MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 20:05, February 19, 2024 by Sparks (talk | contribs) (→‎Changes)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, May 5th, 22:49 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 on proposals with more than two choices.
  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 by a margin of 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: "May 5, 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 {{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}}.
  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

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)
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)
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)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Trim or remove various Smash franchise-specific subcategories

This is what I'd consider part one to a few proposals I'd like to hopefully make later down the road. This is about the following categories, and if you'd like to humor us for a second, pick one of these at random and take a look at them:

If you played along with our request up above, odds are, unless you picked Rhythm Heaven specifically, you picked a category that has a large amount of Smash-related redirects and occasional disambiguation pages cluttering them--and potentially, if you clicked a category like Bayonetta or Tekken, you just saw a category with only redirects or disambiguation pages--literally zero unique articles to their name. The real loser has to be Pokemon, who not only has only a few disambiguation pages (that all only lead to redirects) to its name once all the redirects are pruned, but it has two subcategories that are literally all redirects--and the only relevant information to the Mario series is provided not by the wiki, but via a now dead external-link in the main category's description that currently leads to a domain registration page.

So... Genuine question; who do the majority of these categories help? These are all vestiges of an era of the wiki that has long since passed where Smash was given its own coverage; nowadays, in the era of merged list articles and the dedicated Smash wiki, these are all just kind of linking to the same couple of articles. And on the off-chance you're looking for actual information related to non-Smash crossovers, the redirects completely flood those out.

Now, that's not to say every one of these categories is entirely worthless and without merit. We vaguely alluded to Rhythm Heaven in the opening, but in specific, here are a few exceptions to potentially retain (albeit after pruning their various Smash redirects), rather than deleting them:

  • Duck Hunt, Fire Emblem, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, and Star Fox all have the same reason--they make regular enough appearances (e.g. 3 or more) in WarioWare microgames.
  • Animal Crossing makes sense due to the Mario Kart 8 DLC and subsequent full Mario Kart track.
  • Dragon Quest makes sense due to the various crossovers in the form of Itadaki Street DS and Fortune Street.
  • Game & Watch makes sense for the Game & Watch Gallery articles, as well as Mr. Game & Watch.
  • Final Fantasy makes sense for Mario Hoops 3-on-3.
  • Ice Climber not only has the WarioWare microgames, but Nitpickers make an appearance in that game.
  • The Legend of Zelda has the most compelling argument to exist, in our eyes--not only does Mario regularly reference it leading to another Mario Kart track, the Zelda series regularly references the Mario series; this culminates in stuff like the two Thwomps exclusive to Zelda games.
  • Pac-Man makes sense because of the crossovers in the Mario Kart Arcade GP games.
  • Rhythm Heaven has probably the most spotless track record; we give Rhythm Heaven Megamix coverage, it has a WarioWare minigame, and alien bunnies and Cicada both appear in Rhythm Heaven alongside their WarioWare appearances; in fact, the latter is a character who started out as a Rhythm Heaven character before becoming a WarioWare character later on.
  • Sonic the Hedgehog makes sense because of the various Olympic Games games.
  • Splatoon makes sense because of the presence of Inklings and Urchin Underpass in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.
  • Street Fighter makes sense because of one of the German Club Nintendo comics.

When all that's said and done, we can think of three main things to do here:

  • Prune all Smash-related redirects, and then delete categories that don't have enough articles left afterwards: For the sake of argument, let's say the cutoff is that you need 3 articles; thusly, Mega Man would stay for Dr. Light, Dr. Wily, and Mega Man, whereas Minecraft is deleted because its presence is just the video game itself. As a warning, this could result in weirdness--for instance, we saw that the Kirby category could stay because of Kirby, Star Rod (Kirby), and Whispy Woods.
  • Prune all Smash-related redirects, and delete all categories except for our previously-stated exceptions: Pretty self-explanatory. If we didn't decide personally it was good to keep, it gets deleted outright; and then we remove the redirects. We think our judgements were fair enough, but if push comes to shove, we could re-instate a category after the proposal--after all, it's happened before with these Smash proposals.
  • NUCLEAR OPTION: DELETE ALL THE SMASH SERIES SUBCATEGORIES: The obligatory extreme option, but as we've mentioned, while the state these are in is very suboptimal, there are at least some categories here that have merit and could be used for non-Smash purposes.
  • Do nothing: We're obligated to include this, and while we are strictly opposed to keeping stuff like the Fatal Fury category around, we aren't going to exclude this just because we personally dislike this choice.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete categories that have 0-2 articles left

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Our secondary option. While we're a little put-off by the idea of a category with only 3 articles, it doesn't hurt as much as these categories in their current state.

Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete all categories except for the exceptions mentioned above

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) This is our preferred choice. We think these categories all have merit due to their aforementioned non-Smash crossovers, and have all got substantial enough appearances to merit keeping their respective categories. While we understand potentially wanting to retain a few more, that can come in a future proposal--for now, we'd like to just keep these ones and work off of that.
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.

NUCLEAR OPTION: Delete all the Smash series subcategories, period

Do nothing

  1. Hewer (talk) Smash is still given its own coverage. It's in the form of list articles now, but we are still dedicating articles to talking about subjects that only cross over with Mario in Smash, so having categories reflect that feels fine. I agree with deleting the two Pokémon subcategories since a list of redirects that all go to the same list page is pretty useless, but the others I feel like can be kept for as long as we're still covering Smash stuff.

Comments

Changes

Decide how to handle the toy enemies from across the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series

The remake of Mario vs. Donkey Kong redesigned a number of enemies from the original release, namely Thwomps, Thwimps, and Boos, to have a toy-like appearance, while giving the Bird enemy an organic appearance in contrast to its clockwork incarnations from the series. The wiki is currently set up such that the series' toy enemies are split from their original counterparts, though, seemingly, this is less due to gameplay and identification reasons and more to have a consistency with how the playable Mini toys are handled in relation to their base characters. While there have been proposals here and there on handling particular Mario vs. DK toys in certain ways, the consensus on their general set-up seems to be pieced together from these smaller discussions rather than something formal. It would therefore be consistent with the current status quo to give the remake's redesigns their own pages solely on the basis that they're now toys rather than the real deal.

This would be a bit silly, though. Enemy redesigns happen all the time, often they alternate between games, and may even fulfil their own gameplay role; yet, none of these was enough to have Thwomp's page split between its spiked and non-spiked variants. The spinning-drum Thwomps in the Mario vs. DK remake are simply an interpretation of the base Thwomp that plays into the game's theme; mechanically, they're the exact same as the Thwomps in the original release. That said, one particular enemy, Boo (toy), has significant enough differences from its base enemy to perhaps warrant a separate article; details on that, shortly.

What this proposal aims to do is decide upon a more strict guideline for the coverage of these toy enemies opposite of their originals. Please note: the toy variants regarded by this proposal are those who have minimal to zero mechanical differences from their base counterparts and are (mostly) identified the same way. Toy enemies who are derivative of a Super Mario species, but have their own special mechanics and are clearly identified as though they are a separate thing, are excluded from this proposal. There's a list of excluded enemies at the end of the proposal.

For this proposal, I came up with these options:

  1. Merge all the toy enemies with their base counterparts, where applicable.
  2. Merge most toy enemies, but keep Boo (toy) and any future similar cases split, according to the explanations in the "Enemies included by the proposal" list below.
  3. Split all the toy enemies from their base counterparts, including mere redesigns.
  4. Do nothing.
Enemies included by the proposal

Should be (kept) merged if option 2 wins:

  • Bird (toy) - in its organic Mario vs. Donkey Kong remake appearance, it acts the exact same as its toy appearances throughout the series. Its page should be renamed "Bird (Mario vs. Donkey Kong series)".
  • Fly Guy (toy) - pretty much just Fly Guys in everything but the toy appearance. Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move, their sole appearance to date, identifies color variants as "[color] Mini Fly Guy", but overall they are not given a distinction. Should be merged with Fly Guy.
  • Monchee - conceptually and nomenclaturally the same thing as the long-tailed monkey from GB Donkey Kong, except it's a toy. Merge with Monkikki.
  • Ninji (toy) - jumps up and down like a Ninji. Is a Ninji by name. Merge with Ninji.
  • Pokey (toy) - It moves from side to side like an actual Pokey. It's true that you can destroy one through moves that require direct contact, something that you wouldn't expect to do with regular Pokeys, but Mario Kart Tour puts that notion to rest. Merge with Pokey.
  • Shy Guy (toy) - In the original game as well as its remake, they are mechanically identical to the Shy Guys in Super Mario Bros. 2. Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move calls color variants "[color] Mini Shy Guys", but they're overall just referred to as "Shy Guys". Merge with Shy Guy.
  • Snapjaw (toy) (added at request): It has a plasticky, "Crocodile Dentist"-style appearance in this series, but is mechanically identical to the bear-trap Snapjaws from Donkey Kong Jr.. Keep merged with Snapjaw.
  • Snifit (toy) - same thing as the Snifit from Super Mario Bros. 2. In Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again!, they have spikes on their heads, but that's just a visual indicator that you can't stand on them like in the game's predecessor. Should be merged with Snifit.
  • Thwomp (toy) - appears in the Mario vs. DK remake as a redesign of the original Thwomp. It otherwise acts the exact same. Keep merged with Thwomp.
  • Thwimp (toy) - similar case to Thwomp (toy). Keep merged with Thwimp.

Should be (kept) split if option 2 wins:

  • Boo (toy) - though nigh on undistinguishable from regular Boos in the Mario vs. DK remake, the ones in Mini Mario & Friends: amiibo Challenge display different behavior: they only stop in place when they enter a bright area, not when you look at them, and allow you to pass through them in this state. I'd say this page should be left intact, with the remake appearance covered here for legacy purposes.
  • Any future enemy in the series with a gameplay function which is peculiar to it and not the base enemy. (Given option 2 wins, if any of the toy enemies in the "should be merged" list gain a special role in a future Mario vs. DK game, they'll be (re-)split as a whole.)

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: February 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. Hewer (talk) This feels comparable to how we don't split enemies from the Paper Mario games just for being made of paper when they're otherwise presented as the same enemy in a different style. And Boos having a weakness to light isn't exclusive to the toys, so that doesn't feel like a good reason to make an exception for them. The same enemies can and do have functional differences between completely different games.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal and Hewer.
  3. Somethingone (talk) I always found these splits a bit weird. Per proposal.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  5. ReeceeYT (talk) Per proposal and Hewer.
  6. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
  8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all; this has kinda been long overdue, now that you mention it...

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4 (do nothing)

  1. Qyzxf (talk) — I think this proposal is completely overlooking why these pages exist in the first place. It's because they are identified differently; in both Japanese and English (though not always in the latter) these enemies are NAMED differently. They are mechanical toys based on live creatures but they are distinctly named entities with consistent designs (besides Boo) separate from their live counterparts. The Thwomp and Thwimp question is of course relevant in this case, but it's hard to say whether or not they should count unless we get names for the enemies in this game. This also applies to Tane Pakkun and Katakata Kaen Heihou which are redesigned into completely different enemies altogether. Snapjaw being included additionally doesn't make sense because it is already in the correct page and isn't named differently in any game. Splitting or merging pages purely based on design elements feels counterproductive and like willfully ignoring their naming schemes being different, which is normally used as a standard for enemy sub-species being split.

Comments

There's also Snapjaw's plastic design in the series, which is currently merged despite being different from the metal bear trap enemies. Also, why are Yariho and Polterguy excluded? According to the JP names, they are counterparts to Spear Guy and Boo Guy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:05, February 16, 2024 (EST)

Added Snapjaw. As for the others, that's getting into discussions about lang-of-origin, author's intent etc. and I figured these would be best left for another time. Yariho and Polterguy's JP names listed on the wiki come from licensed guides, and even if they are present somewhere in-game, the series of games themselves were largely developed by an American division. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:39, February 16, 2024 (EST)

@Qyzxf: Snapjaw is included for the same reason as Thwomp, Thwimp, and Bird: it will be split if option 3 passes and kept merged if option 1 or 2 pass. Tane Pakkun and Katakata Kaen Heihō are excluded from the proposal. And, uh, are the enemies consistently named differently? Because I'd probably also oppose this if they were, but they aren't in English, and if the names in other languages sections are anything to go by, they don't seem to be in Japanese either. That leaves the toy design as the only potential reason to keep these split, which you yourself already denounced as counterproductive...after using it as an argument a few sentences earlier. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:21, February 18, 2024 (EST)

Auxiliary Japanese material for the original release of MvDK has a trend give toy enemies the qualifier katakata, which loosely translates to "mechanical"; you have Shy Guy toys being called "Mechanical Shy Guys" in the instruction manual, and Ninji toys being called "Mechanical Ninjis" in the Shogakukan guideMedia:Mvsdk_book_ii.jpg. With that said, mechanical Shy Guys went on to be consistently referred to as simply "Shy Guys" (Heiho) in future games, and mechanical Ninjis hadn't reappeared until the recent remake, meaning that whether their original "katakana" qualifier is meant to truly distinguish them conceptually from live Ninjis is pretty moot in my opinion. Worth noting is that said Japanese material for the GBA release isn't even consistent with itself, as Monchee, the toy version of Monkikki, is simply named after its live counterpart, rather than something like katakata Monkikki. Point being, I don't personally think we should let those one-off qualifiers decide how these enemies are handled on this wiki. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 08:32, February 18, 2024 (EST)
Upon more extensive research they have been consistently named as such in the Japanese releases but not the English ones. The main Japanese release that differs is MvDK2 in which none of them have unique names. Additionally the "katakata" denominator is used in the Switch remake as well, which is the most recent release, and could therefore be seen as a "current stance" on Nintendo's part as you could indeed argue that old third party guides are somewhat unreliable sources... but the Katakata Heihou name (the Japanese name for Mini Shy Guys) being used officially in the latest game is already an argument in favour of keeping it in my opinion, or we'd be counteracting something that official material has just clarified for us. Qyzxf (talk) 12:44, February 18, 2024 (EST)
"The main Japanese release that differs is MvDK2 in which none of them have unique names." Did you check the other games in the series as well? "Additionally the 'katakata' denominator is used in the Switch remake." Even if that's true (a source would help), remember that the Switch remake, just like all the other MvDK games in the series, was developed in the US, not in Japan, and the in-game credits don't seem to make clear which localization team drafted the game's script. You can make a point about Japanese names only if the original script is Japanese; that's when they lend clues to the creative intent and development behind a subject, and can be used here as a pointer towards how info on that subject is organized. With Mini Shy Guys, literally all games save for one, as well as their extra material, have called them "Shy Guys" in non-Japanese languages, with English being presumed to be the "source" language of the games; at that point, whether or not Japanese localizations truly push their own interpretation of the character isn't decisive in the matter just by virtue of being the Japanese interpretation. Anyway, here's an ad for the remake (twitter.com) that plainly makes reference to "Shy Guys" and "Thwomps" without referring to them as toys. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:12, February 18, 2024 (EST)
I understand the point about the language of development, and fair enough. I do think in the modern era Nintendo is more controlling of its Mario brand that the Japanese version is a relevant point to the conversation. For what it's worth, this graphic from the official website of the remake for example states Katakata Heihō for the toy Mini Shy Guy if it's worth considering, but as you said since the game is presumed written in English originally I don't know how much weight that should hold now. Either way it's evident this proposal will pass and when it does I do think we should add these Japanese names to their respective pages in the foreign names section to denote their different names in the MvDK games where applicable. Qyzxf (talk) 23:50, February 18, 2024 (EST)

Add the "Talk page proposal and support/oppose format" to the "Talk page proposals" section

The "Talk page proposals" section in the header is missing a talk page proposal and support/oppose format, and that is confusing. I was just wondering if there is a possibility to add the format to the talk page proposals section.

This header will be placed after the talk page proposal rules:

<h3 style="color:#000">Talk page proposal and support/oppose format</h3>

The first paragraph will read as follows:

“This is an example of what your talk page 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 after starting a new fitting section and paste it into that section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your talk page 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]". Talk page 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 talk page proposal can be amended as necessary.”
—First paragraph

This is what the example placed after the first paragraph will be as follows:

{{TPP}}
[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, 14 days after the talk page proposal was created), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "August 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT"]

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

===Oppose===

===Comments===

The paragraph placed after the example will read as follows:

“Users will now be able to vote on your talk page proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own talk page proposal just like the others.”
—Paragraph placed after the example

The final paragraph will read as follows:

“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 talk proposal. If you are voting on your own talk proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".”
—Final paragraph

And that's what the new section for the talk page proposal and support/oppose format will look like. In addition, a parenthesized reading from the basic proposal and support/oppose format section will be changed from "14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals" to "14 for writing guidelines". Would that example be a better idea when making talk page proposals?

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: February 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) Why is it necessary to copy the exact same text from the section immediately above? It's already made clear that talk page proposals are a type of proposal that work like a proposal would, so this feels completely unnecessary and I'm confused who would be helped by it.
  2. ExoRosalina (talk) Per Hewer.
  3. Swallow (talk) It is basically the same as the previous section just with the TPP template and saying the proposal ends in 14 days instead of 7.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer; this is incredibly redundant, and while I could maybe see merit in a sentence or two clarifying "remember to change it to end in 14 days, remember to change the header levels", this... this isn't that, this is just the same template (albeit with those changes), twice.
  5. Arend (talk) Per all, this is about as redundant as copypasting all the proposal rules in the TPP rules section when TPP rule 2 already states that the rules are nearly the same anyway with only a few exceptions. Just copy the mainspace proposal template, make sure the deadline ends in two weeks and to include {{TPP}}; no need for repetition.
  6. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. We don't need to be redundant.
  7. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all, this proposal is stupidly pointless.

Comments

Do we really need the full explanation if the code is the same as regular proposals except for the first line? MegaBowser64 (talk) 19:42, February 16, 2024 (EST)

So, I disagree with including the whole section twice on the same page, but would it not be helpful to explain how to use the TPP template? MegaBowser64 (talk) 11:07, February 17, 2024 (EST)

The final sentence of TPP rule 1 already explains where to place {{TPP}}, and also states to replace it with {{SettledTPP}} when the proposal is over, so that's also already covered. The most we can add without being too redundant is to simply copy the code if you don't know how to include a template, but I think the wiki trusts a novice proposer that they'd know how templates work... ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 16:35, February 18, 2024 (EST)
Ah, I see. In that case, we've got pretty much everything covered already, so yeah this is definitely unnecessary. MegaBowser64 (talk) 18:20, February 18, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4148364"