MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 2: Line 2:


==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>
''None at the moment.''
'''Deadline''': September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT


==Removals==
====Support====
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{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.
<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>
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.</s>


==Changes==
====Oppose====
===Reserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new section===
#{{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.
I'm working on the assumption that joke proposals aren't actually banned entirely and are allowed on April Fools.
#{{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.


I'm not against the concept, however, I feel like there should be a specialized area for these things. Easy as it may be to tell such jokes from serious matters (ymmv on how serious of a pursuit you find editing a Mario fansite to be), the fact of the matter is that they have no business mingling with each other. April Fools content, at large, is already being separated from the rest of the wiki, albeit seamlessly so (it's being directly presented on the home page, but not linked from the mainspace), and you're still not allowed to vandalize actual articles on that day--shouldn't a similar restriction be applied to proposals? This here proposal aims to introduce a brand-new section on this very page (alongside "Writing guidelines", "New features" etc.) that will only be instated on April Fools day and will be reserved for joke proposals. (To clarify: it won't be a permanent part of this page, just on that day of the year.)
====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)


Option 1 of this proposal is to name this section the "April Fools' Day proposals" section. Prim, proper, self-explanatory. Option 2 is to give it a more jokey title, to which I raise "Extremely important proposals". Option 3 is to not add a section and let joke proposals wander about the page.
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)


Neither of the first two options would actually "kill" any joke. The entire "punchline" of these joke proposals is the silly interactions between users, and, looking at their history, these proposals tend to be so clearly frivolous that they're easy to tell from the actual proposals. There's no surprise to ruin by putting these in their own section, but it's beneficial in actually drawing a line between them and the actual wiki discussion, and minimizing potential spillover into the latter.
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)


TLDR [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=2418254 having genuine stuff crammed with jokey stuff looks bad]
I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "{{hover|3ω+5|3 infinite spawn points and 5 others}}", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
:This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; {{wp|Ordinal arithmetic#Multiplication|multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers}} is not commutative. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': March 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
: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)


====Option 1 (add section, name it "April Fools' Day proposals")====
===Figure out how to handle <nowiki>{{classic}} and {{classic-link}}</nowiki> templates when discussing ''Mario Kart Tour'' classic courses===
<del>#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} A more straight forward and formal title. Makes sense in context.</del>
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]]''.


====Option 2 (add section, name it "Extremely important proposals")====
This is because the game does not structure the title of courses in such a way: instead it writes the prefix as large as the rest of the name, so it's written as "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar". However, I feel this creates a lot of inconsistency and confusion here on this wiki. For example, the page for a course like [[3DS Rock Rock Mountain]], a course featured as a classic in and out of ''Tour'' structures fellow course names both ways, with and without the template, simply because of the game the classic course appears in. To make things more confusing, when a ''Tour'' section on a course's page discusses classic courses outside of ''Tour'', it uses the template, as seen in a few course pages. Additionally, page titles for courses that are only classics in ''Tour'' still use a smaller font for the page name, such as [[GBA Lakeside Park]]. Finally, some courses in ''Tour'' don't even adhere to this rule that has been enforced before, such as [[Wii Maple Treeway]].
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Fuck pies
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, non-agresivelly.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} SolemnStormcloud's Vote is a vote made by SolemnStormcloud. (Per all.)
#{{User|Tails777}} Honestly, I agree the most with the statement of being a means of preserving the humorous interactions between the users. We put in a lot of work on this site, giving it an air of profession as we strive to gather and show as much information on the Mario series. I like the idea that it's less about preserving the jokes and more for preserving the, shall we call it, off-stage behavior of the users. So let us have our <s>pie</s> fun <small>(I'm still waiting for the pie though... it's been years).</small> In short: Per proposal.
#{{User|Axis}} Per proposal
<del>#{{User|BMfan08}} While the other option does make more logical sense, I think this option would be fitting for the joke-filled nature of the proposals. <small>Now can someone help me with my comic project on [[N Gang]] and [[Club Nintendo (magazine)|Club Nintendo]]?</small><del>


====Option 3 (do nothing)====
(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)
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - It's April Fools. Having to preface it's a joke, kills the joke.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} - Per above.
#{{User|MCD}} - Per Glowsquid. It's one day a year.
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Stating that it's a non-serious, jokish proposal <i>before</i> adding in the funny April Fool (which is only once per year) proposal itself obviously, leaves the humor out of the bag. Captain Obvious kills the cat's humor. So forth, per the glow squid.
#{{User|YoYo}} per Glowsquid
#{{User|BMfan08}} Glowsquid and PnnyCrygr have a good point, so I'm changing my vote. <small>I still need help with the comic project on [[N Gang]] and [[Club Nintendo (magazine)|Club Nintendo]] by the way</small>
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Drago}} Per Glowsquid.
#{{User|Mario}} Nah. This isn't a big deal.


====Comments====
So this proposal is asking for one thing: an enforcement to be decided on.
<s>KCC if you don't make an april fool's proposal this year we're gonna be so sad</s> We'd honestly prefer if there was no section, but it was disclosed to an admin that yes, it is indeed a joke or is an actually serious proposal--that way, the joke doesn't get "ruined" for most people, but there's at least someone who's able to, y'know, make sure if things get out of hand for what's meant to be a serious proposal/if things get too serious for what's meant to be a joke proposal, they can intervene. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:09, February 25, 2024 (EST)


@Glowsquid @Camwoodstock, option 2 directly addresses that issue. Either way, the point of joke proposals is less the "joke" itself and more to get others in on the play house and goof around. The "punchline" is the entire community interaction itself. That kind of stuff should not share a corner with Very Serious wiki discussion, the same way the wiki's April Fools campaigns should not be a part of the actual knowledge repository. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:59, February 25, 2024 (EST)
The options are simple:
:I don't think Option 2 actually addresses the issue because nearly everyone who sees something titled "extremely important proposals" would immediately know it is anything but. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:36, February 25, 2024 (EST)
*Use the templates for all references to classic courses.
::Sure but the point of a joke proposal isn't to ''actually fool people into thinking it's a real proposal''. It's to goof around something outlandish. The "Extremely important proposals" title does not ruin that goal, especially since looking at the history of these proposals, they tend to be obvious jokes from the onset ("Remove removals", "Pie for everyone", "Create SUPREME rank" etc.) {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)
*Not use the template when referring to classic courses in ''Tour''.


Just a quick question; has the issue this proposal intends to address (joke proposals appearing simultaneously with real ones on April 1st) actually occurred before? I've only been on here since late spring of 2021, so my perspective is rather limited, but I don't think that's been the case since at least then. Last year (2023) when I made my 「ウィキを青にしてマフィンを焼く」joke proposal, it was the only one up on the Proposal page that entire day; and the year before that (2022), there weren't any joke proposals made, and serious ones were on the page. {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 19:41, February 25, 2024 (EST)
RMX courses will not be affected by this since the "RMX" is established to be part of the course's name.
:[[Special:Diff/2418295|2018]], [[Special:Diff/2630774|2019]], [[Special:Diff/3162423|2021]] had them. I only just skimmed the revision log, though, so there should be more instances. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)


I take it the opposition didn't read my comments or what I added to the proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:27, February 28, 2024 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|YoYo}}<br>
:We saw, we just personally don't really agree; we personally feel the element of surprise is, indeed, part of the joke. Hence, while we'd still prefer our option of "tell an admin and nobody else", we abstained from both any form of support as well as a direct oppose for the time being. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}}
'''Deadline''': October 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
::Is this supposed element of surprise (whose existence is debatable) really [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=2418254 worth bogging down actual discussion]? As I said, moving these to their own section could help minimize these jokes spilling over into the real deal. Even if it's only one day a year, that's enough time to have a joke vote or something to that degree worm its way where it shouldn't be and go undetected. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:27, February 28, 2024 (EST)
:::I read it. I don't think the problem being identified is a problem and I don't think the solutions being offered is necessary. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:37, February 29, 2024 (EST)


To be honest, I misunderstood the proposal and assumed these proposals would be added to BJAODN <s>if you couldn't tell by my quick-edit</s>. I wouldn't mind having these proposals there instead, as some of them already are, though admittedly it should be considered whether to differentiate from the other joke proposals there or not. [[User:BMfan08|BMfan08]] ([[User talk:BMfan08|talk]]) 00:27, February 29, 2024 (EST)
====Use the templates for all classic course links====
:To be honest, it IS kinda weird why we don't do that already. We preserve April Fool's Day main pages as well as funnily bad proposals at BJAODN, so why not the April Fool's proposals? Would it violate the "don't write badly on purpose" rule? Then why are the April Fool's pages preserved there anyway?<br> To me, it certainly would be less of a hassle to just find them at BJAODN than manually going through countless pages of revision history. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:20, February 29, 2024 (EST)
#{{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.
::I agree that we should do that. Perhaps we could create a subpage for [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals]] similar to the three [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/DK Wiki|DK Wiki]] subpages? [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 19:26, February 29, 2024 (EST)
:::[[MarioWiki talk:BJAODN#Allow section(s) for certain April Fools' proposals|There was this proposal about it]], but to be honest I also agree that it would be good to archive the April Fools' proposals in BJAODN. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:44, February 29, 2024 (EST)


===Split game series articles into sub-series articles===
====Do not use the templates for ''Mario Kart Tour'' classic course links====
My [[Talk:Super Mario (series)#Move this page to "Super Mario Bros. (series)"|proposal]] to move the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]] article to the name of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series has been declined last year, so I had to make a follow-up proposal after five months since the last proposal was declined.


The following pages being split are as follows:
====Comments====
*[[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' (series)]] will be split into the {{fake link|''Super Mario Bros.'' (sub-series)|Super Mario Bros. (sub-series)}}.
*[[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'' (series)]] will be split into {{fake link|''Mario Kart Arcade GP'' (sub-series)|Mario Kart Arcade GP (sub-series)}}.


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBB}}<br>
==New features==
'''Deadline''': March 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
''None at the moment.''


====Support====
==Removals==
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per proposal
''None at the moment.''


====Oppose====
==Changes==
#{{User|Tails777}} While I did support the idea of the ''New Super Mario Bros. series'' getting it's own sub-series article, I can understand why it isn't. And if that series can't get a sub-series article, I fail to see how the ''Super Mario Galaxy'' games can. They're all apart of the same overall series so I don't see why we need to divide things up further.
=== Add film and television ratings to [[Template:Ratings]] ===
#{{User|Hewer}} I previously supported New Super Mario Bros. getting an article because I thought it would be the most eligible sub-series at four([[New Super Luigi U|ish]]) entries. But since then, Super Mario Land had its article merged, and now that we have all these sub-series merged (Super Mario Advance gets to stay the only exception since it covers Yoshi's Island as well), I feel like this is a much better choice for organisation when they're all just part of one series, splitting them all out would feel messy and [[MarioWiki:Once and only once|redundant]]. It also calls into question the criteria for splitting sub-series - if Mario Galaxy is eligible, why not "Super Mario 3D" which also has two games? Or the aforementioned New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Land? Better to avoid the headache and stay consistent by merging all of them.
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).
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} I may support splitting just Super Mario Bros. since with Wonder it's been given further distinction from the 3D games as a series, however if supporting that here means splitting Galaxy and Maker as well, then I'm gonna have to oppose per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nightwicked Bowser. Splitting the ''Maker'' and ''Galaxy'' games in specific when they are strictly duologies is especially overkill to us.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per NwB's comment below and my response.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Nightwicked Bowser and Doc von Schmeltwick. Maybe individual "subseries" articles could be raised ''alongside'' the main series article, but not at the expense of breaking up the understanding of this as a discrete series of platform games. ''Super Mario Bros.'', ''Super Mario Galaxy'', ''Super Mario Maker'', and ''New Super Mario Bros. 2'' are all part of the mainline ''Super Mario'' series and it artificially dilutes their cohesion by suggesting they are unrelated to one another.
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} This is just too vague on all fronts. What does and doesn't classify as a subseries? That's the question that must be answered before any discussion can happen. Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.


====Comments====
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 should really be either a case-by-case or have multiple options rather than all-at-once or none at all. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 19:16, February 29, 2024 (EST)
:Indeed. I have draft pages with empty tables for [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario Bros. (series)|''Super Mario Bros.'' series]] (including the NSMB games) and [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario 3D (series)|''Super Mario 3D'' series]] (including the SMG games), but I think it needs more thought and discussion rather than trying to rush it through without any prior planning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:22, February 29, 2024 (EST)


This proposal has now been updated to not split the Galaxy and Maker games into a subseries, however there's still the matter of Super Mario Bros and the Mario Kart Arcade games both being split if the proposal is supported with no one-or-the-other. These especially should be entirely seperate cases. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 11:26, March 1, 2024 (EST)
<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Film </div>
*[[Wikipedia:Motion Picture Association film rating system|Motion Picture Association film rating system (MPAA)]]
*[[Wikipedia:British Board of Film Classification|British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft|Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft (FSK)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Canadian Home Video Rating System|Canadian Home Video Rating System]] (It can also apply to DVDs of TV shows as well.)


===Decide what to move ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' worlds to===
<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Television </div>
The worlds in ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' have names, but each article for the six main worlds is named "World <#> (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')" while the article for the special world is called "World S". The good news is I was wondering if there's a possibility to decide what to rename the worlds. There are four options to choose from:
*[[Wikipedia:TV Parental Guidelines|TV Parental Guidelines]]


;Option 1: Create the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|suffixed title|Template:Suffixed title}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|SMG2 world|Template:SMG2 world}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|SMG2 world-link|Template:SMG2 world-link}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>, and <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|SMG2 world title|Template:SMG2 world title}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> templates (the <nowiki>{{suffixed title}}</nowiki> template works like {{tem|prefixed title}}, with the small text being placed after the first parameter, while the <nowiki>{{SMG2 world}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{SMG2 world-link}}</nowiki>, and <nowiki>{{SMG2 world title}}</nowiki> work like {{tem|classic}}, {{tem|classic-link}}, and {{tem|classic title}} respectively, with the skeleton being "<code><nowiki>World <#>: <small><name></small></nowiki></code> and the example being World 1: <small>The Great Space Journey Begins</small>) and move the following pages to the world number and name:
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.
** [[World 1 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 1 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 1: <small>The Great Space Journey Begins</small>|World 1: The Great Space Journey Begins}}
** [[World 2 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 2 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 2: <small>Shooting Through the Stars</small>|World 2: Shooting Through the Stars}}
** [[World 3 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 3 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 3: <small>The Far Reaches of the Universe</small>|World 3: The Far Reaches of the Universe}}
** [[World 4 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 4 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 4: <small>The Many Mysteries of the Cosmos</small>|World 4: The Many Mysteries of the Cosmos}}
** [[World 5 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 5 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 5: <small>Trial of the Galaxies</small>|World 5: Trial of the Galaxies}}
** [[World 6 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 6 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 6: <small>Bowser in Your Sights</small>|World 6: Bowser in Your Sights}}
** [[World S (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World S (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World S: <small>Here We Go!</small>|World S: Here We Go!}}
;Option 2: ONLY move the following pages to the world number and name:
** [[World 1 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 1 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 1: The Great Space Journey Begins}}
** [[World 2 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 2 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 2: Shooting Through the Stars}}
** [[World 3 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 3 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 3: The Far Reaches of the Universe}}
** [[World 4 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 4 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 4: The Many Mysteries of the Cosmos}}
** [[World 5 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 5 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 5: Trial of the Galaxies}}
** [[World 6 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 6 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World 6: Bowser in Your Sights}}
** [[World S (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World S (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|World S: Here We Go!}}
;Option 3: ONLY move the following pages to the name:
** [[World 1 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 1 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|The Great Space Journey Begins}}
** [[World 2 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 2 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|Shooting Through the Stars}}
** [[World 3 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 3 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|The Far Reaches of the Universe}}
** [[World 4 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 4 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|The Many Mysteries of the Cosmos}}
** [[World 5 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 5 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|Trial of the Galaxies}}
** [[World 6 (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World 6 (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|Bowser in Your Sights}}
** [[World S (Super Mario Galaxy 2)|World S (''Super Mario Galaxy 2'')]] → {{fake link|Here We Go! (world)}}
;Option 4: Do nothing.


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBB}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|TheUndescribableGhost}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Option 1====
====Support====
#{{User|GuntherBB}} My primary choice.
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} Rated PR for 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|FanOfRosalina2007}} This is something I never noticed, but I completely agree. I'm happy that there are observant people in this world! Per proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} Per all (fun fact: the Dutch rating system for movies and television, Kijkwijzer, is being utilized by {{wp|Netherlands Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual Media|NICAM}}, which happens to ''also'' rate games in Europe using PEGI. In fact, PEGI's ratings appear to be based on those of Kijkwijzer)
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} Per all, especially since movies like ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'' have classification ratings.


====Option 2====
====Oppose====
 
====Option 3====
#{{User|GuntherBB}} My secondary choice.
 
====Option 4====
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} These names are only displayed on the save file and are not shown while playing the game itself. Even if you go to a different world and save the game, the name on the save file doesn't change and is still the name of the world you should be on. Then there's the fact that when doing the green stars, the save file name is "the green star challenge is on" and when the game is completed 100% the name is "master of galaxies".
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per my fellow Bowser
#{{User|YoYo}} the names you've assigned to each world are actually the names for the "chapters" in the game's progression, not the names for the worlds themselves. it would be like naming each kingdom from Super Mario Odyssey's page after their first moon.


====Comments====
====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. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 15:52, September 24, 2024 (EDT)


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

Latest revision as of 14:27, September 25, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, September 25th, 18:27 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

Rules

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

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

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

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "September 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

Rules

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4375957"