MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "[[List of places|" to "[[List of locations|") |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template | {{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | ||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
Line 390: | Line 390: | ||
Okay, [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki_talk:Article_size I tried starting a discussion on this first], but the lack of debate on this is ridiculous. | Okay, [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki_talk:Article_size I tried starting a discussion on this first], but the lack of debate on this is ridiculous. | ||
So basically, our article size policy has this weird exception stating that "''This policy does not apply to list or table pages such as [[List of | So basically, our article size policy has this weird exception stating that "''This policy does not apply to list or table pages such as [[List of locations|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 [[User:Doomhiker|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 [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=List_of_tours_in_Mario_Kart_Tour&oldid=3724885 List of tours in Mario Kart Tour] and [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=List_of_favored_and_favorite_courses_in_Mario_Kart_Tour&oldid=3709229 List of favored and favorite courses in Mario Kart Tour]. [https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Spirit_(Super_Smash_Bros._Ultimate)#Split_page 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 [[Special:LongPages|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? | 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 [[Special:LongPages|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? | ||
Line 626: | Line 626: | ||
:I agreed your comment. I replace (non-''Smash'' appearance) with (formal), and changed the title. Since King K. Rool made his first physical appearance in 10 years since ''Mario Super Sluggers''. Candy Kong and any other DK characters (excluding Dixie, Cranky and Funky) haven't appeared in 15 years since ''DK: Jungle Climber''. We haven't seen Kremlings in the recent years. [[User:Windy|Windy]] ([[User talk:Windy|talk]]) 14:08, November 19, 2022 (EST) | :I agreed your comment. I replace (non-''Smash'' appearance) with (formal), and changed the title. Since King K. Rool made his first physical appearance in 10 years since ''Mario Super Sluggers''. Candy Kong and any other DK characters (excluding Dixie, Cranky and Funky) haven't appeared in 15 years since ''DK: Jungle Climber''. We haven't seen Kremlings in the recent years. [[User:Windy|Windy]] ([[User talk:Windy|talk]]) 14:08, November 19, 2022 (EST) | ||
It's an abandoned situation, so I think this proposal needs to be extended. [[User:Windy|Windy]] ([[User talk:Windy|talk]]) 21:39, November 24, 2022 (EST) | It's an abandoned situation, so I think this proposal needs to be extended. [[User:Windy|Windy]] ([[User talk:Windy|talk]]) 21:39, November 24, 2022 (EST) | ||
===Rework the ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe'' category into a subcategory of the ''Mario Kart 8'' category covering only ''Deluxe''-exclusive content=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-0|rework category}} | |||
Currently, said category - [https://www.mariowiki.com/Category:Mario_Kart_8_Deluxe which I have to link to externally for formatting reasons] - appears to have the scope of "everything that's in ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]''". While sensible on paper, this results in a category whose contents are largely identical to the ''Mario Kart 8'' category, especially when it comes to its subcategories. | |||
Now, if this were a "Mario Kart 9" that happened to reuse much of ''8''{{'}}s content, I would not have an issue. It would "come by it honestly", so to speak. However, ''8 Deluxe'' is not a Mario Kart 9, and we do not treat it that way anywhere else on this wiki. They share a navbox. Articles list their subject's ''8 Deluxe'' roles in the same section, if not the same sentence, as their original ''8'' ones. The only benefit to these separate categories is being able to see everything that's in ''8 Deluxe'' as a whole, and there are [[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe#Characters|already]] [[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe#Vehicle parts|sections]] of the article for that. | |||
Why is this a problem worth paying attention to? Well, in addition to two separate categories being more difficult to maintain than one (as evidence, I submit how much content within the ''8 Deluxe'' category's current scope has not been tagged with the category), we also don't have categories for ''8 Deluxe''-exclusive content. These seem like two problems worth solving with each other to me. | |||
Here's how we do it. | |||
These are the articles I think should be within the new scope of the category: | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass | |||
* Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass race courses | |||
* Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe images | |||
* Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe media files | |||
** Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe characters | |||
** Dry Bones | |||
** Bowser Jr. | |||
** King Boo | |||
** Gold Mario | |||
** Inkling | |||
* Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe objects | |||
** Cash | |||
** Arrow field | |||
** Half-pipe | |||
** Water Geyser | |||
** Metal ball | |||
** Bumper (Mario Kart series) | |||
** Flipper (Mario Kart series) | |||
** Penguin | |||
** Mushroom Trampoline | |||
** Mushroom Platform | |||
** Wiggler | |||
* Koopa Clown | |||
* Inkstriker | |||
* Splat Buggy | |||
* Master Cycle Zero | |||
* Ancient Tires | |||
* Paraglider | |||
* Boo | |||
* Feather | |||
* ''(All 8 of MK8DX's battle courses)'' | |||
* ''(All 6, eventually 12, of the Booster Course Pass cup articles)'' | |||
* List of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe staff | |||
* List of official Mario Kart 8 Deluxe tournaments | |||
* List of sponsors debuting in Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe in-game statistics | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Kart Customizer Game | |||
* Which Mario Kart 8 Deluxe racer are you most like? | |||
I would like to call attention to the fact that direct subcategories of the ''Mario Kart 8'' category would no longer be in this one, as well. | |||
In addition, these categories would be deleted for redundancy: | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe karts | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe bikes | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ATVs | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe tires | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe gliders | |||
* Mario Kart 8 Deluxe items | |||
Effectively, the ''8 Deluxe'' category would become a subcategory that, unlike regular subcategories that supersede their parent category, '''is superseded by''' its parent category. | |||
I think this would clean up the ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe'' category, bring it in line with our [[MarioWiki:Categories|category tree system policy]] by removing instances where categories are subcategories of both it and regular ''8'', and make it much easier to maintain in the future. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, I was quite confused by what the category's scope was meant to be before. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal, I think it makes sense to cut down on the redundant categories here, as well as other reissues in general. I do agree with Mario jc's point in the comments about keeping "Mario Kart 8 Deluxe characters" having enough entries per policy, though. | |||
#{{User|RealStuffMister}} per proposal | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
A few minor nitpicks about the list: [[Train (obstacle)|train]] covers the Super Bell Subway trains and they were in original 8 so it should be removed, ninja Shy Guys don't have an article separate from Shy Guys which are in original 8 so they can go too, [[Half-pipe (object)|half-pipe]]s are missing, and Boo is in a bit of a weird spot because it was an obstacle in original 8 and became an item in Deluxe so I'm not sure whether it should be included or not. (Also for future reference, you can link to categories non-externally by putting a colon at the start of the link, e.g. <nowiki>[[:Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]</nowiki> gets you [[:Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]].) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:23, November 28, 2022 (EST) | |||
:Thanks for the advice! I've changed the list to match. In the case of Boo... honestly, considering its drastically different roles in the game, I'd say it can be in both [[:Category:Mario Kart 8 species]] and [[:Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]] in the same way [[Chain Chomp]] is in both the Double Dash [[:Category:Mario Kart: Double Dash!! species|species]] and [[:Category:Mario Kart: Double Dash!! items|item]] categories. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:08, November 28, 2022 (EST) | |||
Honestly I think this rule should be applied to all reissue categories since there's a lot of redundant entries for other reissues as well. Not saying this proposal should be broadened to reflect that, but just something we can consider in the future.<br>I don't think "Mario Kart 8 Deluxe characters" should be deleted; per [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]], there's enough entries for that subcategory to stay (King Boo, Dry Bones, Bowser Jr., Inkling and Gold Mario). {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 22:40, November 28, 2022 (EST) | |||
:How did I manage to miss Bowser Jr.?<br>Anyway, I could go either way on a characters category, honestly. Five feels a bit few, even if it's over the legal minimum. If we ''do'' keep that category, we ought to make a "Mario Kart 8 Deluxe battle courses" category, since that has even more examples. Which would actually be the ''first'', since no other game has a category for that on this wiki. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 23:28, November 28, 2022 (EST) | |||
::On second thought... I've come around on this. The category ''does'' already exist, so deleting it when we don't necessarily have to would be a bit of an unnecessary change. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 15:15, November 30, 2022 (EST) | |||
===Revision to previous Game & Watch proposal=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|Revise previous proposal}} | |||
Earlier this year, I proposed [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Trim_extraneous_Game_&_Watch_coverage|cutting back our coverage on the non-Mario Game & Watch titles]] to only cover their modern remakes as minigames in Game & Watch Gallery (along with any other particularly Mario-relevant information). The proposal passed (although I'm yet to work on it, oops) but I would like to propose one change to this, and keep information on their classic versions from the Game & Watch Gallery games as well. My rationale is that keeping information on the classic version makes it easier to see what changes were made to the modern versions, and also, the Game & Watch Gallery series is partially within our coverage anyway, so it seems odd to have articles for elements from those games while only half-covering them. Coverage of classic versions would be kept to a minimum, enough to explain the minigame, but not to the point where we need to go uploading all the sprites from those versions either. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 17, 2022, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Spectrogram}} The proposal managed to change my mind. | |||
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Seems reasonable. Not sure if the proposal is wholly necessary since the amendments you want don't seem contentious, but I suppose it's nice for a heads-up | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} This makes sense to me. Per all. | |||
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Per everyone. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Platform}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
===Change the Poll Committee Chairperson election month from June to February=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-0|Move election}} | |||
As the current Chairperson of the Poll Committee, I have noticed that the election date is rather awkwardly placed in the middle of the year rather than at the beginning or ends like other major role transitions, which leads to issues with regards to the Awards Analysis project. The Awards Analysis is something that can only benefit from the Poll Committee being present during Awards season, as well as something that stands to benefit from the Poll Committee having much more experience under their belt when tackling, as currently this project is only ever thrust upon brand new committees with no presence during Awards season for additional context for what they're writing about. This generally leads to a less interesting and engaging article than what the Poll Committee's major project should be. I propose to change the month of the Poll Committee Chairperson's election to February from June as it is now, to facilitate a smoother onboarding process and a better Awards Analysis. This will extend my current term as Chairperson for several months, but I will have a committee re-application process around the old election date for my remaining months as my current committee only signed on for one year, and therefore won't be required to work another half a year in the committee if they don't want to. | |||
[[The_Shroom:Issue_189/PC_Election_Proposal|For more context, read my article in Issue 189 of The 'Shroom.]] | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Fun With Despair}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': December 24, 2022, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Per proposal/article. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Turboo}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Superchao}} Per proposal; as current Awards subdirector I feel like the PC leadership changing mid-Awards has always discouraged greater cooperation between Awards and PC, and ensuring the PC remains stable during Awards season will help a lot. | |||
#{{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}} Sounds like the efficient decision to not make users feel overworked. Though, I think this means even more that applying even past the first application date range should be allowed, so users who wouldn’t want to apply in March at all but would have wanted to apply in July, be it for less of a workload starting then, wanting to ameliorate their reputation for better chances, or just feeling like they wouldn’t be interested until then, have a chance at not feeling dinged by eight extra months. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Cosmic Cowboy}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
===Classify ''Sonic Lost World'' as a guest appearance=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-1|Guest appearance}} | |||
''Sonic Lost World'' for Wii U has a special Yoshi's Island Zone (released December 18, 2013), a playable zone where Sonic fights Piranha Plants and Shy Guys, as well as interacts with objects from the Yoshi series such as Egg Block. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 13, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Support==== | |||
#{{User|Spectrogram}} | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Wait, this wasn't already a guest appearance? Per proposal | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal. Sonic Lost World isn't a Mario game so it would be a guest appearance. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. | |||
#{{user|Koopa con Carne}} per all | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Per all. Yoshi's Island ''is'' part of the Mario franchise, so this DLC should be covered in some way. | |||
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Yeah, the worry about the distinction between covering the game itself and its DLC is just hair-splitting. It's better we have a page entitled Sonic Lost World than Sonic Lost World DLC. Super Mario content wasn't there on Minecraft initially; we don't make a page called "Super Mario Mash-up" and have Minecraft redirect to that. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} It isn't included in any version of the base game, so I don't think the game itself is worth being covered, but I wouldn't oppose giving the "Yoshi's Island Zone" DLC a full article instead. | |||
====Comments==== | |||
{{User|LinkTheLefty}}, how would giving a free update (not paid DLC) the title of guest appearance work? [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 01:44, January 7, 2023 (EST) | |||
:It doesn't really make a difference if the content is free or paid. Sooner or later, like the Wii servers, the Wii U servers will shut down. Necessarily, as the content remains exclusive to the Wii U version, it will become far less accessible to the average person in the aftermarket. And for people who lose the data they already downloaded on their console, it becomes lost permanently unless they homebrew. If Yoshi's Island Zone was included in the physical "Deadly Six Edition" release, I'd support it, but it wasn't a day-one addition to the game. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 06:57, January 7, 2023 (EST) | |||
::Why should it matter if it's an update or a release feature? I don't get it. It's an official part of the game either way. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 10:44, January 7, 2023 (EST) | |||
::I don't see how the transience of digital media is relevant at all, and covering only the update itself would be inconsistent with how the wiki conveys info on other console-exclusive, downloadable ''Mario'' content in non-''Mario'' media, such as ''[[Minecraft]]''{{'}}s Mario Mash-up pack. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:39, January 7, 2023 (EST) | |||
:::That's precisely why wiki coverage shouldn't extend to the game - in the long run, more and more people who play the Wii U version will simply not be aware that there ever was a ''Yoshi's (New) Island'' tie-in, and if anything, new players are likelier to experience it as a niche mod for the PC version. The game itself isn't/wasn't sold to feature a ''Yoshi''-franchise guest appearance. Covering Yoshi's Island Zone as an article independent of its game wouldn't be inconsistent with [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|this proposal]] (which in fairness, hasn't been fully implemented yet, but that's partly due to the proposer). For that matter, although most of the article covers the Super Mario Mash-Up pack, I would say ''Minecraft'' barely applies for its own article because [[List of references in third-party video games#Minecraft (PC and multiplatform)|at least it had ''Mario''-franchise references long before its Nintendo ports]] - ''Sonic Lost World'' on its own has zero ''Mario'' references. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 12:25, January 7, 2023 (EST) | |||
::::There is currenty no other option: either the whole game is a guest appearance or it's not. You can always make a proposal if you wish to add a new option for some games. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 12:54, January 7, 2023 (EST) | |||
===Merging non-''Mario'' Subspace Emissary and Adventure Mode stages=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|8-0|MERGE}} | |||
Previous [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Merge_all_non-Mario_universe_Super_Smash_Bros._Stages_into_a_collective_article proposal] attempted to merge all ''Smash Bros.'' series stages into one collective article. The main arguements against merge were that the list would be too huge, that some of these stages were already merged with either enemies or objects, and that stages are a major enough gameplay element to keep split. | |||
One major part of this proposal, which has failed to reach consensus, was merging only Subspace Emissary and/or Adventure Mode stages. They seem very out of place on the Mario Wiki, so I propose to merge them too, like what we did with items, moves, and objects. | |||
Leave a comment if you disagree with some entries in the list, so I can remove them from this proposal. They can always be dealt with individually at some point in the future. | |||
If this proposal passes, the following stages will be merged (not deleted) into a collective article: | |||
====List of Subspace Emissary stages==== | |||
*[[Battleship Halberd Bridge]] | |||
*[[Battleship Halberd Exterior]] | |||
*[[Battleship Halberd Interior]] | |||
*[[Entrance to Subspace]] | |||
*[[The Forest]] | |||
*[[Midair Stadium]] | |||
*[[Outside the Ancient Ruins]] | |||
*[[The Plain]] | |||
*[[Sea of Clouds]] | |||
*[[Subspace (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)]] | |||
*[[The Battlefield Fortress]] | |||
*[[The Canyon]] | |||
*[[The Glacial Peak]] | |||
*[[The Great Maze]] | |||
*[[The Lake Shore]] | |||
*[[The Path to the Ruins]] | |||
*[[The Research Facility]] | |||
*[[The Ruined Hall]] | |||
*[[The Ruined Zoo]] | |||
*[[The Ruins]] | |||
*[[The Subspace Bomb Factory]] | |||
*[[The Wilds]] | |||
*[[World of Trophies]] | |||
*[[Isle of Ancients]] | |||
====Merge with Melee's section of Adventure Mode==== | |||
* [[Underground Maze]] | |||
* [[F-Zero Grand Prix]] | |||
====Excluded entries==== | |||
The following entries will not be merged: | |||
* [[The Jungle]] - a stage that takes everything from the Donkey Kong series | |||
* [[The Cave]] - the majority of enemies come from the ''Mario'' series | |||
* [[The Lake]] - per Doc von Schmeltwick's comment. | |||
* [[The Swamp]] - the majority of enemies come from the ''Mario'' series | |||
* [[Mushroom Kingdom (Adventure Mode)]] - to be created, no idea how it was missed. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': January 20, 2023, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Merge==== | |||
#{{User|Spectrogram}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Somethingone}} I still feel like this wiki is being horribly inconsistent by only merging ''some'' non-Mario aspects into lists and leaving ''some'' non-Mario aspects separate, and would prefer either all the non-Mario stages to be merged or split instead of picking and choosing whatever we want, but this is fine for now. | |||
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per my position on the previous proposal. | |||
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} [[File:Smorg small.png|30px]] Merge!!! | |||
#{{User|7feetunder}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per all. | |||
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. | |||
====Oppose==== | |||
====Comment==== | |||
The Lake should also be excluded for the same reasons. It's Mario enemies and DK music. Path to the Ruins also is Mario-themed in music. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:30, January 14, 2023 (EST) | |||
:I've excluded The Lake, but not Path to the Ruins, because it features little to no Mario elements. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 13:39, January 14, 2023 (EST) |
Latest revision as of 15:38, July 29, 2023
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)
Include physical appearance in an infoboxDo not include both 0-5 Example for Kritter Before: After: Proposer: Windy (talk) SupportOppose
CommentsHaven't decided what to vote for yet, but I should point out that bringing up how other wikis handle certain situations is not a good argument as they often work vastly different from how we do. Nightwicked Bowser 14:12, November 18, 2022 (EST) Something I want to point out is that we do seem to have this in practice for first appearances; for example, check out Roy (Fire Emblem), Bubbles (Clu Clu Land), or Cream the Rabbit. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:32, November 18, 2022 (EST)
I think that, instead of including most recent non-Smash appearance, we should be including most recent physical appearance instead. That means that, if the character's most recent appearance is nothing more than a pictured cameo, then we can add the most recent appearance in which the character actually physically appears. The infobox on Monty Mole would be a good example of what I'm getting at, as it includes both its most recent appearance in Tetris 99 (which is nothing more than a pictured cameo appearance), as well as in Mario Party Superstars (in which it actually appears in physical form. In Kritter's case, its most recent appearance would include Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (the latest (non-physical) appearance) and Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS (the latest actual, physical appearance).
It's an abandoned situation, so I think this proposal needs to be extended. Windy (talk) 21:39, November 24, 2022 (EST) Rework the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe category into a subcategory of the Mario Kart 8 category covering only Deluxe-exclusive contentrework category 6-0 Now, if this were a "Mario Kart 9" that happened to reuse much of 8's content, I would not have an issue. It would "come by it honestly", so to speak. However, 8 Deluxe is not a Mario Kart 9, and we do not treat it that way anywhere else on this wiki. They share a navbox. Articles list their subject's 8 Deluxe roles in the same section, if not the same sentence, as their original 8 ones. The only benefit to these separate categories is being able to see everything that's in 8 Deluxe as a whole, and there are already sections of the article for that. Why is this a problem worth paying attention to? Well, in addition to two separate categories being more difficult to maintain than one (as evidence, I submit how much content within the 8 Deluxe category's current scope has not been tagged with the category), we also don't have categories for 8 Deluxe-exclusive content. These seem like two problems worth solving with each other to me. Here's how we do it. These are the articles I think should be within the new scope of the category:
I would like to call attention to the fact that direct subcategories of the Mario Kart 8 category would no longer be in this one, as well. In addition, these categories would be deleted for redundancy:
Effectively, the 8 Deluxe category would become a subcategory that, unlike regular subcategories that supersede their parent category, is superseded by its parent category. I think this would clean up the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe category, bring it in line with our category tree system policy by removing instances where categories are subcategories of both it and regular 8, and make it much easier to maintain in the future. Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsA few minor nitpicks about the list: train covers the Super Bell Subway trains and they were in original 8 so it should be removed, ninja Shy Guys don't have an article separate from Shy Guys which are in original 8 so they can go too, half-pipes are missing, and Boo is in a bit of a weird spot because it was an obstacle in original 8 and became an item in Deluxe so I'm not sure whether it should be included or not. (Also for future reference, you can link to categories non-externally by putting a colon at the start of the link, e.g. [[:Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]] gets you Category:Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:23, November 28, 2022 (EST)
Honestly I think this rule should be applied to all reissue categories since there's a lot of redundant entries for other reissues as well. Not saying this proposal should be broadened to reflect that, but just something we can consider in the future.
Revision to previous Game & Watch proposalRevise previous proposal 7-0 Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsChange the Poll Committee Chairperson election month from June to FebruaryMove election 10-0 For more context, read my article in Issue 189 of The 'Shroom. Proposer: Fun With Despair (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsClassify Sonic Lost World as a guest appearanceGuest appearance 7-1 Proposer: Spectrogram (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsLinkTheLefty (talk), how would giving a free update (not paid DLC) the title of guest appearance work? Spectrogram (talk) 01:44, January 7, 2023 (EST)
Merging non-Mario Subspace Emissary and Adventure Mode stagesMERGE 8-0 One major part of this proposal, which has failed to reach consensus, was merging only Subspace Emissary and/or Adventure Mode stages. They seem very out of place on the Mario Wiki, so I propose to merge them too, like what we did with items, moves, and objects. Leave a comment if you disagree with some entries in the list, so I can remove them from this proposal. They can always be dealt with individually at some point in the future. If this proposal passes, the following stages will be merged (not deleted) into a collective article: List of Subspace Emissary stages
Merge with Melee's section of Adventure ModeExcluded entriesThe following entries will not be merged:
Proposer: Spectrogram (talk) Merge
OpposeCommentThe Lake should also be excluded for the same reasons. It's Mario enemies and DK music. Path to the Ruins also is Mario-themed in music. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:30, January 14, 2023 (EST)
|