Super Mario Wiki

MarioWiki:Proposals

Project page Discussion
Revision as of 23:57, May 20, 2024 by BMfan08 (talk | contribs) (→‎Merge Ports, Remakes, Remasters, Collections etc. into Main series: Proposal deadline is reached.)
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, June 3rd, 09:53 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 3, 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)

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 the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing

A writing quirk that seems to pop up everywhere (particularly in the Mario RPG pages/sections) that always drives me nuts is referring to a situation or action as "comical" or "humorous". Generally, these words are used to describe something that is percieved to be amusing, which is obviously subjective and should not be present in encyclopediac writing. However, usage of these words on here seems to follow an improper, "objective" pattern of referring to features intended by the developers as gags or jokes. Examples of blatant misuse:

From the Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser article:

The group runs into Prince Peasley, and after a battle ensues with a few Piranha Beans, Captain Goomba humorously sends out one of them to attack Prince Peasley.

Who says Captain Goomba is trying to make a joke out of sending monsters out to fight an ego-centric prince? In Captain Goomba's eyes, he's practically fighting for his life trying not to be eaten. The only one who could find this humorous is the viewer, and since this is a story synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any viewer.

From Goomba Mask:

In Paper Mario: The Origami King, a different Goomba Mask resembling a Paper Macho Goomba appears in the Shogun Studios storage area. If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, with the humorous appearance making Olivia laugh.

Even though there is actually an in-game audience this time, the wording still implies that the writer thinks it is humorous. In order to emphasize that it's Olivia who thinks it is funny, I changed the last sentence to:

If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, which Olivia finds amusing to the point of laughter.

The article for Kruller has quite possibly the most egregious usage of "humorously" I've ever seen:

When Luigi enters the office afterward, Kruller briefly faints from shock at Luigi entering, before entering the next room to find a suitable weapon to defend himself (humorously getting stuck on his back mid-roll) [...] Gooigi then retrieves the Mezzanine's elevator button, with it being humorously revealed that Luigi slept through the entire battle [...] After defeating Kruller in two-player mode, Luigi, who was watching the battle from outside, takes all the credit saying that he did it, after which Gooigi humorously copies Luigi as he had actually defeated Kruller [...]

All of these are jokes meant for the audience. And once again, because this is a synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be an audience.

And there's way more that I haven't mentioned (just look up the word "humorous" on here and you'll see what I mean). To summarize how I feel this term has been frequently misused, in a form easily copyable for the rules:

Humorous/Comical/etc.
"Humorous", along with other similar words, is used from an observational perspective to describe something one finds amusing or funny, which is, of course, subjective on the part of the writer and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. However, it is commonly misused to refer to anything that is specifically written to be a joke or a gag by the authors of a piece of media. These kinds of words should generally be used only when a character or person relevant to the article finds something amusing. Not to be confused with "comedic", a word that simply means something relates to comedy in general, and is fine to use if a joke is deliberate on the part of a character (or, in case of references to the media's development, a developer).

Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: May 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. DrippingYellow (talk) This whole situation is, dare I say it... "humorous". Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Flowery writing is no laughing matter!
  3. Hewer (talk) I'd add that "comedic" should be used instead to get across that something is meant to be funny while using more objective language, but otherwise, sure, I'll humour this idea.
  4. Ray Trace (talk) We should just get rid of that subjective adjective altogether, let readers decide from the context of the quote if it's humorous or not, we don't need to write an editorial about it (ie sentences such as "Patrick gets caught by Sandy's lasso and dragged back, resulting in a nuclear explosion" already conveys to the reader that it's comedic)
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

"Comical" and "comedic" should be fine, as those simply mean relating to comedy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

"Comedic" is definitely fine, but in multiple dictionary sources I've come across, the definition of "comical" meaning "relating to comedy" is either listed as obsolete and deprecated, or absent altogether. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

@Ray Trace That was a really good example of obvious comedy. SpongeBob itself is comedy, so that was a good idea to use that as an example! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:12, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer I updated the rules blurb, is it good now? DrippingYellow (talk) 11:34, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, that works. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:43, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Standardize "History in the Super Mario franchise" headings under certain conditions

Inspired by Nintendo101's flowerpot subpage (from an earlier revision, before it had been removed), this proposal aims to standardize the use of ==History in the Super Mario franchise== over ==History==. This will help make it clear to readers what is Super Mario and what is not while reading articles, and prevent potential disputes once a standard has been set. Please note that this proposal is NOT about the DK, Yoshi, or Wario subfranchises.

For an article to apply for the ==History in the Super Mario franchise== heading, the article should meet one of the following criteria:

  1. It is a generic subject (e.g. Grapes) or something from real life, like a person, with a fictional portrayal in Super Mario media, such as Thomas Jefferson. An example of this was on the Dinosaur article before being reverted.
  2. It is from the Super Mario franchise BUT has also appeared in non-Super Mario media, popular examples being the Super Smash Bros. series and the Minecraft textures. Everything that isn't Super Mario would be subheadings of ==History in other games==, or ==History in other media== if the subject also (or instead) appeared in publications, television shows, etc. not in Super Mario franchise. An example of this can be seen on the History of Luigi article.
  3. Crossover content, including Nintendo products, as they appear in Super Mario media. Examples can be seen on the Game Boy, Link, and Egg Pawn pages.

For the first bullet point, this would help establish that real and generic subjects are not from Super Mario and makes the History heading less ambiguous. On the Dinosaur article, for example, are we reading about history of dinosaurs as they exist in real life, up to the point of extinction, or from the Super Mario franchise? It's the latter. For George Washington, are we reading history about him from the 18th century or as he exists in the Super Mario franchise? It's also the latter, clearly.

For the second bullet point, this would help eliminate the popular misconception that Super Smash Bros. is part of the Super Mario franchise and help better contextualize Super Mario as it exists in other media, like sometimes Zelda or Minecraft, rather than being integral to the same degree as their main appearances in Super Mario media itself.

For the third bullet point, this would eliminate confusion that the history is talking about Nintendo products in general, like when they were produced, the amount of sales generated, etc. and rather mention its appearances within the Super Mario franchise itself. History on Nintendo products themselves can be found on NintendoWiki. Similarly, for articles like Link, it helps when the History section specifies it is of Link as he appears in the Super Mario franchise. Then connections to Super Mario go under the "History in other media" heading.

To make it short, if this proposal passes, and ==History== is changed to ==History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise== (and split into a separate ==History in other media== in the case of criteria #2) on an article that can be categorized by any of the three numbered bullet points above, users will not be allowed to revert it back to the initial ==History== heading, like in the aforementioned case involving the Dinosaur article.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: May 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support for all three options

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) I'm for this option.
  2. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yes. Also, for the flowerpot thing, I have that saved (with a few tweaks) here.

Apply to only crossover content and real products

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) Similar to your previous proposals about reorganising history sections, I don't really see what we'd gain from this. For the first and third bullet points, the edit summary that removed it from the Dinosaur page sums up my thoughts: "This is obvious and unnecessary". Of course we're only going to be covering the subject's history that's within our scope, I don't think anyone's visiting the Dinosaur page seeking a complete history of the Mesozoic Era only to be disappointed when they don't find it. For the second bullet point, I ask the same question as your last attempt to split up non-Mario appearances: why does it not being a Mario game make it worth splitting up? The assertion that they're not "integral to the same degree as their main appearances in Super Mario media itself" feels wrong, games like Smash are major appearances of the Mario characters and are important to their histories, sometimes moreso than appearances in actual Mario games (Smash Melee introducing Yoshi's Egg Roll, Smash Ultimate being K. Rool's first physical appearance in a decade, etc.). I also again question whether "the popular misconception that Super Smash Bros. is part of the Super Mario franchise" exists or is worth "fixing" in such an indirect way (we already don't consider them Mario games to my knowledge anyway). The Game Boy example is the only one given where I see some merit in doing this, since we do give some coverage to the actual histories of Nintendo hardware and it could be worth distinguishing the history of their in-universe appearances from that.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Because this is the Super Mario Wiki, the inherent assumption is that any subject with an article appears in the franchise (including Link and Sonic), and that the "History" section would only cover its appearance in the Super Mario franchise. What else would it be about? If a "history in the Super Mario franchise" was to be implemented anywhere, I feel like it only makes sense for recurring subjects that debuted in the Super Mario franchise, but make recurring appearances elsewhere (like Chain Chomps, which make some a few appearances in Zelda). But even in that context, I don't know if it would be appropriate. (I also don't agree with the premise that any in-game subject is "generic", regardless of its name or design. The grapes in Yoshi's Story are just as derived from the real article as the Sour Bunch.)
  3. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per my edit summary Hewer quoted.

Comments

For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look. Also, @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA), glad to see that flowerpot page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:32, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

"For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look." Thanks for the clarification! My support will still be there. "Also, @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA), glad to see that flowerpot page." Thanks! I wanted to keep/expand on it as a subpage of my userpage, b/c I didn't want any edit conflicts. You and @Nintendo101 are free to edit it if you want. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:43, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

Wasn't there a proposal about roughly the same thing not too long ago? You're meant to wait 28 days between proposals on the same thing, so if that's the case, we don't exactly wanna wait for a substantial amount of votes before calling attention to it. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:12, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

No, I think this is different. That one had to do with removing franchise headers, which this one doesn't. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:23, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, this one is not about removing headings. It's about modifying "History" to "History in the Super Mario franchise" in one of three case, and in one case (if there's appearances outside of Super Mario), splitting "History in other games/media" into its own history heading. See what I did on Don Bongo as an example. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:39, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

Where would appearances in things like Smash and Captain N go in this case? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:40, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

"History in other media" (see Link article). Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:41, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Makes sense. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:48, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer @Nintendo101 @Nightwicked Bowser I thought "This is a Super Mario Wiki" as a argument was getting old, but that's what you 3 are using! What happened in between? Is it not a old argument anymore? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:04, May 20, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think anything in the comment you reference contradicts any of the sentiments made here. No one is arguing subjects that originated outside of the Super Mario franchise (like Link, Sonic, Mad Scienstein, Wart, etc.) should not receive coverage, nor that appearances made by subjects that did emerged within the franchise should not be noted (like Link's Awakening, Smash Bros., Tetris, Qix, etc.). Rather, because of the inherent scope of the wiki, it is assumed that a "History" section on this site encompasses the subject of the article's appearances in the Super Mario franchise and it is unclear to me why that needs further clarification. - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:35, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
But you said yourself in your oppose vote "Because this is the Super Mario Wiki", which, again, I thought was getting old as an argument. Hewer himself in the linked proposal said it! I'm just confused about what changed in between that and now. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:38, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
First off, why are you getting on Nintendo101's case for an argument that I made in a proposal they didn't even take part in? Second, my point when I made that comment was that "This is a Super Mario wiki" is getting old as an argument on its own to trim, reorganise, or otherwise alter crossover content like Smash, as Super Mario RPG keeps trying to do, whereas Nintendo101's argument is that, because this is a Super Mario wiki, we don't need to specify that our content is about Super Mario. The same words may have been used, but the context of the arguments is different. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:54, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
First off, I'm not. Second, I didn't know that the CONTEXT was different, I only paid attention to the words, not the context. Third, a "History" section only covering the Super Mario franchise kinda neglects the references and cameos. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:01, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
Isn't the point of this proposal (which you're supporting) to have history sections that only cover the Super Mario franchise? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:05, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
I would like to redirect you to point 2 of the proposal. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:31, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
Does that not just prove my point? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:34, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
The history section is going to be split. That's the point of this proposal. YOUR point is just around 1/2 of the point of this proposal. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:45, May 20, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment

Changes

Create seperate pages for Level themes

I think there should be seperate pages for level themes for example: Grass lands. Not just as categories. And it should not be listed alphabetical, but rather after a game for extram all Grass land levels in Super Mario World. Than another page for different Desert levels, sorted by games.

Proposer: Big Super Mario Fan (talk) (banned)
Deadline: May 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

#Big Super Mario Fan (talk) - Per my proposal.

  1. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Well, the proposer said it wasn't for repetition, so sure.
  2. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Sparks (talk) Categories are enough. If there were to be articles of different level themes across all Mario games, it would get much too repetitive. Adding category identifications to the bottom of level articles sorts them all without the need for many extra pages.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Sparks. These would get very repetitive, very quickly.
  3. Mario (talk) I'm not going to support a proposal that's poorly put together. Elucidate your course of action.
  4. Ray Trace (talk) The Level page I feel is already adequate for covering the themes (could maybe use an expansion). As for the Airship, Ghost House, etc. those are at least marked with a unique icon in the world map whereas a generic snow course isn't so I feel those are exceptions rather than the rule.
  5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Ray Trace.

BMfan08 (talk) We already have a Level page to discuss nuances of the types of levels. Making separate pages for these would be repetitive, as Sparks and Camwoodstock said, and I fear that the listing of the levels would be longer than the description of the themes.

Comments

To be fair, we do have pages for Airship, Ghost House, Fortress, Tower, and Castle. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:44, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@ Doc von Schmeltwick: Yes, why can't we make pages for the other level themes too. This would also be helpful for the Super Mario Maker articles. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:51, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: That is a valid point, though I'd like to point out that only one of those pages actually lists all the levels of that type (which, if I'm not mistaken, is what the proposer wants to do with these articles).
@Big Super Mario Fan: What do you mean by helpful for the Super Mario Maker articles? BMfan08 (talk) 22:55, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@BMfan08:For example in the Super Mario Maker 2 article you can click on the levels themes Ghosthouse , Airships, Castles. To than see the history of those on their own articles. I think this should also be done for orher level themes. Because that's really interesting to know. For example on YouTube there are also videos about the evolution of Grass land levels or Dessert levels, etc. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 23:05, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I'm stuck here. On the one hand, the opposition has a point. On the other hand, both Doc & BSMF have good points too. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

This is why I'm abstaining for now. As Doc points out, we have several articles on specific level themes already, so making articles on other recurring level themes such as Ground/Grassland/Overworld and Underground would be obvious. On the other hand, it could be seen as becoming quickly repetitive, and something like Level already covers all themes without the repetition. It would also bring into question whether courses such asWorld 1-3 (Super Mario Bros.) should be counted as ground levels or sky levels.  rend (talk) (edits) 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
True, true. As for the 1-3 thing, I personally view it as both. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, after giving things some thought from everyone here, I'm removing my vote for the time being. I'll abstain though, only cause I'm not entirely sure what the proposer has in mind for such articles. I'm not interested if the end goal is repetition for the sake of it. BMfan08 (talk) 14:05, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I don't really know WHAT the proposer has in mind, which is why I'm abstaining. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@SONIC123CDMANIA: I tell you what I have in mind. There should be pages for level themes likes Grass lands, Deserts, etc. They should be structured like the pages about Ghosthouse, Airship and Castle. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 17:45, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

(facepalm) I knew THAT, I'm talking about the other comments. Is this just for repetition, or not? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

No, it's not just for reptition. It's also interesting to know about such things. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:42, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Ah, ok. Thanks. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:44, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Mario: As I wrote. The Proposal is about creating pages for Grassland, Dessert, Water Level themes (History, Apperances), that a built like the pages for Ghost House, Airship, Castle. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:55, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form

bit of a wordy title, so let me explain.

as they stand, enemy lists in game articles are sorted purely alphabetically. this causes some minor organization issues, for example: the "B" section of every enemy list being crowded with just about every Big variant in the game. i think that's not a useful communication of information. what i propose is that instead, variations such as Big Goombas, Horned Ant Troopers, that usually don't appear on their own, would be listed right after the base form even if it breaks alphabetical order. of course, since there can be more than one variation of an enemy, those would then be listed alphabetically, placing Big Goomba before Mini Goomba.

some games split new enemies into their own table, so if a game introduces a new variation (such as something like a Big Gamboo) they would just be on the new enemy table.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: May 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) as proposer.
  2. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yeah, sure
  3. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Yeah, I'm fine with this.
  5. Jazama (talk) Per all
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Yook Bab-imba (talk) This is something that has bothered me forever, so I agree wholeheartedly.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I think that's really a good idea.

Oppose

#Megadardery (talk) As the proposal currently stands, it doesn't offer a well-established alternative to the alphabetical order. I assume you mean that you want to merge the following as well (Paratroopas is grouped with Koopa Troopa, King Bob-omb is grouped with Bob-ombs, etc). Doesn't this mean, we are just grouping by species? List of species kind of already fills this purpose. Alphabetical order makes the most sense for an uncategorized exhaustive list of enemies, where List of species page fills other purposes.

Comments

Would you be open to drafting an example of what you'd like to see changed on your userpage or a sandbox? I'm kinda visually oriented. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:48, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Some time ago I formatted the New Super Mario Bros. 2#Enemies and obstacles in a manner similar to this proposal. This game has the gold variants, and having them clumped together just because they all begin with "gold" was odd (in fact, most enemies in this game are just variants), so I took the liberty to rearrange it. Yook Bab-imba 12:58, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Megadardery: I'm pretty sure Evie is just talking about enemy lists on game articles (e.g. Super Mario Bros. Wonder), which tend to always list enemies in alphabetical order regardless of enemy variants. Evie mentions how enemies are listed on games a lot.  rend (talk) (edits) 20:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

indeed, i kind of forgot to specify. retouched phrasing to clarify. EvieMaybe (talk) 23:42, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Oh, I apologize, I thought this referred to List of enemies. I'll redact my vote, I agree that alphabetical order in articles is clunky, but I think chronological order (order by appearance in levels) makes the most intuitive sense. As it's less "subjective" than other forms of grouping--
User:MegadarderyUser talk:Megadardery 
 06:47, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
You know, that's not a bad idea either. We'll have to see what Evie thinks of it, though.  rend (talk) (edits) 07:25, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Weird, I remember looking at the linked page once and that was how it was structured! Did something change since then, or was that a different page? Maybe it was this?? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:41, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

I don't know how this wasn't noticed by anyone before (including myself), but it appears this proposal was set to two weeks after its creation. Only talk page proposals and writing guideline proposals can last up to two weeks without extension, so I changed the deadline to one week after its creation (...which is today). It doesn't look like it needs an extension anyway if the current standing indicates anything.  rend (talk) (edits) 08:49, May 20, 2024 (EDT)

You would be correct that this proposal would only last one week instead of two. However, I looked at the Proposals history and it appears to have been created on the 14th, meaning that this proposal would really be finished on the 21st. The proposal above this one also has an end date of the 21st, so unless the order was somehow broken it would fit chronologically. BMfan08 (talk) 11:39, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
i figured "changing how we list enemies across the whole wiki" counted as a writing guideline, sorry EvieMaybe (talk) 12:00, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
@BMfan: Oh, you're right. I was being bad at math for a moment - my mistake.
@EvieMaybe: I'm personally unsure whether "change how we sort enemies on game articles" counts as a writing guideline or not (perhaps I should pay more attention reading this), but I do know that proposals about writing guidelines should be listed under its appropriate header.  rend (talk) (edits) 12:16, May 20, 2024 (EDT)

@EvieMaybe while I like the idea of organization being loosened a bit for more curatorial discretion, I think the alphabetization of enemies emerged organically from utility. You even see this in Nintendo's officially produced guidebooks and Mario Portal, where enemies are more often than not alphabetized. Some games have literally hundreds of enemies, and what is a "variant" or "relative" of another creature is sometimes subjective. It is also is not always clear which member of clearly related enemies (like Spoing and Sprangler; Octoomba and Rocto) is derivative of which. What would you recommend in these cases? - Nintendo101 (talk) 10:08, May 20, 2024 (EDT)

that's a good point. i don't think i should be the sole arbiter of what counts as a minor variant, though. maybe we could make a proposal defining it? in the meantime, small, big and alternate colored variants (stuff like Fire Spike) definitely do EvieMaybe (talk) 12:05, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
I feel like it would make most sense to just list alphabetically as usual if there's uncertainty surrounding what's a variant of what, and only make the exception for enemies that are certainly variants. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:11, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
I have implemented (what I understand to be) the changes called for in this proposal to the Super Mario Galaxy enemy tables in my sandbox here. Does this look alright to folks? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:45, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
that's exactly what i was picturing!EvieMaybe (talk) 23:26, May 20, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4220461"