MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/57: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
7feetunder (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 265: | Line 265: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
===Define the scope of "Other appearances" sections=== | |||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|0-0-6-0|Integrate only appearances from third-party media we don't cover}} | |||
It's basically a done deal that the Mario Wiki organises most appearances of its wealth of subjects by relevant fictional works. However, some appearances, whether they are in-franchise cameos or third-party licensed appearances, are pigeonholed into an "Other appearances" section, and this is a fairly inconsistent approach that is to be discussed in general terms before any [[Talk:Blurp#Consider the Super Mario Maker games a design cameo rather than a full appearance|particular cases are decided upon]] as an "other appearance", so to speak. | |||
Degrees of a subject's appearance in a fictional work can be delineated as: | |||
*'''Significant, in-franchise appearance:''' Those appearances where a subject has a perceptible effect on the viewer's or player's experience--as a character, enemy, item, or setting. | |||
*'''Cameo appearances:''' Those appearances where a known subject shows up but does not affect the course of a story or the gameplay, instead serving as a small distraction or piece of fan-service for the viewer or player. (Simple mentions of a subject, without said subject making any physical appearance, are taken to be "cameos" in the context of this proposal, for the sake of brevity.) | |||
*'''Appearances outside the home franchise:''' What it says on the tin: subjects appearing in media outside of their franchise or universe of origin. Many such appearances can be of a parodical or referential nature and not necessarily enabled or endorsed by the proprietary entity, and for those the wiki has already established coverage in the form of [[Lists of Mario references|Lists of ''Mario'' references]]. However, some of these appearances, third-party as they are, are indeed licensed for use and, where applicable, warrant being covered in some form on subject articles. | |||
Coverage for the first one, again, is firmly set in stone and disregarded by the proposal. As it's been well-established, if a Goomba kills you in a game, we make a section for that game on Goomba's article. The second and third ones are relevant here, with the third one commanding perhaps the most attention. As it stands, third-party appearances can be further assigned two scenarios: one in which we give the relevant fictional work [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest appearances|"guest"]]-type article coverage, and one in which we do not. | |||
The goal of this proposal is to draw a concrete line over which type of appearance warrants being put under an "Other appearances" section--or even to decide whether such section is necessary at all. If certain appearances are excluded from the scope of this section, they are given their own sections outside of it. | |||
NOTE: For now, the outcome of this proposal would not overturn the decision of [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Determine_how_to_handle_unused_appearances|this proposal]]. Unused appearances will continue to be covered under "Other appearances" in addition to the subjects that are to be decided upon here. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': November 18, 2021, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Integrate in-franchise cameos and third-party media==== | |||
Example of in-franchise cameo: [[Bullet Bill]] block formation in ''[[Alleyway]]''. ([[Bullet Bill#Other appearances|Relevant "Other appearances" section]]) | |||
====Integrate only appearances from third-party media, whether said media is covered here on its own or not==== | |||
Example of appearance from a third-party media we give partial coverage to: [[Sledge Bro]] appearing as mobs in the ''[[Minecraft]]'' Super Mario Mash-Up Pack. ([[Sledge Bro#Other appearances|Relevant "Other appearances" section]]) | |||
====Integrate only appearances from third-party media we don't cover==== | |||
Example of such appearance: [[Chain Chomp]] appearing as a weapon in ''Bayonetta 2''. ([[Chain Chomp#Other appearances|Relevant "Other appearances" section]]) | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} My choice. | |||
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} This seems like it would be the most consistent and logical approach. | |||
#{{User|WildWario}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Waluigi Time. | |||
#{{User|Somethingone}} Seems logical to me. | |||
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all. | |||
====It doesn't matter; no consistent pattern is to be established==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
There's two specific uses of other appearances section that doesn't seem like are covered here so I might as well bring them up. First, some other appearances sections have included merchandise (i.e. Mario Chess, Gamer Monopoly), and second, a proposal a while ago made it so that unused appearances of subjects are supposed to be covered in the other appearances section as well, though this has been poorly enforced since the proposal passed. How would those cases be handled under this proposal? (For my two cents regarding unused appearances at least, I wouldn't be opposed to adding dedicated subsections for those at the end of history sections.) --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 18:00, November 9, 2021 (EST) | |||
:Honestly, I think the merchandise bit would require a proposal of its own, one that would complement the current proposal. It was a bit difficult to find a proper way to handle the options in this proposal, and I wouldn't like to muddy the waters by adding more to the mix. Regarding the unused content, let's say the proposal here isn't concerned with it and, in consequence, has no bearing on the decision taken in the other proposal; <s>I should prolly add a stipulation or something.</s> [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 56#Decide where to use pre-release and unused content images|This is the proposal, right?]] I took a gander, and I don't really see any explicit talking about an "Other appearances", but rather about "adding indicators" where applicable--which I can't really decipher the precise meaning of, even with the offered explanation. (Would that take the form of image captions? A move to "Other appearances"? A highlight of some sort?) {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:29, November 9, 2021 (EST) | |||
::[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Determine_how_to_handle_unused_appearances|This one]], actually. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 19:42, November 9, 2021 (EST) | |||
There's one thing that this proposal does not address: mentions. That is, when a character does not appear in the game at all, but is referenced either directly (e.g. [[Princess Peach]] in ''[[Luigi's Mansion]]'') or indirectly (e.g. [[Wingo]] in ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]''). Where do those fit in this equation? {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 19:30, November 9, 2021 (EST) | |||
:Ah, I forgot. That would fall under "cameos". Added that to the proposal at the "Cameo appearances" description. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:37, November 9, 2021 (EST) | |||
I removed the "Remove section altogether" because it conflicts with the decision of the proposal brought up by {{user|Waluigi Time}}. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:54, November 9, 2021 (EST) | |||
This is something really minor, but Bullet Bill's link doesn't actually link to other appearances. It should be [[Bullet Bill#Cameo appearances]], not [[Bullet Bill#Other appearances]]. {{User:WildWario/sig}} 22:44, November 9, 2021 (EST) |
Revision as of 20:29, November 19, 2021
Use a unique archive color for proposals that fail to reach a consensusTemplate:ProposalOutcome This is something that's been bugging me for a while now. Currently, we don't have a unique color for proposals that fail to reach a consensus (i.e. proposals that get extended three times and end without any option properly "winning"). Currently we just mark them red, the same color used for proposals that straight up fail. This isn't totally illogical, since the result of both outcomes is similar (the proposed changes are not implemented and there's a minimum 4 week wait to propose again). However, I still feel that this needlessly obfuscates the archive, making it impossible to tell which proposals failed by consensus and which ones stalemated without clicking on each and every proposal link in the archive marked red, especially since there is no text in the archive that clarifies this. As a result of this, people browsing through the archive are forced to do extra work just to determine which ones are which for no good reason. Stalemates are common enough that it would be useful to be able to tell them apart easily. As for what color should be used, my suggestion is white. It's a fitting color for stalemate proposals, and it isn't too close to an existing color (closest is gray, the color used for passed proposals awaiting implementation, but I think it's distinct enough). I'm open to other suggestions though. Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Support
OpposeCommentsI noticed in the proposal archive that there is already a colour used for ties, brown, but it only seems to be used for a handful of old proposals, and it isn't on the TPP archive. Is this just because of changes in the proposal rules, and do you plan on replacing it with whatever colour you decide on here? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:48, May 25, 2021 (EDT)
Listing changes on articles for ports, remakes, and remastersTemplate:ProposalOutcome Recently, the Changes section of Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury has been discussed while the article is being nominated for Featured status. The biggest issue right now seems to be whether to write the list of changes to 3D World as prose or a bullet-pointed list. Some examples of other articles with a similar section: Super Mario Advance, Super Mario Advance 3, Super Mario Advance 4, Super Mario 64 DS, and Super Mario 3D All-Stars split the changes into sections, but otherwise use only bullet points. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe instead uses short paragraphs of prose, with each paragraph focusing on a different small aspect of gameplay or design. Super Mario All-Stars and Super Mario Advance 2 blend some sections of prose with bullet lists in others. On the Discord server, Glowsquid recommended a different hybrid model: starting subsections with short prose paragraphs about general changes, and using bullet lists for the smaller details. The full post is in the Comments section below. I am in support of exclusively bullet points. I think in this specific context, where there can be very minuscule details that might get their own paragraph when using prose, it is more effective to use bullet points. There seems to be more of a standard set with them than with prose, and I think that's because it's more convenient to read the changes when in a bullet list, especially because you can create sub-bullets to highlight groups of changes. Proposer: 0blivion (talk) List changes entirely in proseList changes with a hybrid of prose and bullet points
List changes in entirely bullet pointsCommentsI'll post the discord comments I made when the topic was brought up (also the proposal main text made it sound like i recommended the bowser's fury page to be like SMA2's when what happened is that BLOF brought it and the Super Mario All-Stars as examples of how those sections should be written and I opined I don,t think they work very well, and then brought up my own idea on how those sections should be done)
So for the above-cited example of SMA2, instead of the current appealing wall of text the gameplay changes section is now, it would be more like: "Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2 gets rid of the 2-player mode and instead overhauls Luigi as a distinct player character with his own abilities. He can be played by pressing R on the world map.
[paragraph break] The 100% Completion events have been overhauled, featuring different requirements and new events for triggering Fall.
etc etc. Hopefully you get the gist. --Glowsquid (talk) 09:37, May 22, 2021 (EDT)
However, couldn't these short prose introductions also be fit into a bullet list? I mentioned sub-bullets because when the Bowser's Fury page had bullets, it did something similar to this hybrid model by using them. For example:
If those main bullets would work better as prose, then I could be OK with that as long as the minute changes are bullet points. 0blivion 11:39, May 22, 2021 (EDT) How to handle Super Mario Odyssey sub-locationsTemplate:ProposalOutcome Here we go. After years of development hell, it's finally time to do this. Super Mario Odyssey did something rather new for this franchise - it named every single Checkpoint Flag in the game. Somehow this convinced people that every single one should have its own article, and by now nearly all of them do, along with a few other landmarks. This is quite excessive. While some of them do deserve article because they're major structures or otherwise notable landmarks (we have articles on things like Shine Gate and Surf Cabana), many of them are just random, nondescript level sections that aren't notable in any way. The way we handle it now is basically like giving every planet in Super Mario Galaxy its own article. There was a proposal about this years ago which the proposer ended up canceling. The problem with this proposal was that it wasn't clear enough about exactly which locations should get articles and which shouldn't. After that, the issue went unaddressed for years. So I went over them and organized them into groups: what we should keep, what we might want to keep, and what we should definitely merge. KEEP: These are the areas that I think should stay. It includes three different kinds of areas.
BORDERLINE: Ones I'm not quite sure about. These locations are notable to varying degrees, and may or may not deserve articles in the long run. I'm leaning towards keeping them for now since the main point of this is to weed out the really bad ones. MERGE: Everything not listed above should be merged, but here are some specific examples:
Here is a list of sub-locations in the game (not all of which are checkpoints), and whether or not I think they're split-worthy. Note the scrolling bar on the right - I put that there to save space on the page, since this proposal is already long as it is. If that bothers you, you can look at my sandbox instead.
There are three options: keep the "keepers" only, include the "borderlines", or everything. Every kingdom article will have a "checkpoint locations" section added to it, sort of like how we handle planets from SMG, with most of the unnecessary articles' content being merged there. Note that this proposal is preliminary - if we keep the "borderline" articles, we can always weed out the ones we don't want with later proposals. Conversely, later proposals can call for the recreation of articles previously deemed unworthy. There is absolutely no perfect solution to this problem, since in several cases, what qualifies as "notable enough" to have a page is subjective. However, we need to draw a line, and I don't want to make 50 proposals just to merge SMO checkpoint flags. Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Only split the locations marked "keep"
Split "borderline" locations as well
No checkpoint left behind
CommentsLet me know if I missed anything - there's a lot to cover here. 00:53, September 21, 2021 (EDT) @Hewer: Quite a few of them really don't make for decent articles. Most of the "island in the sky" articles are just "It's a platform in the sky. You get there through a painting in [other kingdom]. There's a Power Moon and a Checkpoint Flag. The end." While there's nothing inherently wrong with short articles, I think it's much more logical to just cover them on the kingdom articles like we do with SMG planets. A lot of these are really trivial, just being featureless platforms and random nondescript chunks of level no one would dream of splitting if SMO didn't name every checkpoint. Even then, a lot of the names are generic. Nintendo probably only named them all for player convenience; I seriously doubt they intended things like "Heliport" and "Top of the Big Stump" to be seen as very important locations. Not everything with a name deserves an article (e.g. the Banana Bird caves in DKC3). 18:28, September 21, 2021 (EDT) Categorizing minigamesTemplate:ProposalOutcome In Mario Party Superstars, there are several "Bowser Minigames". These minigames aren't categorized as Bowser minigames in-game, but these minigames can be played when landing on a Bowser Space and by getting the Bowser Minigame option. Current examples include Face Lift, Dark 'n Crispy, and Pit Boss. So, should they be their in-game minigame types, Bowser minigames, or should they be both? Proposer: WildWario (talk) Use their in-game typesUse Bowser minigamesUse both
CommentsDefine the scope of "Other appearances" sectionsTemplate:ProposalOutcome It's basically a done deal that the Mario Wiki organises most appearances of its wealth of subjects by relevant fictional works. However, some appearances, whether they are in-franchise cameos or third-party licensed appearances, are pigeonholed into an "Other appearances" section, and this is a fairly inconsistent approach that is to be discussed in general terms before any particular cases are decided upon as an "other appearance", so to speak. Degrees of a subject's appearance in a fictional work can be delineated as:
Coverage for the first one, again, is firmly set in stone and disregarded by the proposal. As it's been well-established, if a Goomba kills you in a game, we make a section for that game on Goomba's article. The second and third ones are relevant here, with the third one commanding perhaps the most attention. As it stands, third-party appearances can be further assigned two scenarios: one in which we give the relevant fictional work "guest"-type article coverage, and one in which we do not. The goal of this proposal is to draw a concrete line over which type of appearance warrants being put under an "Other appearances" section--or even to decide whether such section is necessary at all. If certain appearances are excluded from the scope of this section, they are given their own sections outside of it. NOTE: For now, the outcome of this proposal would not overturn the decision of this proposal. Unused appearances will continue to be covered under "Other appearances" in addition to the subjects that are to be decided upon here. Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Integrate in-franchise cameos and third-party mediaExample of in-franchise cameo: Bullet Bill block formation in Alleyway. (Relevant "Other appearances" section) Integrate only appearances from third-party media, whether said media is covered here on its own or notExample of appearance from a third-party media we give partial coverage to: Sledge Bro appearing as mobs in the Minecraft Super Mario Mash-Up Pack. (Relevant "Other appearances" section) Integrate only appearances from third-party media we don't coverExample of such appearance: Chain Chomp appearing as a weapon in Bayonetta 2. (Relevant "Other appearances" section)
It doesn't matter; no consistent pattern is to be establishedCommentsThere's two specific uses of other appearances section that doesn't seem like are covered here so I might as well bring them up. First, some other appearances sections have included merchandise (i.e. Mario Chess, Gamer Monopoly), and second, a proposal a while ago made it so that unused appearances of subjects are supposed to be covered in the other appearances section as well, though this has been poorly enforced since the proposal passed. How would those cases be handled under this proposal? (For my two cents regarding unused appearances at least, I wouldn't be opposed to adding dedicated subsections for those at the end of history sections.) -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 18:00, November 9, 2021 (EST)
There's one thing that this proposal does not address: mentions. That is, when a character does not appear in the game at all, but is referenced either directly (e.g. Princess Peach in Luigi's Mansion) or indirectly (e.g. Wingo in Super Mario Odyssey). Where do those fit in this equation? 19:30, November 9, 2021 (EST)
I removed the "Remove section altogether" because it conflicts with the decision of the proposal brought up by Waluigi Time (talk). -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:54, November 9, 2021 (EST)
|