MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
(Banned user)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>[[File:Proposals.png]]</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==Writing guidelines==
===Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables===
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.)


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
'''Deadline''': September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#Users then start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. ('''All times GMT''').
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
#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. The voter can remove or rewrite his/her own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Sysop]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals cannot be made about [[MarioWiki:Administrators|System Operator]] promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].
#If the Sysops 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.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.


The times are in [[wikipedia:GMT|GMT]], and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.
====Support====
#{{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|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.</s>
<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>


===Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format===
====Oppose====
This is an example how your proposal should 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 <u>replace the whole variable including the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".
#{{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.
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
<nowiki>[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]</nowiki>
#{{User|Axii}} Per Hewer
 
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} we don't need to throw a mathematical equation at people
<nowiki>'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br></nowiki><br>
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>
#{{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.
 
<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
-----
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 "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> 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".
 
__TOC__<!--
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>


====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)


<br>
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)
-->
==Talk Page Proposals==
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.


===How To===
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)
#All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the ''brief'' description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "({{fakelink|Discuss}})". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{tem|fakelink}} to communicate its title. The '''Deadline''' must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{tem|TPP}} under the heading.
: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)
#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:
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
#Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
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)
*Merge [[Wooden Trapdoor]] and [[Steel Trapdoor]] into {{fakelink|Trapdoor (Wario World)}} ([[Talk:Wooden Trapdoor#Merge Wooden Trapdoor with Steel Trapdoor into Trapdoor (Wario World)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': 8 January, 2011 23:59 GMT


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


==Removals==
==Removals==
''None at the moment''
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Decide how to handle the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes===
Currently, in infoboxes, the "latest portrayal" section of it is inconsistent across characters. When ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'' came out, for example, it listed both [[Kevin Afghani]] (Mario's current voice actor) and [[Charles Martinet]] (who voices Mario in ''The Thousand-Year Door'' from original archival voicing) as Mario's latest portrayals, yet [[Jen Taylor]] (whose voice clips were also reused) wasn't added to Peach's latest portrayal. Therefore, to make these infoboxes consistent for characters with multiple voice actors, I am proposing several options:
*Option 1: Only add in the current voice actor for the character (reissues with archival voices from retired voice actors will not be added).
*Option 2: Only add in the voice actor for the character in the most recent game (reissues with archival voices will overtake the "current" voice actor if the latest one did not record voice lines for the character, the current voice actor will be re-added to the infobox following the release of a game with voices from the current voice actor).
*Option 3: Add both the current voice actor and the voice actor for the latest release (this puts two voice actors in the "latest portrayal" section if the character is voiced via archival footage from a retired voice actor, but the current voice actor also gets to remain. When a new game comes out with new voice lines from the current voice actor, the voice actor from the previous release will be removed).
*Option 4: Do nothing (infoboxes with both actors will not change, and same with infoboxes with the current actor even if a game featuring archival voicing from a retired voice actor is the latest one).


===Bowser's Castle Article Name===
With regards to mixed use of voices, if multiple voice actors voice a single character in a single game, the latest person who voiced the character as of the game's release takes priority, meaning that archival voices from retired actors will not appear in the infobox if the character in that game is also (and especially mostly) voiced by the current actor for that character. As for other media (like ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Movie]]''), whether or not the game/other media actor takes priority or if both should be listed is also of question, but I will likely wait until the [[Untitled The Super Mario Bros. Movie follow-up|follow-up]] to create that proposal.
Since, in ''[[Mario Kart (series)|Mario Kart'' series]], they're all called "Bowser's Castle" and not "Bowser Castle". I think we should change the name of the article from [[Bowser Castle]], to [[Bowser's Castle (course)]]. I've not been on Mario Wiki long, but I know a lot of stuff about games, I just don't know how to make major changes like this. If this ''is'' voted for, I ask that someone tell me how to do it, or that someone else do it. Thank you.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Britannic124}}<br>
'''Voting start''': January 2, 2011 00:00<br>
'''Deadline''': January 9, 2011 00:00
 
====Support====
#{{User|Britannic124}} &mdash; Why give a page a different name than the subject, itself? A lot of other courses have the parenthesis after its title, rather than a different name. I hope you also support me on this.
#{{User|UltimatePetey}} I have to agree with Brittanic124. There are 2 courses that say Bowser's Castle, and one that is Bowser Castle 3. That's more than half of them that say Bowser's. It even has a disambiguation on both pages.
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per… uhm… proposal maybe?
#{{User|Ultramariologan}} Per Britannic124, UltimatePetey and SWFlash.
#{{User|MarioManiac}} Per all. As my mom says, you have to spell and pronounce it correctly, so other people can understand you.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Coincollector and myself in the comments: the courses have been called both "Bowser Castle" and "Bowser's Castle", but the latter is the most recently-used term, and so we should go with that.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! It will be too confusing to the visitor to have them in separate articles. I think just making that slight edit on their section is all we can do. Zero signing out.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} I am not Zero, but I am still opposing. Per Zero. It is fine as it is. It can be known under two names, and one is already the name of a very different article. If I remember correctly, it uses that name in most of the games, so it would be better as the name of the majority.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} No no no! Per me & Coincollector. Bowser Castle is the main article for all the ''Mario Kart'' racecourses, whereas Bowser's Castle is the main article for the ''actual'' castles location/level-wise. A similar idea to this has already been resolved, just follow the link in my comment.
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
Voting start...January 5th?! It's supposed to be around 24 hours after you first make it, not...3 extra days. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} <br>
I was just leaving space for the voting on the proposal below! {{User|Britannic124}}
:That's kind of not how it works. The rules state it has to be, so I will alter the voting start. People have enough time to vote on each. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}}
 
I dunno, I've seen that the racecourses appear under the name '''Bowser Castle''' (like in Mario Kart DS) and others '''Bowser's Castle''' (like in MK Double Dash). I suggest you to use the latest name used for the course in a similar way that was done for the [[Octoomba]]'s article. {{user|coincollector}}
 
Hey zero, did you see the article itself? There's [[Bowser Castle]] and [[Bowser's Castle]] (and no redirects!). That's why I'm supporting it. {{User|SWFlash}}
:Fools. Take a look at the bottom of [[Talk:Bowser's Castle]]. It should clear this up. {{User|Rise Up Above It}}
::Okay, I'm crazy. I thought you were going to merge them. x_X But still, per Coincollector. {{User|Rise Up Above It}}
:::Calling people "fools" is rude: drop the attitude, please. The discussion you linked to doesn't clear anything up; the only bit applicable here is what MG1 said about proper names/nouns, but that logic is actually faulty seeing as "Bowser's Castle" is now used to refer to the tracks as well as the general castles that belong to Bowser. The entire thing feels like speculation to me: I doubt Nintendo ever meant for the names to be that subject-specific, especially since they've started using the same term for both uses of the castle. We're not supposed to make conclusions: we're supposed to name articles based on what the most recent game calls the subject in question (which is what Coincollector was talking about); in this case, the course set in the Koopa King's castle was called "''Bowser's Castle''" in the most recent game, ''Mario Kart Wii'' (I just played it myself to make sure of that). - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
===The TPP Effect===
Third times the charm I hope, but let's not focus on what proposal number this is that I've made. Lately there has been many talk page proposals by the same user that conflict with each or they conflict with past tpps that have already passed. It is quite confusing on how unorderly and how inconsistent it is starting to become.
 
What I propose is that we have some changes to the Talk Page Proposal rules shown far above this. I say that if a tpp is being runned that conflicts and disagrees with another tpp that one of them has to change in order for consistency to be played out. Now of course some circumstances should be made about that, depending on what it is and the reasons, but if it is for the same reasoning as another, then that rule should change. But it is hard if it conflicts with other proposals from the past. What I say we should do about it is to have that ttp turn into a proposal that will go into misc and deal with all that it effects. Then, depending on whether the proposal passes or fails, shall the pages be changed depending on the outcome.
 
I believe that all I have said above is very logical, and will solve many issues that we have had here on the MarioWiki with the tpp's going on lately. If you don't quite fully understand my proposal, comment in the comments section.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}<br>
'''Voting start''': December 29, 2010 5:16<br>
'''Deadline''': January 4, 2011 23:59
 
====Support====
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Probably should have done this when I made the proposal, but wanted to see some opinions first. Since this seems to be looking like a good proposal, I support it 100%! Per me!
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per guy above
#{{User|WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135}} Per all.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per Proposal.
#{{User|The Cosmic Vin}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - I'm sorry, but this is '''way too vague''' to be incorporated in our policies. Maybe if you flesh it out and formulate it into clear, precise paragraphs, we can think about adding something like that. But in this form: Just no.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per Edofenrir. I think it would turn out as a confusing policy.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - I like the ''idea'', but I have to agree with Edo, this is vague.
#{{User|Emperor Yoshi}} Well, I agree with all that oppose this, it's main ''idea'' is good, but BMB, you need to make your description less vague. I can personally not see the specifics to this idea, thus, I simply have to oppose this for the time being.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Edofenrir: I don't see how we could possibly turn this proposal into some clear, concise rules. Besides, we already aim for consistency and if things really do get out of whack, Rule 13 gives the admins the means to set things straight. The problem is that a lot of the time, comparing TPPs is like comparing apples and oranges, and the whole thing is rather subjective: what's inconsistent for one person might be perfectly fine for another. No rule or policy will ever change that, and trying to shoehorn the TPPs into a strict guideline could actually backfire and make it much more difficult to run and regulate them; having wiggle-room is very useful sometimes.
#{{User|UltimatePetey}} - Per Fawfulfury65. It could get confusing.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all, mostly Walkazo and Emperor Yoshi. I don't understand what you want to change, or do differently.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per Edo, way too vague. Zero signing out.
#{{User|Cosmic Red Toad}} - i '''would''' support...if i knew what ur talking about here. sorry.
#{{User|Cosmic Blue Toad}} - Per Edofenrir, Emperor Yoshi, Tucayo, and Fawfulfury65.
#{{User|Ultramariologan}} Per Edofenrir. Way too much vague.
#{{User|MarioManiac}} Per all.
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per all.It's too vague.
 
====Comments====
I like your idea, we do need that. Consistency above all. {{user|Tucayo}}
 
Can you clarify what you're saying please? {{User|Bowser's luma}}
 
:@Bowser's luma: Pretty much I am just solidifing the rules since a lot of agruements and conflicts have been going off in some TPP's. I am just saying to add/change a rule or two in the TPPs so that we can have consistency and to have a more understanding structure. That is about it. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::Ok. Consistency is good. {{User|Bowser's luma}}
:::This seems a little vague, could you be a little more in-depth? {{User|Ralphfan}}
::::Let's see if I can make it fit your idea of "clear". Hmmm...Pretty much if this proposal passes, we will be adding some more rules to TPP's. If a TPP conflicts with another (let's say one is to merge Goomba and Paragoomba, but another at the same time that has Goomba be split to Goomba (species) and Goomba (character)) then one of them has to be deleted or changed so that it doesn't happen like that. But if they interfere with each other, and one is running and another is passing (Example, split M&L series mushrooms apart, and a proposal that passed a few months ago merged them to the Mushroom article), then the current one either has to change the proposal, delete it, or bring it on this page as a main proposal and if passes, then the TPP would say something like "this TPP has changed via {{fakelink|this proposal}}". Its to help put consistency into the TPP's as we have struggled ever since they have been made with what is right and wrong and if this or that conflicts with that or this. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
Agree! But that is not consistency, that is preventing conflict. {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
WAIT! This proposal has already been passed! See the "How to" section above, it has this rule:
8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
So that means that the proposal made second would have to be deleted to follow this rule so this proposal is unnecessary. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:Not exactly, it is actually to expand that rule. Because the rule refers to proposals dealing with the same subject, while this proposal talks about proposals that deal with similar circumstances. {{user|Tucayo}}
::Well if the circumstances are conflicting, such as in the case of his Goomba/Paragoomba example, one of them would be deleted so either his proposal is unnecessary or his example is faulty. {{User|Marioguy1}}


===New Time Trial Article===
'''EDIT:''' With regards to [[User:Tails777|Tails777]]'s vote, I don't know exactly how it will play out if Option 3 passes, although I will say if a game (like a compilation) does have a single character voiced by more than one voice actor who isn't the current one, the latest voice actor whose voice clips are used in the game as of the game's release will be the second option added to the infobox (like Peach in ''3D All-Stars'', who would've listes Samantha Kelly as her current and ''Galaxy'' voice actress, as well as Jen Taylor as her ''Sunshine'' voice actress, although I don't think it would be that consistent because it would exclude Leslie Swan, her ''64'' voice actress, but since Jen Taylor was the more recent of the two, she is the one who is listed).
I noticed that if you search "Time Trial" right now, you are brought to a redirect that takes you to a small section of the [[Mario Kart (series)]] article. I think this mode should be given its own article.  


The biggest reason I think this is because there are full articles existing about similar modes, such as [[Diddy's Dash]] and [[Time Attack (Donkey Kong)]]. It makes no sense for these to have their own articles and not Time Trial. Additionally, if a Time Trial article is made, it should have the similar Time Trail modes that I mentioned merged into it since they are near identical. The article could be used to list times that need to be completed in some Time Trials, since some games give you certain times to beat. It can also describe how the Time Trial mode can be unlocked (I know a few games don't let you play the mode right away), how it can be unlocked, and a little about how it may work.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Altendo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT


Well, those are all the reasons I can think of.
====Only add in the current voice actor====
#{{User|Altendo}} Primary choice. "Latest portrayal", to me, means the person who last voiced the character, and I don't think archival voices should count as this, especially since those voices were recorded before the current voice actor. This also avoids the issues of multiple voice actors voicing a single character in compilations and switching/adding or removing voice actors when reissues and original games come out (as described below).
#{{User|Shadow2}} Re-using old sound clips has no bearing on a character's "Latest portrayal". Charles does not voice Mario anymore, and to list him as such just because of older re-used sound clips is misrepresentative.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per both, this is the less misleading option (the infobox doesn't specify whether the "latest" voice actor was just re-usage of old voice clips, so  listing both Charles and Kevin gives the impression that they're both actively voicing Mario, which is wrong).
#{{User|Scrooge200}} The ''Mario'' franchise re-uses voice clips all the time. Having Charles listed there under a new game could give the false impression that he returned to voice Mario for that.
#{{User|Tails777}} The main supporting vote here has a better point, now leaning more to this one.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} After considering it, this makes the most sense to me; it's the most straightforward option and avoids possible misrepresentation.
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.</s>


'''Proposer''': {{User|Fawfulfury65}}<br>
====Only add in the the voice actor for the "latest" game====
'''Voting start''': 3 January, 2011, 1:47<br>
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} Tertiary choice. If "Latest portrayal" really means the person who voiced the character in the latest game, regardless of said actor's as-of-game-release status, then maybe archival voices can count because it is the voice of the character in the "latest" game. I do not recommend this option as this will cause a lot of infobox editing and switching voice actors when reissues (particularly ports and remasters) do inevitably come out, and if a compilation game (like ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'') comes out, multiple voice actors who voice the same character in a single compilation (like [[Princess Peach]], who had [[Leslie Swan|three]] [[Jen Taylor|voice]] [[Samantha Kelly|actresses]] in a single compilation) will stack up in the infoboxes. And when a new game comes out, all of that is thrown out the window, reverting to their current voice actor. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"|This is why some were against enforcing the absolute "latest" portrayals in a previous proposal]]. The only reason why I am for this is consistency.</s>
'''Deadline''': 9 January, 2011, 23:59
====Add both current and latest voice actor====
 
#{{User|Tails777}} Leaning to a secondary vote; it's best to keep it up to date when it comes to VAs, but it isn't uncommon for various games to recycle voice clips (TTYD once again being a good example). I feel it is best to at least acknowledge if voice clips get recycled in this respect, though I also feel this should be limited to one at a time, in case there are examples where someone had more than even two voice actors.
====Support====
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
====Oppose====
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} Secondary choice. It feels nice to respect both the voice actor who is currently voicing the character and the person whose voices, even in archival, are the sole ones used in the latest game. However, my point about voice actor switching, while not as big as an issue because archival voice actors will only be added rather than replace the current one, still kind of stands because reissues will add the archival voice actor for one game, only to remove it when a new game comes out. Additionally, if compilations ''only'' contain voices from retired voice actors, this will stack it up even more (although for ''3D All-Stars'', it still wouldn't change much due to Peach's ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' voice actress still being her current one). Still, this does make the infoboxes consistent.</s>
#{{User|Knife}} &ndash; If anything, those other articles need to be merged to their respective games, not the other way around. Modes shouldn't get separate articles as they detract from the game articles. Will we put a {{Tem|Main}} template on each respective section in the game articles? Not to mention that this proposal is inconsistent. What makes the Time Trial modes more deserving of an article than other modes like [[Mario Kart (series)#Grand Prix|Grand Prix]], [[Mario Kart (series)#Battle_Mode|Battle Mode]], [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!#Versus|Versus]], [[Mario Kart DS#Missions|Mission Mode]], etc.?
====Do nothing====
#{{user|Coincollector}} -Per Knife. Game modes should make up the game's article in question.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all. Now I can see the cons of this, and they overpower the pros, to be honest.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - I agree with Knife.
#{{User|M&SG}} - Making a Time Trials article is pointless if you asked me.  Refer to Knife's statement.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Knife.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per Knife, Coincollector, MrConctreteDonkey and M&SG.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} You guys are right. Per all.
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
We could also list the staff ghosts in [[Mario Kart Wii]] into the Time Trial page. {{User|The Cosmic Vin}}
I'm conflicted between simply listing only whoever is currently voicing the character vs. potentially opening a can of worms by listing multiple actors from archival clips, even though that would respect the portrayals from the most recent game whether it used newly recorded or archived voices. No matter how this proposal ends up, I think that a future proposal should consider standardizing the "Portrayals" header in the character articles themselves. For Mario, the list of portrayals does a great job at comprehensively documenting everyone who has officially voiced Mario, but falters in conveying the inconceivable magnitude of media in which Martinet has voiced Mario, and how much he has contributed to the character's brand recognition to the point where many people will continue to see him as ''the'' voice of Mario, even moving forward as Kevin Afghani takes on that role. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 23:57, September 16, 2024 (EDT)
:Yeah, that's what I want in them along with the times for some of those Donkey Kong Time Attacks and stuff. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::You opposed your own proposal! Does it mean that you'll delete it? {{User|SWFlash}}


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
 
''None at the moment.''
 
 
===Change <nowiki>{{Racecourses}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{Courses}}</nowiki>===
First proposal, I'm sorry if it's n00by.
So recently, I found out that the template that has all the courses in the [[Mario Kart (series)|Mario Kart Series]] is <nowiki>{{Racecourses}}</nowiki>. I think it is a ''little'' childish to put in the '''Race''' in '''Race'''courses. I can understand if you disagree, but <nowiki>{{Courses}}</nowiki> sounds better. Once again, sorry if it's n00by.
 
'''Proposer''':{{User|The Cosmic Vin}}<br>
'''Voting Start''': December 30 2010 22:56<br>
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2010 17:56<br>
 
====Support====
#{{User|The Cosmic Vin}}
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nicke8}} There are 2 types of courses,race courses, and battle courses.
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per BLOF.
#{{User|Yoshi's Island}} Per Nicke8.
#{{User|Canama}} Per Nicke8.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all (including BLOF and what I said about semantics in the comments).
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per Nicke8 and BLOF. Zero signing out.
#{{User|Ultramariologan}} Per Nicke8 and BLOF.
#{{User|Mariowikilover25}} Per Nicke8
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per Nicke8 and BLOF.
====Comments====
I disagree with you. I think the prefix adjective, "race" specifies "course". There are many types of courses out there, such as an obstacle course or battle course (it could even mean a school course), so changing it to "course" would be simply too vague. I don't understand what makes putting in the word "race" makes things childish. It describes the places perfectly, since you definitely (most of the time) are racing in there. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:I agree. Also, {{tem|Racecourses}} would have to be switched to the new template name on over 60 pages, which seems like a lot of work for mere semantics. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::Well if he agrees to do it all himself...{{User|Marioguy1}}
:::I was planning on it. I was also thinking we could put EVERY courseof every kind into one template. {{User|The Cosmic Vin}}
::::Having both types of courses in one navigation template might work, but they're too different to share one style of infobox, so while {{tem|racecourses}} and {{tem|battlecourses}} would be merged, you'd still have {{tem|racecourse}} on the articles. The infobox doesn't actually say "racecourse" outside of the coding, but neither does the navigation template: it says "Race Courses", like how the other one says "Battle Courses", and even if you merged them, they'd still have to us those terms to differentiate between the two types of courses within the template. The term is not childish or superfluous, it's functional. - {{User|Walkazo}}

Latest revision as of 16:54, September 21, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, September 22nd, 00:17 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 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 22, 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

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)
Add WikiLove extension, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 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)

Writing guidelines

Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables

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.

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all. #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.

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.

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)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Decide how to handle the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes

Currently, in infoboxes, the "latest portrayal" section of it is inconsistent across characters. When Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door came out, for example, it listed both Kevin Afghani (Mario's current voice actor) and Charles Martinet (who voices Mario in The Thousand-Year Door from original archival voicing) as Mario's latest portrayals, yet Jen Taylor (whose voice clips were also reused) wasn't added to Peach's latest portrayal. Therefore, to make these infoboxes consistent for characters with multiple voice actors, I am proposing several options:

  • Option 1: Only add in the current voice actor for the character (reissues with archival voices from retired voice actors will not be added).
  • Option 2: Only add in the voice actor for the character in the most recent game (reissues with archival voices will overtake the "current" voice actor if the latest one did not record voice lines for the character, the current voice actor will be re-added to the infobox following the release of a game with voices from the current voice actor).
  • Option 3: Add both the current voice actor and the voice actor for the latest release (this puts two voice actors in the "latest portrayal" section if the character is voiced via archival footage from a retired voice actor, but the current voice actor also gets to remain. When a new game comes out with new voice lines from the current voice actor, the voice actor from the previous release will be removed).
  • Option 4: Do nothing (infoboxes with both actors will not change, and same with infoboxes with the current actor even if a game featuring archival voicing from a retired voice actor is the latest one).

With regards to mixed use of voices, if multiple voice actors voice a single character in a single game, the latest person who voiced the character as of the game's release takes priority, meaning that archival voices from retired actors will not appear in the infobox if the character in that game is also (and especially mostly) voiced by the current actor for that character. As for other media (like The Super Mario Bros. Movie), whether or not the game/other media actor takes priority or if both should be listed is also of question, but I will likely wait until the follow-up to create that proposal.

EDIT: With regards to Tails777's vote, I don't know exactly how it will play out if Option 3 passes, although I will say if a game (like a compilation) does have a single character voiced by more than one voice actor who isn't the current one, the latest voice actor whose voice clips are used in the game as of the game's release will be the second option added to the infobox (like Peach in 3D All-Stars, who would've listes Samantha Kelly as her current and Galaxy voice actress, as well as Jen Taylor as her Sunshine voice actress, although I don't think it would be that consistent because it would exclude Leslie Swan, her 64 voice actress, but since Jen Taylor was the more recent of the two, she is the one who is listed).

Proposer: Altendo (talk)
Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Only add in the current voice actor

  1. Altendo (talk) Primary choice. "Latest portrayal", to me, means the person who last voiced the character, and I don't think archival voices should count as this, especially since those voices were recorded before the current voice actor. This also avoids the issues of multiple voice actors voicing a single character in compilations and switching/adding or removing voice actors when reissues and original games come out (as described below).
  2. Shadow2 (talk) Re-using old sound clips has no bearing on a character's "Latest portrayal". Charles does not voice Mario anymore, and to list him as such just because of older re-used sound clips is misrepresentative.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per both, this is the less misleading option (the infobox doesn't specify whether the "latest" voice actor was just re-usage of old voice clips, so listing both Charles and Kevin gives the impression that they're both actively voicing Mario, which is wrong).
  4. Scrooge200 (talk) The Mario franchise re-uses voice clips all the time. Having Charles listed there under a new game could give the false impression that he returned to voice Mario for that.
  5. Tails777 (talk) The main supporting vote here has a better point, now leaning more to this one.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) After considering it, this makes the most sense to me; it's the most straightforward option and avoids possible misrepresentation.

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.

Only add in the the voice actor for the "latest" game

#Altendo (talk) Tertiary choice. If "Latest portrayal" really means the person who voiced the character in the latest game, regardless of said actor's as-of-game-release status, then maybe archival voices can count because it is the voice of the character in the "latest" game. I do not recommend this option as this will cause a lot of infobox editing and switching voice actors when reissues (particularly ports and remasters) do inevitably come out, and if a compilation game (like Super Mario 3D All-Stars) comes out, multiple voice actors who voice the same character in a single compilation (like Princess Peach, who had three voice actresses in a single compilation) will stack up in the infoboxes. And when a new game comes out, all of that is thrown out the window, reverting to their current voice actor. This is why some were against enforcing the absolute "latest" portrayals in a previous proposal. The only reason why I am for this is consistency.

Add both current and latest voice actor

  1. Tails777 (talk) Leaning to a secondary vote; it's best to keep it up to date when it comes to VAs, but it isn't uncommon for various games to recycle voice clips (TTYD once again being a good example). I feel it is best to at least acknowledge if voice clips get recycled in this respect, though I also feel this should be limited to one at a time, in case there are examples where someone had more than even two voice actors.
  2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.

#Altendo (talk) Secondary choice. It feels nice to respect both the voice actor who is currently voicing the character and the person whose voices, even in archival, are the sole ones used in the latest game. However, my point about voice actor switching, while not as big as an issue because archival voice actors will only be added rather than replace the current one, still kind of stands because reissues will add the archival voice actor for one game, only to remove it when a new game comes out. Additionally, if compilations only contain voices from retired voice actors, this will stack it up even more (although for 3D All-Stars, it still wouldn't change much due to Peach's Super Mario Galaxy voice actress still being her current one). Still, this does make the infoboxes consistent.

Do nothing

Comments

I'm conflicted between simply listing only whoever is currently voicing the character vs. potentially opening a can of worms by listing multiple actors from archival clips, even though that would respect the portrayals from the most recent game whether it used newly recorded or archived voices. No matter how this proposal ends up, I think that a future proposal should consider standardizing the "Portrayals" header in the character articles themselves. For Mario, the list of portrayals does a great job at comprehensively documenting everyone who has officially voiced Mario, but falters in conveying the inconceivable magnitude of media in which Martinet has voiced Mario, and how much he has contributed to the character's brand recognition to the point where many people will continue to see him as the voice of Mario, even moving forward as Kevin Afghani takes on that role. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 23:57, September 16, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4372235"