MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 17:33, January 2, 2018 by Ninja Squid (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, June 4th, 13:01 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

Rules

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

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

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

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

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

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

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

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

Rules

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing, DrippingYellow (ended May 28, 2024)
  • ^Note: Requires action from admins.

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024)

List of talk page proposals

Template:TPPDiscuss Template:TPPDiscuss

Proposals that have not been implemented

Proposal User Date
Split Spoing, Sprangler and Klamber from Scuttle Bug Vommack (talk) November 3, 2012
Create boss level articles for Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land series Aokage (talk) January 3, 2015
Create a template for the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door badge drop rates Lord Bowser (talk) August 17, 2016
Create a Mini article Wildgoosespeeder (talk) August 20, 2016
Split all remaining courts and boards from their parent articles NSY (talk) September 25, 2016
Clean up species categories to only include non-hostile species Niiue (talk) August 8, 2017
Clean up Category:Artifacts Niiue (talk) August 22, 2017
Trim down Category:Fire Creatures and Category:Ice Creatures Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) September 7, 2017
Create an article on Arcade Archives Camwood777 (talk) September 23, 2017
Split all Starbeans Cafe items from the Starbeans Cafe article Baby Luigi (talk) September 30, 2017
Reorganize the board table in Mario Party: Island Tour Baby Luigi (talk) December 15, 2017
Expand the Behemoth King article Owencrazyboy9 (talk) December 23, 2017
Include Every Derivative Togepuku in Spiny Cheep Cheep LinkTheLefty (talk) December 25, 2017
Split Porcupinefish from Spiny Cheep Cheep LinkTheLefty (talk) December 25, 2017
Create articles on the Remix 10 secret courses in Super Mario Run Time Turner (talk) December 26, 2017
Add anchor links to Power Moon lists Super Radio (talk) December 31, 2017

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Create a page for Luigi's Mansion (series)

I am honestly surprised that this page does not exist, as I believe it once did. In short, there are three installments to this series: Luigi's Mansion, Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, and Luigi's Mansion Arcade. Though it might seem to some that only three games won't be enough to warrant a series page, keep in mind the DK series and the Mario Baseball series pages. There is plenty of information for this page, as we have a main protagonist (Luigi) and many other supporting characters and reoccurring enemies such as King Boo and Boos. It only seems logical to create a page for a series within the Mario franchise that features two games for consoles and one arcade game.

Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk)
Deadline: January 9, 2017 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. DKPetey99 (talk) Per my proposal.
  2. Astro-Lanceur (talk) Good Idea! :P
  3. Alex95 (talk) - A series page did exist before, but it was deleted back in 2011. That was before the arcade title, however, so I don't see a reason to not make one now.
  4. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per proposal.
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal. Since other similar series pages exist, I don't see an issue with creating this one.
  6. LudwigVon (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Is there a policy page/section about what qualifies as a series and allow for a series article? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 15:00, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Not finding one, but I think the unspoken rule is about three games? I remember reading that somewhere. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 15:13, 2 January 2018 (EST)

2011 was even before Dark Moon was released so I see why the original page was deleted. DKPetey99DKPetey99TCE

Whoop, forgot when Dark Moon was released. That makes the original page even more pointless :P Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 15:19, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow the coverage of distinctly Mario aspects from guest appearances

According to MarioWiki:Coverage, Nintendo Land is "not a crossover" and is therefore a guest appearance; since the game constitutes a guest appearance, it should only receive one page and the minigame pages (Donkey Kong's Crash Course, Luigi's Ghost Mansion, Mario Chase, and Yoshi's Fruit Cart) should be deleted, per the rules on MarioWiki:Coverage. However, why not change the rules? Instead of having these pages exist in a grey area, why not change things so that they, and any other subjects from guest appearances that are clearly baked in Mario iconography, can have articles? To be clear, this is not a proposal to give articles to every subject from a guest appearance: LeBron James and Psymon would still not have articles, but, for example, Nintendo Village might be eligible. These are subjects that use the Mario IP with Nintendo's express approval, if not because Nintendo themselves created them, and they're arguably more related to the franchise than some of the stuff that the wiki already covers. I don't see why we shouldn't allow them here.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: January 4, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Lcrossmk8 (talk) I'm with you on this one. Sounds like a good idea to cover Mario-only elements of any non-Mario game. And plus, why even bring up LeBron James in the first place? Come on now, I don't want an article on that, because then we might have people yelling out constantly about how the stupid Warriors blew a 3-1 lead. Jesus, man, can we just not do that?
  3. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) The summary above sounds convincing. Per all.
  5. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Policy needs an overhaul for these cases, and this is a step in the right direction.
  6. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, it leaves a gap in our coverage otherwise.
  7. Alex95 (talk) - I honestly thought this was a crossover already. Per proposal.
  8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
  9. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all.
  10. Jazama (talk) Per all.
  11. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per all. Yeah, I don't think LeBron James or Mooshroom need an article, though I think subjects such as Tetris DS Puzzle Mode are deserving of one.
  12. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.
  13. Astro-Lanceur (talk)Per all.
  14. LudwigVon (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

Miscellaneous

The format of the statistics in the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

While the statistics shown in the menus of Mario Kart games have been notoriously inaccurate and sometimes even outright wrong, since Mario Kart 7 the vehicle customization screen finally shows statistics in a way that at least is directly correlated with the underlying in-game statistics: internally the games use points that are summed to determine the final values of the statistics, with each character or part contributing their own points to each statistics, and in the vehicle customization screen every time there is an increase of 1 point in a statistics, the corresponding value shown by the bar increases by 0.25. This direct correspondence between the length of the bar and the underlying sum of points in each statistics led to the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe exclusively reporting the statistics in the format used by the games' vehicle customization screens.
It must be noted that said format is actually used by the games to display the final statistics of a certain combination of character, vehicle, tires and glider, while in the main pages it is being used to display the statistics of the individual elements (characters and vehicle parts).
This mismatch first of all leads to different criteria used for the characters (the final statistics obtained when using said characters with standard parts) and the parts (how the tatistics of each part compare with respect to standard parts), furthermore when discussing a redesign of the tables of statistics thanks to an automated script with 2257 (talk), other aspects emerged:

  • the differences between various parts and how much characters and parts contribute to the final stats are potentially more difficult to evaluate, since fractional number that, in the case of the parts, can be both negative and positive are being used to display the stats in place of integers
  • standard parts can have values which are not average in some statistics, leading to the numbers being skewed as a result, this being the case of Standard Tires in Mario Kart 8 which have maximum water speed
  • comparison between games can be more difficult, as the statistics of the standard parts are different in each game - as an example, the Standard Kart has different stats in each game, but the current format doesn't show this
  • more importantly, the current format can be misleading when trying to make considerations in the individual parts' pages, such as the ones on the Standard Kart that didn't reflect the actual statistics of the kart nor the actual contribution of the characters to the final statistics in Mario Kart 7.

Therefore, since the current format has both advantages and disadvantages and the games actually use an alternative format, the points, which is still simple and thus could be used in the main pages I propose to review and decide which format to use for the statistics shown in the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, between those two:

  1. values actually used by the game (called points)
  2. values shown in the vehicle customization screen (what I'll call bar values)

In short, those are what I think are the main advantages of each format:

MAIN ADVANTAGES OF POINTS

  • They are the values actually used by the game and, as such, they are not misleading
  • They allow for an easy comparison between characters and parts and between games using the points system, while allowing to easily see how much a character or part contributes to the final stats

MAIN ADVANTAGES OF BAR VALUES

  • They are the ones shown in the vehicle customization screen and, as such, they are the ones most readers are familiar with and the ones mainly used by the competitive Mario Kart community as well
  • They tend to be useful for statistics which are tiered on the integer part of bar values, in particular acceleration in Mario Kart 8 and weight in Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

As a final note, a revision of the pages of the individual parts will have to be done regardless of the outcome of this proposal, to add the actual statistics of the parts and to see if there are other considerations which need to be corrected in light of the actual statistics of each part.

Proposer: Mister Wu (talk)
Deadline: January 2, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Use points

  1. Alex95 (talk) - While bars are more familiar to players, points show the statistics more accurately, which I think is what should be used.
  2. 2257 (talk) the idea that most readers are already familiar with bar values is not really correct. most readers are familiar with the in-game system of bar values, which they might assume is identical with the wiki's system. but that is not a correct assumption, and cannot be. the in-game system is used to rate a combination of a character and three vehicle parts, while the wiki's system is used to rate each character or part individually. the mapping between the two is based on some fairly arbitrary decisions that readers can easily gloss over without understanding their implications for interpretation of the reported values. the upshot is that although the bar value format feels familiar to readers, because it resembles the in-game system, this feeling is inaccurate and misleads readers into believing that they understand the system when they actually do not. we have already seen the result of this: the claim linked above that the standard kart "doesn't offer any stat changes due to the main stats relying more on the weight class of the character and is shared for all characters" is completely wrong, and this is a direct result of an editor attempting to reason about the bar values system while having misunderstood it. this is a weakness that the point system lacks: because it does not falsely seem to be immediately familiar, users are less likely to incorrectly assume that they understand it when they do not, and more likely to read adjacent explanations of how to properly interpret the data as it is presented
    regardless of which system the page uses, it will need to include some such text to explain the system to uninformed readers, and readers who opt to ignore this text are likely to come to inaccurate conclusions regarding part statistics. since readers must read and understand this text to correctly use either system, it makes sense to use whichever of the two systems is most helpful to those who do understand it. this is clearly the point system, which allows users to easily understand how each individual part affects the overall stats of a build, cross reference the stats of a part with the translation tables here, and compare parts between mario kart 8 and mario kart 8 deluxe to see how their stats have changed. none of these tasks can easily be done with the bar values system. meanwhile, the main presumed advantage of the bar values system is that it's likely to feel familiar to readers. but as i've shown, this feeling does not mean that most readers actually understand it, and may actually be harmful to their ability to learn to use it
  3. Lord Bowser (talk) Accuracy should take priority over familiarity. Readers would be better off with a foreign yet accurate display of information than a familiar yet flawed display, and it would be better to take the time to learn how to read it than simply go with what they already know, especially if the latter is inaccurate. Using the bar system would defeat the purpose of us being a wiki -- a reputable source of information -- due to said system having inaccurate data. Per 2257.
  4. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Point values are better because they accurately measure the statistics of a certain part. It's also advisable that the maximum value should be present as well, so that the bar charts are truly obsolete. Per 2257.
  5. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per 2257.
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per 2257.
  7. Supermariofan67 (talk) Per 2257.
  8. Astro-Lanceur (talk) per 2257
  9. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
  10. Jazama (talk) Per all.
  11. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all, especially 2257.

Use bar values

  1. Lcrossmk8 (talk) You know, if readers are familiar with the bar values, and if the competitive Mario Kart community uses them, then I'm going with bar values. Anyway, that is some of the most detailed in-depth stuff I've read yet on this wiki. I'm gonna have to take a look at it again to make things a little clearer for me.
  2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per Lcross. The games use bars, and bars are easier for players to understand, so we use bars.

Comments

Why not both, like how we have for the Mario Kart Wii vehicles like Standard Kart M (but done better)? Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 17:55, 26 December 2017 (EST)

Dingo-DONGO. I like that idea. The problem is, how are we going to implement thatt? Lcrossmk8 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2017 (EST)
I personally tried that, and I was asked to just report one set of stats. We can of course include two sets of tables, but that would be additional vertical scrolling. In short, unless you can come up with a new layout that manages to do that more clearly, this simply isn't going to happen again.--Mister Wu (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2017 (EST)
If only one set of stats is what's been asked, then we may as well just use one for now. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 19:30, 26 December 2017 (EST)
I was thinking putting the number inside the bar. Just needs proper CSS. See Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii) or Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U) for great examples. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (EST)

@Wildgoosespeeder: You can't vote for both options when there are only two. Please choose just one of them. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 15:46, 2 January 2018 (EST)

You're right. What was I thinking? Retracted. However, this proposal should have had four options: Values, Bars, Both, or Do Nothing. I would have voted for the both option. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Does Tetris DS count as a guest appearance?

Once upon a time, a proposal deemed that Tetris DS was irrelevant to the Super Mario Wiki, and should therefore be deleted... except that was four years ago, and the article still remains. Now it just sits in limbo or something, and that's not satisfying to me. To me, Tetris DS is about on par with Nintendo Land in terms of Mario content. From the six games, half of them prominently feature Mario characters and integrate them into the gameplay, especially with the Standard game's multiplayer items and the Yoshi's Cookie Puzzle game. If you say that the Mario aspect only affects the visuals and not the gameplay, and therefore shouldn't be covered here, then I'll ask why Nintendo Badge Arcade and Minecraft are covered at all, or even why Nintendo Land is covered when its line-up includes a game of tag and moving a cart around. Also, that clearly ignores the multiplayer items. Simply put, this game has more than enough Mario-related content to justify its coverage on the wiki.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: January 4, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Yes, it is a guest appearance (and therefore, keep the page)

  1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Lcrossmk8 (talk) I guess I will support this one, but holy smoke, are you a proposal machine or what? You keep belching these out like factory goods on the conveyor belt every day.
  3. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Should be a no-brainer, per all.
  4. Astro-Lanceur (talk)Per all.
  5. Alex95 (talk) - Per proposal.
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
  7. SmokedChili (talk) Per proposal, to me Mario content in Tetris DS is no different from Mario content in Smash Bros.
  8. Niiue (talk) Per all.
  9. LudwigVon (talk) Per all.

No, it is not a guest appearance (and therefore, delete the page)

  1. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) The games mentioned besides Tetris DS are governed by a very black and white policy. I have also wanted to stir up discussion to no avail. I don't think the game is the issue. It's how we cover crossovers, which isn't satisfactory, because we end up covering non-Mario things. It's a very hard call due to the current complexity of the Mario universe intertwined with other video game universes.
  2. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per Wildgoosespeeder.

Comments

@Wildgoose: What are you talking about? What's so black-and-white about the policy that it completely annuls Tetris DS from having an article? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:30, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Watching playthroughs of Tetris DS, NES games are used as a background theme as you play Tetris, which Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Donkey Kong, and Yoshi's Cookie for some examples. This sounds like a guest appearance to me. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 00:46, 28 December 2017 (EST)
Yes. That is the point of the proposal. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:47, 28 December 2017 (EST)
But wanting to allow it anyways (at this time 3-1 vote to keep) means the policy is very black and white about this, but not just with Tetris DS. Policy needs to be reworked for these instances. NES Remix, Tetris & Dr. Mario, and others all have issues with policy. Not just Tetris DS. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 00:56, 28 December 2017 (EST)
I think I knew where I confused myself. I want Tetris DS to be considered a cameo. I just looked at Densetsu no Starfy 3 and that makes a little more sense to cover levels where Wario makes a physical appearance. In Tetris DS, you don't interact with the themes, but in Densetsu no Starfy 3, Wario interacts with Starfy. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 01:08, 28 December 2017 (EST)
And what about the multiplayer items? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 10:40, 28 December 2017 (EST)
Just some examples found in List of Mario references in Nintendo video games. There's likely many more. Does that mean these games deserve their own article? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 11:38, 28 December 2017 (EST)
How are they relevant to my point? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:43, 28 December 2017 (EST)
I read the section about multiplayer items, and there is a level of interaction with the Tetris universe. My point was we have many games that don't have articles and there are physical appearances of Mario universe people or things in them that has influence in those universes. This supports my other point that policy is very black and white, leaving people to grasp at straws to cover either by separate article or merge contents in list articles. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 11:50, 28 December 2017 (EST)
You still haven't explained how the policy is black-and-white in the first place. And frankly, what if I say that those games should have articles? What then? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 11:55, 28 December 2017 (EST)
It's either full coverage (mainstream or crossover) or some coverage (guest appearance or cameo). I don't think this is satisfactory for crossover or guest appearance. Instead of two "modes" of coverage, we need four. Also, you have another proposal going addressing issues with this policy as well, so I think you understand somewhat of what I mean that I think policy is very black and white. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 12:05, 28 December 2017 (EST)
Seriously, what are you talking about? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 12:23, 28 December 2017 (EST)
Can you elaborate what's not clear to you? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 12:41, 28 December 2017 (EST)
Go basic here: what do you mean by "black-and-white"? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 12:48, 28 December 2017 (EST)
No grey area. The games in question don't fit the full coverage or partial coverage policy completely. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 13:40, 28 December 2017 (EST)
How so? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:57, 28 December 2017 (EST)
We've had multiple discussions before, like with the creation of Minecraft that I can immediately recall. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 14:57, 28 December 2017 (EST)
And yet Minecraft is being covered on the wiki. What are you talking about? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:29, 28 December 2017 (EST)
Yes, it was covered. I wasn't trying to outright stop its coverage. However, the current way it is being covered just doesn't feel right compared to other games. The point is just because it features Mario characters or references it doesn't mean it is a Mario game. If that were true, the List of Mario references in Nintendo video games shouldn't exist and should be split into separate articles. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 15:38, 28 December 2017 (EST)
The point isn't that it's a Mario game. The point is that it has content that is relevant to the wiki. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:56, 28 December 2017 (EST)
Not arguing that it has relevance. I am arguing the presentation just isn't quite right. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 16:00, 28 December 2017 (EST)
What would be right for you, then? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:02, 28 December 2017 (EST)
A merge to the references list or a general guest appearance article. Since guest appearance, link to the appropriate NIWA wiki article, or Wikipedia article if the game is not a Nintendo property. In the case of Tetris DS, it's a reference and not a guest appearance, although policy isn't definitive on that. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (EST)
Why shouldn't we give them individual articles? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:01, 28 December 2017 (EST)
It feels like we are giving these games the same precedence as regular normal releases. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 17:15, 28 December 2017 (EST)
One page and dedicated coverage of clearly Mario aspects, versus every single subject within the game getting an article. They are not the same. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:34, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Shouldn’t this be a TPP? -YFJ (talk · edits) 17:57, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Hypothetically, if Tetris DS didn't already have a page, then the proposal would have definitely gone here. I think this kind of stuff is better suited for here, anyways, as it sets a visible precedent for what future games may or may not be considered as guest appearances. Besides, my other guest appearance proposals have all been here. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:08, 28 December 2017 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=2367180"