... But that's not to say YouTube holds ''zero'' relevance to the Mario brand, and that having a page of some sort for it is a doomed concept.
I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "{{hover|3ω+5|3 infinite spawn points and 5 others}}", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
:This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; {{wp|Ordinal arithmetic#Multiplication|multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers}} is not commutative. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)


No, what we're thinking is more along the lines of a disambiguation page, a-la our proposal for [[Starfy]]. There are some things that we could be linking to via a catch-all YouTube article, and while we don't want to claim this list is comprehensive--Play Nintendo on its own is a ''massive'' rabbit hole--we do want to hopefully illustrate roughly what we could do with that, as well as acknowledge a few counter-arguments.
Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
:That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)


We make no claims that this is comprehensive, we know for a fact we left a few out, be it out of brevity, us not knowing about them, or good ol' fashioned laziness. But this is merely to illustrate just ''some'' of the YouTube videos with articles:
===Figure out how to handle <nowiki>{{classic}} and {{classic-link}}</nowiki> templates when discussing ''Mario Kart Tour'' classic courses===
This wiki has two templates used to format classic courses in the ''Mario Kart'' series: <nowiki>{{classic}} and {{classic-link}}</nowiki>. These templates convert text like "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" into a format that closer resembles the one seen in games, with the prefix being written as such, a prefix, and not part of the courses name. So "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" becomes "{{classic|3DS|Shy Guy Bazaar}}". However, there's an exception this wiki seems to have regarding this template: classic courses in ''[[Mario Kart Tour]]''.


* [[The Cat Mario Show]] - While some of these were on the eShop, with that closed they only are present on YouTube.
This is because the game does not structure the title of courses in such a way: instead it writes the prefix as large as the rest of the name, so it's written as "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar". However, I feel this creates a lot of inconsistency and confusion here on this wiki. For example, the page for a course like [[3DS Rock Rock Mountain]], a course featured as a classic in and out of ''Tour'' structures fellow course names both ways, with and without the template, simply because of the game the classic course appears in. To make things more confusing, when a ''Tour'' section on a course's page discusses classic courses outside of ''Tour'', it uses the template, as seen in a few course pages. Additionally, page titles for courses that are only classics in ''Tour'' still use a smaller font for the page name, such as [[GBA Lakeside Park]]. Finally, some courses in ''Tour'' don't even adhere to this rule that has been enforced before, such as [[Wii Maple Treeway]].
* [[Mario Myths with Mr Miyamoto]] - Promotional video created for ''[[Super Mario Maker]]'', hosted on various regional Nintendo YouTube channels.
* [[Luigi Runs the Nintendo 2DS Factory for a Day]] - Promotional video created for a set of color-swapped ''[[Nintendo 3DS|2DS]]'' consoles.
* [[Know Your Nintendo]] - On the Nintendo of America channel.
* [[List of Play Nintendo videos]] - While not every video is on YouTube, a good chunk of them are.
** [[Play Nintendo#The Play Nintendo Show|The Play Nintendo Show]] - An exclusive series to the Play Nintendo YouTube Channel. Has [[Izzy]], who was even an exclusive character to it.
** [[Mario Reads Your Letters]] - On the Play Nintendo channel.
** [[Baddies & Battles]] - On the Play Nintendo channel.
** [[Fun Lists! Lists! Lists!]] - On the Play Nintendo channel.
*** [[WarioWare: Get It Together! on Nintendo Switch – Top 10 Reasons to Play My Game!]] - On the Play Nintendo channel, speicifcally to promote ''[[WarioWare: Get It Together]]''!
** [[Mario Party Superstars Laugh Till You Pop]] - On the Play Nintendo Channel, specifically to promote ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]''.
** [[List of Play Nintendo Shorts]] - A reasonable companion to it, just videos that were on the Youtube channel's shorts section. Has anyone actually cared about YouTube Shorts? Whatever the case, this is pretty unambigously related to YouTube.
* [[Virus Vid]] - WAS on YouTube. After ''[[Dr. Mario World]]'' went kaput, these went private. We don't know exactly why this would prevent it from being on the disambiguation, but we figured we'd at least acknowledge it.
* ''(Currently, the Nintendo Switch Parental Controls - Nintendo Switch Presentation 2017 Trailer video lacks an article as of writing--if it had one, it would be fit for here.)''


...Look, you get the idea. There's a ''lot'' of YouTube videos related to Mario that we have articles for, and even more that we, as of proposal, don't. This would be both a good resource for quickly finding these without having to plunder the rat's nest of Play Nintendo articles, as well as hopefully bring more attention to the videos that currently do not have articles. This list isn't even comprehensive, mind you, and the scope itself could honestly be increased to even include various promotional pieces that were hosted on YouTube for games like ''[[Wario Land: Shake It!]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]''; though this is definitely something for a future proposal, so let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet and say we'll leave it exclusively to videos made ''for'' YouTube, ''by'' Nintendo, ''about'' Mario.
(I cannot find the edit log, however I was informed by a moderator here that it is a rule that is enforced a while back)


We're also hoping this could potentially instigate better preservation for these videos; already, stuff like Virus Vid is vanishing from YouTube, only existing via Twitter and unofficial re-uploads since Nintendo privated the videos after ''Dr. Mario World'' went belly-up. And on the one hand, we get it--Play Nintendo isn't exactly the zenith of Nintendo's marketing. But it also makes us a little upset knowing we might only have a limited time to cover these things, and what's more is that there's possibly even stuff we've ''already'' missed out on that's lost to time.
So this proposal is asking for one thing: an enforcement to be decided on.


'''Addendum:''' As a few people have pointed out, a category may also suffice--so we've added an option for that as well. We think this'd also suffice, personally.
The options are simple:
*Use the templates for all references to classic courses.
*Not use the template when referring to classic courses in ''Tour''.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
RMX courses will not be affected by this since the "RMX" is established to be part of the course's name.
'''Deadline''': February 4th, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support (make a YouTube disambiguation page)====
'''Proposer''': {{User|YoYo}}<br>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - You saw that list. We wouldn't have compiled this if we didn't feel as though there was potential for this to be a disambiguation page.
'''Deadline''': October 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support (make a YouTube category)====
====Use the templates for all classic course links====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - We think this is also fine as well, especially since as people have pointed out, there are a ''lot'' of videos that already have articles.
#{{User|YoYo}} per my proposal, I think that the template formats them in a way that distinguishes the prefix from course name, and I think consistency is important here.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} If the idea is to just have all of this easily accessible from one place, a category makes more sense than a disambig that's not really a disambig.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Waluigi Time, "disambiguation" feels like a bit of a misnomer here.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} This is the truest example of the phrase "Let em cook" I've ever seen. Most of those streaming services kinda felt iffy, but a category for YouTube series feels like a better idea stemming from it all. Per all.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.


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


====Comments====
====Comments====
How would this be preferred over, say, creating a category for YouTube? What will this accomplish that [[:Category:Videos]] cannot? {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:05, January 28, 2024 (EST)
: ...Admittedly, we didn't think much of a category, which we realize sounds very unlike us considering recent events--we promise, we had this written ''before'' a lot of the category conundrums happened! We could potentially add an option to create a category over a disambiguation page if that'd be appreciated. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:06, January 28, 2024 (EST)
::I don't think a disambiguation page is a good idea, but I'd be pro-category. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 22:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)
:::Seconding this. If we were to make a disambiguation page, and then proceed to have every noteworthy Mario-related YouTube video in said page, it would be too big to not be just a category. --[[User:OmegaRuby|OmegaRuby]] ([[User talk:OmegaRuby|talk]]) 09:23, January 29, 2024 (EST)


I understand why a list of videos like this might be useful to have, but I don't get why it's being called a "disambiguation" here. This wouldn't be a list of things that the term YouTube could refer to, it would be a list of YouTube videos. Why not make it an article called "List of official YouTube videos" or something along those lines? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)
==New features==
: We're a little less keen on a List article, if for no other reason than a ''lot'' of the videos have unique articles; we feel like it'd be a little silly to make a full "List of" article if almost every entry would have a "Main article:" tab at the start of it, y'know? We'd understand it more if these videos didn't already have pre-established articles, but as it stands, we feel a disambiguation just works better for a page. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:43, January 28, 2024 (EST)
''None at the moment.''
::I was picturing more [[List of Play Nintendo skill quizzes|something like this]] type of list article, with a table and links to the individual pages. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:47, January 28, 2024 (EST)
 
I see the new option. How will [[:Category:Videos]] be affected? {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:18, January 29, 2024 (EST)
:...That's a category??? And we thought we had seen everything. We think there could be potential to rework "video" as a category seeing as that's such a generic term, but also considering the current state of the category as well as the state for other non-web video categories (namely film and television series), we're not sure what the best course of action is. We could maybe convert Video into something like our baseline Games category is at the moment, but we feel like that might start leaving the scope of this proposal... {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:09, January 29, 2024 (EST)


==Removals==
==Removals==
Line 97: Line 78:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Broaden the scope of the <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki> template===
=== Add film and television ratings to [[Template:Ratings]] ===
Currently, the licensing template used for photographs uploaded to the wiki is [[:Template:Promo-photo]], henceforth referred to as <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki>. All photographs uploaded to the wiki are listed under the template's corresponding category, [[:Category:Promotional photos]]. This template is supposedly only meant to be used for publicity photos "known to have come from a press kit"; however, a ''lot'' of the photos in this category, most commonly images of [[List of merchandise|merchandise]], were taken by ordinary people who have no relation to a formal organization for news or media distribution; to put it simply, many images with this template don't come from a press kit.
Regarding ratings on the games we cover on this wiki, it's usually done very well and even shows off obscure rating companies hardly anyone talks about. It's educational and shows how the world rates a Super Mario game. However, when it comes to television shows and movies, they do not get the same treatment. Television shows ''don't even have ratings in their infobox.'' And while the movies do, they not only list ''just'' the MPAA, which for people who live in the United Kingdom or other countries, is '''not''' representative of the majority of the world, it's ''just'' the text, "PG". Sure, most people know it means "Parental Guidance," but imagine if we included more ratings. It's not super easy to find ratings for films and television shows in general, other than IMDB and there are no sources for proof of these ratings. When it comes to the Canadian Home Video Rating System, I can hardly find what rating was applied to that particular movie/TV show and I remember not being lucky for searching any other ratings for other movies (personal experience, but I remember searching on one of these websites and the site was rather buggy or didn't have the film/show in question).


I'm convinced that <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki> is simply the equivalent of Wikipedia's {{wp|Template:Non-free promotional}}, which went largely unchanged when it was copied to the Super Mario Wiki. However, the wikis are significantly different in their media policies: Wikipedia is {{wp|Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free|far more strict}} on usage of copyrighted media than this wiki, which is centered around a copyrighted franchise. More importantly, it just doesn't feel right that <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki>'s description doesn't match the majority of images which use it. I was originally thinking of creating a separate template to address this, but I realized that the issue could be entirely solved without needing to update the template used by hundreds of photos: instead, just change the description of the existing template to more accurately describe the images which use it.
The better solution is to '''add film and television ratings to the [[Template:Ratings|rating template]] so we can provide a wide variety of ratings for movies and television shows.''' In this case, users from around the world can view how movies are rated in almost every country. As for what ratings we add, it's a bit tricky. Because there is a lot, I would need some help here. Regardless, I got some EFIGS ratings in question. If you have more ratings, please let me know and I'll add it to the proposal These are split up into film and television.


This is what the <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki> template currently looks like:
<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Film </div>
<pre>
*[[Wikipedia:Motion Picture Association film rating system|Motion Picture Association film rating system (MPAA)]]
{| class="notice-template copyright"
*[[Wikipedia:British Board of Film Classification|British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)]]
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
*[[Wikipedia:Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft|Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft (FSK)]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is '''known to have come from a press kit''' or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
*[[Wikipedia:Canadian Home Video Rating System|Canadian Home Video Rating System]] (It can also apply to DVDs of TV shows as well.)
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
</pre>
{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is '''known to have come from a press kit''' or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}


If this proposal passes, this is what the template would be changed to:
<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Television </div>
<pre>
*[[Wikipedia:TV Parental Guidelines|TV Parental Guidelines]]
{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' photograph of a person, product, or event that either '''originates from a press kit''' or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise '''illustrates a copyrighted work'''. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
</pre>
{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' photograph of a person, product, or event that either '''originates from a press kit''' or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise '''illustrates a copyrighted work'''. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}


This description would be substantially broad enough so that the template could continue being used for photos of copyrighted merchandise, as well as photos illustrating miscellaneous copyrighted works that cannot be categorized by other templates, such as [[:File:Mario Demo Statue.jpg|this statue of Mario]] (which is not a product, as it was never for sale), all while describing the content of the images truthfully. Please feel free to comment if you have a better idea for a new description for the template.
My list so far is not comprehensive, but my idea is to add these ratings (and potentially others) to the template and make the infoboxes look much prettier and more visually educational. I have nothing else to say, so that's about it.


'''Proposer''': {{User|ThePowerPlayer}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|TheUndescribableGhost}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Mario}} I like this idea.
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} Rated PR for per proposal.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Never noticed ratings were missing from TV and movie coverage until now. It feels obvious ratings should be included like they are with games. Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} This is something I never noticed, but I completely agree. I'm happy that there are observant people in this world! Per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} I've wanted something like this for years.
#{{User|Arend}} Per all (fun fact: the Dutch rating system for movies and television, Kijkwijzer, is being utilized by {{wp|Netherlands Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual Media|NICAM}}, which happens to ''also'' rate games in Europe using PEGI. In fact, PEGI's ratings appear to be based on those of Kijkwijzer)
#{{User|Hewer}} This is more accurate, per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} This looks a lot more clear than the existing template. Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} Per all, especially since movies like ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'' have classification ratings.


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


====Comments====
====Comments====
Don't forget the parameters of you starting the proposal and putting a deadline for it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Wait, couldn't this just be a talk page proposal on the template itself? It would affect many pages, yes, but this is specifically about editing a template… I'm honestly not so sure. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 15:52, September 24, 2024 (EDT)
 
Anyway I use promotional photo for some merchandise images because the recent images are official stock photos meant to be put in online storefronts or in catalogues and whatnot, e.g. "promoted". I wasn't aware there was supposed to be a stricter definition applied to it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:40, January 28, 2024 (EST)
:Those types of official stock photos do fall under the current description from the template, and in my opinion, they should be used whenever possible; however, take a look at [[:Category:Merchandise images]]. There's a distinction between promotional photos displayed on online storefronts that have the license to sell the product displayed (such as [[:File:Mario - SMAS Plush.jpg|this photo of a Mario plush]]), versus a photo of no official capacity taken in someone's house (such as [[:File:Banpresto SM64 Wing Mario.png|this photo]]). Sometimes the latter is necessary to use because the former doesn't exist, which is why the aim of the proposal is to broaden the template so it can cover both official and unofficial merchandise photos. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 21:41, January 28, 2024 (EST)
 
Is there a possibility to rename the template from <code><nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki></code> to simply <code><nowiki>{{photo}}</nowiki></code>, if this proposal passes? I'm all for broadening the scope of this licensing template, but if it's going to be about photos in general of a work or product, and not specifically about ''promotional'' photos, when what's the point of keeping the ''promo'' in the template title? It would only be misleading. {{User:Arend/sig}} 08:59, January 31, 2024 (EST)
:That did cross my mind, but I wasn't sure whether it was right to advocate for it. Given the unanimous support for this proposal, though, it should be straightforward for you to make a proposal to rename the template itself. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 20:59, January 31, 2024 (EST)
::Wouldn't renaming the template affect every page the template is used in (which is specifically something the proposal tried to avoid)? If not, then I would imagine it's a no-brainer to just rename the template once the proposal passes, it's a natural extension of it. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 16:51, February 1, 2024 (EST)
:::The proposal was trying to avoid the need to manually go through every file with the template and decide whether to change it or not. Renaming the template avoids that issue since it would be doable with a bot, so I don't think there should be any problems there. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:29, February 2, 2024 (EST)
 
===Decide how to format the <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template and update citation guidelines accordingly===
Now that [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Create two specific citation templates|this proposal]] has instated the creation of a single <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template for citations, it's time to decide how this template should be formatted.
 
In my opinion, for this citation template to be the most effective and convenient for users, it should match existing policy on the [[MarioWiki:Citations]] page as closely as possible. This is for two reasons:
*The first reason is to avoid [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/55#Create_a_template_for_citations|misguided claims]] of the template including excessive amounts of detail, leading to a feeling that an overly complicated format is being forced onto users.
*The second reason is so that currently existing citations can remain as they are, without the templates needing to be retroactively applied to them.
 
Remember, the goal of this template in the first place is to make it more convenient for users to follow citation guidelines. That being said, to do so requires that such guidelines are outlined clearly, and the current state of the MarioWiki:Citations page is highly ambiguous in some places. For example, one significant issue I have with the page is that the first citation of a physical book (which is supposedly from the ''Super Mario Sunshine'' manual) is completely different from the later citation of a ''Super Mario RPG'' guidebook:
<blockquote>"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed eiusmod tempor incidunt ..." ~ ''Super Mario Sunshine'' manual, page 9.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Miller, K. 1996. ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide'', pg 13.</blockquote>
 
I see this template as an opportunity to clarify these inconsistenties once and for all, so if this proposal passes, I'm imposing the condition that not only should the MarioWiki:Citations page be updated to include an explanation on how to use the <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template, but all of the citation examples on that page should be updated to fit the format described below, for consistency's sake.
 
Here's ''exactly'' what I think the templates should look like in MediaWiki code, as well as descriptions of each of the parameters:
<pre>
{{cite
| author      =
| date        =
| title      =
| publisher  =
| isbn        =
| page        =
| accessdate  =
| quote      =
| archive   =
| archivedate =
}}
</pre>
'''<u>Parameters for all citations:</u>'''<br>These parameters should always be included whenever possible.
*'''Author:''' The full name in (Lastname, Firstname) format ''or'' the username of whoever wrote the content of the source. Separate fields for the author's first name and last name are too confusing, since users could easily fill out the template as (Firstname, Lastname) by accident, not to mention the exceptions of a username or if the author is a collective (e.g. the author of an article is listed only as "Nintendo").
*'''Date:''' The date the book or page was published, e.g. "January 1, 2000".
**If the format "YYYY-MM-DD" is entered, it should be automatically converted to the preceding format, but typing plain text should also work.
*'''Title:''' The title of the source. If citing a web page, this field should also be a link to the page itself.
*'''Publisher:''' The publisher of the book, or the website on which the web page was found.
'''<u>Parameters for a specific citation type:</u>'''
*'''ISBN:''' For physical books only, the {{wp|ISBN}} of the book.
*'''Page:''' For physical books only, the page number on which the citation was found.
**Formatted as a number in code, but should be displayed in plain English, i.e. "Page 12.", for simplicity.
*'''Access date:''' For web pages only, the date at which the source was accessed, e.g. "January 1, 2000". This is to preserve the state of the web page at that time, since unlike physical media, web pages can change at any point.
'''<u>Optional parameters:</u>'''<br>These parameters should only be included if relevant to the citation.
*'''Quote:''' A brief excerpt from the book or web page providing more context to the citation. Using quotes should be encouraged because it allows readers to see evidence behind a claim quickly and directly on the wiki itself, rather than needing to seek out the evidence in question in order to prove that it has not been fabricated.
**I chose to use "&ndash;" to separate the quote and the rest of the citation, since I have ''never'' seen any quote citation on the wiki use the tilde (~), as is supposedly recommended by guidelines. If there is evidence to support using a different symbol, please let me know in the comments.
**Also, I was originally under the impression that the excerpted text in the quote should be italicized, but that is seemingly not the case in e.g. [https://guides.library.unr.edu/mlacitation/intextcitation the MLA style guide], so currently, the quoted text remains un-italicized. Again, please comment if you disagree.
*'''Archive:''' A link to a web archive of an online source. Must also include the "archive date" field if used.
**The beginning of the URL should be automatically analyzed to determine which web archive was used (Wayback Machine or archive.today), and accordingly append the archived link with either "via Wayback Machine" or "via archive.today", respectively.
*'''Archive date:''' The date at which the URL was archived.
**If given in the same format as a Wayback Machine URL (e.g. "20210309100159") or the string of text in the top right corner of an archive.today page (e.g. "13 Aug 2022 13:51:45 UTC"), it should automatically be converted to the correct format, and it should stay that way in wiki code after the page is saved, like the timestamp template ("<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>").
 
Here is what the citations on MarioWiki:Citations should look like, with the template code followed by what is displayed on the page (note that an advantage of using a template is that as long as the parameter names are specified, they can be typed in any order):
 
<pre>
{{cite
|date=August 26, 2002
|title=''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' North American instruction booklet
|publisher=Nintendo
|page=7
|quote=It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites.}}
</pre>
<blockquote>"It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites." &ndash; (August 26, 2002). ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' North American instruction booklet. ''Nintendo''. Page 7.</blockquote>
(Note: I updated this specific citation to an actual, verifiable quote from the text, because the irony of using a fabricated quote for citation guidelines doesn't sit right with me.)
 
<pre>
{{cite
|author=Campbell, Evan
|date=July 17, 2014
|title=[http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/17/the-cat-mario-show-announced The Cat Mario Show Announced]
|publisher=IGN
|accessdate=July 22, 2014}}
</pre>
<blockquote>Campbell, Evan (July 17, 2014). [http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/17/the-cat-mario-show-announced The Cat Mario Show Announced]. ''IGN''. Retrieved July 22, 2014.</blockquote>
 
<pre>
{{cite
|author=Nintendo
|date=January 14, 2015
|title=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L69Z39bgdU4 Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer]
|publisher=YouTube
|accessdate=April 26, 2015}}
</pre>
<blockquote>Nintendo (January 14, 2015). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L69Z39bgdU4 Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer]. ''YouTube''. Retrieved April 26, 2015.</blockquote>
 
<pre>
{{cite
|title=[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]
|publisher=Nintendo
|accessdate=June 14, 2010}}
</pre>
<blockquote>[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]. ''Nintendo''. Retrieved June 14, 2010.</blockquote>
 
<pre>
{{cite
|author=Nintendo
|date=1985
|title=[https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf ''Super Mario Bros.'' Instruction Booklet
|accessdate=July 28, 2021
|archive=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309100159/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf
|archivedate=20210309100159}}
</pre>
<blockquote>Nintendo (1985). [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf ''Super Mario Bros.'' Instruction Booklet]. Retrieved July 8, 2021. ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210309100159/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf Archived] March 9, 2021, 10:01:59 UTC via Wayback Machine.)</blockquote>


<pre>
{{cite
|author=Miller, Kent
|date=1996
|title=''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide''
|page=13}}
</pre>
<blockquote>Miller, Kent (1996). ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide''. Page 13.</blockquote>


Here is what a citation that uses the ISBN parameter would look like, with the ISBN placed in between the publisher and the page number, in order to distinguish the book uniquely before stating the page number within that book:
=== Split articles for certain official single-game enemy behavior splits ===
<pre>
In the early days, before Nintendo was really sure how they wanted to classify enemies, there were some splits that didn't stick - namely, behaviors that were initially unique to a specific subtype, and then became normal alternatives to the base enemies. I'm specifically talking about:
{{cite
*'''Sky Blooper''' - [[Blooper]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels''
|author=Wessel, Craig
*'''Upside-down Buzzy Beetle''' - [[Buzzy Beetle]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros. 3''
|title=''Warioland 4''
*'''Upside-down Spiny''' - [[Spiny]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros. 3''
|publisher=Scholastic
*'''Scattering Blooper''' - [[Blooper Nanny]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros. 3''
|isbn=0-439-36711-5
*'''Upside-down Piranha''' - [[Piranha Plant]] variant from ''Super Mario Land''
|page=63
|quote=I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!}}
</pre>
<blockquote>"I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!" &ndash; Wessel, Craig. ''Warioland 4''. ''Scholastic''. ISBN 0-439-36711-5. Page 63.</blockquote>


I can think of one exception where standardized formatting beyond this may or may not be optimal, that being citing {{wp|Twitter|Twitter / X}} posts, but that warrants its own proposal; I have such a proposal in the works, but I'll only release it after a consensus is reached here.
I make this mainly because [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/archives/smb2/?lang=en the] [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/archives/smb3/?lang=en Mario] [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/archives/land/?lang=en Portal] splits each of these for these games specifically, across language borders, despite being a newer source (which is notably a lot more than Boss Bass/Big Bertha gets, so that merge remains correct), along with Upside-down Piranha making the ''Smash Bros.'' Piranha Plant list; other instances of similar things occurring that have not (yet) been corroborated by a source like Portal (such as ''[[Cheep Cheep|Tobipuku]]'' from ''New Super Mario Bros.'') will not be counted. Now, I want to clarify something important: '''this split only covers the appearances where the official word treats them as distinct enemies.''' Random upside-down Buzzy Beetles and Piranha Plants in ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' are not counted, as they are not distinguished from their base species in any way in that game.


When actually using this template in an article, it should be included ''within'' the <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> tags, to ensure that naming the references works as always per the "How to add references" section of the citation guidelines.
I have a demo for these pages in the various sections of [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Early merges|this]] page, along with stuff for the below proposal.


Finally, I want to conclude by emphasizing that '''this is not a required template'''; it's simply a method of making citations easier and more standardized. If this proposal passes, a disclaimer should be added to MarioWiki:Citations stating that using the <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template is encouraged, but not required, and if a citation is better expressed without the template, then just manually typing something within the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags is completely okay.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT


Please feel free to comment on this proposal if you have any recommendations of your own.
====Scattering Support====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per


'''EDIT:''' Per Super Mario RPG's recommendation, added the ISBN parameter.
====Upside-down Oppose====


'''Proposer''': {{User|ThePowerPlayer}}<br>
====Sky Comments====
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
I understand the rationale, but Mario Portal (and most game material) also recognizes things like green-shelled and red-shelled Koopas as distinct from one another and they also have different behaviors from one another. That'd probably be a bigger proposal than you'd be interested in executing, but how would you feel on those types of enemies being split? I at least like the idea of Sky Blooper getting its own article on the face of it. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:27, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
:Those shouldn't be by virtue of the functional distinctions being inconsistent, especially when you get into things like Shy Guys. Most of them use (identifiers) too rather than actual naming differences. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:09, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
::Fair (especially for Shy Guys), though generally, I'm pretty sure red-shelled Koopas mechanically are always the ones that turn when they reach an edge, whereas green-shelled ones don't.
::What if, for those enemies, there was a similar scenario as with [[Koopa Shell]]s, where there is one main article, but also smaller ones for [[Green Shell]]s and [[Red Shell]]s for scenarios where the shells have mechanical differences? We could have a main [[Koopa Troopa]] article, and then a Koopa Troopa (Green) and Koopa Troopa (Red). - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:50, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::You're only looking in terms of 2D platformers, there. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:02, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
::::(I hope this is isn't too tangential - I appreciate your insight on this) I think the only 3D platformer with both Koopa Troopas is Super Mario Galaxy, and they still have mechanical differences from one another in those games.
::::For platformers and spin-offs where colors are only cosmetic, I think it would be fine for them to share a single Koopa Troopa article (again, similar setup to Koopa Shell). But I understand the resistance to that idea, because it could be messy and difficult to curate. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
:::::And there's the black-and-white ''Super Mario Land 2'', where the art shows green, but the behavior's more like typical red ones. Then we get into Paratroopas, where originally green hopped or moved back-and-forth and red moved up-and-down, then games like ''Super Mario World'' have red ones moving horizontally or green ones moving vertically. And then there's Cheep Cheep - swimming Cheep Cheeps' colors in SMB1 were purely cosmetic, then SMB3 had lots of behavioral variation among red-colored ones and only one behavior for green-colored ones. I think keeping the "color" ones grouped unless a very notable difference is present (like the ''Paper Mario'' and ''Yoshi's Story'' versions of [[Black Shy Guy]]) is the best way to go in that regard. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:23, September 26, 2024 (EDT)


====Support====
=== Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from ''All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.'' ===
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
''[[All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.]]'' has various alternatively named graphic swaps of things from ''Super Mario Bros.'', most of which relate to the cast and iconography of the show it is based on. These include:
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Yes, thank you for making this follow-up proposal.
*OkaP and Pakkun OkaP replacing Goomba and Piranha Plant ([[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Early merges|split demoed here]] alongside stuff from the above proposal
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal.
*The ''Hiranya'' replacing the Star
#{{User|Mario}} I like this idea!
*The various celebrities replacing the Toads (though admittedly the bonus one is unknown)
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per ThePowerPlayer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per all


====Oppose====
These are meant to be seen as different things from the originals, so the current system of lumping them in with them is awkward to say the least. The only real outlier here is the NBS logo replacing the axe, because from what I can tell [https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Nippon_Broadcasting_System Katsu Yoshida never named the eye].


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
I know it may seem unnecessary, but can an [[wikipedia:Help:ISBN|ISBN]] be added as an (obviously optional) parameter to the template? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 07:10, January 29, 2024 (EST)
'''Deadline''': October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
:As an optional parameter, it sounds perfectly applicable - I've added it to the proposal. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 08:34, January 29, 2024 (EST)


===Consistent formatting for the Other Languages section===
====Sunplaza Support - all subjects====
Alright, so since this is starting to get really annoying, I'm going to put this proposal here. Here are two inconsistent ways that the meaning of names in the "Names In Other Languages" section are listed on the wiki:
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Consistent with how we handle, say, [[Deku Baba]]s in ''[[Mario Kart 8]]''.
#{{User|Shoey}} I've always said the wiki needs more weirdo articles.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per. Don't see why not. Deku Baba is a good parallel.


1. "name" (meaning)</br>
====Sunplaza Support - only enemies====
2. ''name'' ("meaning")
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
 
Now, almost all the pages on the wiki already have Option 1 for their formatting, but for some reason some other users think that they should all be changed to look like Option 2, even though Option 1 already works just fine and there's no point in putting asterisks between one single word if it's already in between paragraphs. But, what do you guys think, which way of displaying the Other Names section do you think would be better?
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Annalisa10}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Keep the formatting of Option 1====
 
====Change all Other Languages sections to Option 2====
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} I prefer this option so that this way, both languages are formatted and appropriately in a distinct manner from one another.
#{{user|Koopa con Carne}} Per my vote in [[Template talk:Foreign names#Adopt the de-facto format for dissecting foreign names|this proposal]] and my general distaste for the “we’ve always done it this way, which automatically makes it the right way” argument.
#{{user|PnnyCrygr}} Per All. I think, this second option is a more academic style than the first. I like the fact that the foreign name is italicized to make sense that it is foreign.
#{{user|Yook Bab-imba}} How I've always formatted it, and my preferred style.
 
====Comments====
So, for clarification, what vote is the oppose part of the proposal? {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:07, January 30, 2024 (EST)
:I'm just writing here because I'm stuck in the middle about this. Keeping the first option would mean that we don't have to go and change the formatting of most "Names in other languages" sections (which would obviously take an incredibly long time), but on the other hand, option 2's formatting style is clearer to read. I will vote later once I decide. -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 22:10, January 30, 2024 (EST)
::I'm more of a "who cares?". It's like hand wringing over if a date in a citation should have parentheses or not. I don't see the point in adopting italics or not. Either way works in this case. Just keep it consistent in one table. But across the wiki? Meh. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:16, January 30, 2024 (EST)
:::I'm in the exact same camp. I don't see a problem with either option, so I'm hesitant about ''having'' to choose which one we should use. If the proposer won't include a "Do nothing" option here for whatever reason, I would rather abstain from voting. {{User:Arend/sig}} 08:37, January 31, 2024 (EST)
::::There ''is'', however, a conventional and consistent way to format these things. Doing nothing would just give way to pointless edit wars with users who refuse to acknowledge that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 08:41, January 31, 2024 (EST)


I'm also far less motivated to vote given that this proposal about a naming style was made way too soon after the creator's block expired, which the block was from edit warring and general hostility to other users on the [[Wow Bud]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/Wow_Bud?action=history history]) page over naming style. That this proposal includes taking swipes at users that disputed the edits on that page does not help convince me that this proposal was made in good faith. Please maintain your conduct. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:26, January 30, 2024 (EST)
====OkaP Oppose====
:Oh, I didn't know that. I'll still consider this, but I may leave it up to everyone else. -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 23:31, January 30, 2024 (EST)
::...honestly, the fact that this proposal is a follow-up from an edit war that the proposer was responsible for and got blocked for, and being made directly after the block had ended ''and'' being made just because they disagreed on a certain thing that made them edit war (and also seems to be a response to a previous proposal they disagreed with and didn't know about until the edit war was escalating)... makes me want to choose a side ''even less'' than I already do now (and I didn't want to choose a side to begin with). Where's the "I'm fine with either way" option? {{User:Arend/sig}} 08:48, January 31, 2024 (EST)
:::Aren't proposals with multiple/either-or answers required to have a "do nothing" option, anyways? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:25, January 31, 2024 (EST)
::::Yep, rule 18 says "Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy." There definitely has to be a "do nothing" option here. [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 13:34, January 31, 2024 (EST)
:::::Okay, what should we do about this then? If the proposal setup breaks the rules, then I'm not voting until it's fixed (and honestly, I might not vote anyway, as I never edit the "Names in other languages" sections). A proposal that is set up simply because someone's upset about not getting what they want through an edit war is ''not'' something I want to get involved in. -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 20:02, January 31, 2024 (EST)
::::::Isn't settling disputes like that the whole point of a proposal? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:24, February 1, 2024 (EST)
:::::::Yeah, no harm really in them creating a proposal about the matter. However, they're basically asking "should we carry out my idea in x form or y form" without even giving an option for anyone that disagrees with the idea. Would it be acceptable for a user other than the proposer to create a "do nothing" option, on the grounds that the proposal in its current form goes against the rules? [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 13:33, February 1, 2024 (EST)
::::::::Proposals are intended to settle disputes but in good faith like "we disagree on this, let's hash out with the community to see which one of us has a stronger stance". The timing of this proposal from the user's history and rhetoric in the proposal don't work in the user's favor, and I really don't want proposals to be a kind of combative medium where you fight "enemies" to "win". Sure, discussions get heated and anxiety inducing and super frustrating. But you really shouldn't be trying to attack users while writing a proposal on heels of a disagreement, it casts perception of good faith in doubt imo. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:28, February 1, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::So...couldn't anyone just add the status quo option in for the proposer? I'm pretty sure I've seen that happen before. Sometimes, you know, it slips your mind, or you have other things going on where proposal developments don't have your attention. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 06:06, February 2, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::I still feel like assuming bad faith in this case is a bit of a stretch when they didn't really "attack" anyone in the proposal, just pointed out the disagreement (and also didn't even vote in the proposal anyway). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:22, February 2, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::@LinkTheLefty yeah, I think it would be fine to add the status quo option, stuff like that has been done before. I'd be all for voting for that option when it gets added. [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 14:30, February 2, 2024 (EST)


I'm just gonna say it again: a "Do Nothing" option would just give way to more pointless edit wars. That concern is also what guided much of the opposition in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59#Remove_the_15th_infraction_for_why_a_reminder_can_be_issued_.28changing_American_spellings_and_grammar_conventions_to_British_standards.29|a previous proposal]] that sought to loosen restrictions for British English spellings in wiki text. Regarding the subject of the current proposal, there is a conventional, widespread way to format words depending on their nature and purpose: foreign words should be in italics to make it clear they're foreign, and words that are being separated from the rest of the others for an explanatory purpose should be in quotation marks. Regardless of that, the idea that articles can be consistent only within themselves and not across the entire wiki is a questionable point of view to have; having an ambiguous outlook for a medium that's supposed to be encyclopedic is anything but encyclopedic. In the words of 7feetunder (concerning the aforementioned proposal on British English spelling): "how do we decide who's right and who's wrong if we don't have a preference? If the answer is 'first come, first serve', the worst solution ever to anything on a wiki, then no thanks". Let's settle on one formatting option or another. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:06, February 2, 2024 (EST)
====Katsu-eye Comments====


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 01:41, September 26, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, September 26th, 14:03 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for writing guidelines and talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "September 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

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

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)
Do not use t-posing models as infobox images, Nightwicked Bowser (ended September 1, 2024)
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)
Rename the remaining baseball teams to their current titles, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 19, 2024)
Create MarioWiki:WikiLove and WikiLove templates, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 2024)
Only add in the current voice actor in the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes, Altendo (ended September 21, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Split truck article into cargo truck and pickup truck articles, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)
Merge Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64) with Crocodile Isle, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)

Writing guidelines

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

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

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

  • "[number] + (∞ x [number]),"

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

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

Support

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

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The options are simple:

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

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

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

Use the templates for all classic course links

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

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

Comments

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings

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

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

Film
Television

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

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

Support

  1. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Rated PR for per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Never noticed ratings were missing from TV and movie coverage until now. It feels obvious ratings should be included like they are with games. Per proposal.
  3. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This is something I never noticed, but I completely agree. I'm happy that there are observant people in this world! Per proposal.
  4. Arend (talk) Per all (fun fact: the Dutch rating system for movies and television, Kijkwijzer, is being utilized by NICAM, which happens to also rate games in Europe using PEGI. In fact, PEGI's ratings appear to be based on those of Kijkwijzer)
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. Mari0fan100 (talk) Per all, especially since movies like The Super Mario Bros. Movie have classification ratings.

Oppose

Comments

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


Split articles for certain official single-game enemy behavior splits

In the early days, before Nintendo was really sure how they wanted to classify enemies, there were some splits that didn't stick - namely, behaviors that were initially unique to a specific subtype, and then became normal alternatives to the base enemies. I'm specifically talking about:

  • Sky Blooper - Blooper variant from Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels
  • Upside-down Buzzy Beetle - Buzzy Beetle variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
  • Upside-down Spiny - Spiny variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
  • Scattering Blooper - Blooper Nanny variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
  • Upside-down Piranha - Piranha Plant variant from Super Mario Land

I make this mainly because the Mario Portal splits each of these for these games specifically, across language borders, despite being a newer source (which is notably a lot more than Boss Bass/Big Bertha gets, so that merge remains correct), along with Upside-down Piranha making the Smash Bros. Piranha Plant list; other instances of similar things occurring that have not (yet) been corroborated by a source like Portal (such as Tobipuku from New Super Mario Bros.) will not be counted. Now, I want to clarify something important: this split only covers the appearances where the official word treats them as distinct enemies. Random upside-down Buzzy Beetles and Piranha Plants in New Super Mario Bros. Wii are not counted, as they are not distinguished from their base species in any way in that game.

I have a demo for these pages in the various sections of this page, along with stuff for the below proposal.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Scattering Support

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

Upside-down Oppose

Sky Comments

I understand the rationale, but Mario Portal (and most game material) also recognizes things like green-shelled and red-shelled Koopas as distinct from one another and they also have different behaviors from one another. That'd probably be a bigger proposal than you'd be interested in executing, but how would you feel on those types of enemies being split? I at least like the idea of Sky Blooper getting its own article on the face of it. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:27, September 25, 2024 (EDT)

Those shouldn't be by virtue of the functional distinctions being inconsistent, especially when you get into things like Shy Guys. Most of them use (identifiers) too rather than actual naming differences. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:09, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
Fair (especially for Shy Guys), though generally, I'm pretty sure red-shelled Koopas mechanically are always the ones that turn when they reach an edge, whereas green-shelled ones don't.
What if, for those enemies, there was a similar scenario as with Koopa Shells, where there is one main article, but also smaller ones for Green Shells and Red Shells for scenarios where the shells have mechanical differences? We could have a main Koopa Troopa article, and then a Koopa Troopa (Green) and Koopa Troopa (Red). - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:50, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
You're only looking in terms of 2D platformers, there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:02, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
(I hope this is isn't too tangential - I appreciate your insight on this) I think the only 3D platformer with both Koopa Troopas is Super Mario Galaxy, and they still have mechanical differences from one another in those games.
For platformers and spin-offs where colors are only cosmetic, I think it would be fine for them to share a single Koopa Troopa article (again, similar setup to Koopa Shell). But I understand the resistance to that idea, because it could be messy and difficult to curate. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
And there's the black-and-white Super Mario Land 2, where the art shows green, but the behavior's more like typical red ones. Then we get into Paratroopas, where originally green hopped or moved back-and-forth and red moved up-and-down, then games like Super Mario World have red ones moving horizontally or green ones moving vertically. And then there's Cheep Cheep - swimming Cheep Cheeps' colors in SMB1 were purely cosmetic, then SMB3 had lots of behavioral variation among red-colored ones and only one behavior for green-colored ones. I think keeping the "color" ones grouped unless a very notable difference is present (like the Paper Mario and Yoshi's Story versions of Black Shy Guy) is the best way to go in that regard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:23, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.

All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros. has various alternatively named graphic swaps of things from Super Mario Bros., most of which relate to the cast and iconography of the show it is based on. These include:

  • OkaP and Pakkun OkaP replacing Goomba and Piranha Plant (split demoed here alongside stuff from the above proposal
  • The Hiranya replacing the Star
  • The various celebrities replacing the Toads (though admittedly the bonus one is unknown)

These are meant to be seen as different things from the originals, so the current system of lumping them in with them is awkward to say the least. The only real outlier here is the NBS logo replacing the axe, because from what I can tell Katsu Yoshida never named the eye.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Sunplaza Support - all subjects

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Consistent with how we handle, say, Deku Babas in Mario Kart 8.
  3. Shoey (talk) I've always said the wiki needs more weirdo articles.
  4. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per. Don't see why not. Deku Baba is a good parallel.

Sunplaza Support - only enemies

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

OkaP Oppose

Katsu-eye Comments

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4376290"