Split Diddy Kong Pilot into Diddy Kong Pilot (2001) and Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)
split 12-0
Hi, this is Results May Vary. I am the administrator of the defunct DK Wiki. So one thing I've noticed is the mess on the Diddy Kong Pilot page--it covers two versions of Diddy Kong Pilot that are actually entirely different from each other. And it makes merging the 2001 and 2003 pages more difficult. The two are so different that the 2003 build is even more similar to Banjo-Pilot. I remember there's some history as to why Diddy Kong Pilot was entirely reskinned along the way. The 2003 version of Diddy Kong Pilot was from that year, according to the original title of the YouTube gameplay video. Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, the YouTube account is gone, and the only information we have left from that time are via forum threads such as The RWP or NeoGAF. Thanks for reading.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) It should be Diddy Kong Pilot (2001 tech demo) and Diddy Kong Pilot (2003 tech demo) if you ask me, but otherwise, per proposal.
BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, they're two very different builds.
MarioManiac1981 (talk) Per all. The 2001 version is more Mario-based, while the 2003 version is closer to the Donkey Kong sub-franchise.
Is this really a good idea? We have all sorts of genre-jumping tech demos and such in the pre-release and unused content articles, after all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2019 (EST)
The only difference is that both games were never released. Results May Vary (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2019 (EST)
You meant "similarity", right? (T|C) 23:28, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Yeah and that both games are "prerelease and unused content". Results May Vary (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2019 (EST)
They are also both within the plane-flying genre, they just had a complete overhaul. It's basically a scrapped alpha/beta and another one built from the ground up. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2019 (EST)
Delete certain Game & Watch game articles
Delete 6-2
Currently, we have several articles for Game & Watch games that have no relation to the Mario series. Unlike other Game & Watch games we cover, these do not have "Modern" remakes featuring Mario elements, and do not appear as microgames, or if they do the articles neglect to mention them. Most, if not all, of these articles are only justified by the flimsy connection of them being playable in the Game & Watch Gallery games alongside other Game & Watch games which do have Modern versions featuring Mario elements and have earned their place here. However, Game & Watch Gallery 4, which most of these games are included in, also has a port of the Zelda Game & Watch game which we do not cover and instead link to ZeldaWiki for. We don't have articles for the non-Mario minigames in Nintendo Land, or games like Duck Hunt which were bundled with Mario games in the past, so why should we have these? It could also be argued that some of these games influenced Mr. Game & Watch's moveset in Smash, but I don't think that's a valid reason to keep these considering our lessened Smash coverage.
If this proposal passes, the following articles will be deleted:
This would also prevent the currently-redlinked Dynamite Jack and The Wily Bomber articles from being made, as they are only characters who appear in these games.
Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk) Deadline: January 27, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Shadow2 (talk) This has always bugged me a lot. Does not belong here at all.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) After some thinking, yeah, I don't really see why these pages are needed after all. Per Waluigi Time.
Doomhiker (talk) This section of MarioWiki:Coverage stated that we do not cover games that are included in packages such as Duck Hunt, and while these games are playable in the Game & Watch galleries they do not feature Mario characters or themes, and Mario characters cannot be played in them either, making them completely separate from anything Mario related besides from being packaged with other Game & Watch games with a Mario-themed modern version.
FanOfYoshi (talk) I'm against outright deletion. Also, Dwhitney is working hard on these pages. Why not instead merge these to their respective page like we did for Destroy Them All? And by extension, Alex95's comments.
1337star (talk) Per MarioWiki:Coverage. "In all cases, these crossovers are given full coverage: everything appearing in the games gets articles." And the Game and Watch Gallery series is considered a crossover. The fact that most, if not all, of these Game & Watch games are unlockable rewards makes them different than a typical pack-in title. See also Jetpac for another example of a non-Mario game which is covered because it appears in one (albeit in an arguably more important capacity).
Comments
I think we should review MarioWiki:Coverage but common sense tells me that those articles really aren't needed. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:47, 21 January 2019 (EST)
I'm against outright deletion. --FanOfYoshi 03:56, 22 January 2019 (EST)
@FanOfYoshi: Yes, work was put into them, but that's a moot point if they're not related to the Mario series. They shouldn't be merged either, as they have no place here. Someone could make an original write up of the entire history of Link in every Zelda game on his page, but it's not relevant to the Mario series so it would be removed regardless of the effort put in to make it. Besides, everything on this wiki is work, so how is this different than deleting, trimming, or rewriting any other article? --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 10:44, 22 January 2019 (EST)
Also, years ago the wiki covered the Banjo and Conker games because of their debut in Diddy Kong Racing, but all those articles were later deleted because the community decided they really weren't spinoffs of the Mario series at all and had no place here as a result, which was a lot more work down the drain than this would be. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 10:48, 22 January 2019 (EST)
Considering I was the one to tell Dwitney to make these, I should probably weigh in here. In MarioWiki:Coverage, the Game & Watch series is marked under two sections: Crossovers and Guest Appearances, both of which we cover. I suppose it could also fall under Package Deals, which we only cover the Mario aspects of. This was a bit of a confusing matter for me, and Flagman apparently appears in Wario Land II according to Doc von Schmeltwick. I think this is something we could cover, but if consensus is we shouldn't, Nintendo Wiki could use them, so they shouldn't be deleted immediately. 10:51, 22 January 2019 (EST)
I do think our stance on covering the Game & Watch series should be changed, since aside from the Mario-themed remakes the rest of the minigames are ports. Super Mario Bros. was packaged on the same cartridge as Duck Hunt and World Class Track Meet, but we don't cover those games. Nintendo Land is full of other original minigames (which would make them more worthy of articles than the Game & Watch ports in my opinion, although I don't think they should be covered either) that we don't cover. I think the Game & Watch games are the same situation, so I don't see why they should have special treatment. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 10:59, 22 January 2019 (EST)
@1337star: Jetpac at least appears in what's more than basically a minigame compilation. Flagman, another Game & Watch game, also appears in Wario Land II and as a microgame in WarioWare: Touched!, and was exempt from this proposal for similar reasons. Personally, I don't think the Game & Watch games should be considered crossovers at all. What makes them more important than Nintendo Land, for example? --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 14:41, 25 January 2019 (EST)
The version of Flagman featured in Wario Land II is a remake in the same style as the "Modern" games in the Game and Watch Gallery titles, so it wouldn't be a valid target for deletion under this proposal anyway. In any case, you're correct in that they aren't really crossovers; they're remakes of the original Game and Watch titles with a Mario paint job, like Doki Doki Panic/Super Mario Bros. 2 or Panel de Pon/Tetris Attack. The only difference is that unlike those games, the original version of the games are also included and some of the games (the ones covered by this proposal) have no Mario counterpart. But as unlockable minigames in a Mario title, I feel these games should be covered. It's a tenuous distinction, but one I feel is important. After all, what's really the difference between these Game and Watch games and the Pyoro minigames from the WarioWare titles other than the fact that the Game and Watch games happened to already exist in real life first? Both are unlockable minigames having very little to do with the main content of the game they are featured in. (As an aside, all of our articles on non-Mario Game and Watch games should probably focus more on their status as minigames in the Game and Watch Gallery games and not the real games they were based on.) -- 1337star(Mailbox SP) 15:42, 25 January 2019 (EST)
Honestly, we should probably be covering the Game & Watch games in the same way we cover Super Smash Bros. content. (T|C) 16:01, 25 January 2019 (EST)
I don't think your argument works well considering you're throwing out a big difference. At least Pyoro and his minigames originated in the Wario series, which we cover fully. However, I do agree with you that if these articles stay the information about the original games should be trimmed/removed altogether. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 16:26, 25 January 2019 (EST)
Yeah, I meant "more or less", not "completely" like Super Smash Bros.(T|C) 16:28, 25 January 2019 (EST)
Jetpac is essential to be played and completed if one wants to complete DK64. It is necessary to obtain the Rareware Coin. Playing through to the end of DK64 will unquestionably force the player to play it. The G&W games without Mario remakes are not as essential to the game they are a part of. They are extra, bonus content, equivalent in my mind to Duck Hunt and World Class Track Meet. As Waluigi Time mentioned, as well, Pyoro was created in WarioWare and is a product of the WarioWare series. These G&W games had no connection to Mario when they were envisioned, created, and sold. For me, I like to hit the 'Random Button' on this wiki when I'm bored and read something Mario-related to pass the time. It's always stuck me as very, very strange that one could hit the Random button and get a page about Tropical Fish. It was even worse in the past when I would hit the button and get Goldeen, Aether and Hyrule Castle all in a row, but thankfully some of that has been trimmed. I think trimming these articles is a good step in the same direction. Furthermore, if we were to go by the logic of including games because they're included in games we cover (a la Jetpac > DK64), then wouldn't we need an article about all of the Masterpieces included in SSBB and SSB4? That would be crazy. Shadow2 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2019 (EST)
Update the Manual of Style to strongly discourage abbreviations of game titles on mainspace articles
do nothing 2-5-8
NSMBUDX is a port of NSMBU. What? While that example was made up abbreviations arequitecommon in articles, and can be annoying to read or even downright confusing, such as the previously mentioned King K. Rool edit where not only was Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest shorted, but Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! was abbreviated to 3, which can be extremely confusing to a reader if they do not know the abbreviations of a game, especially in the case of 3 as there is several threequels in the Donkey Kong franchise with 3 in their name, such as Donkey Konga 3: Tabehōdai! Haru Mogitate 50 Kyoku. There is other examples of potentially confusing abbreviations such the commonly used Deluxe abbreviation for New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, which could be mistaken for Super Mario Bros. Deluxe. This is why I am proposing that we update the Manual of Style to strongly discourage abbreviations of game titles on mainspace articles only, as this would greatly improve reading experience. Please note that this only applies to the main content of mainspace articles as, redirects of commonly used abbreviations, talk pages and user discussion, the {{redirect}} and {{about}} templates in articles, and brief mentions of an official abbreviation in the article such as with Fire Stalking Piranha Plants (sometimes abbreviated as Fire Stalking Piranha Pl. and Fire Stalking P . Plant) (Imagine that sentence referring to a game title) are fine as they tell and help guide users with popular or official abbreviations, however the main content of an article should have the full, official name of the game if this proposal passes. In my opinion, this change would greatly improve user experience.
EDIT: Per several user's suggestions, I also included a Allow abbreviations if they are necessary for space or infoboxes or are more convenient and are not confusing such as Deluxe option as for example Donkey Konga 3: Tabehōdai! Haru Mogitate 50 Kyoku could be shorted to Donkey Konga 3 due to that abbreviation not being confusing, while for example New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe still will not be shorted to Deluxe due too potential confusion, and in this option some abbreviations would be allowed if necessary for space or infoboxes.
Proposer: Doomhiker (talk) Deadline: January 30, 2019, 23:59 GMT
#FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all. Do you mean that we'll use abreviations? #Alex95 (talk) - We're supposed to use the full title of a game in article bodies anyway, but I can't find anything about this. Closest is in MarioWiki:Naming, where it says the article title has to be a full game title (aside from Mario Kart courses), but doesn't say anything about the actual content of the article. If someone does find something already on MarioWiki pages and I completely missed it, then rip this proposal :P #Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal. #Waluigi Time (talk) I'm surprised this wasn't in the Manual of Style already, per all.
Allow abbreviations if they are necessary for space or infoboxes or are more convenient and are not confusing while discouraging the use of confusing abbreviations such as Deluxe
Alex95 (talk) - Echoing my struckthrough comment above, but also abbreviations can be used in charts, like Amiibo#Figure_list. Not every abbreviation is discouraged, just those used in the actual paragraphs.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) Better option per Mario jc, 7feetunder, and BBQ Turtle in the comments.
7feetunder (talk) I don't like this idea at all. The first time a game is mentioned, yes, the full title should be used, but I don't see anything wrong with shortening a long-ass title like Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest to just Donkey Kong Country 2 otherwise. No one is going to be confused by this, and having to read (let alone write) a long title over and over again is irritating itself (there's also the fact that the GBA versions of DKC2 and DKC3 don't even use the subtitles). There's also what Mario jc said below about tables and infoboxes (e.g. Krazy Kremland). Simply put, this is a needlessly pedantic proposal, and this issue should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (or at least with a less restrictive guideline) rather than the "kill it with fire" approach you've taken.
Bazooka Mario (talk) What we currently have is fine, no policy change. Just expand abbreviations in body text, but keep abbreviations/shortened names when common sense calls for it. We already are doing this.
Please note that the Game Boy Advance versions of the Donkey Kong Country games do not have subtitles. Therefore, when referring to them, they should just be Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2019 (EST)
While I'm not opposed to using the full titles, I don't think using abbreviations should be fully restricted, as there are often cases where titles have to be shortened, like a column for a table, or using the full title would be too lengthy, like in an infobox. Basically, how I've seen it is, "Don't shorten the title if you don't need to." MarioJC 21:00, 16 January 2019 (EST)
Does this proposal also account for shortening the game names? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:34, 17 January 2019 (EST)
@Bazooka Mario yes it does, and with the King K. Rool edit the trivia was mentioning the remakes of SNES games, in which the SNES games full names should be used being Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest for example, and as the Game Boy Advance remakes have a shortened name when those games are specifically being talked about their full names should be used, which are just Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3, however, if the SNES games with the longer title are shorted to just for example, Donkey Kong Country 2 they should be expanded to add the full name of the title. Doomhiker (talk) 6:34 17 January 2019
Even so, I agree with Mario jc and 7feetunder that maybe they shouldn't be completely restricted. (T|C) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)
@FanOfYoshi this proposal is about strongly discouraging the use of abbreviations in the main content of mainspace pages, so if this proposal passes the use of abbreviations will decrease in mainspace articles, however abbreviations will still be allowed in discussions, in redirects, etc. Doomhiker (talk) 6:44 17 January 2019
Sorry, I just wanted to clarify before I vote for this, does this proposal only cover confusing or misleading abbreviations, such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe being shortened to Deluxe (Which I definitely support), or all titles in general? Because, as others have mentioned, sometimes it can be beneficial to shorten the title, and I think it would be alright to do so if it wouldn't be confusing or misleading, so shortening Donkey Konga 3: Tabehōdai! Haru Mogitate 50 Kyoku to Donkey Konga 3 if required to do so for space, as there is no other game it could easily be confused with. In limited-space situations, it'd likely be beneficial to drop the lengthy subtitle, as long as it isn't confusing or misleading. BBQ Turtle (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2019 (EST)
@BBQ Turtle the first option would fully restrict abbreviations of all titles in general, while the second option is like what you just said. Doomhiker (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2019 (EST)
Shouldn't proposal on this page last 1 week? 2 weeks if for talk pages. --FanOfYoshi 09:00, 18 January 2019 (EST)
Per rule 3, writing guideline proposals also last 2 weeks. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2019 (EST)
This should be a TPP, not a mainspace proposal, as it affects only one article. Ray Trace(T|C) 16:15, 26 January 2019 (EST)
Yeah, this should be a proposal on the subject's talk page. Also @Doomhiker, is it not official? Doesn't seem to be anything saying it isn't. 01:31, 27 January 2019 (EST)
@Alex95 according to Pac-Man Fever's wikipedia page (Pac-Man Fever was where the song came from) the album was about different arcade games, Donkey Kong being one of them, and that the album was recorded by Buckner & Garcia. There is no proof from what I could find that it was endorsed by Nintendo, if anything the song was a tribute to the game. This ad, directly says that the songs are inspired by the nation-wide video game craze, which includes Do the Donkey Kong. Doomhiker (talk) 10:12, January 27 (EST)
I agree. I think this should be in the talk page, but anyways, i support changing the page itself into a redirect. --FanOfYoshi 13:03, 28 January 2019 (EST)
Decide how to handle Donkey Kong Country 2 and Land 2 boss stages
Split the boss stages, excluding Stronghold Showdown 3-11-0
As of right now, most of the boss stages for these two games still need articles. So far, only two exist: Kreepy Krow (level) and Krocodile Kore. However, these articles cover both the DKC2 an DKL2 versions of the stage, which is not consistent with how we cover the other levels in these games. The levels in DKC2 and DKL2, despite sharing names and themes, are split due to having different designs. The boss battles aren't identical between games either, so it makes sense to split these as well.
However, there is one I'm not sure about: Stronghold Showdown. Unlike everything else, this really is the same thing in both games - a small castle room with a short cutscene where DK is seen tied up before being taken to the Flying Krock. While splitting it would be consistent with all of the other DKC2/DKL2 splits, it would also create two articles that are basically the same thing. The only game where Stronghold Showdown is actually different is the GBA version of DKC2, where Kerozene is added as a boss. Plus, we've already voted not to split the returning Super Mario 3D World levels in the Wii U version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker for a similar reason.
Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Deadline: February 10, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Split the boss stages, including Stronghold Showdown
7feetunder (talk) While I find splitting Stronghold Showdown kind of redundant, it's at least consistent.
Alex95 (talk) - If the two games share the exact same information, it makes more sense to me to keep them together. The GBA information can simply be an extra point.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. Any minor changes in Stronghold Showdown can easily be mentioned briefly, but I don't see a need for an entirely new article for them.
Results May Vary (talk) As the editor who expanded both those pages, I agree it's better to split the pages, so to focus on one. Stronghold Showdown is practically the same in DKL2, so that can stay as one.
Mister Wu (talk) If there aren't significant differences, this makes sense.
Don't split the boss stages
Comments
Sorry, my first vote was a mistake. I wanted to vote "including" as, if everything is going to be split, this might need a split as well. Should i restart a proposal if the "excluding" option passes? --FanOfYoshi 04:32, 4 February 2019 (EST)
Or is the proposal unneeded? --FanOfYoshi 03:56, 5 February 2019 (EST)
It's not needed. The current consensus is that Stronghold Showdown should not be split. If you really wanted to, you could wait four weeks after the deadline, then make another proposal, but you'd need to come up with a compelling argument to convince all of these voters, myself included, that such a split needs to happen. So far you have only said "Stronghold Showdown has enough differences" without actually explaining what these important differences are. 21:30, 5 February 2019 (EST)
Standardize species as the main article for subjects sharing an identical "character" and "species" name
no change 6-3-9
This proposal is directed at subjects with shared names that have both a separate "character" and "species" article. To sum it up: despite species by its nature alone having way more conclusiveappearances throughout the franchise's entire history, practically being universally treated as the official default or "currentstory" depiction for years by Nintendo themselves (since at least Paper Mario and arguably earlier), and being the far likelier search result for younger fans who didn't grow up aware of these individual characters (which were made popular in legacy media for the most part), the wiki uses the generic character articles as the main default while the broader species article is the one that most often gets the identifier. As far as I can tell, this isn't actually due to any conscious decision on anyone's part, but rather a mere snowball effect inadvertently created from around the wiki's early days.
I guess I must be the one to say it - I sincerely think it is unwise to allow this setup to permeate much longer as it will most certainly not be sustainable forever.
The mission of this proposal is simply to set a wiki-wide organizational standard for all current and future articles that fit this criteria (a few obvious examples would be Toad and Yoshi, but this would also extend to others as well). All this will do is move the current main articles to a character identifier, and move those with a species identifier to the new main article. This proposal will not affect the content of these articles themselves, since I believe any attempt to do so (should it eventually happen) would best be done on a case-by-case basis; it will only affect the titles and links of these subjects. This will take a considerable chunk of time to comb over since this is something that should have been done from the start, but hindsight is 20/20.
An exception will be made for any articles where the species distinction falls under other media. The only current example I'm aware of is Fryguy. Readers will generally be more familiar with the Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic or Super Mario Bros. 2 boss and The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! role over the Nintendo Comics System depiction, which are treated as a transformation of Toads in precisely one story with a quick explanation that was never fully elaborated upon. Fryguy himself is not even considered a proper member of the Fryguy species, as he has a different origin in the game. As such, the proposal will not apply to Fryguy or potentially similar cases.
Update: As an alternative, I've included the option to have articles with character and species identifiers, and instead have the main article be a disambiguation page. This is the current situation with Luma. This is not as extensive as the proposal's main objective, but it allows both articles to exist on equal standing. Note that the above exception still applies. Under this scenario, an additional exception will be made for standard enemies such as Goomba and Amp, who already currently default to their species article and will most likely be searched as an enemy due to their common role.
Proposer: LinkTheLefty (talk) Deadline: February 11, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Mister Wu (talk) Props for the courage of making such a controversial proposal! After what happened with Dorrie and Draggadon and after Nintendo finally went out admitting that the Toad and Yoshi names given to characters are indeed species names, I'll go for the bold choice. This matches Japanese writing conventions as well.
MarioManiac1981 (talk) Per Yoshi the SSM. Rather than having character or species articles outprioritize each other in certain situations, let's have disambiguation pages to link to both articles (but please, remove the Green Yoshi article).
youngwii (talk) Per all; supporting as an alternative.
Keep the current setup
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) I'd prefer it was the other way around, actually. Besides, they're still treated as individuals in many spin-offs, and, let's be honest, more people have played Mario Kart Wii in the past 15 years without playing any other Mario game than any other game in the franchise.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick. I don't really get the proposal though.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per Doc. Remember, the Toad and Yoshi characters have been treated as such in games other than Mario Kart and Mario Party.
Alex95 (talk) - I can't agree with this. Usually, the individual character has a bigger role than the species (see Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario 64 DS, etc.). If species are involved, they're usually a side element or roster filler, with the New Super Mario Bros. series being the exception coming to mind.
BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, the current system seems to be on a case-by-case basis, which I think is best. I'd also like to add that Toad does clarify himself that he is the Toad in the Wii U version of Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, as he does mention that his blue jacket is unique. I can't find the exact quote now, but I'm almost certain that he says it.
Doomhiker (talk) Per my comment below, while our current setup does not really have a standard on which things are the main article for subjects with identical names meaning that it is not 100 percent a case-by-case setup, our current system is the closest to a case-by-case basis than all of the options in this proposal, so per my comment below this my preferred option, and per all.
@Doc - A playable appearance doesn't automatically grant characterhood. Mario Kart Wii is your example - where, then, is the Dry Bones character article (ditto for virtually every other playable standard enemy in spinoffs)? If they are not notable enough, does that mean that Toad and Yoshi as characters mainly retain notability because of DiC? The characters are certainly not entirely apparent in the modern platformers, because the recent New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe shows that just about any Toad can play the generic role of "Toad" and the Super Mario 3D World Toad might actually be a relabeled Blue Toad. In terms of the more dialog/lore-heavy games like the RPGs, such characters barely exist - Square's Super Mario RPG might have a definitive Toad character, but everything since Paper Mario has greatly diminished him to the point where he barely exists and it's genuinely difficult to tell if the rare instances of singular "Toad" refer to the character or a generic. Even several games later in Paper Mario: Color Splash, where at last a single Toad accompanies Peach, I think the singular "Toad" is thrown around more often to generically refer to other NPCs who are obviously not the same Toad, not to mention there's the infamous "Toad #35".
The primary issue is the general writing style of Nintendo translations (and it's not unique to the Mario franchise) and how they often blend singular word use to refer to species, character, or generic (partially due to inconsistent localization and partially due to the Mario world not being as defined early on). This has been going on for quite a while, too - Kamek will refer to any given Yoshi color as generic/singular "Yoshi" in the Yoshi games, Nintendo Power and Prima Games would regularly flip between character and species usage on the writer's whim (sometimes on the same page), etc. "When in doubt, it's the species" would be the safer approach not just because species have become more prevalent but also because it's something that is constant (meaning it may not always be "the" character, but it's always "the" species). Besides, the current setup doesn't even make a whole lot of internal sense - searching priority for "Toad" should tell the reader what exactly a "Toad" is, not what "Toad, the Toad" is. That might look perfectively presentable to some of us, but it's confusing to uninformed newcomers. And honestly, I think a "shift" (whether it's a major overhaul or something as minor as simply changing around a few article titles) is an inevitability sooner or later, so the question is whether to begin taking care of this now or keep putting it off until it becomes unmanageable. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (EST)
I know fully well Toad as a character doesn't exist anymore, and am one of the people trying to get that out to people. However, it just feels wrong to have "Character" be the identifier when the character was named that first. Sure, the species was Kinokio prior, but it wasn't Toads. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2019 (EST)
I personally prefer "Mushroom People" and was confused (and honestly a bit upset) when Paper Mario first came out and changed it...but it's been "Toads" for about twenty years. Even the re-releases of Super Mario Bros. on Virtual Console and through Wii's Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition changed it to Toads, so its original context is now overtaken. That aside, we consider the character to have debuted after the species, which frankly looks awkward as the current main article. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (EST)
Still with Yoshi, it's Yoshi's Island, not Yoshis' Island. As well as Yoshi's Crafted World, and all those other things in between. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2019 (EST)
So? Unithorn's Lair doesn't appear to be the property of any singular Unithorn. (I could probably come up with more examples, but that's the first one that comes to my mind.) 22:21, 28 January 2019 (EST)
And there are no singular Unithorns, they fade in and out en masse. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2019 (EST)
That goes with what I mentioned about the writing style / Nintendo translators generally not catching on and communicating the character/species concept very well (e.g. Goomba's Shoe is not a shoe from a literal Goomba character, Boo's Mansion does not belong to a literal Boo character, etc.). The possessiveness of these Yoshi titles was added in localization for whatever reason - it's strongly implied that it's not "Mario's Yoshi" in these games due a green Yoshi being one of the star children. At any rate, Yoshi is also a mess because he practically has a third article (Green Yoshi), and all three have been marked with a rewrite template for ages. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2019 (EST)
Regardless, I don't think the species should get dibs. I think it should be the character, or neither. Mostly, though, I'd base it off what people browsing would be looking for, which chances are would be the "character" in Mario Kart Wii or a similar game. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2019 (EST)
I've actually considered just turning the main pages into disambiguations as a second option for the proposal and including both "character" and "species" identifiers, which would admittedly be a lot less work, but I decided against it because the Luma talk page indicated to me that it was unpopular (that, and I don't believe that they're on par with each other, at least not anymore). Should I add it? LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2019 (EST)
I don't see a reason not to. Anyone who doesn't want to do it that way can simply vote for a different option. 23:18, 28 January 2019 (EST)
Sure. So that means that I always wanted the Amp (character) from Mario Party Advance whenever I wanted to look up the enemies in Super Mario 64 or other games. That makes total sense. NOT. The wouldn't make sense at all. The enemies are clearly more popular than the character from MPA. Having the character over species would violate the "Shared titles" policy. I would get even more confusing if characters were allowed over species if we consider Goomba who has threeseparatecharacters named Goomba. However, this only removes the possibility of characters for mains.
As for them being the same, I see a benefit and a problem. The benefit comes from the fact that it would give species and characters with about the same level of popularity as each other equal rights. The problem comes from the fact that not all species would benefit from this. Let's look at the Amps again. Not one time are they playable characters nor do they are friendly NPCs except in MPA. In this case, I would not want to be taken to a disambiguation page if I typed "Amp" when I just want to find out more info about an enemy in Mario Party: Star Rush, where in has a clear in-game name. But other than this situation and others like it, it could work as well as the (series) identifier.
And by typing this out, I am viewing the disambiguation as main as an equally good option to the species as main option. As for the species as main option, I think it is good option due to that species are more popular than anything in general. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2019 (EST)
The Goomba formerly(?) known as Captain could be considered a fourth Goomba character. Anyway, including standard enemy articles like Goomba and Amp wasn't my intention with the proposal, so I've adjusted it again to make that more clear. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2019 (EST)
@LinkTheLefty, can we delete the Green Yoshi article? I hate that one! It annoys me to see that thing exist. I'm out of words... the content in the Green Yoshi article should be merged with the Yoshi species article. MarioManiac1981 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2019 (EST)
That's probably a separate discussion/proposal, but I'm also not a fan of it. Treating the Yoshi colors as we do enemy colors would reduce overlap. LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2019 (EST)
The Yoshi colors have little reason to have their own articles. Differences they have are usually restricted to a few games, Yoshi's Story and Super Mario World, but vast majority of colors cases, colors are pure cosmetic. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:20, 29 January 2019 (EST)
Yeah, that'll probably be my next proposal since it's on my radar now. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (EST)
@Toadette - That's not the issue here; as stated, this proposal will absolutely not affect the content of the articles themselves and will thus preserve the history/legacy of these characters (hence the "character" identifier). The issue is that singular use in either species or generic contexts have become increasingly more common to the point where the original character is no longer certifiable and, for all intents and purposes, effectively phased out (Toad's "possible appearances" section could very easily be much larger if we were even mildly stricter about it). Over time, character has become secondary to species, plain and simple. We also continue to make certain assumptions based on both playability and the general mindset of "there's a generic member of the species standing there by itself minding its own business, so let's add it the main/character page" (one example would be Yoshi in Paper Mario: Color Splash, but there's many more). Overall, I think having the character pages as the wiki default contributes a lot to this unnecessary bloat, gives a false impression that a single recurring character is officially still in direct use today, and is a roadblock for discussion. I don't see any benefit to leaving it as-is when the signs are blatant. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (EST)
In all due respect this should be a case-by-case basis, as when I want to search for Boom Boom, I most likely want to see the character page. However, when I search Amp, I want to see the species, not the MPA character. I do not fell that a single proposal would really solve anything, as there is a large amount of variety with characters with species names, some important, some not so much, and while if option 2 passes there is exceptions with the standard enemies such as Amp, I fell that disambiguation pages would make it too complicated as you would not immediately go to amp when you search for amp for example, and with option one there is cases where I would prefer to see the character and not the species meaning that I cannot honestly vote to support that option, however there is cases where I would rather see a species rather then a character, meaning that I cannot honestly vote for option 3 either. Doomhiker (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2019 (EST)
The purpose of the proposal is to define these articles' standards, which were seemingly created on an informal "first come, first serve" basis, to better align with the common contemporary species depiction of these subjects over the largely-bygone prominence of the characters, as well as to help make the treatment of these articles more uniform. So I feel that the first option best accomplishes this goal. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2019 (EST)
It might not be consistent across games, but as far as I know, he's the only red Toad in that game with a blue jacket. The others have red jackets, or different coloured caps. I believe it's a similar case with Mario Kart Wii- what I'm trying to get across here is that in some games, the Toad is differentiated from other Toads by having a red cap and a blue jacket. BBQ Turtle (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2019 (EST)
@LinkTheLefty if we did make the species pages the standard for the main pages of characters and species with the same name then examples such as Boom Boom where people are most likely to search for the character may be confused as why they are on the species page, so while the treatment of these articles being more uniform would be great the first and second options do not offer the flexibility regarding these characters/species pages that a case-by-case basis would give. Also, while Toad claiming that his jacket is unique may be a joke, it also may not and instead could be a reference to Super Mario Bros. 2 and other instances where a Toad is playable. Doomhiker (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (EST)
Would this idea be better addressed case-by-case? I suppose so - after all, cases such as Birdo and Fronk are admittedly not as strong - but for cases like Toad and Yoshi, I firmly believe that their current standing is increasingly weakening with each major release, and it would seem prudent to make a necessary shift towards favoring the objective appearances of these subjects over our nebulous interpretation in the probable event that Nintendo does directly make an inconvenient statement that risks the state of those articles imploding in on themselves (that, or the generation of fans that grows up on today's games will continue to raise objections with the wiki's approach until it can no longer be ignored). The best analogy I can give is whenever a fantasy creature in fiction refers to a character by the generic descriptor "human" - it obviously doesn't suddenly make that their actual name, and other Nintendo franchises that have taken similar approaches simply don't have this problem among fans. This is the modern context in which these subjects are addressed, which can be observed as recently as Mario Tennis Aces (in fact, a cursory glance at Toad's possible appearances section would indicate that this may have been the intention for a while now). While some won't take the character articles to mean that there is literally a reliable, recurring existence/continuity to these subjects, that is the purpose behind their creation and the impression still given. All in all, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a consistent standard as a protective measure. Also, I don't think your example is a particularly strong one because I and several others found the rationale for that split held up weakest to scrutiny...but that is a totally separate discussion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2019 (EST)
Definitely case-by-case. I'm open to considering Toad, as he's just plain not considered a character in any capacity outside spinoffs anymore, but "Yoshi" was treated as a character in mainline games as recently as SMG2. And no, I'm not counting SM3DW "Toad," given the way NSMBUDX treats Blue Toad and Yellow Toad. As for Kamek as a character, most appearances identified as such either relationship-with-Bowser-wise or behaviorally make deliberate callbacks to the SMW2 entity (with DT making a callback to NSMBW), and recent games seem to be trying to push the distinction even in Japan (note the bowtie in SPM). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2019 (EST)
Well, the Toad quote is:
Hey there! I'm Toad. There are lots of my fellow Toads here
from the Mushroom Kingdom, so try not to get us mixed
up with each other.
Some of us are here to compete in the Games,
some are the cheer squad, and some are acting as
the managerial staff.
We've got Blue Toads, Red, Yellow, Green, Purple...
There are lots of us, but if you're looking for me,
just keep an eye out for this stylish blue jacket.
He says that if you're looking for him you have to look for the blue jacket. Making the playable one with that color so you could recognize him among the many makes sense, but you need to remember that this is the standard appearance of Toads since the very beginningMedia:ToadSMB.jpg, before the concept of a Toad character was even a thing. And as LinktheLefty noticed, this remained the standard appearance of Toads. Even Super Mario Odyssey confirms this is still trueMedia:SMO Mushroom Brochure D.png. Of course playable characters need to stand out, but that doesn't mean that the appearance isn't the standard one, just that in those game they need to use the other color variants not to create confusion among the players.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2019 (EST)
For your information, there is no real flexibility in the current setup. There is a lone Boom Boom? He goes into the Boom Boom character page. There is a lone Toad with a red cap and a blue vest? He goes into the Toad character page, regardless of whether they state he's the Toad of Super Mario Bros. 2 or not. A lone green Yoshi? He goes into the Yoshi page. And in case you were wondering, the name actually gives us a different information than we think, since Nintendo clarified that they use species names as character names - not unlike what was done in Pokémon, another Japanese franchise that follows the same conventions of naming a member of a species with the species' name. After all, what happened with Dorrie and Draggadon definitely confirmed this approach - what seemed unique names were actually species' names. And Kinopiowas indeed introduced in Super Mario Bros. as a name to identify those Mushroom Kingdom citizens - recent bios confirmed that the name is still used with this purpose, and even noted how some of these, such as Toadsworth and Captain Toad, indeed have unique names. Unsurprisngly, those Toads also ended up with a unique appearance as well.
By the way, there has recently been controversyon this matter, so there are definitely issues with the current approach that has troubles dealing with characters with standard appearance named after the species that as such, might or might not be the same recurring character. When using these naming and appearance conventions, this question becomes irrelevant, and I'd be hardly surprised if Nintendo's goal was exactly this.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2019 (EST)
If there's a singular Yoshi, then it's the character Yoshi. It may not necessarily be the same character Yoshi from another game, but they're both portrayed as being "the character Yoshi." And that's what really makes or breaks that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2019 (EST)
This interpreation would warrant the merging with the species - what's the point of creating pages separate from the species pages for a role (being a playable character or a lone Yoshi) instead of actual characters? Plus, the wording would have to be changed, since we surely don't imply that Yoshi might be a different character every time and the page just deals with the role of playable or lone character.--Mister Wu (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2019 (EST)
Nope, do what we do with Kamek, as they are sometimes treated as individual, sometimes as species, and sometimes both at once. Having all that on the same page would be stressfully confusing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2019 (EST)
But it would match how Nintendo treats them. After all, people had to learn to do that for Pokémon which does the exact same thing of presenting characters with standard appearance of the species and bearing the name of the species, I don't think it's impossible to them to apply the same reasoning here.--Mister Wu (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2019 (EST)
It's how they treat them, except when they don't. When it flip-flops every three games with no indication of stopping, why go to all that trouble, when, once again, it should about what visitors will most likely be searching for? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2019 (EST)
The flipflopping is actually exactly part of what I was trying to say, so you misunderstood what I said. In any case, we are facing problems in the maintenance of the pages, the case of Yoshi being the most evident one. And yes, we are stating that Yoshi is always the same one - we say that in the intro of the page, when we report that he's the same one who saved Baby Mario and Baby Luigi. If anything, if you don't want any change in terms of the pages we have, you should at least consider updating the page so that it reflects the view you just expressed.-Mister Wu (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2019 (EST)
Update the pages we should, and I've tried doing a bit of that with Kamek's. It's a large undertaking, to be sure, but it's still needed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2019 (EST)
Thanks, I'm glad we're finding some common grounds.--Mister Wu (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2019 (EST)
I did update the intro to that page, and plucked some flowers from it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (EST)
Bring Back Fake Reminders and Warnings
don't bring back 1-17
Hi, this is Mari0fan100. I've seen fake reminders, warnings, and last warnings get banned for 8.5 years now, but some of them make me laugh! I think we should bring them back for amusement, but if we do, they cannot be used inappropriately, only for fun purposes.
Proposer: Mari0fan100 (talk) Deadline: March 9, 2019, 23:59 GMT
#FanOfYoshi (talk) Let's bring back this feature and be done with it!
Oppose
Toadette the Achiever (talk) Fake reminders/warnings were removed for a reason. We will not be bringing them back. (And don't be surprised if this gets vetoed as well.)
Alex95 (talk) - "they cannot be used inappropriately, only for fun purposes." The very point of warnings directly contradicts this. I'm not sure if this proposal is allowed or not, but I'm not going to be for this.
Doomhiker (talk) Several issues. First, users may think that these joke warnings are not a joke and take them seriously, which will cause a lot of confusion and frustration. Second, if a user gets a joke reminder for a level one offence they did not do and they later actually do the level one offence, then a user may look at the joke reminder, think the joke reminder was serious, and give the user a warning when they only deserved a reminder. Finally, I could see users taking advantage of joke warnings using them as an excuse to flame users. I strongly oppose.
FanOfYoshi (talk) While this is funny, this wiki is serious. Per Doomhiker.
Ghost Jam (talk) Per all and several more reasons that should be obvious.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) This is honestly so ridiculous I was considering just ignoring it entirely and waiting for it to be vetoed, but honestly, it's too ridiculous even for that. Per primarily the first three as to why it's ridiculous.
BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, there's no good reason to bring them back.
Waluigi Time (talk) They cause confusion, and the only arguments for bringing them back is "I think it's funny". I see no good reason for this ban to be removed.
Gabumon (talk) - Notice templates are not toys; they have a function. Having fake ones around impairs that function. I fail to see the humor in self-sabotage.
Bazooka Mario (talk) Please no proposals on bringing back fake new message boxes either.
George Jones (talk) Yeah, no. I don't think handing out fake/joke warnings are going to be acceptable.
Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Fake warnings are a product of the wiki's unprofessional early days and I have no desire to take a step backward (I mean, look at the SPM articles written ten years ago!). We are not bringing back shops, joke proposals (except April Fools) or fake warnings. Per all.
MarioManiac1981 (talk) I must agree with everyone else on this issue. All human beings are different, having different feelings, thoughts, and perception towards something; some users may understand that the reminders are simply jokes, but others may get easily frustrated, depressed, or annoyed, even if they did nothing wrong. On this wiki, everyone has to be considered. We cannot cater to a select group of users who love to sabotage each other with unreasonable warnings. Bringing back something stupid from my infant days will cause nothing but problems: users may be dissuaded from editing anymore on the Super Mario Wiki, they may intentionally troll and/or flame others, and far more. I've looked at 2010 revisions of Mario's article, and boy, were they abyyysssmal. Let's not bring back the bum-level, jestful past back into this very moment.
(you forgot oppose and comments) --FanOfYoshi 14:34, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Hmmm... Actual warnings are given in severe cases. --FanOfYoshi 14:41, 2 March 2019 (EST)
@Baby Luigi, you might want to look at this. That warning sounds funny to me, and it was used for a fun purpose. Under no circumstances do I call that inappropriate. Mari0fan100 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2019 (EST)
That seems like toying with someone by making them think they've caused a metaphorical trashfire. Even if only for a second, that's not OK. That's trolling. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2019 (EST)
@Doc, how are issuing warnings like those trolling? Mari0fan100 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Playing with someone's emotions. Before they see that it's a joke, they're going to see a big "Last Warning" template. Now I've been on the receiving end of a real one of those before, and I can tell you the sight of "Last Warning: New section" on your own talk page on the recent changes is not a pretty sight. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Whew, I think we lost some history after that revision... 02:28, 3 March 2019 (EST)
@Doc, now here's the problem. I don't look at certain warning templates that way. But then again, I've never had one myself. Mari0fan100 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2019 (EST)
Yeah, I don't care if it was for jokes or not it would be a bad idea. I think the only warnings that you should get are serious warnings. White Lightning 10:51, 5 March 2019 (EST)
When this wiki deals with a subject from an upcoming game or update, it's very common to see phrases such as "set to appear" or "will appear in said game or update". This kind of wording easily becomes obsolete once the game/update goes live. While some cases are promptly corrected, others remain unchanged for a long time. This instance, for example, had been forgotten for months since before the release of Mario Tennis Aces simply because it was too obscure.
I propose the Manual of Style to be updated to forbid explicit statements that a subject will appear in a future media, on grounds that simply stating the same thing in present tense ("[subject] appears in [upcoming game]") is fine enough to use and doesn't risk becoming out of date (except in extremely rare cases, where the subject it removed from the game or the game gets cancelled). It's actually more correct to state it this way, since any trailer or gameplay of an unreleased game presents elements that have already been incorporated into it and are thus presently in the game. We may then avoid situations like this one where the subject is literally hours from going live at the time of this proposal.
However, not all future wording would be affected by this proposal. Lead paragraphs that refer to a game as "upcoming" are free to stay, as this is the most simple way to state that the game is not released yet, on top of being likely more visible and easy to update than an obscure sentence on a particular page. So, cases like "Super Mario Maker 2 is an upcoming 2D platforming and level-editing game" will stay this way until release, even if the proposal passes.
Proposer: Bye Guy (talk) Deadline: March 13, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Bazooka Mario (talk) I was concerned about the vague provisions in the title of the proposal, but that's already addressed in the proposal. I think this is solid.
Shadow2 (talk) omg, I have lost count of the number of times I've come across "will be in [future game]" for a game that came out even more than a year ago. Please, PLEASE eradicate this practice
Mister Wu (talk) Agreed, in those cases the future tense is unneeded and it's very easy to miss the update of some sentences after release
FanOfYoshi (talk) I don't like this idea at all. If it is banning, then no. Discouraging is ok, but banning?! Would it make it a level offense? We usually fix it when the game is released, but when it is not released, it is fine to use it. I wouldn't stand that! I would make a counterproposal if this passes. >_>
Comments
Why are we banning it? I would prefer we discourage rather than banning. Should i make a counterproposal four weeks after the proposal's deadline? --FanOfYoshi 03:26, 1 March 2019 (EST)
You can, but judging from the overwhelming support for the present proposal, I think people really don't want to see future tenses on the wiki. What's the point of having them if they are going to be changed to present tense anyway? -- KOOPACONCARNE 07:40, 1 March 2019 (EST)
Thing is, that's what the {{upcoming}} and {{new subject}} templates are for. They highlight upcoming or recently released games/subjects, which get categorized to look through. It's a simple category to look through and update, and if we have to edit the page to remove the template when it's time to do so, might as well change the tenses, and the MarioWiki:Upcoming_content#Revision already encourages things to be written in a present tense in this way. 15:36, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Merge Assist Trophies that have made minor appearances in the Mario franchise
After the merge for almost all of the categories listed in the linked proposal, there were a handful of pages that were left over, a number of them being Assist Trophies. The reason for this seems to be that they've made some sort of appearance in the Mario games, be it appearances as Mystery Mushroom costumes in Super Mario Maker and cameos in WarioWare microgames. However, when you think about the fact that Mystery Mushroom costumes like Babymetal and microgame characters (both non-playable and playable, e.g. the Empress Bulbax or the Urban Champion fighter) don't have their own articles - which was part of the reason Arcade Bunny was deleted - their still being separate doesn't quite make sense. We've already decided to merge the Assist Trophies, and minor appearances like these in any kind of Mario-related media alone don't warrant separate articles. There have been a few that have already been picked off individually (adding to the inconsistency), including Midna's page; using that as a precedent, it's time we finish this in one fell swoop.
For the sake of going with the original plan of enacting the changes to our Smash coverage one step at a time, I'm only focusing on the Assist Trophy characters in this proposal instead of every non-Mario subject that may have articles out there, with one exception I found was similar enough to include (see below).
Affected pages:
Condor - The exception in the proposal: Not an Assist Trophy, but even smaller roles as a stage element in Melee's Target Test and appearing in the Ice Climbers' entrance and Final Smash. Its only Mario-franchise appearance is a single microgame.
Ghosts (Pac-Man) - Covers Blinky's appearance in the Mario Kart arcade games, who already has his own page. This page is utterly pointless.
Metroid (species) - Appears in a few microgames, a treasure in WL2, and the recently discovered cameo in DKCTF, all of which aren't worthy of separate articles.
Mother Brain - Appears in a microgame, as well as Captain N; however, recall that MarioWiki:Coverage lists N as a guest appearance, meaning we only cover the show itself and any Mario-related elements in it. She is only mentioned by name in the Nintendo Comics System and SMRPG.
Nintendog - Two microgame appearances. The article even covers Mario references in Nintendogs, which belong on the references page.
Takamaru - Microgame appearance, and same deal with Mother Brain: Captain Rainbow is a guest appearance, and Takamaru falls outside the coverage.
Proposer: Mario jc (talk) Deadline: March 22, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Support
Mario jc (talk) For the same reasons Arcade Bunny and Midna were removed, these should be, too.
Alex95 (talk) - I was thinking of something like this when I saw the Metroid disambiguation the other day. Some of these don't need pages on the Mario Wiki, but I didn't realize just how much more we don't really need. Per proposal.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal. I'd also like to see some of the items from other franchises merged, but that's a proposal for another time.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Merging them makes sense with the previous proposal, and, if a random person tries to look Super Smash Bros series things listed on this wiki, it's better to redirect them on this page.
Doomhiker (talk) No point for these pages or other similar pages to exist. The only exceptions that I can think of is Blinky due to his playable appearances in the Mario Kart series and Barbara due to her appearing in several web comics. Per all.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) We don't give Shantae any coverage despite her cameos in WarioWare: D.I.Y. and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, so why should any of the listed articles be present on this wiki? Per all.
MarioManiac1981 (talk) Let's remove these unnecessary articles from the Super Mario Wiki. Per all.
1337star (talk) Per all. The only one of those I could see keeping is the Metroid article, but that would only be if the other WLII treasures had articles, and they do not appear to. The Metroid cameo should probably be mentioned on the Wario's Treasures article, however.
Oppose
Comments
I originally wanted to include Balloon Fighter as another exception; however, seeing as he's playable in a number of microgames in addition to a full-length minigame, this could be open to even greater debate that I think would be best handled separately. If anyone finds any more pages that can be added to the list, please let me know. MarioJC 00:26, March 15, 2019 (EDT)
@Doomhiker: As mentioned in the proposal, Blinky already has his own page. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 17:25, March 15, 2019 (EDT)
@Waluigi Time I knew that, I just used his page as an example of pages like the pages that are getting merged that should stay. Doomhiker (talk) 17:27, March 15, 2019 (EDT)
Blinky isn't getting merged though, he's unaffected by this proposal. Only the article about the Pac-Man ghosts in general would be merged. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 12:05, March 16, 2019 (EDT)
I know that too, I just used his page as an example. Doomhiker (talk) 13:10, March 16, 2019 (EDT)
Remove information about Captain N: The Game Master + Captain Rainbow from non-Mario subjects
keep all information 1-1-3-0-0-5
Currently, MarioWiki:Coverage considers Captain N: The Game Master a guest appearance. However, for some reason, editors have decided that this means we should also cover appearances in the show of non-Mario characters that have crossed over with the Mario series in other more relevant media. Additionally, whenever Captain N is referenced as a subject's first appearance, it is mentioned as "Mario-related media", which I think is inaccurate based on our coverage policy, although this is only done on three articles, while the rest ignore the show in their infobox entirely.
This feels strange and outside the scope of our wiki, and doesn't make sense when Captain N's only relevance to the Mario franchise is that Donkey Kong and a few Donkey Kong Jr. enemies appear in a few episodes, along with the usage of Warp Zones. It's also inconsistent with how we cover other guest appearances; Densetsu no Starfy 3 is considered a guest appearance, but we no longer have an article on Starfy following our shift in Smash coverage. Nintendo Land and Nintendo Badge Arcade don't mention appearances of characters from other franchises on their articles. I did find two other exceptions; Little Mac and Takamaru's articles both mention their appearance in Captain Rainbow. Little Mac's article also mentions his playable appearance in Punch-Out!!, but that's kind of iffy in my opinion and should be saved for another time.
Therefore, I propose that coverage of Captain N: The Game Master and Captain Rainbow for subjects not originating in the Mario franchise be removed.
This would potentially affect the following pages:
Affected by removing any Captain N: The Game Master content (Options 1, 2, 3, and 4):
My apologies if this is confusing, I've accidentally made a sort of tangled mess here. Leave any questions in the comments and I'll be glad to sort them out.
Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk) Deadline: March 23, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Option 1: Remove all Captain N and Captain Rainbow information
Option 3: Just remove Captain N information for characters that do not interact with Mario elements
Doomhiker (talk) It is pretty harmless to mention a third party character's appearance in a third party game that we cover, as Mario characters appear in Captain Rainbow. As with Captain N I agree with not covering their appearances in episodes that are not Mario related however I do feel like we should still cover their appearances in episodes where they interact with Mario-related things. Per Glowsquid.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) I think this is the best option, as we sometimes still cover guest appearance-related subjects on their own articles; see Nintendo Village and Mario Chase as an example. But since Mario characters do appear in the show, I'd say removing all information would be counter-intuitive and have no real benefit. The Captain Rainbow information is also needed, I feel.
Option 4: Just remove all Captain N information
Option 5: Just remove Captain Rainbow information
Option 6: Do nothing
Glowsquid (talk) - I personally think it's Neat and harmless to have an aside saying among the lines of "oh btw this guy is in Captain N/Captain Rainbow/other weird crossover" as long as it doesn't go too in-depth. Furthermore, a good chunk of the characters listed in the affected article list do interact with the Mario-relevant elements of Captain N (see below) and those are interractions are perfectly within the scope of the wiki to describe, so unless that is ammended, I'll have to oppose anyway.
#Doomhiker (talk) It is pretty harmless to mention a third party character's appearance in a third party game that we cover, as Mario characters appear in Captain Rainbow. As with Captain N I agree with not covering their appearances in episodes that are not Mario related however I do feel like we should still cover their appearances in episodes where they interact with Mario-related things, and as this proposal's options only account for completely exterminating information on third party character's appearances in Captain N, I have to fully oppose for now. Per Glowsquid.
Comments
fyi, even if this pass, I would strongy recommend against removing the Captain N info from the pages about the show's core cast (which is to say, Simon Pit and Mega Man) and Dr. Wily since they all interract with Donkey Kong at some point. Infact, one of the show's episode is about Simon Belmont getting knocked on the head, wake up thinking he's Donkey Kong Jr. and going out to find his "father". So yeah, bad idea. --Glowsquid (talk) 13:49, March 16, 2019 (EDT)
Per requests, I have changed the proposal to add an option to keep information about the characters who interact with Mario-related elements in the show. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 15:15, March 16, 2019 (EDT)
I don't see any reason to remove these at all. Look at Glowsquid's vote. --FanOfYoshi 08:42, March 24, 2019 (EDT)
Super Mario Galaxy / Super Mario Galaxy 2 fiery counterparts
do nothing 6-2-9
A while ago, I asked LinkTheLefty (talk) if "Fiery Gobblegut" is the name of the fiery version of Gobblegut found in Battle Belt Galaxy, and he said that the name is unofficial. Since it has also come to our attention that the fierier version of King Kaliente from Bowser Jr.'s Lava Reactor does not have its own separate article, I propose we do any of the following:
Split the fiery King Kaliente from King Kaliente. I strongly suggest doing this, as these versions of the bosses are actually more differentiable than the "X" bosses from Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story and Mario & Luigi: Dream Team, which we already have split.
Merge the fiery Gobblegut with Gobblegut. I strongly suggest not doing this, for the reasons listed above.
Do nothing. I could not have opposed this any more. Allowing this option to pass would cause a horrible inconsistency that would worsen the quality of how we handle alternate versions of enemies and bosses.
FanOfYoshi (talk) I see no good reason to not split King Kaliente's scorched form, if the queen Hisstocrat is split from the normal Hisstocrat, and that the fiery Gobblegut is split from the normal Gobblegut.
Doomhiker (talk) As long as the fire versions of the bosses that are called the same as their regular forms have a good identifier such as (fire) I am fine with this. Per all.
Tails777 (talk) While a Prima guide is not a go-to, my secondary vote would be to merge the two Gobbleguts, as it is somewhat suggested that they are the same, even if the source is a bit iffy.
Option C
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) As I said below, the secondary King Kaliente is no more different from the initial one than the recurring bosses in Super Mario 3D World, ie having different textures, acting slightly more aggressive, and being in a different place, which is not uncommon for recurring bosses in video games as a whole. That to me seems like splitting off every Boom Boom behavioral difference from New Super Mario Bros. U, or at least the intermediate and final Koopaling battles in New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Perhaps even the different Birdo colors. The Gobblegut thing at least includes the addition of an incendiary exponent not present whatsoever in the initial fight, which cannot be said about King Kaliente. Additionally, the English title of the second Kaliente mission refers to it as the same entity, and I have not seen any evidence that the JP version considers them separate. Nor have I seen evidence that the Gobbleguts are definitively intended to be the same entity (particularly as, again, the "burning" thing comes straight out of nowhere.)
Bazooka Mario (talk) Yeah, King Kaliente should not get split, per the English title card, King Kaliente's Spicy Return. Unlike Fiery Gobblegut, the second fight involves clearly the same character.
MarioComix (talk) Per all. The English title card implies them to be the same character, not unlike Knot-Wing the Koopa and the other Woolly World bosses who have multiple boss fights. And with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, we've seen multiple Gobblegut-like entities (well, technically statues), leaving a precedent for there to be multiple Gobbleguts.
Comments
While I'm not sure how to vote on this proposal quite yet, I'd like to point out that the mission name for the second King Kaliente battle is King Kaliente's Spicy Return. This seems to imply that King Kaliente is indeed the same character in both galaxies. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 19:05, March 17, 2019 (EDT)
That's exactly what I meant to say in the Option C sentence. Same applies to Gobblegut, though. (T|C) 20:02, March 17, 2019 (EDT)
Does the scorched Kaliente have its own JP name in any official source? The English mission name indicate's it's the same entity, while it is unlikely at best that Fiery Dino Piranha is the same entity as its counterpart. The JP mission title doesn't seem to indicate either way, does Jr.'s JP dialog or anything from a JP official guide specify? Additionally, the only behavioral difference seems to be he gets more aggressive faster (ie a typical recurring boss thing), with every other difference being from the environment (meteors, sinking platforms, etc). I'd support merging the Hisstocrats and leaving the SMG bosses as-is due to this, as it seems far more in-line with that than with Gobblegut. An incendiary exponent is much different from "goes raagh faster in a different place." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:16, March 19, 2019 (EDT)
Also, IIRC, the normal Hisstocrat and the queen Hisstocrat were found once together. --FanOfYoshi 03:02, March 21, 2019 (EDT)
You do recall correctly, so the current situation with them may be fine. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:57, March 21, 2019 (EDT)
@Mister Wu Does the little blurb paint them as separate entities? How about the JP version of the game itself? Anyways, that's a color identifier, which the guide also uses (inconsistently) with color-varying enemies (which also tend to get their own artwork). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:03, March 21, 2019 (EDT)
They surely aren't inconsistent when it come to these Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 variants, so we don't have to worry about that.
This is the description of the Black King Kaliente
オタキング(黒)
パワーアップしたオタキング。メテオストライクも降らせてくる。
And this is the description of Bowser Jr.'s Lava Reactor and of King Kaliente's Spicy Return, on page 133:
クッパJr.クリーチャープラント
溶岩でおおわれた、オタキング(黒)の待ち受ける惑星。
溶岩惑星のオタキング
足場が不安定な溶岩の上で、オタキング(黒)とバトル。
For comparison, since it was brought up, this is the descrription of Black Gobblegut, on page 159:
ガブリュウ(黒)
炎の体を持ち、火の玉を降らしてくるガブリュウ。長い体の赤い部分が弱点。
and this is the description of Snacktime for Gobblegut, on page 167:
灼熱!怒りのガブリュウ
ハラペコチコで異なるルートへ。灼熱状態となったガブリュウとバトル。
As far as the game and the Encycloepdia are concerned, Black King Kaliente and Black Gobblegut are treated in the same manner:
The Encycloepdia states that they are variant of a previous boss with gameplay quirks (meteor strike is named for Black King Kaliente, fire body and falling fireballs for Black Gobblegut)
It also gives them a new artwork in both cases
The name of the mission featuring them just contains the name of the original boss
The description in the Encyclopedia then names the variant, except in the case of Gobblegut whose black color is not mentioned
That's all we might say about it, but there is a plot twist actually: page 58 of the Super Mario Pia that describes King Kaliente:
オタキング
炎やバブルを放つ巨大なタコの姿をしたポスモンスター。体の色が黒い仲間も登場した。
The use of 「仲間」 clearly tells us that the one with the black body is considered a different individual.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:03, March 21, 2019 (EDT)
I don't trust Pia over a game itself. Unless Jr.'s dialog in the JP version of the Lava Reactor indicate it's a new individual, I'm sticking with C and potentially B. Anyways, Meteors are an environmental thing that really don't get going until the third phase of the battle. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:43, March 21, 2019 (EDT)
"His" King Kaliente? --FanOfYoshi 09:31, March 22, 2019 (EDT)
Given the name in the JP version, that would be "My Otaking," which might indicate that "Otaking" is not an individual, but a specific subtype of Octo, like a queen bee or something. Or it could be just a power-mad spoiled brat emperor wannabe calling his minions through twisted terms of endearment. Who knows. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:40, March 22, 2019 (EDT)
I know that Prima Guides aren't the go-to for naming, but if it helps in any sense, the Prima Guide for Super Mario Galaxy 2 simply refers to the fiery Gobblegut as "a fired-up version of Gobblegut". The wording would suggest that this is the same Gobblegut, but again, it's a Prima guide. Not sure how far we should run with that. Tails777 Talk to me!
Eh, I don't think that really helps since you could easily interpret it both ways. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 12:29, March 22, 2019 (EDT)
I'd assume we wouldn't turn to the English copy of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia for much? Given the controversy around English translations and such, but just in case, I did want to mention that the book has a more set name for Fire Gobblegut (being just that) while King Kaliente is only listed as "King Kaliente (Scorched)". Tails777 Talk to me!
It's not possible to rely on that, in any case we have the original Japanese text above. They both have the same naming scheme, name of the boss (black). Actually, the Japanese text doesn't even use Gobblegut (Black) in the description of the mission, it only uses Gobblegut, while King Kaliente (Black) is specifically mentioned in both the description of Bowser Jr.'s Lava Reactor and in the description of the mission.--Mister Wu (talk) 23:35, March 22, 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, let's not. --FanOfYoshi 03:02, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
It's just too complicated. --FanOfYoshi 13:01, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
Well, I didn't even know that had a proposal. Maybe I need to tune in a bit more often. In any case, that answers that. Tails777 Talk to me!
This might have directly been on King Kaliente then. --FanOfYoshi 08:41, March 24, 2019 (EDT)
Change the source priority exception to a more case-by-case basis
canceled by proposer
I've seen a proposal MarioWiki talk:Naming#Make an exception to source priority for articles with identical names, which decidedly made an exception to priority names. However, i don't like this setup. While i prefer "Klamber" and "Scorchit", over "Scuttle Bug" and "Zeus Guy", i've seen articles named after their internal filenames, taking priority over guide names. And i also know at least one (or possibly two) example(s) doing that. I also want to say that "but has a confusing english name" is arbitrary. Given the Urchin situation that has driven me mad during a whole proposal, and potentially that Gringill split, it's time to stop making exception for internal filenames.)
Proposer:FanOfYoshi (talk) Deadline: April 8, 2019, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: April 3, 2019, 12:05 GMT
Make a more case-by-case basis (Determine each case individually)
Stop having internal filenames as a priority over guide names
Keep the current setup (Errr, current setup is perfectly fine)
Comments
This isn't an April Fools joke, right? (T|C) 03:42, April 1, 2019 (EDT)
No? So, you mean that in April Fools, you should ONLY make joke Proposals? --FanOfYoshi 03:44, April 1, 2019 (EDT)
No, just that you should you should expect someone to ask that question when you launch a proposal on April Fools. (T|C) 04:11, April 1, 2019 (EDT)
My point on this proposal is to override the source priority exception Niiue has made, and to determine each case. If it passes, we will revisit the internal filenames later. (which i feel responsible too) --FanOfYoshi 05:15, April 1, 2019 (EDT)
Regarding the Urchin proposal, i'm pretty sure that Doc von Schmeltwick would have used a similar argument to that he used here. --FanOfYoshi 05:48, April 1, 2019 (EDT)
I'm not sure why more case-by-case basis (something I agree with, since the text of the original proposal is generic and thus can't be used right away without a discussion first, in my opinion) is used in the context of what seems more a stop making exception for internal filenames, the scope of which (all or certain?) isn't even clear.--Mister Wu (talk) 09:56, April 1, 2019 (EDT)
Forgot to answer, i altered the proposal a bit. --FanOfYoshi 10:34, April 2, 2019 (EDT)
I agree with Mister Wu. If it is indeed a counter to the source priority exception proposal, it should only be fair that it's a talk page proposal as well so it gets two weeks instead of only one. If it's about internal filenames specifically, then you're going to have to come up with a few examples - there have been suggested exceptions (namely the red Urchin and blue Lava Bubble), but as far as I'm aware, there are currently no filename references as source exceptions in effect (unless the name is question is a lowercase, generic descriptor, which is also somewhat of a tricky grey area when it comes to naming and generally only used when consistent). LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:44, April 2, 2019 (EDT)
Regarding the blue Lava Bubble, it was because i thought it was going to be a bit too confusing, as the normal Lava Bubble was also a "fire" Bubble. Regarding the red Urchin, it was because of the untranslated "Unizo" that i agreed for "Urchin (land)". It's not exactly a counterproposal, just altering the source priority for a more case-by-case basis. --FanOfYoshi 10:49, April 2, 2019 (EDT)
Fire Bubble seems to be a unique name as far as I can ascertain, and "Lava Bubble" is also used as the original name for Li'l Cinder in the first Super Mario Galaxy's Prima guide (with Li'l Brr being Ice Bubble), which the source priority exception proposal would actually help resolve. LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:11, April 3, 2019 (EDT)
Either restrict usage of or don't use NTSC or PAL on articles
Use NTSC or PAL only for articles that relate to the older home consoles, while using the British or American English terminology for handheld consoles, the Wii U and the Nintendo Switch 7-9-1
It's common knowledge to mention regional differences between versions of the same game across the globe and there's nothing wrong with that. You know what is, though? Using the terms "NTSC" and "PAL" when it actually wouldn't really apply that well in the first place.
First of all, NTSC and PAL would really only apply for the older (analog) TV sets back in the day. Newer HDTVs don't really use the analog NTSC or PAL video standards anymore, instead going for digital standards like ATSC, ISDB or DTMB, for example.
Second of all, NTSC and PAL are mainly used to denote which video standard is used for TVs, not so much for video games (except for rare cases in which the content is exactly the same as the American version, where the only difference is game speed thanks to the PAL format in question).
Not only that, but several people are still insisting on using NTSC and PAL for certain cases when it really wouldn't make sense (for example, this revision of the Shifty Shrine article). This needs to change.
I'm proposing to replace either any or most instances of "NTSC" or "PAL" for video game regional differences with "American English" or "British English" whenever mentioned in articles. My reasons as for why are as follows:
The Game Boy, DS and Switch systems are region-free, meaning any game can work on any regional system.
Most translations into American and British English are basically almost identical (e.g. Kirby: Triple Deluxe,Mario Party 8, etc.). There are the rare few (Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U,The Legend of Zelda: Tri Force Heroes, for example) that are completely different in many ways.
For the most part, only Europe, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand use the PAL standard for older video game consoles (before the Wii U). Japan, China, Korea, the US, Mexico and Canada use the NTSC standard for those games. Stating the PAL or NTSC version for games whose releases are on newer consoles that use 1080p graphics (Wii U and Switch, currently) or on portable systems (Game Boy, Game Boy Colour, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS or Nintendo 3DS) is just inaccurate.
I foresee so many ways this proposal could go in these two weeks so I'm adding multiple options. These options could be the one with the most votes at the end instead of just one, so they are there just in case. If you guys have any suggestions for other options before the end of the first week, then that would be great. The currently available options at the moment are the following:
Replace any instance of NTSC and PAL for video game regional differences with American English and British English, respectively. My preferred choice.
Use American English and British English for articles that relate to games for the portable systems and the Wii U and Nintendo Switch, but use NTSC and PAL for everything else. My second preferred choice.
Do absolutely nothing. I suggest that we do not pick this option under any circumstance.
Proposer: Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Deadline: March 29, 2019, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 5, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Option 1: Use the American English and British English terminology wherever possible
Mister Wu (talk) I think this would simplify our life in the long term, taking us away from terms that are more and more losing usage and are problematic when used here even in the implied meaning of region due to Japan adopting NTSC as well, making the term NTSC region again an imprecise term
Toadette the Achiever (talk) After some thinking, yeah, maybe use this instead. After all, some of the newer users may be confused by the "NTSC" and "PAL" terminology, so it's best to inconvenience the least amount of users possible.
Doomhiker (talk) Option 2 is still works, but using the American English and British English terminology works in general and thus is more convenient. Using NTSC and PAl for everything (Our current setup for the most part, aka option 3) is downright incorrect as Owen explained, so this is my preferred option. Per all.
Yaronos (talk) Per all. Using PAL and NTSC will confuse new users, and with games like Captain Toad on Switch, it doesn't make any sense when both the American and British are on the same cart.
TheFlameChomp (talk) I'm not opposed to option 2, but I feel this option would be less confusing to readers. Per all.
7feetunder (talk) No need to confuse younger readers with techno babble.
Option 2: Use NTSC or PAL only for articles that relate to the older home consoles (NES, SNES, N64, GCN and Wii) / Use the British or American English terminology for handheld consoles, the Wii U and the Switch
Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Second preferred option. After all, NTSC and PAL only apply to the analog TV sets.
bwburke94 (talk) NTSC/PAL is valid distinction for older home consoles.
Mister Wu (talk) Second valid alternative, requires us less work and the older home consoles had effectively a PAL/NTSC-only output
Alex95 (talk) - This one makes the most sense to me.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Errr, current setup is perfectly fine. Why making a proposal about it?
Comments
From what I've seen, people don't say that they're "NTSC" or "PAL," but say "NTSC region" or "PAL region," which works as a shorthand way of denoting the regional split where differences tend to crop up. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:43, March 14, 2019 (EDT)
Uh, interesting. Never knew that until now (either that, or I never really saw that crop up that often). For the most part, whenever people mention it, they usually say "NTSC version" or "PAL version." – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 21:58, March 14, 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, NTSC region and PAL region are barely used on this wiki, if at all. There's also the issue that NTSC is used in Japan as well, so I can see why NTSC region isn't really used that much.--Mister Wu (talk) 22:38, March 14, 2019 (EDT)
I've mostly sen it in regards to the original Luigi's Mansion, where it is a difference in-line with said TV parameter differences. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, March 14, 2019 (EDT)
I don't really see a need for this proposal, personally. If there's inaccurate terminology being used on the wiki, it should be fixed on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure there's cases where NTSC/PAL is accurate, cases where American/British English is accurate, and cases where neither phrasing would be accurate and something else would need to be used. -- 1337star(Mailbox SP) 13:21, March 21, 2019 (EDT)
There's actually a need of this proposal since the usage of those terms stems from rules written in the glossary. Considering how NTSC and PAL output are at this point almost completely phased out, it makes sense to consider a revision or an update of the glossary.--Mister Wu (talk) 23:13, March 21, 2019 (EDT)
@FanofYoshi: No, it's not perfectly fine. NTSC and PAL themselves are basically no longer accurate to today's current advancements of technology. The Wii U and Switch use an HDMI connection, which uses digital connections, not analog. Portable systems, like the Game Boy and 3DS, don't really use NTSC or PAL connections, because they are...well portable. Older home consoles do use NTSC or PAL analog connections, though. – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 13:45, March 26, 2019 (EDT)
I'll admit I did not know what either of those were in reference to until after some amount of time of browsing this site. And I started browsing it back around in 3rd-4th grade age. So if it wasn't understandable by kids then, it certainly won't now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:51, March 26, 2019 (EDT)
Recreate the numbered Mario Kart redirects
restore redirects 13-0
The recent controversy over the new Throw Block redirect threw me back to a certain proposal made almost two years ago. Yes, I'm talking about this travesty that, despite being a clear violation of the redirect policy then, and even moreso now, still somehow passed 12-7, deleting all the numbered Mario Kart redirects that could have actually helped people who wanted to know what, say, the fourth Mario Kart game was.
All the reasons given on the support side of that linked proposal are flawed. To quote my vote in that proposal: "According to MarioWiki:Redirects, "If there's even a small chance that a redirect will help someone, it's not useless." And while there may only be one person in the world who calls them that, that's more then zero; hence, they're not useless."
That point still stands up today, and in fact, our current redirect policy, in bold text even, says, "There is no need to delete alternate name, conjectural, or spelling-mistake redirects unless they are specifically too silly or too general." It really couldn't be more clear than that.
I don't know how that proposal passed by such a wide margin, or why no one's attempted to overturn it since, but it's time to right this wrong that's haunted me for eighteen months.
YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per my proposal, my vote in the last one, and in fact literally the entire opposition in the last one.
Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Reading this proposal has convinced me that those sorts of redirects are fine, as long as they help at least one person navigate the wiki. Per YoshiFlutterJump.
Mario jc (talk) Yeah, I never really liked the idea of having those numbered redirects deleted. Someone unfamiliar with the franchise might want to know what the fourth Mario Kart game is and search up "mario kart 4" and find Double Dash!!, which is what redirects are for. There are still some "(series) (number)" redirects still lying around that were never taken care of either.
There has to be some sort of notability line we draw when it comes to making redirects. Otherwise you can use that "redirects are never useless" argument to justify all sorts of names like Mayro Kratt and Luggy. Who actually calls Mario Kart Double Dash by its numerical order on the franchise? Common sense is applied here, and I don't see the rationale for making numerical redirects convincing and they do not establish what sort of line we draw on redirects. Rather, it just seems this proposal is just "create redirects because we can". It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:51, May 9, 2019 (EDT)
It's all a matter of "Oh, I wonder what the fourth Mario Kart is...I'll just try typing in 'Mario Kart 4' and see what I get". Not everyone is going to have the immediate urge to type in "Mario Kart (series)" to see what the fourth Mario Kart was. Why take them to the search page when we already know what they want? It's inconveniencing our readers on purpose, which is counterproductive to our goal as a wiki. And also, we don't have "Mayro Kratt" or "Luggy" because they're deemed too silly to be any use. That's entirely irrelevant to this. -YFJ (talk · edits) 19:08, May 9, 2019 (EDT)
Except those are completely nonsensical terms, which is specifically what MarioWiki:Redirects discourages. The numbered ones at least have some validity. MarioJC 20:06, May 9, 2019 (EDT)
I guess that is a counterproposal? --FanOfYoshi 11:39, May 10, 2019 (EDT)
You could call it that. This proposal aims to directly overturn the one from November 2017, and recreate all redirects that were deleted because of said proposal. -YFJ (talk · edits) 12:18, May 10, 2019 (EDT)
Wouldn't these numbered redirects fall under being too general though? SmokedChili (talk) 04:16, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
A redirect that is too general would be one that could refer to multiple things (excluding certain abbreviation redirects). For example, MK2 could only refer to the second Mario Kart game, Mario Kart 64. Even then, as mentioned we already have other numbered redirects such as Super Smash Bros. 3. Doomhiker (talk) 06:03, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
Okay, point taken. But both pages explaining redirects are mostly about inexact phrases and variations, and one issue I see with them is that they don't say anything about fan-made names or terms which is what "Super Smash Bros. 3" is. For being helpful to even just one person, this would also run at the risk of their search for "Mario Kart 2" causing them to misunderstand it as "Mario Kart 64 is Mario Kart 2" and at worst spreading that around because "it was on Mario Wiki". SmokedChili (talk) 10:30, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again. Redirects are not part of our knowledgebase. They are merely a tool to assist someone in their search for a certain article without typing in the exact name, allowing them to skip the dreaded search page. If someone wants to know what the second Mario Kart is, they're not going to type in "Mario Kart (series)". No, the average person will type in "Mario Kart 2". As I've said before, we already know where they want to go. Why suppress the page from them? -YFJ (talk · edits) 13:59, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
So now it's from "maybe only one person" to "the average person"? How do you know they wouldn't type something like "second Mario Kart" into the search bar instead? SmokedChili (talk) 14:57, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I don't know what you're talking about. "The average person" is certainly at least one person. But if they type "second Mario Kart" they're clearly trying to go to the search page, whereas someone who types in "Mario Kart 2" likely thinks that's the actual name of the game, and clearly isn't trying to go to the search page. There is a difference here. -YFJ (talk · edits) 15:06, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
One person isn't an "average person" among who knows how many if he's the only one to search about "Mario Kart 2". If someone wants to search about "second Mario Kart", what's stopping us to make a redirect for that then? At least it has more basis in reality than "Mario Kart 2". SmokedChili (talk) 15:37, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
"this travesty" I'm hurt. I'm not sure if I want to support going back on my proposal yet, but I do think there should be a line drawn here somewhere. Fan-created terms specifically meant to be a redirect (not a conjectural term that was moved from a page and became a redirect) I don't think should be made. Using "Throw Block" as an example, it's actually pretty vague and it can refer to anythrowableblock. 15:44, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
As you said the conjectural part of the redirect policy is vague and should be cleared up, as it could refer either to long-time conjectural wiki names or all conjectural names. If it is cleared up then it would be much easier to determine which redirects should and should not stay. Thinking about it, I do now agree the Throw Block is too general and should be deleted, but I think that the numbered redirects could genuinely help someone, and thus should stay. Anyways, if the numbered Mario Kart redirects cannot stay, then the other unofficial numbered redirects such as Super Smash Bros. 3 cannot either. I also agree that a line should be drawn, but the problem is where. Doomhiker (talk) 16:45, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I wasn't really calling the proposal itself a "travesty", that was more directed toward its passing, as it still somehow passed despite the opposition having far stronger reasons than the support, and the fact that it wasn't exactly supported by policy. The policy does say, or at least imply, that unless a redirect is too silly or general, it's a redirect worth creating. Maybe "Throw Block" does cross the line of too general. But the numbered kart redirects could actually be useful to someone and definitely wouldn't take someone somewhere they wouldn't want to go. There's nothing to be lost in making redirects, anyway. So why not have them? -YFJ (talk · edits) 16:56, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I am not sure where to draw the line, either. There are a few situations that are best handled case by case. And with the current policy, we shouldn't have too much trouble figuring out what stays and what doesn't. Numbered games seem like a good way to redirect people want to know the nth game of a series without them needing them to search the series pages, but it isn't necessary for all series. We don't need it where series entries are not important (like Mario Golf and Mario Tennis). It is best to treat redirects case by case. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 17:25, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
This was brought up in the previous proposal, but due to Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8 being numbered more casual fans may not know the more complex names in the series and assume that all games in the series are numbered, similar to the classic mainline Mega Man and Mega Man X series' games. I think that game series that already have some numbered entries should have numbered redirects regardless, but series with consistently unique names such as the ones you mentioned above would not really need numbered redirects except for maybe the first entry of those series if they have the series' title as their title such as how some people call the original The Legend of Zelda "Zelda 1". The redirect Super Smash Bros. 3 may not be needed, though, as due to the game's popularity pretty much everyone knows its actual name, Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Anyways, it is a good idea to treat redirects case-by-case. Doomhiker (talk) 17:51, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps the numbered redirects could be recreated, idk. They aren't exactly "fan-created" per se, I guess, considering MK7 and MK8 refer to previous titles. I do think a fan created term should not be created purely for redirect's sake, but that's a discussion for another time. 23:07, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
Just to clarify, what is the list of redirects you'd like to make and what would be the source for that list? Even though I have an idea for both the answers, I think having them explicitly given is very important for this proposal.--Mister Wu (talk) 22:20, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
If this passes, all redirects that were deleted in the last proposal will be recreated here. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:13, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
It'd be admins that'd impliment that proposal IMO, as they can undelete pages, so the previous histories of the redirect don't get lost. --FanOfYoshi 03:57, May 12, 2019 (EDT)
There's no need to preserve the practically nonexistent histories of the redirects. It's fine, I can do it myself. -YFJ (talk · edits) 14:30, May 12, 2019 (EDT)
Eh, I don't see a problem with restoring them if need be. 16:12, May 12, 2019 (EDT)
Decide on a phrase to describe crossover appearances with the Mario franchise
"Mario-related media" 0-0-1-1-12-1
The way non-Mario character infoboxes describe their crossovers with Mario is currently inconsistent from page to page. For example, Squirtle's appearances with Mario are described as "crossovers with the Mario franchise", while Sonic the Hedgehog's are described simply as "crossover installments". The goal of this proposal is to decide on a particular formula from those available on the wiki. Here's the options:
Crossover installments: to me, this is too vague. It seems like it could refer to any crossover installment, not necessarily linked to Mario.
Mario crossovers: This is not too bad, but it puts too much emphasis on Mario, and the Super Smash Bros. games, for example, aren't all about Mario.
Mario franchise crossovers: Same as above, but it's more explicit as to what kind of "Mario" it refers to (not the character).
Crossovers with the Mario franchise: This seems to be the best way to put it, but the downside is that it occupies a lot of space in the infobox.
(NEW) Mario-related media: Seems to be popular and frankly, it describes crossover appearances perfectly without making use of nerdy jargon ("crossover").
And, the guest star of the show:
Do nothing.
Feel free to add any other options that you can think of below.
A rather minor proposal, I know, but it's small changes like these that make a difference! Or not. Maybe I'm just an organizational maniac.
Proposer: Bye Guy (talk) Deadline: May 18, 2019, 23:59 GMT
BBQ Turtle (talk) I think this one would work best as it would also work for characters who appear in non-crossover Mario games as cameos or as guest characters (Such as Pac-Man, whose first Mario-related appearance is Mario Kart Arcade GP, or the Final Fantasy characters in Mario Hoops 3-on-3).
Alex95 (talk) - I asked for this, so I'm voting for it. Per BBQ Turtle.
#FanOfYoshi (talk) I see no reason to change anything at all.
Comments
Would "Mario-related media" work as an option? @HEROMARIO, your vote is very vague. What does it mean? 15:35, May 11, 2019 (EDT)
I added it. -- KOOPACONCARNE 07:47, May 12, 2019 (EDT)
Why do we have to change anything at all? --FanOfYoshi 13:19, May 13, 2019 (EDT)
It's always professional to find a rule for situations like these and be consistent with it. That said, I have a terrible time deciding things by myself unless I have someone else's opinion, so I made a proposal. There was once a proposal to remove the colon in title abbreviations used in the code of certain game-related nav templates. It might seem minor, but the punctilious nature of the proposal itself stresses that this wiki is (to a great extent) serious business. -- -- KOOPACONCARNE 19:27, May 13, 2019 (EDT)
Delete minor species navigation templates
keep 1-10
I've noticed a large amount of navigation templates for minor species, like Template:Octoombas and Template:Bandits. Most of them are just categories in template form, and a large amount of them already have categories for that exact purpose. However, navigation templates for major enemies, like Template:Goombas, Template:Koopa Troopas, and Template:Wigglers can stay, because they have a large amount of variants and have appeared in a large amount of games. EDIT: A "minor" nav template would be classified as a nav template with less than ten entries and has a category for its exact purpose.
Proposer: TheDarkStar (talk) Deadline: June 13, 2019, 23:59 GMT
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) In what way is this helpful? Strong, strong, strongstrongstrongsrong oppose to this. This is outright detrimental in every way. As I have said, the Bandit one exists to get them off the Shy Guy template because of how overly-large it is.
Baby Luigi (talk) I see little reason to remove templates designed to make things easier to navigate. You didn't really specify a point where a template is deemed "minor" enough for deletion, and I can't really have that vague wording when it comes to policy.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all. I see no reason to delete at all. Also, i think the Octogoombas template should be undeleted.
TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all, the templates help make navigation easier, and are organized differently than the categories.
Obsessive Mario Fan (talk) Per all. I initially thought otherwise, but I realized even minor navigation templates make navigation easier. Templates containing 2 or 3 links are unneeded, but these can stay.
Doomhiker (talk) Per all. You see, even when there is a category-template actual readers may not know about category pages or how to reach them, so a template that is on the page with better organization can be genuinely helpful. Even with smaller templates, as it is still nice to have all pertaining links in one place without having to search the article for them, as sub-species do not link to all of the other members of their species in their infobox (See Elite Octoomba, which does not link to Octoboo for example). So, I also agree on undeleteing the Octoomba template if this option passes due to the above, especially since it had a distinction between enemies and bosses.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) Your reasoning makes little sense. The reason Template:Octoombas was deleted was because it literally was a category in template form. Every other template was split into the helpful "characters" and "species" navigation. That's why they work.
Interesting scenario. I'm not too sure how to proceed either. --FanOfYoshi 12:42, June 7, 2019 (EDT)
Exactly what templates do you think should be effected by this? 13:08, June 7, 2019 (EDT)
Additional note: The "category in template form" thing was made because a loooooooong time ago, there were nav templates on here for things like fire creatures and birds. I remember those days. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:40, June 7, 2019 (EDT)
@TDA I am pretty sure that Template:Octoombas was split into "characters" and "species" navigation, due to the Octoomba bosses. Doomhiker (talk) 08:23, June 9, 2019 (EDT)
Create articles on Play Nintendo games
create 12-0
We have a whole template for computer games, which includes browser games. For Play Nintendo games and quizzes, Some articles havebeencreated, but links to them on the main article were removed. I think we should come to an agreement if we're going to make articles on them or not.
merge everything except Meowser 0-18-0
Okay, whatarethese doing as separate articles? In all honesty, I don't think they really warrant separate articles at all, seeing as how they're identical to the base form. Therefore, I propose that the following merges take place:
Toadette the Achiever (talk) I think this is the best option by a long shot. Meowser is at least distinct and has several traits that differ from the Cat forms of other characters (such as swiping his tail in Super Mario 3D World and the fact that he is a separate entity in Super Mario Maker 2). The other mentioned forms that Bowser takes, on the other hand, all appear exclusively in one work each (The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 episode "Super Koopa" for the former three and definitely Mario Party 2 for the latter), and don't deviate much from the base abilities of each respective form (other than the fact that Bowser could easily combine and interchange forms in said episode).
FanOfYoshi (talk) These are minor forms, and merging Meowser would cause a horrible inconsistency (just like the King Kaliente). We have Fiery Gobblegut and the pink Hisstocrat, then why not Meowser?
Propeller Toad (talk) The articles of the Bowser/Koopa forms from The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 are products of the Wiki's earlier days. As charming as they may be, I agree that these articles should be merged with their respective power-up form pages. However, I too believe that Meowser alone should be kept as a separate article as this form is a major aspect of the final boss fight in Super Mario 3D World as well Meowser's ability to use other attacks including Bowser's trademark fire breath as well as the tail whip (all of which are not present on any of the playable characters that can gain the Cat form). In addition to the unique name of the form, I personally feel this article is significant enough to stand alone along with passing references to it in the Cat Mario page (as already seen).
Mister Wu (talk) Meowser doesn't have the standard appearance of a Cat form character nor does he have the same abilities, so it makes sense to keep him separate
Do nothing
Comments
@FanOfYoshi: I don't see your point about consistency. Fire Gobblegut and Pink Hisstocrat are different entities from their standard counterparts. Meowser and Fire King Kaliente (afaik) are not. The reason that Meowser should stay is because he has an entirely different attack pattern from both standard Bowser and Cat Mario, and he is also more significant than the other forms of Bowser. -YFJ (talk · edits) 12:30, June 30, 2019 (EDT)
Aside from these, I'd also like to point out Metal Bowser also has his own page which seems unnecessary. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 15:14, June 30, 2019 (EDT)
canceled by proposer
I noticed the Wiki doesn't really allow much strategies on here for boss battles for example. But I personally think it would be a good thing to have on here since if there are users who rely on the wiki as a guide for certain things (which I usually do), then it would be very helpful. The Kingdom Hearts Wiki has strategies on it so why not here?
Proposer:Mario Sakuraba (talk) Deadline: July 22, 2019, 23:59 GMT Cancelation: July 16, 2019
Support
Mario Sakuraba (talk) I know I'm not the best with words, but surely this sort of thing can't hurt right?
Scrooge200 (talk) This isn’t much different from including solutions to puzzles for RPGs.
Oppose
Tails777 (talk) While I do believe showcasing strategies wouldn't be a bad idea, the thing is that different strategies work for different people. A section for strategies could get filled up really easily if multiple people use different tactics for the same fight. Sure, there aren't a whole lot of ways to beat bosses in the core games, but for RPG titles, there are so many ways to defeat bosses, which leads to many different strategies. A strategy section would just end up getting filled with so many different opinions and this Wiki sticks to more official material over fan material.
TheDarkStar (talk) OK, imagine this. Megaleg gets a strategy section containing one strategy. Climb up the legs and make the Bullet Bills blow up the cage. Another user might add another strategy, like, say, running up the back leg to get the 1-Up there. And it goes on, with things like "Destroy all of the second cage for a guarantee at blowing up the inner cage!" (which would be slightly impractical, as the cage regenerates) and "No, just lure two bullets like you're supposed to!". This would lead to unnecessary editwars and constant disruption.
Lord Grammaticus (talk) "The Kingdom Hearts Wiki has strategies on it so why not here?" Because we'e not the Kingdom Hearts Wiki, i.e. we have our own standards for determining how much of a level we should cover. I've actually wondered if we couldn't be a bit more descriptive in terms of stages and the like, but at the same time I recognize that MarioWiki's goals isn't to tell people how to play the games - there's countless strategy guides and walkthroughs for that, and the multiple methods of clearing a level, along with the varying skill levels of players, make it more than a little impractical (and that's before factoring in the likely edit wars from treating these pages as such). KHWiki found something that works, good for them, but we do things differently, and by the standard here that doesn't seem like too good of an idea.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. This has the potential to get very messy very fast.
Comments
Merge all doctor versions of characters into their respective article (excluding Dr. Mario)
merge 31-0
Currently, with the recent release of Dr. Mario World as well as recent information planning many more doctor variants of characters, I propose that we merge all doctor alter-egos into their respective articles. As it stands, there's going to be plenty of them, and having separate articles for all variants of each character is excessive and makes it difficult to navigate. It's also not like none of the information they have can't easily be stated in their respective articles under a respective Dr. Mario World header and adding necessary information to their respective stats pages.
Of course, Dr. Mario himself is an exception to this rule, solely because he has appeared as a separate character from Mario in the Super Smash Bros. series (and a weird obscure Kondansha's Mario manga) and considering his veteran status of appearing in multiple games of a series even named after himself, I think it's better off his page remains the way it is.
Alex95 (talk) - These aren't separate characters or a new power-up, it's literally the same character in a different outfit. While that and the new abilities could qualify them as a power-up, there's no "Doctor Mushroom" or anything involved here.
Iceblock715 (talk) - I'm almost certain that it's just a costume intended to fit the aesthetic of the series, so full support.
Trig Jegman (talk) oh no they have a different outfit, clearly we must overanalyze the same character by trying to make a new page for it. Yeah...no. As Alex said over there, there is no transformation or change here besides clothing. If we were to switch how we approach costume changes to all other games, think of how truly awful Super Mario Odyssey would be. With the exception of like...Luigi, most of those pages are short enough that an extra paragraph wouldn't hurt.
Obsessive Mario Fan (talk) Per all. Although, I'm wondering if Dr. Luigi should be kept because he was in other games...but that would be the only reason to keep his article.
LinkTheLefty (talk) Per proposal, though if we're going to limit coverage of the doctor personas then I figure we should also add a character identifier to the current "Dr. Mario" article and make either the game or series the main article.
Tails777 (talk) The moment I saw the potential for all those other Dr. characters, I immediately thought "are all these articles REALLY going to be necessary?" Heck I even thought of making a proposal myself, but you beat me too it. Either way, I fully support merging all of them into their original characters (and despite his earlier establishment, even Dr. Luigi). I also agree with Dr. Mario as the exception. Basically, you beat me to the punch so per all.
Waluigi Time (talk) Yeah, my immediate thought was that this is going way overboard and only done for consistency with Dr. Mario. If there was more to say about their doctor personas, I'd think twice, but there's barely anything interesting to say about them, even Dr. Luigi.
BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, I was planning on questioning this myself anyway.
Swiftie_Luma (talk) Strongly agree. These characters are clearly just the same regular ones with a coat and some sort of doctor license, they are not separate. I would argue that even if we treat Dr. Mario as separate as well due to him being in more stuff and such, he is technically just Mario in the end, just another variant and we know variants of characters can appear in the same capacity during events such as Mario Kart for example. Bottom line aside from Dr. Mario, i think others having their own page would be more confusing, messy and highly pointless.
Mario jc (talk) Per proposal; I started having second thoughts as more doctors were announced (though I should have anticipated this with it having gacha elements and all).
Mister Wu (talk) Especially considering what is stated in the comments - that these doctors literally are just outfit changes, not even forms - and considering how many pages with little content would need to be made, it's just better to add these to the character pages
Memoryman3 (talk) Agreed. Dr. Mario being the only exception because of Smash.
Toadette the Achiever (talk) I would even take it a step further and simply merge all of the non-Smash Dr. Mario info into the Mario article, but this is at least a start.
YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all. These Doctor forms don't need separate articles at all. I'd even take Toadette's line of reasoning here because Smash is the only thing that really makes Dr. Mario distinct. But at the very least, I would also give the games identifier priority over the "characters" with the passing of this proposal.
@HEROMARIO: No, they're not different characters - the opening scene after Stage 10 literally has Peach and Bowser throw on doctor clothing to help Mario stop the virus outbreak in the Mushroom Kingdom. Secondly, their stats are different? Every single Mario spin-off game has each character go through slightly different statistics each game, so that argument is also not valid at all. – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 16:26, July 10, 2019 (EDT)
Shouldn't this be a multi-option proposal? Consistent with the Bowser forms proposal, if there is someone interested in merging everyone including Dr. Mario (which i'd prefer it stays). --FanOfYoshi 02:01, July 11, 2019 (EDT)
Merging Dr. Mario would be a mess, and even if it passed the page would have to remain to cover Smash. I doubt anyone would support it. And even if Dr. Mario is just Mario, there's precedent for splitting alter-egos that have enough information to warrant their own article. Besides, just because it's not an option here doesn't mean it can't be brought up as a TPP later. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 13:30, July 11, 2019 (EDT)
With the "General information" section I added back on December 29, 2018 (yeah, don't ask me how I remember these dates), Dr. Mario's article would have to remain not just to cover his Smash appearances, but information relating to his design, design evolution, alternate outfits, and evolution of his portrayals. Yeah, I agree with Waluigi Time; if Mr. L and Rookie can stay, then so can D.M. MarioManiac1981 (talk) 21:26, July 14, 2019 (EST)
