MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Do nothing: Abstaining as the supporters have raised good points.)
 
(809 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages===
Recently, a (completely undiscussed) amendment was made to the [[Mariowiki:Naming#derived names|naming]] system making it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese). While allowing said "derived names" as conjecture makes sense, it comes with several pitfalls, and my main concern is it is turning into a slippery slope. Much of it is discussed on the talk page for the so-called "[[Talk:Hefty Goombrat|Hefty Goombrat]]," which is a sterling example of why this was not a good idea. I have also been recently seeing cases of people moving to subjects based on objects sharing some adjective with a random obscure object in the same game, as demonstrated [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Linking_Bull%27s-Eye_Bill&curid=429765&diff=4195153&oldid=4111331 here]. To be blunt, this was a short-sighted idea (and more than likely, simply a failed experiment) and needs cut back to a reasonable level before it gets out of hand. For the record, I am favor of letting it stay when the only indications in other languages or file names or what-have-you are generic terms rather than clear "names," for instance when the only confirmed name for [[Shoot]] was just "jugador de futbol," as well as rewording clunky generic descriptors like "[[surfboard vehicle|vehicle with surfboard]]."


'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
=== Get rid of or heavily restrict the "Subject origin" parameter ===
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
I can already sense a murmur rising in the crowd, but hear me out. I've made it no secret on here that [[Template_talk:Species_infobox#Point_of_derived_subject.2Fsubject_origin.3F|I don't really like the Subject origin parameter]] on the [[Template:Species infobox|species infobox]]. The term "subject origin" is a bit of a misnomer. It really should've been called "design inspiration", because rather than explaining where the subject comes from ''in pieces of media'', it's only ever been used in instances where the subject took any sort of inspiration from another entity, either real or fictional. If that sounds oddly broad... then yes, it ''is'' '''very''' broad.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per.
 
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, these names are conjectural and shouldn't be unduly given more weight than their fellow conjectural names.
This line of reasoning is used for bizarre classifications such as [[Mincer]]s being derived from [[Zinger]]s because they're both spiky enemies (is Mincer even an enemy, or just an obstacle?) that follow specific paths, or every "Bone" enemy variant being derived from [[Dry Bones]] even if they don't actually fall apart. There's even a few cases where "subject origin" has taken priority over confirmed relatedness between species, despite the term not in itself suggesting a close relationship between subjects, thus ''losing'' useful information in the infobox in these cases (e.g. [[Rocky Wrench]]es which were formerly [[Koopa (species)|Koopa]]s, [[Whomp]]s which are said to be "cousins" of [[Thwomp]]s, [[Krumple]]s being blue Kremlings that follow the same naming scheme as their predecessors [[Krusha]] and [[Kruncha]]).
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Might just be me but I'd rather not have a policy that specifically states "if you don't like this official name, just completely ignore it and make up something wacky instead" because that's ''not what this site is even remotely about''
 
#{{User|Axis}} Per all.
The most awkward instances, however, are easily the instances of a subject being "derived" from a generic concept. [[Kleptoad]]s, though based on [[frog]]s, have little to no relevance to any of the generic instances of frogs present in the Mario franchise. Similarly, [[Rabbid]]s are entirely separated from the Mario series' depictions of [[rabbit]]s, not only because they don't act like generic rabbits in the Mario series, but also because they're not even from the same ''franchise''. It's not even restricted to entities that actually ''have'' pages on the Mario Wiki. [[Kremling]]s are stated to originate from "crocodilians", a page that [[:Category:Crocodilians|only exists as a category]], [[Crazee Dayzee]]s are derived from "flowers" (which are in a similar situation), and [[Krimp]]s are listed as being derived from "dogs". Who's to say [[Boo]]s aren't derived from "ghosts", or that [[Flaptack]]s don't have "bird" as a subject origin, or that [[Octoomba]]s aren't based off of both "aliens" and "octopuses"?
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. While some of these derived names are fine and it's sensible to have this as an option, it shouldn't take priority over an official name when one exists.
 
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} ...Okay, yeah, KCC makes a good point we didn't think of, so, surprise! We're changing our vote! Conjectural names have their place, but we really shouldn't prioritize them over ''actual names'' if they exist.
I hope you can see that the unrestricted references to generic or real-world species at the very least are a problem. But even for non-generic subject origins, the vast majority of the time (I'm tempted to say all of the time, but there could be an instance I'm struggling to think of that doesn't fall under this), this kind of info is covered sufficiently in the introductory paragraph, or the General information/Appearance section when applicable. I propose we deal with this in one of the following ways:
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm pretty sure this all started [[Talk:Mame-san#Name source|here]], and...yeah, in practice, conjectural exceptions bloat the elegant naming policy. Plus, this is practically begging to have more "Fire Nipper Plant"-esque situations.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all.
#{{User|Somethingone}} Per the arguments raised above.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Official names are official, whether it's English, Japanese, Spanish, and so forth.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Actually, my position didn't make much sense. If some enemies are OK to have their Japanese name, then why not all enemies without a proper English name? And KCC brought up a good point about redirects. I wouldn't be opposed to using derived names as just redirects, since redirects show up in the search bar alongside actual articles, basically removing the "searchability" issue.


====Oppose====
'''Option 1:''' Axe the "subject origin" parameter entirely. (My primary choice)<br>
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} While I agree that some discussions may need to be made on what counts as derived conjecture and what doesn't, a flat-out repeal is '''not''' the way to go about this. Plus, some of these derived conjecture names are completely straightforward (such as "[[Fire Spike]]" or "[[Wonder Hoppycat]]"), as in we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject.
'''Option 2:''' Ban usage of subject origin to refer to generic species, in addition to switching priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects". (I'm fine with this)<br>
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} The only problem with this policy is that it's being applied in cases and/or ways that it shouldn't be (I personally think Hefty Goombrat was a step too far). If it's kept to reasonable use like the examples Archivist Toadette gave, it's fine. No need to repeal the entire thing.
'''Option 3:''' Simply ban usage of citing generic species as the subject origin.<br>
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per opposition.
'''Option 4:''' Ban usage of subject origin to refer to species from the ''Mario'' franchise.<br>
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per Archivist Toadette, really. To me, it does seem greater caution and discussion on these derived names is warranted, but a case-by-case approach seems more useful here than a flat-out repeal. I'd be worried about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here, tossing away something that's generally beneficial to readers in the process of correcting a few cases where this has been misapplied.
'''Option 5:''' Just switch priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects"
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall (collectively)
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Not a good idea.
<s>#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We really ought to be handling poor names born from this policy on a case-by-case basis, rather than nixing the policy altogether and potentially causing more harm than good.</s>
<br><s>#{{User|DrippingYellow}} I seriously fail to see how this is a problem. If you have a Japanese noun that has had a direct, consistent translation across ''multiple'' pieces of English ''Mario'' media (i.e. ''gabon'' to Spike, ''kakibo'' to Goombrat, ''deka'' to "Big" enemies, admittedly ''kodeka'' for "Hefty" enemies is pushing it since we really only have [[Hefty Goomba]]s as an official translation), then the way I see it this replacement of terms is no different than how we've been treating internal names. We already have a rule on not "partially translating" names, so I'd maybe expand on that to prohibit creating translations for words that don't have a consistent translation across games, but I wouldn't get rid of the derived name rule altogether. (i.e. [[Sensuikan Heihō]] does not become "Submarine Shy Guy" or even "Sensuikan Shy Guy")</s>


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|DrippingYellow}}<br>
@Opposition I did say in the last sentence that this isn't removing it completely, just changing its position in the "acceptable naming" hierarchy. The reason I said "repeal" is an incarnation of it existed before for generic-borne titles and I am trying to go back to that as - unlike the current iteration - it isn't just ''begging'' to be misused.  [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT


I guess the best way to put it is this: if an official name ''that is a name'' exists, period, there is no excuse whatsoever for there to be a "conjecture" template of any sort. That's not hypothesizing, that's ignoring, and to be frank is a grotesque perversion of the policies this site has had for decades that have not caused any harm whatsoever - meanwhile, ''these'' have plenty of potential for misleading people. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
==== Option 1 ====
:Then what about the examples I brought up? {{User:Archivist Toadette/sig}} 07:30, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} As derived from my proposal.
::What about them? They have official names, but the wiki opts to give them ''explicitly'' conjectural ones because apparently a couple of sysops thought so. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 07:33, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal
#{{User|7feetunder}} This parameter is, as it is currently written, not well defined at all. [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:Species_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=3968459 It was originally] meant to be ''only'' for connections to real-world species, but was [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:Species_infobox&diff=next&oldid=3968459 given a wishy-washy, vague rewording] so it could be used to make flimsy claims like [[Bazuka]] being based on [[Kutlass]] because they're both [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Bazuka&diff=prev&oldid=3976730 "small Kremlings with oversized weapons"] or the aforementioned Mincer thing (which I was unaware of before this proposal).


I still find the idea that these names are "conjectural" to be kind of weird, if that's the big hang-up here. If we can [[MarioWiki:Naming#Japanese|already take some liberties with Japanese titles]] I don't see why we can't just look at something and say "oh, this is literally Goomba's Japanese name, let's just call it Goomba", especially when the name is partially English already. That's just doing some simple translation, not really making conjectural names? I'm speaking as someone with no background in translation, mind you, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:19, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
==== Option 2 ====
:Conjecture occurs when you're presuming something to be the case in the absence of hard facts. Archive Toadette states in his vote that "we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject". "'''Assume'''". That's the thrust of this policy: assumption. Which is pretty much synonymous with conjecture, and some editors are taking issue with prioritizing that over official names. Regarding the liberties on Japanese names, there's nothing conjectural about adapting something like [[Sniper|Sunaipā]] to "Sniper", because it's literally the word's Japanese transliteration--the romanization reflects how the word sounds when converted to Japanese writing. Note how that policy states that instances of "Kuppa" should be adapted to "[[Koopa (species)|Koopa]]", and not "Bowser", even though that's his Japanese name. "Kuribo" wouldn't be adapted to "Goomba" in article titles because that's not a transliteration, that a compound of actual Japanese morphemes. The basis of the Japanese naming policy isn't the same as that of the conjectural naming policy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:43, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Secondary choice.


@Hooded Pitohui: Could you be more specific on what is or isn't acceptable? Because I'm kind of struggling to picture any time these conjectural names should have priority over an actual official name, or what would make that case different to others (note that they'd still take priority over filenames per the proposal). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:01, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
==== Option 3 ====
:I think it may be helpful to start with a disclaimer and an acknowledgement of where I'm coming from in casting a vote. I'm a very infrequent, casual editor on the wiki side of things, so when I do wade into these proposals on the intricacies of the wiki's policies on naming or classification or scope of coverage, I don't often have a large repository of examples to draw upon, and rarely am I able (or attempting to) make any kind of case or argument. Generally, I'm entering these discussions from the perspective of a reader/user of the wiki first, and casual contributor second, and generally my votes are going to be informed by that perspective, so I apologize if this seems a bit broad and dealing in hypotheticals. For me, I'd think anything that's a straight localization of a recurring, official enemy/item/what have you is acceptable, and more adjectival/descriptive parts of a name or a name of something that hasn't really had a localization established is not. To use the cited Hefty Goombrat example, "Hefty" probably shouldn't have been conjecturally localized, but a Goombrat is pretty clearly a Goombrat, so conjecturally localizing that part seems fine to me. If, I don't know, Nintendo introduces a Lakitu that throws fireballs down that become Firesnakes, and it's called "[something] Jugem" officially in Japanese material, again, I think we leave the descriptive part as-is because there's no clear precedent, but we know a "Jugem/Jugemu" is consistently localized as Lakitu, so we might as well localize that because an average reader will recognize "Lakitu" quickly. Meanwhile, if we just got, say, a generic cloud spitting fireballs with the same behavior, I'd say we'd be wise not to do a conjectural localization because there's not clear precedent for what that'd get localized as. Of course, even always following really clear, solid precedent, we might get it wrong occasionally, especially if Nintendo decides to rename a recurring enemy at some point, but it's a wiki, information is constantly getting updated, renamed, and reevaluated anyway. Hope that helps explain my reasoning a bit better! [[User:Hooded Pitohui|Hooded Pitohui]] ([[User talk:Hooded Pitohui|talk]]) 13:26, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
::Slippiest of slippery slopes. Just use redirects if you expect casual readers to look up for a thing more intuitively than how it's been officially presented. There's no need to compromise encyclopedic integrity to cater to what readers expect to see. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:06, April 29, 2024 (EDT)


For the record, this isn't a talk page proposal, so I think the deadline for this proposal should be May 6. Unless there was a statement of "you can make the proposals two weeks long if you want" that I missed in the rules, which is entirely possible. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:21, May 1, 2024 (EDT)
==== Option 4 ====
:Writing Guideline proposals also last two weeks, like TPPs. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I think, right now, it's a little confusing, myself. Back when I thought to have the parameter [[Template talk:Species infobox#Repurposing subject origin?|revived]], I thought of only using it for genericized subjects, and this option seems to be closest to what I had in mind. For that matter, we don't need to list every single variant of something under derived subjects; just the base version is fine.
::Oh, I didn't notice that in the rules. I guess that makes sense. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:30, May 2, 2024 (EDT)


==New features==
==== Option 5 ====
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Second choice


==Removals==
==== Do nothing ====
''None at the moment.''
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - I don't really see the issue. If anything, the "relatives" parameter not having directional counterparts is the weakest link. Plus the "listing Galoombas as Goomba relatives rather than variants because a source distinguished them from each other and happened to used the word 'related'"-type of thing might be itself getting out of hand...
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per Doc
<s>#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.</s>


==Changes==
==== Comments ====
===Non-standardize franchise sub-headings in History sections===
Oh, looks like I'm involved with this proposal to some degree. You see; I was the one who did the Kremling edit and especially the recent Dry Bones edits. For the latter, my explanation is that subject origin refers to things based on another entity ''while not actually being the entity.'' For example, Galoombas have been considered not Goombas, but they were meant to be inspired by them and even their [[Galoomba#Names in other languages|name]] reflects it. There are various subjects that are definitely inspired, while not considered relatives of the original entity. Goombrats are weird, because they are stated to be relatives, although it's not made clear if they are a variant, as ''Super Mario Run'' loved to throw a wrench at us. The initial existence of subject origin appeared to be more generic species that had multiple fictional variants off of it. I always had this issue with penguins on this, because the ''Mario'' franchise equivalent of penguins are meant to be based on those from ''SM64'', yet the derived section brings up entities that existed ''before it.'' The blue color seems to derived from Bumpties, so there's ''that'' [[MIPS]]hole for you. As for my Dry Bones edit, they've inspired various skeleton enemies over the years. It's obvious that Bone Piranha Plants were inspired by Dry Bones, because their designs have the same type of texture. The same applies to Fish Bones, because they are meant to be underwater Dry Bones, especially given in ''Maker'', where an underwater Dry Bones becomes a Fish Bones. Poplins are not confirmed to be relatives of Toads, but it's wrong to say that aren't inspired by Toads. Really, I got the impression that subject origin = inspiration. We know that Dry Bones and Fish Bones are definitely two different entities not even related, but we know one took inspiration from the other. I guess this type of logic would make Shellcreepers being the origin for Koopa Troopas, although Shellcreepers are retroactively considered part of the Koopa clan. Yeah, relatives is another thing. For me, if its unclear what came first, its a relative. Paragoombas have the ability to spawn Mini Goombas. Mini Goombas aren't really a variant of a Paragoomba, so the relative label fits there. To get back on topic a little bit, I'm surprised [[Moo Moo]] didn't get mentioned here; it's in the same boat of Kremling, except I made it link to the Wikipedia article for [[Wikipedia:Cattle|cattle]]. My thought process behind these edits, where to tell the viewer what the species is based off on. This is somewhat true for Kremlings, who are sometimes called [[Donkey Kong Country (television series)|reptiles or lizards]]. A person who isn't familiar with this franchise might not know what the hell a Kremling is meant to be based on, so I figured that I mention its inspired by both crocodiles and alligators (not sure if Kremlings tend to crossover with these two, like how Diddy and Dixie are crosses between monkeys and chimps). I guess this could get out of hand when talking about fictional animals such as dragons or aliens, so there's that. My thought process is that someone might not realize what the species is based on. Like, if there was a fictional species based off on a [[Wikipedia:Spider monkey|spider monkey]], which some people might not realize actually exists, ''that'' was the intended goal. Of course, it can resort to "well, no shit," situations regarding Kremlings who are just based on typical crocs and Moo Moos. So yeah, I'm not entirely sure what to choose here. I do want it to be obvious to non-''Mario'' readers what the subject is based on. Are we considering making Galoombas be considered comparable to Goombas? [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 23:55, June 11, 2024 (EDT)
This proposal aims to non-standardize -- not outright forbid or penalize -- the use of "franchise" subheadings under History. In other words, should this pass, if someone gets rid of franchise sub-headings in favor of series or standalone game sub-headings, someone is not allowed to revert it and must leave it as-is. Otherwise, users are allowed to add the sections at their discretion. Think of it like the Cite template, which is standardized but not required.


I never understood the need for the franchise subheadings (with three equals signs), since it just adds an unnecessary extra heading in the page text. It's like if we had a "Super Mario franchise" section and began listing various subsections under it. The points I'm making below may digress from the proposal, but could provide insight as to why I think it muddies the waters too much by giving individual franchise sections.
==New features==
===Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes===
Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being [https://www.mariowiki.com/images/2/26/Mario1c.jpg dumb], but hear me out.


I feel that it shouldn't be this wiki's job to decide which game goes into what franchise. To give some examples, Nintendo has not taken the effort to, let's say, classify ''Yoshi's Safari'' as a ''Yoshi'' game on par with the ''Yoshi's Island'' series, and I haven't seen ''Wario's Woods'' being listed among the likes of ''Wario Land'' series, not to mention Wario is the main antagonist of ''Wario's Woods'', despite his name in the title (though could similarly be said about ''DK'' arcade game). And ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' could either be a ''Super Mario'' game, since it stars Mario, or a ''Donkey Kong'' game, but I'm more inclined toward the former, since all the sequels (minus the Switch remake) do not retain any elements from the Game Boy version of ''Donkey Kong'', and Donkey Kong is the consistent antagonist.
A few years after [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/31#Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxes|this proposal]] passed, this wiki added a [[Template:Group infobox|group infobox]] for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would '''only''' be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.


So with the examples listed, see how it kind of muddies the waters? And if future proposals or discoveries determine the games to not be part of the franchises, or the franchises themselves outright nil, then that would be numerous pages to clean up on, should the franchise sub-sections be applied to the wiki universally. Even if it may appear disjointed on some articles, the point is still that these are still ''Super Mario'' characters starring in their own games, not different than ''Captain Toad'', ''Princess Peach'', and ''Luigi's Mansion'', all of which are explicitly ''Super Mario'' games but starring different characters.
I've come up with two options:
*Option 1: [[Template:Character infobox]] and [[Template:Species infobox]] get a "member of" parameter, which would be used to link to groups they are, well, a member of. [[Goomba]] and the like would link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[Vivian]] would link to [[Three Shadows]], etc. This parameter would be used to list both memberships and leadership roles (the latter could maybe be distinguished by adding "(leader)" next to the link).
*Option 2: these infoboxes would also get a separate "Leader of" parameter. [[Bowser]] would use this to link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[King K. Rool]] would use this to link to [[Kremling Krew]], [[Captain Syrup]] would use this to link to [[Black Sugar Gang]], characters and species-characters would link to the [[:Category:baseball teams|baseball teams]] they lead, etc.


In the ''Smash Bros.'' series, I am aware that Wario, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong have distinct symbols, but that could reflect their protagonist status, not their own series.  
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).


'''Edit:''' Another problem from using franchise sub-sections is that would mean game sub-sections could have five equal signs if branching off of a series subheading of a franchise sub-heading. An example of how that would look: <code> ===''Yoshi'' franchise=== ====''Yoshi's Island'' series==== =====''Yoshi's Island DS''===== </code>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
====Option 1====
'''Deadline''': May 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} First choice per proposal.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) The folly of the "affiliations" tab was that it was allowed to include characters, which led to nonsense like Fawful being affiliated with "himself" among other things. Restricting it to groups is perfectly fine.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall


====Support====
====Option 2====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Second choice per proposal.


====Oppose====
====Do nothing====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find it genuinely difficult to find topics when they are not grouped into franchise headers like this, especially for long articles, and it can be frustrating. I can understand not putting ''Wario Land'' and ''WarioWare'' titles together under a "Wario (franchise)" heading, but ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is a ''Yoshi's Island'' game in everything but literal name, and it is unintuitive to not group it with those titles for recurring subjects. Same with ''Donkey Kong Jungle Beat'' and the other ''Donkey Kong'' platforms. ''Smash Bros.'' did not invent the idea of grouping these franchises together. Nothing is lost when these subfranchise headings are maintained - only gains for readers.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place.  Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the [[Template:Character infobox]] is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. [[Excess Express]] passengers, [[Mario Kart 8]] racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances. In the [[Goomba]] example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions.  What about the Goombas in [[Goomba Village]] or [[Rogueport]] or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas. You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per Nintendo101. It's unclear what benefits this would have.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per DrBaskerville.
#{{User|Arend}} Well, I guess I now know the truth about that oddity of [[Special:Diff/4174787|this edit on the Icicle page]] ([[Icicle|which is still in use btw]]). In essence, though, the "unnecessary" extra heading is there for organizing, so it ''has'' a purpose, and is ''not'' entirely unnecessary. If what you're proposing is exactly what you've done on the Icicle page (which is to say, not only removing the Yoshi franchise header, but also relocating the Yoshi's Crafted World section towards the bottom of the History section), it would only look disorganized (especially since, as Nintendo101 said about Woolly World, Crafted World is already super similar in gameplay to the Yoshi's Island games... as is Yoshi's Story, too, btw). In fact, such a drastic change would ''only'' make sense if we treated ''every game'' like this and have ''everything'' listed in release order regardless of other series like Mario Kart or Smash Bros.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}}Perall!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all. This honestly feels even more cumbersome and strange than how we already do things--besides, Ctrl+F (or "Find" on mobile) generally helps if you're lost as-is.


====Comments====
====Comments====
@Nintendo101: Except the ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is not a ''Yoshi's Island'' game, since those have Baby Mario in it, but reuses concepts from said series. And the "Donkey Kong platforms" already have two series of their own: Donkey Kong Country series and Donkey Kong Land series, and then there's the unassociated games like Donkey Kong 64 (which i used to think was a DKC game) and DK Jungle Beat [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:19, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
:I would argue that ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is a ''Yoshi's Island'' game because whether or not Baby Mario is present is completely outweighed by the games' mechanical similarities, level designs, enemies, characters, aesthetics, "game feel", and development staff. What they actually named the game doesn't matter. But that is admittedly my subjective interpretation.


:What is not subjective is that ''Woolly World'' (in addition to ''Yoshi's Story'', ''Crafted World'') has significantly more in common with the traditionally-recognized ''Yoshi's Island'' games than they do to the majority of other titles and make more intuitive sense grouped together. Additionally, we have a dedicated [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] article and framing on the wiki (i.e. articles on the ''Yoshi'' platformers are generally structured similarly and have comparable heading colors). It does not make sense why that classification is okay in one context, but not for the spaces that really matter - articles on recurring subjects that would legitimately benefit from subdivisions. I maintain the same position for ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Wario'' titles, as I would for ''Mario Party'' and ''Mario Kart''. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:32, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


::Then there's the ''Yoshi'', ''Yoshi's Cookie'', and ''Tetris Attack'' puzzle games, supposedly with the ''Yoshi'' branding, though I think the former two are ''Super Mario'' games with Yoshi as a mascot. Throwing all of that under a "Yoshi franchise" heading would be an example of muddying the waters, with both platforming and puzzle games mixed together. The "comparable" heading colors could basically apply to the ''Super Mario'' franchise, which is associated with the color red, like Mario's shirt and hat.
==Changes==
===Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary===
An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch)]], as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, ''very'' long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the ''TTYD'' remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and ''then'' go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?


::''Yoshi's Story'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and ''Yoshi's Crafted World'' not being part of an explicitly defined ''Yoshi'' platforming series isn't a fault on our part, but is rather a reflection on Nintendo. Have Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach Showtime! been confirmed to be part of the same series, or are they both "Super Mario" games starring Peach? If such two section are disjointed in an article, like Princess Peach's, because they're not in an officially defined series, that's because it's Nintendo's responsibility to define it, not ours. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:48, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'']] or ''TTYD'' remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'', but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)
:::I appreciate the thoroughness of your response, but it did not address what I was trying to get at. Why can Super Mario Wiki have a [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] article, template, and organization structure in their articles and then passively assert no such thing exists in the actual History sections for subjects? What you describe as "muddying the waters" I perceive as helpful clarity and a consistent presentation of information maintained across the wiki. That's inherently helpful for readers. It also really has not been explained to me what is improved for readers in removing subfranchise headings. I know for me personally it would make it more difficult to passively read articles or locate information, and I suspect I am not alone in that feeling. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:31, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
::::Because the same question could apply to why does [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] not have its own subsection and on what grounds. The History section basically passively asserts the Super Mario franchise isn't there for the same reason. And if we're to cover like every Chain Chomp appearance in ''Zelda'', would that get its own franchise section and subheadings? The history section in that instance would be presenting it on the same tier as ''Yoshi'', ''Wario'', and ''Donkey Kong''. Convenience isn't always an accurate reflection of the official way of sorting. One could have ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3'' come after ''Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins'' in the History section, since the former literally takes place after the latter's events, or ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'' after ''Super Mario World'' (or considering "Super Mario Bros. 5" was a dropped subtitle during development), but that would be negating their respective Wario Land and Yoshi's Island series. I wanted to point out that your opinion on ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' being a ''Yoshi's Island'' title could be a stretch based on personal viewpoint, but not necessarily official confirmation. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:43, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
:::::While it is one that I agree with and I believe it can be substantively demonstrated, I do not group ''Woolly World'' with ''Yoshi's Island'' because of a subjective interpretation. I apologize if that was the impression. It is because we currently consider them part of the [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] on the wiki. Grouping them together under the history section is just matching what is already recognized elsewhere, and I believe it is helpful. I feel like to not group them together in the History section calls for a much wider discussion on how we should classify games on the wiki at large, and if we should be recognizing a ''Yoshi'' franchise (also a ''Wario'', ''Donkey Kong'', etc.) at all. But that is a departure from how things are currently recognized by the userbase.
:::::Are the ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', and ''Wario'' franchises themselves not within the ''Super Mario'' franchise? I was under the impression that that was the overarching umbrella. ''Zelda'' would inherently be outside of that. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, May 7, 2024 (EDT)


::::::The three you mentioned are part of the ''Super Mario'' franchise, that's true. And ''Tetris Attack'', a puzzle game, is as much of a ''Yoshi'' game as ''Super Mario World 2''. Putting every game installment under a single "franchise" heading is the history sections conflating franchises with series, which i deem a problem. Why put ''Yoshi'' puzzle game, the [[Super Scope]] game ''Yoshi's Safari'', ''Yoshi's Island'', and miscellaneous platforming games under a single heading that makes them all seem strung together somehow? Yoshi's Woolly World is platforming, so it's closer by that merit but Yoshi (the puzzle game) is far from any sort of association to ''Yoshi's Island'', which it predates, and is an entirely different genre. It would be inconsistent if the ''Super Mario'' franchise's series gets sub-sections but not like Yoshi's Island or Wario Land, like it's being decided subjectively of how to find information per game series. And a Donkey Kong franchise's 4-equal sign headings could theoretically look like: <code>====Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest====</code>, <code>====Donkey Kong Land 2====</code>, <code>====Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!====</code>, since that's the chronological release order of Donkey Kong platforming games from two separate series. Or what about Wario's: <code>WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!</code>, <code>Wario World</code>, <code>WarioWare: Twisted!</code> This means either way, there will be cases where things will look disjointed for varying reasons. The way History sections are sorted are not a reflection of the wiki scope. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:52, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.


I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land|Kirby's Return to Dream Land]]'' and ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe|Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe]]'' that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.


The biggest issue with these franchise subheadings is that it can lead to creating a level 5 subheader in some instances and we really need to avoid this because they're increasingly more indistinguishable from text. The current method of doing it avoids this because the entities don't seem to appear in many games, so it doesn't make much sense to bar the use of it, but IMO if using franchise subheadings results in too many subheaders, avoid it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:25, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long ''TTYD'' section might, but something like ''Super Mario Advance'' could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.
:Yeah, this is one of the things I brought up as to why I find the franchise subheadings a problem, because it could result in the creation of the level-5 subheadings, like in an example that I listed above. Another case I'd find the franchise subheadings redundant is if there's only two releases or three releases, none from the same series, and especially if doing without the franchise subheading already shows them in chronological order. For example, [[Cog (obstacle)]] has ''[[Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns]]'' listed under "''Donkey Kong'' franchise, despite the fact that without that extra franchise subheading, they'd already be displayed together in chronological order in the history section. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:53, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
::"Gently encouraging users to avoid/minimize the use of level 5 subheaders because it is difficult to discriminate from normal text", is a world of difference from "imposing an editorial restriction on an organizational arrangement that others feel makes articles easier to read". - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:47, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
::Except gears also appear in ''[[Mario Kart DS]]'' and ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'' thanks to [[DS Tick-Tock Clock]], the former being inbetween ''Jungle Beat'' and ''Country Returns'' (I've already added the info on the cog page). Additionally, a gear plays a prominent role in the ''[[WarioWare: Twisted!]]'' and ''[[WarioWare Gold]]'' microgame [[Scrambled Egg]] (though it does not serve as a platform there, so I was hesitant about adding that to the page). {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:42, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::Come to think of it though, ''[[WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!]]'' already features gears in the microgame [[Gear Head Fred]], so if we were to include WarioWare microgames on the cog article, that section would have to come before ''Jungle Beat'' anyway. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:56, May 9, 2024 (EDT)


On the level 5 subheader thing: ...Can't we just change how those look via CSS shenanigans and the like? While there's definitely more eloquent ways to do it, simply giving them <font color="#444">'''a slightly gray color to distinguish it from a level 4 subheader'''</font> could probably resolve at least a couple of issues with them. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:17, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br>
:I thought the argument was that the level 5 subheader wasn't that it'd look indistinguishable to the level 4 subheader, but to the article's regular text. Not that I disagree with the CSS thing though, we can make changes to it to make the level 5 subheader a tiny bit bigger... same goes for level 6 subheaders btw (yes, level 6 subheaders are a thing, and so are level 1 subheaders, [[user:Arend/sandbox|see this sandbox]]). Not sure if it's ''entirely'' necessary to drastically change them, since level 5 subheaders are not only already a bit bigger, but also are displayed '''bold'''. It's level 6 subheaders that are displayed in the same size as the regular text, albeit in bold as well, though level 6 subheaders are rarely used, if at all. But, we could maybe change the headers' fonts to distinguish them if that's preferable over size or color changes, as the Timeless mobile skin displays all of these headers in Times New Roman. {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT


===Allow separation of the Super Mario Bros. series and Super Mario series in articles===
====Support====
This proposal aims to allow separating the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series of side-scrolling platformers ([[:File:SMR Notifications 2023-12-20 excerpt.jpg|it's official]]) from the ''Super Mario'' 3D series in history sections. This is based on how Nintendo sometimes treats the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series separately from the ''Super Mario'' 3D games, like from the screenshot (in-game from ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' itself), ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is said to be the first ''Super Mario Bros.'' game in 11 years (referring to 2012, when ''[[New Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' and ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' were released).
#{{User|DryKirby64}} As proposer.
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I agree with this proposal.


Currently, this proposal would only allow for the series to be separated in sections, not necessarily standardized, as that would depend on how the article is laid out.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all.


The complicated part of 2012 being the cutoff before ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is that would mean ''[[Super Mario Maker]]'', its sequel, and ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' would all be disqualified from the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series. The ''Super Mario'' series is the standard/main series, and ''Super Mario Maker 2'' has been making effort to maintain association with both the 2D and 3D series, since they have a ''Super Mario 3D World'' format. ''Super Mario Run'' is technically a game of its own, but I think the safer bet would be to keep it in ''Super Mario'' series. This proposal is to help the ''Super Mario BROS.'' games stand out and their evolution between the different sidescrolling titles.
====Comments====
This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
:Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. [[User:DryKirby64|DryKirby64]] ([[User talk:DryKirby64|talk]]) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
::It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
===Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' pages===
This is based on a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|proposal from last year about ''Super Mario RPG'']], which had passed. The proposal was about using (''Super Mario RPG'') as a disambiguation identifier over the full (''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'') title because not only does the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Nintendo Switch remake]] not use the "Legend of the Seven Stars" subtitle from [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|the original SNES title]] while still calling it just "Super Mario RPG", but it would also be easier to navigate and would look nicer due to the page title not being so overly long in comparison.


The ''Super Mario'' name is more universal than just outside the platforming games (e.g. ''[[Super Mario Strikers]]'', for one), and is the name and trademark of the very brand itself, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of separate series beginning with "''Super Mario''", even if in this case it's referring to just the 2D and 3D games themselves.
This proposal is the same principle, but with articles concerning ''[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]]'' instead (in fact, this idea was also suggested in the aforementioned ''Super Mario RPG'' proposal). Both their respective [[Donkey Kong Country 2 (Game Boy Advance)|GBA]] [[Donkey Kong Country 3 (Game Boy Advance)|ports]] have entirely omitted the subtitles from the SNES originals, much like ''Super Mario RPG's'' Nintendo Switch remake, yet articles that make use of a disambiguation identifier still make use of the full title of the SNES originals (see [[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest levels]] per example). I think it'd be much easier to navigate if the identifiers went from (''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'') and (''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'') to simply (''Donkey Kong Country 2'') and (''Donkey Kong Country 3'') respectively. I believe this makes sense because both the SNES originals and GBA ports are still called ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'', and it's the same as what we have done with the ''Super Mario RPG'' identifiers.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Arend}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': June 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
#{{User|Arend}} Per proposal
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Per proposal, but I have concerns about Super Mario Maker 1, 3DS,2 & Super Mario Run.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Makes sense to me. ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' at the very least is even officially abbreviated as just "DKC3", rather than "DKC3:DKDT", in Wrinky's dialogue in ''Donkey Kong 64''.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} The [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Discourage .22.28.5BTitle.5D for .5Bsystem.5D.29.22 disambiguation format when .22.28.5BTitle.5D.29.22 alone is sufficient to identify the subject|proposal]] to get rid of the need for specifying the console for remake-exclusive content had passed. Might as well extend that rule to shorten every game's dab terms.
#{{user|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Per proposal.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I do not support severing the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series games from their sister games. In my neck of the woods, the term "{{wp|clade}}" is widely used for taxonomic ranks that do not neatly follow the traditional Linnaean terms people learn about in high school (order, family, etc.) and unlike them, they do not denote their rank position at all. A clade can contain multiple other clades, and a clade can be contained in another clade. Unless there is a definition for "series" that I am unfamiliar with, there is no intrinsic reason why a series cannot contain multiple series or be within a series itself. The recognition of a ''Super Mario Bros.'' series does not at all indicate that they are separate from the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]], a category that has been narrowly recognized as the action platformers of the greater [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] as recently as [[:File:SuperMarioBros35thAnniversary - Game Collection.jpg|2020]]. Unless Nintendo explicitly states that they are not siblings of the same series, I think the assertion that ''Super Mario Land'', ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Maker'', and ''Super Mario Run'' are not within the same series as the original ''Super Mario Bros.'' or ''New Super Mario Bros. U'', and that they should not be recognized together as distinct from the rest of the franchise, is unsubstantiated.
#{{User|JanMisali}} The ambiguity and inconsistency surrounding which specific games are part of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries makes this less useful than it otherwise would be.


====Comments====
====Comments====
@SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA): I addressed some of the concerns about the ''Mario Maker'' (which implements ''3D World'' in a sidescrolling format) and ''Run'' titles. Should this pass, it could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series. This is just the starting point. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:18, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
If this proposal passes, I think it'd be worth discussing changing "[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]" identifiers to just "Yoshi's Island" per [[Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3]]. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 17:32, June 12, 2024 (EDT)
:True, but only ''Mario Maker 2'' implemented ''3D World'', and ''Run'', from experience, has all the hallmarks of a ''NSMB'' game, whereas the ''Mario Maker'' games COULD be seen as related to the ''NSMB'' games due to having ''NSMBU'' as a game style, although they are a part of the same series as ''SMB'', ''SMB3'', & ''SMW''. Otherwise that helps. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::Basically, it's on Nintendo to sort this out, not us. We're just reflecting what the official sources say, in spite of any discrepancies that may occur. "Related" wouldn't mean putting it under the same heading (check [[Super Mario (series)#Ports, remakes, and compilations|here]], for instance, has ''Captain Toad'', ''Super Mario World 2'', ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3''. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:25, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
 
I don't think it should be "separated" so much as covered in both places. I have a skeleton for the SMB series [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario Bros. (series)|here]] and one for the 3D series [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario 3D (series)|here]]. ''Land'' and ''Maker'' are additional subseries, while ''Run'' is its own thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:28, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:The user subpages of those two series only add to the point why I think the section sorting is worth reconsidering, and that some disjointment on Nintendo's part shouldn't be a disqualifier to separating the 2D and 3D series. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:32, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::Look, my WIP Super Mario (franchise) rework does have 2D-3D seperation, but it's WIP, so it's not finished. It only so far has ''Mario Bros.'', ''Super Mario (series)'', & ''Wrecking Crew'', but the ''Super Mario (series)'' bit is basically my main focus. I have ''Super Mario (series)'' into 2 sub-series based on the 2D-3D stuff and their shared names (no, the argument that the ''Super Mario'' name is the same for the 2D & 3D games doesn't work because the 2D games share the same ''Super Mario Bros.'' name, which I use for the 2D sub-series), while also splitting 2 sub-sub-series, ''Super Mario Land'' (because of the old ambiguity, the fact of a different shared name, Wario Land series, etc.) & ''NSMB'' (Different style from other games yet consistent within itself, objects from DS existing in Wii, DS & Wii objects existing in U, etc.). I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone more than I probably already have. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::''Super Mario Land'' can't be a sub-series of ''Bros.'' because there's no "bros" in it, it's just Mario. (Granted, the same can be said about ''Special'', but it's a blatant retool of SMB assets so it gets a pass.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::Uhh, I listed it as a sub-series of ''Bros'' because it was listed with the ''Bros.'' games in the 30th anniversary celebration and onward. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:54, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Except that list wasn't referred to as "''Super Mario Bros.'' games," that list was labeled "some 2D games Mario has appeared in." (It also missed a few, like NSMB2.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::(facepalm) No, not THAT list. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:11, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Then what list? Care to link or show an image? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:30, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Look [[Super Mario Bros. 30th Anniversary#Gallery|here]]. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 19:24, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::That list includes the 3D platformers too. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 19:41, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::So? It shows that the ''Maker'' games & ''Run'' are part of the same series as ''SMB'', ''SMW'' & ''NSMB''. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 19:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 17:35, June 12, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, June 12th, 21:35 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "June 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing, DrippingYellow (ended May 26, 2024)
^ Note: Requires action from admins.
Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject, JanMisali (ended June 9, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024)
Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended June 9, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Get rid of or heavily restrict the "Subject origin" parameter

I can already sense a murmur rising in the crowd, but hear me out. I've made it no secret on here that I don't really like the Subject origin parameter on the species infobox. The term "subject origin" is a bit of a misnomer. It really should've been called "design inspiration", because rather than explaining where the subject comes from in pieces of media, it's only ever been used in instances where the subject took any sort of inspiration from another entity, either real or fictional. If that sounds oddly broad... then yes, it is very broad.

This line of reasoning is used for bizarre classifications such as Mincers being derived from Zingers because they're both spiky enemies (is Mincer even an enemy, or just an obstacle?) that follow specific paths, or every "Bone" enemy variant being derived from Dry Bones even if they don't actually fall apart. There's even a few cases where "subject origin" has taken priority over confirmed relatedness between species, despite the term not in itself suggesting a close relationship between subjects, thus losing useful information in the infobox in these cases (e.g. Rocky Wrenches which were formerly Koopas, Whomps which are said to be "cousins" of Thwomps, Krumples being blue Kremlings that follow the same naming scheme as their predecessors Krusha and Kruncha).

The most awkward instances, however, are easily the instances of a subject being "derived" from a generic concept. Kleptoads, though based on frogs, have little to no relevance to any of the generic instances of frogs present in the Mario franchise. Similarly, Rabbids are entirely separated from the Mario series' depictions of rabbits, not only because they don't act like generic rabbits in the Mario series, but also because they're not even from the same franchise. It's not even restricted to entities that actually have pages on the Mario Wiki. Kremlings are stated to originate from "crocodilians", a page that only exists as a category, Crazee Dayzees are derived from "flowers" (which are in a similar situation), and Krimps are listed as being derived from "dogs". Who's to say Boos aren't derived from "ghosts", or that Flaptacks don't have "bird" as a subject origin, or that Octoombas aren't based off of both "aliens" and "octopuses"?

I hope you can see that the unrestricted references to generic or real-world species at the very least are a problem. But even for non-generic subject origins, the vast majority of the time (I'm tempted to say all of the time, but there could be an instance I'm struggling to think of that doesn't fall under this), this kind of info is covered sufficiently in the introductory paragraph, or the General information/Appearance section when applicable. I propose we deal with this in one of the following ways:

Option 1: Axe the "subject origin" parameter entirely. (My primary choice)
Option 2: Ban usage of subject origin to refer to generic species, in addition to switching priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects". (I'm fine with this)
Option 3: Simply ban usage of citing generic species as the subject origin.
Option 4: Ban usage of subject origin to refer to species from the Mario franchise.
Option 5: Just switch priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects"

Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. DrippingYellow (talk) As derived from my proposal.
  2. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal
  3. 7feetunder (talk) This parameter is, as it is currently written, not well defined at all. It was originally meant to be only for connections to real-world species, but was given a wishy-washy, vague rewording so it could be used to make flimsy claims like Bazuka being based on Kutlass because they're both "small Kremlings with oversized weapons" or the aforementioned Mincer thing (which I was unaware of before this proposal).

Option 2

  1. DrippingYellow (talk) Secondary choice.

Option 3

Option 4

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) I think, right now, it's a little confusing, myself. Back when I thought to have the parameter revived, I thought of only using it for genericized subjects, and this option seems to be closest to what I had in mind. For that matter, we don't need to list every single variant of something under derived subjects; just the base version is fine.

Option 5

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Second choice

Do nothing

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I don't really see the issue. If anything, the "relatives" parameter not having directional counterparts is the weakest link. Plus the "listing Galoombas as Goomba relatives rather than variants because a source distinguished them from each other and happened to used the word 'related'"-type of thing might be itself getting out of hand...
  2. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per Doc

#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.

Comments

Oh, looks like I'm involved with this proposal to some degree. You see; I was the one who did the Kremling edit and especially the recent Dry Bones edits. For the latter, my explanation is that subject origin refers to things based on another entity while not actually being the entity. For example, Galoombas have been considered not Goombas, but they were meant to be inspired by them and even their name reflects it. There are various subjects that are definitely inspired, while not considered relatives of the original entity. Goombrats are weird, because they are stated to be relatives, although it's not made clear if they are a variant, as Super Mario Run loved to throw a wrench at us. The initial existence of subject origin appeared to be more generic species that had multiple fictional variants off of it. I always had this issue with penguins on this, because the Mario franchise equivalent of penguins are meant to be based on those from SM64, yet the derived section brings up entities that existed before it. The blue color seems to derived from Bumpties, so there's that MIPShole for you. As for my Dry Bones edit, they've inspired various skeleton enemies over the years. It's obvious that Bone Piranha Plants were inspired by Dry Bones, because their designs have the same type of texture. The same applies to Fish Bones, because they are meant to be underwater Dry Bones, especially given in Maker, where an underwater Dry Bones becomes a Fish Bones. Poplins are not confirmed to be relatives of Toads, but it's wrong to say that aren't inspired by Toads. Really, I got the impression that subject origin = inspiration. We know that Dry Bones and Fish Bones are definitely two different entities not even related, but we know one took inspiration from the other. I guess this type of logic would make Shellcreepers being the origin for Koopa Troopas, although Shellcreepers are retroactively considered part of the Koopa clan. Yeah, relatives is another thing. For me, if its unclear what came first, its a relative. Paragoombas have the ability to spawn Mini Goombas. Mini Goombas aren't really a variant of a Paragoomba, so the relative label fits there. To get back on topic a little bit, I'm surprised Moo Moo didn't get mentioned here; it's in the same boat of Kremling, except I made it link to the Wikipedia article for cattle. My thought process behind these edits, where to tell the viewer what the species is based off on. This is somewhat true for Kremlings, who are sometimes called reptiles or lizards. A person who isn't familiar with this franchise might not know what the hell a Kremling is meant to be based on, so I figured that I mention its inspired by both crocodiles and alligators (not sure if Kremlings tend to crossover with these two, like how Diddy and Dixie are crosses between monkeys and chimps). I guess this could get out of hand when talking about fictional animals such as dragons or aliens, so there's that. My thought process is that someone might not realize what the species is based on. Like, if there was a fictional species based off on a spider monkey, which some people might not realize actually exists, that was the intended goal. Of course, it can resort to "well, no shit," situations regarding Kremlings who are just based on typical crocs and Moo Moos. So yeah, I'm not entirely sure what to choose here. I do want it to be obvious to non-Mario readers what the subject is based on. Are we considering making Galoombas be considered comparable to Goombas? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 23:55, June 11, 2024 (EDT)

New features

Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes

Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being dumb, but hear me out.

A few years after this proposal passed, this wiki added a group infobox for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would only be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.

I've come up with two options:

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).

Proposer: Dive Rocket Launcher (talk)
Deadline: June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) First choice per proposal.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) The folly of the "affiliations" tab was that it was allowed to include characters, which led to nonsense like Fawful being affiliated with "himself" among other things. Restricting it to groups is perfectly fine.
  3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all of yall

Option 2

  1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Second choice per proposal.

Do nothing

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place. Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the Template:Character infobox is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. Excess Express passengers, Mario Kart 8 racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances. In the Goomba example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions. What about the Goombas in Goomba Village or Rogueport or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas. You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per DrBaskerville.

Comments

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary

An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?

I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)

My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.

I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.

This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.

Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk)
Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer.
  2. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I agree with this proposal.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
  2. DrBaskerville (talk) Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
  3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all.

Comments

This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages

This is based on a proposal from last year about Super Mario RPG, which had passed. The proposal was about using (Super Mario RPG) as a disambiguation identifier over the full (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) title because not only does the Nintendo Switch remake not use the "Legend of the Seven Stars" subtitle from the original SNES title while still calling it just "Super Mario RPG", but it would also be easier to navigate and would look nicer due to the page title not being so overly long in comparison.

This proposal is the same principle, but with articles concerning Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest and Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! instead (in fact, this idea was also suggested in the aforementioned Super Mario RPG proposal). Both their respective GBA ports have entirely omitted the subtitles from the SNES originals, much like Super Mario RPG's Nintendo Switch remake, yet articles that make use of a disambiguation identifier still make use of the full title of the SNES originals (see Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest levels per example). I think it'd be much easier to navigate if the identifiers went from (Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest) and (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) to simply (Donkey Kong Country 2) and (Donkey Kong Country 3) respectively. I believe this makes sense because both the SNES originals and GBA ports are still called Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3, and it's the same as what we have done with the Super Mario RPG identifiers.

Proposer: Arend (talk)
Deadline: June 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Arend (talk) Per proposal
  2. DrippingYellow (talk) Makes sense to me. Donkey Kong Country 3 at the very least is even officially abbreviated as just "DKC3", rather than "DKC3:DKDT", in Wrinky's dialogue in Donkey Kong 64.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
  5. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal
  6. SeanWheeler (talk) The proposal to get rid of the need for specifying the console for remake-exclusive content had passed. Might as well extend that rule to shorten every game's dab terms.
  7. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

If this proposal passes, I think it'd be worth discussing changing "Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island" identifiers to just "Yoshi's Island" per Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3. I need more wrenches... Dive Rocket Launcher 17:32, June 12, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4258807"