MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60: Difference between revisions
Mari0fan100 (talk | contribs) (Two out of 4 options had at least 4 votes each, so this proposal fails with no consensus as opposed to no quorum.) |
LinkTheLefty (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 502: | Line 502: | ||
In other words, '''my proposal is going to be cancelled'''. I do hope that the MarioWiki community continues to support independent wikis and NIWA in general and try not to cater too much on Fandom. The Zelda Wiki fork definitely helped momentum in that regard. {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 22:05, November 14, 2022 (EST) | In other words, '''my proposal is going to be cancelled'''. I do hope that the MarioWiki community continues to support independent wikis and NIWA in general and try not to cater too much on Fandom. The Zelda Wiki fork definitely helped momentum in that regard. {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 22:05, November 14, 2022 (EST) | ||
:Proposals can only be canceled by the proposer within the first three days. This will have to run its course. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:38, November 15, 2022 (EST) | :Proposals can only be canceled by the proposer within the first three days. This will have to run its course. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:38, November 15, 2022 (EST) | ||
===Partially unban citing the English version of the ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' as official names for subjects=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-1|partial unban}} | |||
I know what you're probably thinking, but hear me out. The [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Citing the Super Mario Encyclopedia|original proposal]] had three options - the first option was unanimously decided against, but I think it may be time the second option had another look. Things have changed a bit since the proposal in 2018, and it's become evident that, while this probably hasn't happened to the extent that it did in ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' (and hopefully won't again), fan-name borrowing has happened on smaller scales. [[Piranha Pod]] (from the book) and [[Nipper Dandelion]] ([[Talk:Nipper Dandelion#Move to Nipper Dandelion|not]] from the book) became in-game names in ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate''. Some of the names from the book have been immediately discarded, such as [[Small Piranha|Micro Piranha Plant]], but tellingly, the English version of the Mario Portal website more recently used a hefty combination of names from the ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' as well as new localizations, and there is little question that the names there are accepted. And on a Nintendo-related note, renowned ''Pokémon'' localizer Nob Ogasawara has [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4yIjpSaHgo&t=776s said] that he would not have minded using fan-names if he felt the name was good. So, after some thought, I believe the wiki could adapt from these developments and unban English citations of the ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' in a strictly limited capacity, discouraging it but at the same time accepting that it does and will sometimes happen beyond our control. | |||
Here is my vision for it: ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' would now be taking a special sixth spot as an acceptable English source [[MarioWiki:Naming#Acceptable sources for naming|here]], making it the very last resort before taking foreign and conjectural names; citing the name from ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' would '''only''' be allowed on the express condition that there is no other suitable higher source. This means that the vast majority of the book would remain uncitable; however, this rule should reduce our list of foreign article names quite a bit, as well as open up the possibility of new and more accessible articles. Again, if there is literally any other viable English source available, the ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' reference would get removed from the article and any alternate name it had would only be used as a redirect, just as the case is now. The current conjecture and another language templates may need to get rephrased, but there will be a new encyclopedia template to denote encyclopedia-named articles as a special case. Under these unique rules, citogenesis and mistakes will be kept to a minimum. | |||
At least the following will be renamed: | |||
*[[Genkotsu|Pipe Fist]] and [[Obake Stand|Ghost Vase]], which should be the only remaining former-conjectural names from [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia#List of English translation mistakes and names from the Super Mario Wiki|our list]] that have no other English-sourced alternatives at this time (see edge cases below) | |||
*[[Naname Lift|diagonal lift]] | |||
*[[Tenbōdai Course|Scenic Course]] | |||
*[[Himitsu no Course 1|Secret Course 1]] | |||
*[[Himitsu no Course 2|Secret Course 2]] | |||
*[[Himitsu no Course 3|Secret Course 3]] | |||
*[[Kōmori Kan Course|Bat Course]] | |||
*[[Majo no Ie Course|Witch’s Mansion Course]] | |||
*[[Himitsu no Course 4|Secret Course 4]] | |||
*[[Himitsu no Course 5|Secret Course 5]] | |||
*[[Pukupuku Course|Cheep Cheep Course]] | |||
*[[Kujira Course|Whale Course]] | |||
*[[Himitsu no Course 6|Secret Course 6]] | |||
*[[3UP Heart|3-Up Heart]] | |||
*[[Hone Lift|Bone Lift]] | |||
*[[Yari|Lance]] | |||
*[[Obake Block|Ghost Block]] | |||
*[[RemoCon Clown|Remote-Controlled Clown Car]] | |||
*[[RemoCon Kanaami|Remote-Controlled Fence]] | |||
*[[Switch-shiki RemoCon Lift|Remote-Controlled Lift]] | |||
*[[Updown Kinoko|Sinking and Rising Mushrooms]] | |||
*[[Golden Patakuribō|Gold Paragoomba]] | |||
*[[Elevator Lift|elevator lift]] | |||
*[[Updown Kanaami|Moving Fence]] | |||
*[[All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros.|All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.]] | |||
*[[I Am a Teacher: Super Mario no Sweater|I am a teacher: Super Mario Sweater]] | |||
*[[Kaettekita Mario Bros.]]* | |||
*[[Mario no Photopi]]* | |||
*[[Picross NP]]* | |||
*[[Mario Artist: Paint Studio|four]] ''[[Mario Artist: Talent Studio|Mario]] [[Mario Artist: Communication Kit|Artist]]'' [[Mario Artist: Polygon Studio|games]]* | |||
*[[Densetsu no Starfy 3|Densetsu no Stafy 3]] | |||
*[[Itadaki Street DS]]* | |||
*[[Club Nintendo Picross]]* | |||
*[[Club Nintendo Picross Plus]]* | |||
<small>*Not renamed so much as probably removed from the another language category.</small> | |||
Suggested edge cases consist of the following: | |||
*[[Kaitensuru Honō|Roto-Disc (''Super Mario Land'')]] - Roto Disc has [[Talk:Kaitensuru Honō|usable precedent]] so it can be moved to "Roto Disc (''Super Mario Land'')" or potentially merged with Roto-Disc | |||
*[[Fire Pakkun Zō|Fire Piranha Plant (statue)]] - use the Nintendo Power source to move to "Piranha Plant (statue)" | |||
*[[Keronpa Ball|Kuromame]] - Keronpa Ball can be moved to "flame thrower (Flame Chomp)" (it's often considered an obstacle rather than an enemy, which conflicts with [[flamethrower|another subject]] from the same game) | |||
*[[Kyodai Hanachan|Big Wiggler (''New Super Mario Bros.'')]] - delete the Giant Wiggler redirect and use "giant Wiggler" from page 94 of the Player's Guide instead (merging is out of the question for now because it conflicts with [[Talk:Big Wiggler#Split Kyodai Hanachan from this article|another proposal]]) | |||
*[[Mario Brothers Yuka|orange platform]] - move to "floor (''Mario Bros.'')" referring to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly8DofqCuOs&t=336s in-game text] | |||
*[[Comet Tico|Lumacomète]] - we can remove the another language template and re-cite the "Comet Tico" internal name to prevent a move, just like the article did previously | |||
*[[Banekiti|Spring]] - use the Prima source to move back to "spring (''Super Mario Galaxy'')" | |||
*[[Reversible wall|Red and Blue Blocks]] - use Prima's "red and blue blocks" [[Talk:Reversible wall|per discussion]] | |||
*[[Bone Yogan Lift|Spin Coaster (''New Super Mario Bros. 2'')]] - move to "segmented platform" citing page 156 of the Prima guide | |||
*[[Switch Lift]] - move to "raft (''New Super Mario Bros. 2'')" citing page 74 of the Prima guide | |||
*[[Hone Yuka|Skelefloor]] - move to "bridge (''New Super Mario Bros. U'')" citing page 200 of the Prima guide | |||
If this proposal passes, there might be the idea to lift certain other English-language restrictions such as profile and description incorporation at a later date, but for now, these restrictions seem functional. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|LinkTheLefty}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': November 26, 2022, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} - Perabove. | |||
#{{User|Somethingone}} I had a suspicion that Nintendo's view of Encyclopedia's credibility differed from how we view it the moment those English Mario Portal translations popped up (just look at the [https://archive.ph/xw7hA SML2 section] and compare to what encyclopedia did). Staying wary of using Encyclopedia for general cases while also acknowledging that Nintendo is at least somewhat cool with using Encyclopedia's names seems to be the most reasonable decision here; it may even help us distinguish from "blatant encyclopedia mistake" and "actual Nintendo-certified name that was just never said before" (and honestly as I am reading through the list of mistakes derived from the wiki, I feel like we over-reacted just a teensy bit on how bad Encyclopedia was). If this proposal fails, we'd need to re-assess the validity of Mario Portal as well, as that is what much of this debate is about. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} I don't see why not. Per all. | |||
#{{User|Mister Wu}} I have no doubt that the names of the Mario Portal come from Nintendo as that site is fully owned and operated by them, without men in the middle. If they showed that the names from the Encyclopedia can at times be acceptable, I think we need to review our stance as well. This can be a good compromise and starting point. | |||
#{{User|Spectrogram}} Per above. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|Wikiboy10}} I thought a long while on this, and I decided to oppose this. As people said in the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Only_allow_part_of_the_book_to_be_cited|original proposal]], "Citogenesis is kinda not cool and stuff." Furthermore, Dark Horse is the main translator, and a similar situation happened with [[Zeldawiki:The Legend of Zelda: Art & Artifacts|another one of their books]]. At least the Mario Portal names seem to be Nintendo-approved. Choosing a somewhat mangled name over the official Japanese name will create some inconsistency. Honestly, not even the Mario Portal seems that reliable if [[Banzai Bill|Bomber Bills]] and [[Parabomb|Parachute Bob-ombs]] told us anything. Other mistakes exist, such as [[Monty|Rocky Wrenches]] for ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]''. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
I think there should be an option which is a support with two additional conditions: | |||
# adding a template that the name is taken from a book that was proved to use wikis as naming source | |||
# trying as much as possible to avoid using names that we introduced unless confirmed by a second official source (like the English translation of the Mario Portal) | |||
Overall, the fear of ultimately citing ourselves is not unjustified, so I think that before accepting the names of the English encyclopedia we should be sure that ''we'' aren't the source of said names. What do you think?--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 18:42, November 19, 2022 (EST) | |||
:That makes a lot of sense IMO, the only problem there would be what such a template would look like. Would it just be like the foreign language template but with the text changed to be about encyclopedia? {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 18:45, November 19, 2022 (EST) | |||
::The text would be something like: | |||
::''The title of this article comes from the English '''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia''', [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia#Plagiarism|that reportedly sourced part of its names from wikis]], including the Super Mario Wiki. If a [[MarioWiki:Naming#Acceptable sources for naming|name with a higher priority]] is found, the title should be moved to said higher priority name''. | |||
::The appearance can indeed be similar to that of the foreign language template, to highlight the similarity of the problem.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 22:02, November 19, 2022 (EST) | |||
:::The first condition is already mentioned in the proposal. I can just replace the "can possibly" with "will" to make it a certainty. I'd actually go a step further and include mention of source in there as well for clarity, not just name. Something along the lines of: | |||
:::...''If [[MarioWiki:Naming#Acceptable sources for naming|a higher priority source]] is found, the current reference should be removed and the title moved to the higher priority name if applicable.'' | |||
:::I considered the second condition myself, but when I realized at this point that this would only apply to two names, and one of them would become incongruent with a similar subject (Obake Stand/Ghost Vase and Ghost Block), I figured it was not necessary to make any more stipulations. I can add it as a second option if people want, though. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 01:27, November 20, 2022 (EST) | |||
::::The general idea is that of having a third option which is a support of the proposal but with a stricter policy, so the template ''will'' be added instead of ''might'' be added and there are additional measures to prevent us from citing ourselves as the source. I'm wondering if said third option could make sense.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 06:54, November 20, 2022 (EST) | |||
:::::The problem I see with the additional condition is that there are several names that ''could'' be from the wiki, but also ''could'' be coincidences as many if not most are direct translations of what was already there. Some of these were mentioned [[User talk:LinkTheLefty/List of Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia mistakes and names from the Super Mario Wiki|here]]. If we were to become overcautious, that runs the risk of shutting out perfectly fine, straightforward translations, as well as whether those probable coincidences should have been listed. So far, this should include [[Special:Diff/2769193|Ghost Block]] and [[Special:Diff/2382446|Gold Paragoomba]], but it might also affect a few new articles that didn't make it onto the list. Say, for example, that someone wanted to make an article on the giant-sized pipe that appears in some games. Page 55 of the English version refers to them as giant pipes, but we couldn't use [[Special:Diff/1831528|that]] [[Special:Diff/2240225|term]], despite the fact that it also happens to be a direct translation of the Japanese 巨大土管 equivalent on page 41. In the long run, I think having that condition could cause us to second-guess ourselves overmuch and lead to more confusion than not having it. I fully agree with the template and tweaked the proposal to enforce it, though. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 09:54, November 20, 2022 (EST) | |||
::::::Fine enough. We can stay with the two options at this point.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 16:13, November 20, 2022 (EST) | |||
:::::::Speaking of the another language template, doesn't it quite imply that every subject we put the template is mentioned in the encyclopedia, even when it's not the case? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 10:42, November 23, 2022 (EST) | |||
@FanOfYoshi, @LinkTheLefty, @Mister Wu, Why haven't you mentioned [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Do_not_allow_the_book_to_be_cited|your previous approval of banning the book as a source?]] Here are few quotes respectively: "They give the names from the wiki, and i realize it isn't Nintendo of America who translated this.", "The initially known issues don't even begin to scratch the surface. There are countless mistakes that add up to give the impression that the English translation simply ceased over a year ago after steadfast overreliance on the wiki, providing a particular time capsule of factually incorrect and outdated information throughout the book. The wiki itself is a constant work-in-progress, and to say that an officially licensed product looking up to it is unprofessional would be an understatement. While there are outliers, any potential benefit the book might have had is seriously outweighed by the actual damage, and so it doesn't feel right to use it as a source unless a revised edition ever comes to fruition that fixes all of these problems.", "I feared the book might not have been completely reliable, but I didn't expect that it would have quite frequently used wikis to get names, even when said names were conjectural or didn't follow the policies of the wikis themselves. At this point, it's better to just tell the editors not to use this book as a reliable source of information regarding names, since it isn't." [[User:Wikiboy10|Wikiboy10]] ([[User talk:Wikiboy10|talk]]) 18:07, November 25, 2022 (EST) | |||
:As mentioned in the proposal and votes, the situation now isn't the same as it was four years ago given cases that have since arisen like [[Nipper Dandelion]] and the English Mario Portal names, and people can change their minds accordingly. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:14, November 25, 2022 (EST) | |||
:I intended to address that point by saying: "If they showed that the names from the Encyclopedia can at times be acceptable, I think we need to review our stance as well." First of all, I didn't say to use ''all'' names - those that are still blatantly against the policies won't be used until Nintendo of America fully shows to use them - secondly, as Hewer noted, the context is nowhere the same as four years ago, as Nintendo of America started adopting some names of said encyclopedia. At this point, we either create a new fan-naming that is self-consistent with the rules or we just follow Nintendo, with all its inconsistencies. For sure we'll do our best to limit the impact of said inconsistencies (for example, we aren't using "Bomber Bill" from the Mario Portal as that name is yet to be used in games or other material), but with that being said, once Nintendo clearly adopts a name, I think we should consider using it, even if it means reviewing a previous opposition to said name.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 21:43, November 26, 2022 (EST) |
Revision as of 15:26, November 27, 2022
Split the WFC information box for Mario Kart coursesRename WFC section and unlink it from the WFC page 2-6 Proposer: Skipper93653 (talk) Split section into WFC (for Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection on Wii and DS), NN (for Nintendo Network on 3DS and Wii U), and NSO (for Nintendo Switch Online on Switch)
Rename WFC section to simply 'Online Play' and unlink it from the WFC page
Keep as-isCommentsThe "WFC" section (which used to be called "Wi-Fi") was actually intended to only be for MKWii and MKDS courses, as specified on the page for the race course template. I guess people started putting info for MK7, MK8 and MK8D on there and no one thought to remove them. However;
Honestly, I think the best thing to do is to revert it back to "Wi-Fi" and remove the link to WFC, because "Wi-Fi" can refer to all online play, not just WFC. It also makes it not be repetitive, and means we won't have to go through all 127 (yes i counted) courses with it listed, when there is a much easier, more obvious, solution) - YoYo (Talk) 10:52, October 2, 2022 (EDT) It should be noted that Mario Kart Tour also has online multiplayer as of March 8, 2020 (although Gold Pass users were able to betatest it from December 18, 2019, to December 26, 2019, as well as from January 22, 2020, to January 28, 2020). I believe that courses in Tour would also have to be implemented in the Online Play section, though with some specific details that showcases which Tours they're available in as of which date (considering the overall course selection rotates every two weeks). Now, for Coconut Mall, this can be as simple as saying "Available" and then refer to the "Tours" section earlier in the infobox, but it's probably a bit more difficult for courses that have been in the game since launch, before multiplayer was added, such as 3DS Toad Circuit, which would have to refer to the Tours section above as well, but also specify that it's only possible since Trick Tour (2020). And that's not even accounting the courses that were available during the Gold Pass-only betatests, such as N64 Kalimari Desert, which has online play since the Baby Rosalina Tour, but was also available for the first week of the Holiday Tour (2019) and the second week of the Ice Tour. Now we could do it simple and only have to say "Available" concerning Tour, but it might not be entirely accurate due to the bi-weekly rotation and the fact that Tour didn't initially launch with multiplayer (plus the two beta tests before the official multiplayer launch). We cannot split it into its own section either, because Tour doesn't have a special branding for the online service it's using, unlike DS/Wii, 7/8 or 8 Deluxe, so I feel keeping these all merged into an "Online Play" section would still be the better option. rend (talk) (edits) 12:42, October 2, 2022 (EDT) Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titlesDo not rename the articles 7-7-13 The Koopaling article names on this wiki do not reflect this state of affairs: currently, they use the naming scheme established in old manuals, which is stylised by way of the word "Koopa" attached as a surname or nobiliary title of sorts. Said naming scheme has seen sparse use in more recent years, being specifically reserved to ancillary material such as the New Super Mario Bros. Wii Prima Guide, this video, and most likely more--I invite knowledgeable editors to expand this list for future reference. As dictated by the source priority policy, this material should not override what the games themselves put forward. In addition, the more concise versions of these characters' names would better serve readers and contributors alike. Given my statement above, the object of this proposal is to simply change Koopaling articles, and most pages directly related to the individual characters, to display only their first name. The page List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa is excluded from the proposal's scope, as its title reflects the character's name used in the SMB3 cartoon. The following is a list of affected pages, with target titles in brackets:
I would also like us to hash out how to phrase the opening paragraphs in their character articles; namely, whether to list the short name or the full name first. For this, I'm splitting the support option into two possible directions:
I suppose some editors may prefer the second direction, given that it's common practice in academic and academically-modeled resources to start out an article's text with the subject's full name, and not necessarily the best known version of the name. Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Support (option 1)
Support (option 2)
Oppose
CommentsI'd like to remind yet again that in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate the full names are all acknowledged - they also were acknowledged in the Wii U version of Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games that featured the Theme of Larry Koopa.
I'd actually like to take this a bit further by questioning Peach and Daisy; as of right now their article names are "Princess Peach"/"Princess Daisy", but much like how very few, if any, modern games ever refer to the Koopalings by their full names, very few, if any games references Peach and Daisy by their titles in game. Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario Golf, Smash Bros, they all just refer to them as Peach and Daisy. And if the fact that it's a title has anything to do with it, why isn't Bowser's article named "King Bowser"? I'd wager we could probably move their articles to just Peach and Daisy for the same reasons. Tails777 Talk to me!
@Opposition: The amount of media that refers to the Koopalings using only their first name (including, as mentioned in the proposal, almost every single game they appeared in during the last decade) far surpasses the number of instances where their full name is used. Participants to the previous proposal brought up isolated, relatively minor instances of the Koopalings' full names being used, particularly in merchandise and print media, and treated them as top-priority sources despite going counter to what the naming policy says. In the spirit of hopefully convincing people that it's misguided to do so, I raise another piece of merch, the Super Mario Trading Card Collection, released in April 2022 (so pretty recent), which respects the naming model used in games. Shouldn't it similarly be taken into consideration, and be measured against a random Larry Koopa toy and a Monopoly set? Because it's clear that merchandise releases are not consistent among themselves in the least, so why not turn to what the games already very clearly establish? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:10, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
@Opposition: I'm challenging someone to explain why "the names are occasionally used" (in things like Smash Bros. and merchandise no less, which as I've demonstrated above aren't even consistent with themselves) is being so strongly bandied around as an argument against designating the names that are put front and center in most appearances of these characters to their wiki articles.a So far, zero proper rationale has been given for the former direction in either of the three proposals that have concerned this matter, other than a couple of arguments that can be best defined as mental gymnastics. Nobody is arguing that we should get rid of the names altogether, just that using them in such a representative fashion isn't the proper way to go--and I've already proposed two methods to handle their full names in their lead, because, much like LinkTheLefty has previously stated, these names are significant enough to deserve a mention as such. That doesn't mean Squirps is a contender for a move to "Prince Squirp Korogaline Squirpina" though. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:30, September 21, 2022 (EDT)
"How does typing "Koopa" on the end of the name, on the rare occasions you need to, waste any time at all?"
I'm not ready to vote on this yet (even though I supported the previous proposal), but I would just like to say that I think the difference between the two support options is extremely trivial, to the point where I don't understand why the issue even warranted separate voting options for them. Both support options have users voting exclusively for them, which is only going to increase this prop's chances of stalemating, given how polarizing this is. 17:15, October 1, 2022 (EDT)
Create Category:Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope Sparkscancelled by the administrators Currently, the articles for Sparks from Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope have several categories attributed to them, including Category:Lumas, Category:Rabbids, Category:Allies, and Category:Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope characters. However, as far as I am aware, all 30 of the Sparks featured in the game meet these criteria. Therefore, per MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Categories, a more specific category should be created for these Sparks, named Category:Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope Sparks. Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsUsually, categories that cover a group of species/characters do not include the game title, even when they only appear in one game (for example, Category:Flip-Flop Folk), so I don’t think including the game title in this case is necessary. Additionally, since this category already fits the criteria mentioned by the policy, I feel that it can be carried out whenever enough Sparks pages are created, and I don’t think a proposal is really necessary. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 13:14, October 17, 2022 (EDT)
I don't think this proposal is even needed, you can just make a category. Spectrogram (talk) 13:28, October 17, 2022 (EDT) I also agree it should just be called "Category:Sparks". Nightwicked Bowser 13:47, October 17, 2022 (EDT) Remove or Split trophy/spirit cameo in the Latest appearanceNo change 1-10
Proposer: Windy (talk) Support (option 1)Support (option 2)
Oppose
CommentsUpdated as 'Remove' to 'Remove or Split'. Split their physical appearance similar to other Nintendo characters. If the character doesn't have a physical appearance in the recent games since Smash's spirit, the infobox must be include (YEAR, physical). Windy (talk) 16:37, October 14, 2022 (EDT)
If you want to move options after updated, do so. Windy (talk) 15:11, October 17, 2022 (EDT) Decide what Paper Airplane Chase isConsider Paper Airplane Chase to be a part of the Mario franchise 6-0-0
Proposer: Spectrogram (talk) Mario game
Guest appearanceCameo appearanceCommentsStandardize citations for archived pagescancelled by administrator Many web pages that are used as citations on the Mario Wiki are no longer available at their original links. Consequently, the citations use links from web page archival sites such as archive.today or the Wayback Machine. This can be seen on articles that reference the English translation of the Mario Portal, such as Banzai Bill, as well as other articles, such as Nintendo GameCube. Including archived citations is especially important for web pages that are volatile by design, such as online store listings for merchandise. However, nowhere does MarioWiki:Citations feature a template for how to properly cite archived web pages; therefore, an example of a citation for an archived page should be created under the heading What to put as references. EDIT: Per Koopa con Carne's comments, I've revised my recommendations for a standardized template below. The current basic template for citations of non-archived pages looks like this:
In order to make citations of archived pages as simple as possible, they should only link to the archived page, followed by the date and timestamp (if available) of the archived page, along with the name of the archival website:
This is what an actual citation would look like under this standard, using one of the references on the Nintendo GameCube article as an example:
Here's another example, using the citation of the Mario Portal on the Banzai Bill article (because this specific page does not have an author nor a release date attributed to it, these details are omitted from the citation):
As a clarification, this proposal does not mean to mandate that every citation of a web page should include an archived link; that should be left to editor consideration. However, in cases where archived links are necessary, such as volatile links or links that are already dead, a standard method of citation would be useful to implement. Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsCan you articulate some specifics for this standard? Namely, would it suffice to include the link to a snapshot, or would editors be requested to also add the time, date, and name of the archivation website of that particular snapshot? You are putting forward the Banzai Bill citation as a template and, though I agree on encouraging comprehensive fact-checking and easy readability/access (as the user who basically pushed for this whole format across the wiki over the past years), I reckon some editors may not like being forced by policy to tick so many boxes when structuring their links. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 00:50, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
So, is the proposal now championing the prohibition of first-hand links in favour of archived links, or just a guideline recommendation for using the latter? The last statement of the proposal is in direct contradiction with the rest: "As a clarification, this proposal does not mean to mandate that every citation of a web page should include an archived link; that should be left to editor consideration." -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:04, October 11, 2022 (EDT)
My sincere apologies for writing this so late, but I'd like to request that this proposal be cancelled. Koopa con Carne has made several valid points of opposition; on top of this, the proposal has only received three support votes other than mine (with one doubting its effectiveness). I still agree that standardized guidelines are generally better than a lack of guidelines, but I'd rather not have a policy change go into effect unless it's agreed upon unanimously or nearly unanimously (i.e. more support votes and less valid criticisms of what the proposal entails). ThePowerPlayer 20:42, October 23, 2022 (EDT) Include non-Smash appearance in an infoboxcanceled by proposer Example for Kritter Before: After: Proposer: Windy (talk) SupportOpposeCommentsI'm pretty sure this proposal shouldn't be allowed per proposal rule 7, as it hasn't been long enough since the failure of the last one to re-propose it. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:00, October 28, 2022 (EDT) Merge all non-Mario universe Super Smash Bros. Stages into a collective articlefailed to reach consensus 1-6-9-9 This is probably the most radical proposal in the trimming of Smash content so far giving the stages are a big part of the Super Smash Bros. franchise. However if we are no longer going to have seperate artciles for Items and Bosses then I think it now has to be questioned to wherever or not non-Mario stages should be also still have seperate pages given this the Mario Wiki that they based on locations that have nothing or very little to do with the Mario franchise and that seperste artciles of these stages exist on Smash Wiki. Given that this the Mario Wiki that all stages based locations from the Mario and the sub-franchises should keep their artciles. By keeping them split it will emphasis that this the Mario Wiki by given increased focus on elements from Smash that are based on Mario. Therefore should this propsoal pass stages from these franchises which are covered by this wiki remain split:
One series where I think there is question mark to wherever they should be split or merged are Smash oringal stages, ie Battlefield and Final Destination. I would be also keep these with their own articles as these stages have the most hertiage of all Smash stages in the series and that they are not specfially based on a non-Mario franchise. I will therefore provide two options for merging one that sees the Smash oringnal stages remain split and the one that sees them merged. As for all the other franchises inclduing not listed above they would all be merged into an idvidual artcile with the page names being replaced by redirects and include external links to Smash Wiki. I'm very much aware that if this proposal passes it would be a very signifcant change for the wiki. But I beleive now given the trimming of smash content that has been taking place it is one that I beleive should hapoen. (Amendments made to proposal in comments below) Proposer: NSY (talk) Merge all non-Mario universe stages excluding stages orignal to SmashMerge all non-Mario universe stages including stages orignal to Smash
Merge only non-Mario adventure mode and subspace emissary stages
Keep all Smash stages split
CommentsI'm very conflicted about this. I think non-Mario Subspace Emissary stages such as Battleship Halberd Bridge or The Path to the Ruins need to be merged, but regular stages that shape Smash Bros. into what it is are fine. Not to mention, Battlefield according to the last Smash proposal will be merged with Fighting Polygons and other teams, so that would mean merging a stage that was already just merged. Keeping it unsplit alone would also be seen as weird. Your proposal also does not make an exception for Wrecking Crew (stage). Please add an option to only merge non-Mario Subspace Emissary levels Spectrogram (talk) 13:07, October 1, 2022 (EDT)
Thanks for all the feedback given on this proposal, I created this proposal because I feel like it should either be all or nothing when consdiering Smash content, either it should be all merged or all split and I felt based off the pervious proposals held that the consenus of smash content leaned towards it being merged. By having items and bosses merged but stages split i feel it is middle of the road but i do understand the points made of stages being more important. It seems very likely that this proposal is not going to pass but i'll going make amendments based of the things said to see if changes any minds. Firstly as per comments from Spectrogram and 7feetunder I've added the extra option to merge non-Mario adventure mode subpace emissary stages. Secondly in regards to infobox removals and trimming of content, i've decided to strike that off from the proposal given ideas clearly sound unpopular. Thirdly in regards to Wrecking Crewe I completly forgot that stage existed and if this proposal were to pass then that would also stay split. Lastly if this proposal passes then maybe rather than one aritcle it be mutliple articles perhaps one per game to avoid it being messey. That being said even despite these ameadments the consenus clearly belevies the stages should remain split and fully see where all of you are coming from the points made but I curious to see what you all think of these amendments. NSY (talk) @KoolKoopa, no, it doesn't. Smash series is an exception in the coverage policy, which allows such proposals to be made. It wouldn't imply removing content from other crossovers. Spectrogram (talk) 13:58, October 18, 2022 (EDT) @KoolKoopa "By that logic..." Erm, no? Mario Kart is a pure, distinctly Mario game spin-off with non-Mario stuff in it, and said non-Mario stuff gets covered as a result. Smash is not a pure, distinctly Mario game. It's a 50-ish way crossover with its own unique stuff in it on top of that. Those two situations are Apples to Fruit Punch levels of different. Merge most of what's listed in DiamondMerge Diamond articles 5-0 Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsWhat's the deal with Captain Toad's Super Gem? The current Diamond page says it's sometimes called a "diamond", but I don't recall that being the case in the game's English version. It will be kept a separate article whether this proposal passes or not, since it's a distinctly-named fictional object, but if Super Gems indeed have this secondary descriptor, they should be linked through an "about" tag at the top of the Diamond article. IMO. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:55, October 22, 2022 (EDT) Visual EditorDo not add the Visual Editor as an editing option 4-6 Proposer: Johnjohn2001 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThis is not something that can be done via proposal but something that is up to our site owner (Porplemontage (talk)). Besides, while the source editor does have a difficulty curve compared to using the visual editor in fandom for beginners, I wouldn't say it is all that difficult to learn. Ray Trace(T|C) 17:01, October 25, 2022 (EDT) Personally, I'm not even sure a Visual Editor like the one FANDOM uses can be implemented. FANDOM, even back when it used to be called Wikia, tends to implement a lot of features that no other wiki farm has, such as their default skin, user blogs, message walls, comments and the Discussions feature (this also extends to discontinued skins and features). I don't think any of these FANDOM-exclusive features are compatible with other wikis outside of FANDOM.
Remove the list and table exception from MarioWiki:Article sizeRemove the exception 7-0 So basically, our article size policy has this weird exception stating that "This policy does not apply to list or table pages such as Places and Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Brawl), just actual articles." I tried asking why this clause was made and the reasoning behind it (especially considering that lists are like, 700% easier to split than normal pages) but got nothing more than a single vague answer from Doomhiker. ("Happened because of a forum discussion." - What forum discussion, when the forum discussion took place, and the actual rationale behind it are still a mystery to me.) But what I find the most alarming is that so far, this exception has been violated twice in recent months; namely, for List of tours in Mario Kart Tour and List of favored and favorite courses in Mario Kart Tour. Spirit (Super Smash Bros. Ultimate) was also split, but that had a proposal specifically for it, so I will let it slide. Rather than argue for re-merging those two list pages, I'm instead going to be arguing for the removal of this exception clause. From what I can tell, the policy was made back in the blissful perfect days of the early 2010s, back when the biggest article was Bowser and not several list pages on Mario Kart Tour-related subjects. And the list pages we have now are massive; the latter example that I gave that breached the list and table exception was over a million bytes long before it was split. When has something like that ever happened before on any wiki using any wiki-style across the internet including Wikipedia itself??? And even with the lists we have merged now, our current largest page (List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U) is also a list and is twice as large as Bowser's article is now. This, this is ridiculous. Not only do these super long pages take full minutes to load completely and are impossible to edit concisely, but our policy explicitly states that we're not supposed to split them if they're lists, which several of our largest pages are. Considering the negatives of having massive several-hundred-thousand-byte-long list pages and the fact that lists are extremely easy to split into separate articles, and the fact that several of these articles (namely, the lists for Mario Kart Tour related stuff) show no signs of slowing down their growth, what reason is there to say that list pages shouldn't be split up a bit? Please note that if this proposal fails, the two exception-breaching list splits I mentioned before (List of tours in Mario Kart Tour and List of favored and favorite courses in Mario Kart Tour) will be re-merged into their main list pages again. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Proposer: Somethingone (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsFor clarification, the question that Spectro asked on Discord was what I interpreted to be a question as to why the favored and favorite page was split regardless of policy. They asked why lists couldn't be split after asking why that page was still split, I responded to the latter. The forum discussion in question can be seen here. Doomhiker (talk) 15:34, October 29, 2022 (EDT) Decide when to substitute the meaning/explanation of a foreign name with a hyphencanceled by proposer I've always taken the hyphen to indicate that it's redundant to explicitly note the meaning of a subject's name in a given language, either because it's an untranslatable name, the same as that subject's English name, or composed entirely of common English words. However, to my knowledge, no policy dictates using it as such, which leads to potentially confusing variances in the way information is formatted and conveyed; as an example, a recent edit to the "Foreign names" template assigns a different purpose to the hyphen, automatically rendering it where a "Meaning" argument doesn't exist in the template itself. We can't have it more than one way, so let's put our foot down on this.
If the first course of action ends up with the most votes in this proposal, it will be stated as a rule on the aforementioned "Foreign names" template's page. If the second course of action does instead, the template's own use of the hyphen will be explicitly noted on said page. Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Option 1
Option 2
Option 3CommentsThe recent edit doesn't change the meaning of the hyphen, it simply provides a streamlined way to display it which saves on wikitext (omitting the M parameter rather than manually setting it equal to "-"). --Steve (talk) 20:10, November 13, 2022 (EST)
Remove external links to Zelda Dungeon Wiki and/or Triforce Wikifailed to reach consensus 4-0-0-4 Fortunately for us, this is no longer the case. Zeldapedia is now independently hosted and doing well. I think while Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki have served their purpose and are great resources for Zelda content, it would be embarassing (as a NIWA wiki) to continue using these wikis when it was originally intended to supplement a Fandom wiki that has since forked its content to become independently hosted once again. Edit: After giving some thoughts, I've decided to allow users to either remove ZD Wiki or Triforce Wiki or remove them both. Proposer: PanchamBro (talk) Remove both
Remove only Triforce WikiRemove only Zelda Dungeon WikiDo nothing
CommentsHere's the thing, I'm more in favor of just removing Triforce Wiki. Zelda Dungeon Wiki, I feel, should still be kept for the reasons Doc has said. However, I'm more in favor of removing Triforce Wiki because the owner has had disturbing history on many NIWA wikis. Wikiboy10 (talk) 09:53, October 20, 2022 (EDT)
Disregarding the problematic history with Triforce Wiki (and thank god he's no longer involved), I have some issues with your argument @LinkTheLefty.
I'm not sure if this is a great argument. We already have issues with Smash coverage here, and at the moment they aren't linking to any other Smash wiki than SmashWiki. I might be getting into slippery slope territory by saying this, but I don't want an instance where we decide that if we provide enough coverage to a franchise, we should link to every wiki that covers that franchise. Relatively speaking, I don't want this wiki to start linking to https://animalcrossing.fandom.com (which is unlikely, but still). I don't think Zeldapedia minds about linking to other Zelda wikis, but I don't want this to set a precedent that quite frankly should be avoided. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 11:08, October 20, 2022 (EDT)
I think I'm going to wait a bit before weighing in with a vote. For now, I think it's best if we at least replace all links to the ZeldaWiki hosted by FANDOM with links to the new independent Zeldapedia, if that hasn't been done already.
@Scrooge200 If one wiki doesn't have enough info compared to the other, there's nothing to stop anyone from fixing this. But if all wikis update themselves so that they share the same info, what's the point in linking to anything other than the associate wiki if there's no difference? That would be redundant. SmokedChili (talk) 11:35, November 13, 2022 (EST)
Okay, I think I should finally give some thoughts with how many people have addressed this problem and after hearing what others have to say. I think there are indeed some merits to keeping some wikis around as external links even if another wiki (Zelda Wiki) exists in the interwiki link. I think what really stemmed this proposal was in fact my discomfort in regards to association, even if they've been removed permanently. I'm sorry if I meant harm for Doc and the others. If we consider if "the relevant content is mature enough" to qualify a wiki being on the external links section, then the two other Zelda wikis we link up to (Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki) are considered mature to have their place. The lack of engagement until very recently probably is also a clear sign that there are better priorities necessary than addressing these links. At the very least, we should establish a guideline for future external link-related proposals so that they're not...contentious with how they are being dealt. In other words, my proposal is going to be cancelled. I do hope that the MarioWiki community continues to support independent wikis and NIWA in general and try not to cater too much on Fandom. The Zelda Wiki fork definitely helped momentum in that regard. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 22:05, November 14, 2022 (EST)
Partially unban citing the English version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia as official names for subjectspartial unban 6-1 Here is my vision for it: Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia would now be taking a special sixth spot as an acceptable English source here, making it the very last resort before taking foreign and conjectural names; citing the name from Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia would only be allowed on the express condition that there is no other suitable higher source. This means that the vast majority of the book would remain uncitable; however, this rule should reduce our list of foreign article names quite a bit, as well as open up the possibility of new and more accessible articles. Again, if there is literally any other viable English source available, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia reference would get removed from the article and any alternate name it had would only be used as a redirect, just as the case is now. The current conjecture and another language templates may need to get rephrased, but there will be a new encyclopedia template to denote encyclopedia-named articles as a special case. Under these unique rules, citogenesis and mistakes will be kept to a minimum. At least the following will be renamed:
*Not renamed so much as probably removed from the another language category. Suggested edge cases consist of the following:
If this proposal passes, there might be the idea to lift certain other English-language restrictions such as profile and description incorporation at a later date, but for now, these restrictions seem functional. Proposer: LinkTheLefty (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsI think there should be an option which is a support with two additional conditions:
Overall, the fear of ultimately citing ourselves is not unjustified, so I think that before accepting the names of the English encyclopedia we should be sure that we aren't the source of said names. What do you think?--Mister Wu (talk) 18:42, November 19, 2022 (EST)
@FanOfYoshi, @LinkTheLefty, @Mister Wu, Why haven't you mentioned your previous approval of banning the book as a source? Here are few quotes respectively: "They give the names from the wiki, and i realize it isn't Nintendo of America who translated this.", "The initially known issues don't even begin to scratch the surface. There are countless mistakes that add up to give the impression that the English translation simply ceased over a year ago after steadfast overreliance on the wiki, providing a particular time capsule of factually incorrect and outdated information throughout the book. The wiki itself is a constant work-in-progress, and to say that an officially licensed product looking up to it is unprofessional would be an understatement. While there are outliers, any potential benefit the book might have had is seriously outweighed by the actual damage, and so it doesn't feel right to use it as a source unless a revised edition ever comes to fruition that fixes all of these problems.", "I feared the book might not have been completely reliable, but I didn't expect that it would have quite frequently used wikis to get names, even when said names were conjectural or didn't follow the policies of the wikis themselves. At this point, it's better to just tell the editors not to use this book as a reliable source of information regarding names, since it isn't." Wikiboy10 (talk) 18:07, November 25, 2022 (EST)
|