MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
7feetunder (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{/Header}} | ||
=== | ==Writing guidelines== | ||
{{ | ===Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages=== | ||
{{ | Recently, a (completely undiscussed) amendment was made to the [[Mariowiki:Naming#derived names|naming]] system making it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese). While allowing said "derived names" as conjecture makes sense, it comes with several pitfalls, and my main concern is it is turning into a slippery slope. Much of it is discussed on the talk page for the so-called "[[Talk:Hefty Goombrat|Hefty Goombrat]]," which is a sterling example of why this was not a good idea. I have also been recently seeing cases of people moving to subjects based on objects sharing some adjective with a random obscure object in the same game, as demonstrated [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Linking_Bull%27s-Eye_Bill&curid=429765&diff=4195153&oldid=4111331 here]. To be blunt, this was a short-sighted idea (and more than likely, simply a failed experiment) and needs cut back to a reasonable level before it gets out of hand. For the record, I am favor of letting it stay when the only indications in other languages or file names or what-have-you are generic terms rather than clear "names," for instance when the only confirmed name for [[Shoot]] was just "jugador de futbol," as well as rewording clunky generic descriptors like "[[surfboard vehicle|vehicle with surfboard]]." | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, these names are conjectural and shouldn't be unduly given more weight than their fellow conjectural names. | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Might just be me but I'd rather not have a policy that specifically states "if you don't like this official name, just completely ignore it and make up something wacky instead" because that's ''not what this site is even remotely about'' | |||
#{{User|Axis}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. While some of these derived names are fine and it's sensible to have this as an option, it shouldn't take priority over an official name when one exists. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} ...Okay, yeah, KCC makes a good point we didn't think of, so, surprise! We're changing our vote! Conjectural names have their place, but we really shouldn't prioritize them over ''actual names'' if they exist. | |||
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm pretty sure this all started [[Talk:Mame-san#Name source|here]], and...yeah, in practice, conjectural exceptions bloat the elegant naming policy. Plus, this is practically begging to have more "Fire Nipper Plant"-esque situations. | |||
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Somethingone}} Per the arguments raised above. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} While I agree that some discussions may need to be made on what counts as derived conjecture and what doesn't, a flat-out repeal is '''not''' the way to go about this. Plus, some of these derived conjecture names are completely straightforward (such as "[[Fire Spike]]" or "[[Wonder Hoppycat]]"), as in we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} The only problem with this policy is that it's being applied in cases and/or ways that it shouldn't be (I personally think Hefty Goombrat was a step too far). If it's kept to reasonable use like the examples Archivist Toadette gave, it's fine. No need to repeal the entire thing. | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per opposition. | |||
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per Archivist Toadette, really. To me, it does seem greater caution and discussion on these derived names is warranted, but a case-by-case approach seems more useful here than a flat-out repeal. I'd be worried about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here, tossing away something that's generally beneficial to readers in the process of correcting a few cases where this has been misapplied. | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} I seriously fail to see how this is a problem. If you have a Japanese noun that has had a direct, consistent translation across ''multiple'' pieces of English ''Mario'' media (i.e. ''gabon'' to Spike, ''kakibo'' to Goombrat, ''deka'' to "Big" enemies, admittedly ''kodeka'' for "Hefty" enemies is pushing it since we really only have [[Hefty Goomba]]s as an official translation), then the way I see it this replacement of terms is no different than how we've been treating internal names. We already have a rule on not "partially translating" names, so I'd maybe expand on that to prohibit creating translations for words that don't have a consistent translation across games, but I wouldn't get rid of the derived name rule altogether. (i.e. [[Sensuikan Heihō]] does not become "Submarine Shy Guy" or even "Sensuikan Shy Guy") | |||
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall (collectively) | |||
<s>#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We really ought to be handling poor names born from this policy on a case-by-case basis, rather than nixing the policy altogether and potentially causing more harm than good.</s> | |||
====Comments==== | |||
@Opposition I did say in the last sentence that this isn't removing it completely, just changing its position in the "acceptable naming" hierarchy. The reason I said "repeal" is an incarnation of it existed before for generic-borne titles and I am trying to go back to that as - unlike the current iteration - it isn't just ''begging'' to be misused. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT) | |||
I guess the best way to put it is this: if an official name ''that is a name'' exists, period, there is no excuse whatsoever for there to be a "conjecture" template of any sort. That's not hypothesizing, that's ignoring, and to be frank is a grotesque perversion of the policies this site has had for decades that have not caused any harm whatsoever - meanwhile, ''these'' have plenty of potential for misleading people. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:Then what about the examples I brought up? {{User:Archivist Toadette/sig}} 07:30, April 29, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::What about them? They have official names, but the wiki opts to give them ''explicitly'' conjectural ones because apparently a couple of sysops thought so. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 07:33, April 29, 2024 (EDT) | |||
I still find the idea that these names are "conjectural" to be kind of weird, if that's the big hang-up here. If we can [[MarioWiki:Naming#Japanese|already take some liberties with Japanese titles]] I don't see why we can't just look at something and say "oh, this is literally Goomba's Japanese name, let's just call it Goomba", especially when the name is partially English already. That's just doing some simple translation, not really making conjectural names? I'm speaking as someone with no background in translation, mind you, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:19, April 29, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:Conjecture occurs when you're presuming something to be the case in the absence of hard facts. Archive Toadette states in his vote that "we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject". "'''Assume'''". That's the thrust of this policy: assumption. Which is pretty much synonymous with conjecture, and some editors are taking issue with prioritizing that over official names. Regarding the liberties on Japanese names, there's nothing conjectural about adapting something like [[Sniper|Sunaipā]] to "Sniper", because it's literally the word's Japanese transliteration--the romanization reflects how the word sounds when converted to Japanese writing. Note how that policy states that instances of "Kuppa" should be adapted to "[[Koopa (species)|Koopa]]", and not "Bowser", even though that's his Japanese name. "Kuribo" wouldn't be adapted to "Goomba" in article titles because that's not a transliteration, that a compound of actual Japanese morphemes. The basis of the Japanese naming policy isn't the same as that of the conjectural naming policy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:43, April 29, 2024 (EDT) | |||
@Hooded Pitohui: Could you be more specific on what is or isn't acceptable? Because I'm kind of struggling to picture any time these conjectural names should have priority over an actual official name, or what would make that case different to others (note that they'd still take priority over filenames per the proposal). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:01, April 29, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:I think it may be helpful to start with a disclaimer and an acknowledgement of where I'm coming from in casting a vote. I'm a very infrequent, casual editor on the wiki side of things, so when I do wade into these proposals on the intricacies of the wiki's policies on naming or classification or scope of coverage, I don't often have a large repository of examples to draw upon, and rarely am I able (or attempting to) make any kind of case or argument. Generally, I'm entering these discussions from the perspective of a reader/user of the wiki first, and casual contributor second, and generally my votes are going to be informed by that perspective, so I apologize if this seems a bit broad and dealing in hypotheticals. For me, I'd think anything that's a straight localization of a recurring, official enemy/item/what have you is acceptable, and more adjectival/descriptive parts of a name or a name of something that hasn't really had a localization established is not. To use the cited Hefty Goombrat example, "Hefty" probably shouldn't have been conjecturally localized, but a Goombrat is pretty clearly a Goombrat, so conjecturally localizing that part seems fine to me. If, I don't know, Nintendo introduces a Lakitu that throws fireballs down that become Firesnakes, and it's called "[something] Jugem" officially in Japanese material, again, I think we leave the descriptive part as-is because there's no clear precedent, but we know a "Jugem/Jugemu" is consistently localized as Lakitu, so we might as well localize that because an average reader will recognize "Lakitu" quickly. Meanwhile, if we just got, say, a generic cloud spitting fireballs with the same behavior, I'd say we'd be wise not to do a conjectural localization because there's not clear precedent for what that'd get localized as. Of course, even always following really clear, solid precedent, we might get it wrong occasionally, especially if Nintendo decides to rename a recurring enemy at some point, but it's a wiki, information is constantly getting updated, renamed, and reevaluated anyway. Hope that helps explain my reasoning a bit better! [[User:Hooded Pitohui|Hooded Pitohui]] ([[User talk:Hooded Pitohui|talk]]) 13:26, April 29, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::Slippiest of slippery slopes. Just use redirects if you expect casual readers to look up for a thing more intuitively than how it's been officially presented. There's no need to compromise encyclopedic integrity to cater to what readers expect to see. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:06, April 29, 2024 (EDT) | |||
For the record, this isn't a talk page proposal, so I think the deadline for this proposal should be May 6. Unless there was a statement of "you can make the proposals two weeks long if you want" that I missed in the rules, which is entirely possible. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:21, May 1, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:Writing Guideline proposals also last two weeks, like TPPs. {{User:Tails777/sig}} | |||
::Oh, I didn't notice that in the rules. I guess that makes sense. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:30, May 2, 2024 (EDT) | |||
==New features== | |||
===Create The Cutting Room Floor link template=== | |||
"Pre-release and unused content" articles already link to The Cutting Room Floor very often, and since they are established as the to-go wiki for that kind of information, I propose we formalize the linking with a template just like the [[Template:Wikipedia|Wikipedia template]]. | |||
This is how it could look: | |||
If in a "List of pre-release and unused content" article: | |||
{{br}} | |||
{| class="nav-right noprint" style="width:262px;background:#efe;border:1px solid #ada;padding:2px" | |||
| style="padding-right:10px" | [[File:Smiley.png|32px]] | |||
| Further reading on '''[[tcrf:Super Mario Bros.|The Cutting Room Floor]]'''. | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
|} | |} | ||
{{br}} | |||
== | If in a main game article: | ||
'' | |||
{{br}} | |||
{| class="nav-right noprint" style="width:262px;background:#efe;border:1px solid #ada;padding:2px" | |||
| style="padding-right:10px" | [[File:Smiley.png|32px]] | |||
| [[tcrf:The Cutting Room Floor|The Cutting Room Floor]] has an article on '''''[[tcrf:Super Mario Bros.|Super Mario Bros.]]'''''. | |||
|} | |||
{{br}} | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Bro Hammer}}: Per my proposal. | |||
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}}: This is a good idea. | |||
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal. This is a really high quality wiki. | |||
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} As someone with a account there, per all. | |||
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I don't edit there anymore, but it does help coverage. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're surprised this hasn't been added sooner, all things considered. Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per all. | |||
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - It'll also make it easier to source info and graphics from them, especially given many of out own P-R&UC pages are... lacking (especially since the giga-leak in regards to prototype information and graphics). | |||
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} Sure, if it helps expand our coverage gaps. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
== | ====Comments==== | ||
'' | Could you change the links on the template from external links to interwiki links, like [[tcrf:Super Mario Bros.|this one]]? The Cutting Room Floor ''is'' on our [[Special:Interwiki|interwiki list]], after all, and that would look much better on the template than the external link thing. {{User:Arend/sig}} 05:01, May 1, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:Done! {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 08:19, May 1, 2024 (EDT) | |||
==Removals== | ==Removals== | ||
Latest revision as of 23:20, May 3, 2024
|
|
Saturday, May 4th, 08:14 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.
|
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
- 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}}.
- Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- 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.
- 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.
- If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
- 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: "May 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
- All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. 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 {{SettledTPP}}.
- 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 (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.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
- 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
- Delete all Super Smash Bros. challenges pages (discuss) Deadline:
April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMTApril 26, 2024, 23:59 GMTMay 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT - Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck (discuss) Deadline: May 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Treat Monty Mole as derivative of Rocky Wrench (discuss) Deadline: May 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Party Ball (item) with Party Ball (discuss) Deadline: May 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Arrow Switch with gravity switch (discuss) Deadline: May 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Big Boo (character)" from Big Boo (discuss) Deadline: May 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Potentially consider the Donkey Konga series, Barrel Blast, or Jungle Beat as related to DKC (discuss) Deadline: May 8th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Replace Princess Peach: Showtime!#Plays with Sparkle Theater (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Bar Spin to Wire Spin (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Speed Mario Bros. from Ultimate NES Remix (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Re-merge Pixels with List of references in film (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs (discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Hat trampoline (Cascade Kingdom) to Trampoline (discuss) Deadline: May 15th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
| Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022) |
| Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022) |
| Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022) |
| Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022) |
| Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022) |
| Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023) |
- ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.
| 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) |
| Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 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) |
| Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024) |
| Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024) |
| Create an article for Rhythm Heaven Fever, JanMisali (ended April 29, 2024) |
| Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024) |
Talk page proposals
| Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021) |
| Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022) |
| Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022) |
| Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023) |
| Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023) |
| Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023) |
| Merge Start Dash with Rocket Start, Koopa con Carne (ended August 17, 2023) |
| Use italics for the full title of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass, Hewer (ended September 15, 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) |
| Decide which series certain Yoshi games are related to, GuntherBB (ended December 14, 2023) |
| Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023) |
| Replace "List of Game Over screens" and "'Game Over' as death" sections with a "History" section, DrippingYellow (ended December 20, 2023) |
| Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023) |
| Make major changes to the MarioWiki:Links page, PnnyCrygr (ended January 10, 2024) |
| Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024) |
| Merge the "Johnson" running gag into one page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024) |
| Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024) |
| Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024) |
| Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024) |
| Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024) |
| Merge Masterpieces to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U articles, Camwoodstock (ended March 31, 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) |
| Rename Beanstalk to Vine, DrippingYellow (ended April 11, 2024) |
| Split Hell from List of implied locations, Hewer (ended April 27, 2024) |
Writing guidelines
Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages
Recently, a (completely undiscussed) amendment was made to the naming system making it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese). While allowing said "derived names" as conjecture makes sense, it comes with several pitfalls, and my main concern is it is turning into a slippery slope. Much of it is discussed on the talk page for the so-called "Hefty Goombrat," which is a sterling example of why this was not a good idea. I have also been recently seeing cases of people moving to subjects based on objects sharing some adjective with a random obscure object in the same game, as demonstrated here. To be blunt, this was a short-sighted idea (and more than likely, simply a failed experiment) and needs cut back to a reasonable level before it gets out of hand. For the record, I am favor of letting it stay when the only indications in other languages or file names or what-have-you are generic terms rather than clear "names," for instance when the only confirmed name for Shoot was just "jugador de futbol," as well as rewording clunky generic descriptors like "vehicle with surfboard."
Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per.
- Hewer (talk) Per proposal, these names are conjectural and shouldn't be unduly given more weight than their fellow conjectural names.
- Koopa con Carne (talk) Might just be me but I'd rather not have a policy that specifically states "if you don't like this official name, just completely ignore it and make up something wacky instead" because that's not what this site is even remotely about
- Axis (talk) Per all.
- JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. While some of these derived names are fine and it's sensible to have this as an option, it shouldn't take priority over an official name when one exists.
- Camwoodstock (talk) ...Okay, yeah, KCC makes a good point we didn't think of, so, surprise! We're changing our vote! Conjectural names have their place, but we really shouldn't prioritize them over actual names if they exist.
- LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm pretty sure this all started here, and...yeah, in practice, conjectural exceptions bloat the elegant naming policy. Plus, this is practically begging to have more "Fire Nipper Plant"-esque situations.
- Blinker (talk) Per all.
- Somethingone (talk) Per the arguments raised above.
Oppose
- Archivist Toadette (talk) While I agree that some discussions may need to be made on what counts as derived conjecture and what doesn't, a flat-out repeal is not the way to go about this. Plus, some of these derived conjecture names are completely straightforward (such as "Fire Spike" or "Wonder Hoppycat"), as in we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject.
- Waluigi Time (talk) The only problem with this policy is that it's being applied in cases and/or ways that it shouldn't be (I personally think Hefty Goombrat was a step too far). If it's kept to reasonable use like the examples Archivist Toadette gave, it's fine. No need to repeal the entire thing.
- SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per opposition.
- Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per Archivist Toadette, really. To me, it does seem greater caution and discussion on these derived names is warranted, but a case-by-case approach seems more useful here than a flat-out repeal. I'd be worried about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here, tossing away something that's generally beneficial to readers in the process of correcting a few cases where this has been misapplied.
- Tails777 (talk) Per all.
- Shoey (talk) Per all.
- DrippingYellow (talk) I seriously fail to see how this is a problem. If you have a Japanese noun that has had a direct, consistent translation across multiple pieces of English Mario media (i.e. gabon to Spike, kakibo to Goombrat, deka to "Big" enemies, admittedly kodeka for "Hefty" enemies is pushing it since we really only have Hefty Goombas as an official translation), then the way I see it this replacement of terms is no different than how we've been treating internal names. We already have a rule on not "partially translating" names, so I'd maybe expand on that to prohibit creating translations for words that don't have a consistent translation across games, but I wouldn't get rid of the derived name rule altogether. (i.e. Sensuikan Heihō does not become "Submarine Shy Guy" or even "Sensuikan Shy Guy")
- MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all of yall (collectively)
#Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We really ought to be handling poor names born from this policy on a case-by-case basis, rather than nixing the policy altogether and potentially causing more harm than good.
Comments
@Opposition I did say in the last sentence that this isn't removing it completely, just changing its position in the "acceptable naming" hierarchy. The reason I said "repeal" is an incarnation of it existed before for generic-borne titles and I am trying to go back to that as - unlike the current iteration - it isn't just begging to be misused. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
I guess the best way to put it is this: if an official name that is a name exists, period, there is no excuse whatsoever for there to be a "conjecture" template of any sort. That's not hypothesizing, that's ignoring, and to be frank is a grotesque perversion of the policies this site has had for decades that have not caused any harm whatsoever - meanwhile, these have plenty of potential for misleading people. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
I still find the idea that these names are "conjectural" to be kind of weird, if that's the big hang-up here. If we can already take some liberties with Japanese titles I don't see why we can't just look at something and say "oh, this is literally Goomba's Japanese name, let's just call it Goomba", especially when the name is partially English already. That's just doing some simple translation, not really making conjectural names? I'm speaking as someone with no background in translation, mind you, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. --
Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:19, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
- Conjecture occurs when you're presuming something to be the case in the absence of hard facts. Archive Toadette states in his vote that "we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject". "Assume". That's the thrust of this policy: assumption. Which is pretty much synonymous with conjecture, and some editors are taking issue with prioritizing that over official names. Regarding the liberties on Japanese names, there's nothing conjectural about adapting something like Sunaipā to "Sniper", because it's literally the word's Japanese transliteration--the romanization reflects how the word sounds when converted to Japanese writing. Note how that policy states that instances of "Kuppa" should be adapted to "Koopa", and not "Bowser", even though that's his Japanese name. "Kuribo" wouldn't be adapted to "Goomba" in article titles because that's not a transliteration, that a compound of actual Japanese morphemes. The basis of the Japanese naming policy isn't the same as that of the conjectural naming policy. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:43, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
@Hooded Pitohui: Could you be more specific on what is or isn't acceptable? Because I'm kind of struggling to picture any time these conjectural names should have priority over an actual official name, or what would make that case different to others (note that they'd still take priority over filenames per the proposal). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
- I think it may be helpful to start with a disclaimer and an acknowledgement of where I'm coming from in casting a vote. I'm a very infrequent, casual editor on the wiki side of things, so when I do wade into these proposals on the intricacies of the wiki's policies on naming or classification or scope of coverage, I don't often have a large repository of examples to draw upon, and rarely am I able (or attempting to) make any kind of case or argument. Generally, I'm entering these discussions from the perspective of a reader/user of the wiki first, and casual contributor second, and generally my votes are going to be informed by that perspective, so I apologize if this seems a bit broad and dealing in hypotheticals. For me, I'd think anything that's a straight localization of a recurring, official enemy/item/what have you is acceptable, and more adjectival/descriptive parts of a name or a name of something that hasn't really had a localization established is not. To use the cited Hefty Goombrat example, "Hefty" probably shouldn't have been conjecturally localized, but a Goombrat is pretty clearly a Goombrat, so conjecturally localizing that part seems fine to me. If, I don't know, Nintendo introduces a Lakitu that throws fireballs down that become Firesnakes, and it's called "[something] Jugem" officially in Japanese material, again, I think we leave the descriptive part as-is because there's no clear precedent, but we know a "Jugem/Jugemu" is consistently localized as Lakitu, so we might as well localize that because an average reader will recognize "Lakitu" quickly. Meanwhile, if we just got, say, a generic cloud spitting fireballs with the same behavior, I'd say we'd be wise not to do a conjectural localization because there's not clear precedent for what that'd get localized as. Of course, even always following really clear, solid precedent, we might get it wrong occasionally, especially if Nintendo decides to rename a recurring enemy at some point, but it's a wiki, information is constantly getting updated, renamed, and reevaluated anyway. Hope that helps explain my reasoning a bit better! Hooded Pitohui (talk) 13:26, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
For the record, this isn't a talk page proposal, so I think the deadline for this proposal should be May 6. Unless there was a statement of "you can make the proposals two weeks long if you want" that I missed in the rules, which is entirely possible. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:21, May 1, 2024 (EDT)
- Writing Guideline proposals also last two weeks, like TPPs.
Tails777 Talk to me!
- Oh, I didn't notice that in the rules. I guess that makes sense. DrippingYellow (talk) 11:30, May 2, 2024 (EDT)
New features
Create The Cutting Room Floor link template
"Pre-release and unused content" articles already link to The Cutting Room Floor very often, and since they are established as the to-go wiki for that kind of information, I propose we formalize the linking with a template just like the Wikipedia template.
This is how it could look:
If in a "List of pre-release and unused content" article:
If in a main game article:
Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: May 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Bro Hammer (talk): Per my proposal.
- Super Mario RPG (talk): This is a good idea.
- Pseudo (talk) Per proposal. This is a really high quality wiki.
- SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) As someone with a account there, per all.
- Scrooge200 (talk) I don't edit there anymore, but it does help coverage.
- Camwoodstock (talk) We're surprised this hasn't been added sooner, all things considered. Per proposal.
- Arend (talk) Per all.
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - It'll also make it easier to source info and graphics from them, especially given many of out own P-R&UC pages are... lacking (especially since the giga-leak in regards to prototype information and graphics).
- Archivist Toadette (talk) Sure, if it helps expand our coverage gaps.
Oppose
Comments
Could you change the links on the template from external links to interwiki links, like this one? The Cutting Room Floor is on our interwiki list, after all, and that would look much better on the template than the external link thing. 
rend (talk) (edits) 05:01, May 1, 2024 (EDT)
- Done! Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 08:19, May 1, 2024 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
