|
Current time:
Sunday, May 12th, 01:40 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
- 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}}.
- Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- 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.
- 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.
- If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
- 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: "May 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
- All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. 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 {{SettledTPP}}.
- 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:
- 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.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
- 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
- In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Speed Mario Bros. from Ultimate NES Remix (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Arrow Switch with gravity switch (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Re-merge Pixels with List of references in film (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs (discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Hat trampoline (Cascade Kingdom) to Trampoline (discuss) Deadline: May 15th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete Memory Card (discuss) Deadline: May 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.
Talk page proposals
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Have stricter policies for one-off generic species characters
We have an article for
this one Toad with very little information. Why? Because they have a name. Yep.
What a mouthful of a title, but I don't know what to call this. This proposal concerns the articles Flaky, Jerry, and Chanterelle. I'll add more if users keep bringing in more. The gist is that these are minor characters based on their respective species, which doesn't sound like a bad idea initially. Still, their articles aren't that useful. Flaky is a terrible article that is horribly padded on a minor Flurry and even explains things not relevant to them (I'm not even sure if the character has official pronouns). It also speculates that they appear in certain scenes, which is a bad sign. Jerry's article is three sentences long and could see a merge with the regular Magikoopa article. And Chanterelle is a briefly seen Toad who appears for a few seconds. The justification for these articles is that they are named characters and should get articles unless you're Johnson.
This proposal isn't concerned about merging all these characters at this very moment; that can come in many different proposals. Instead, I suggest a policy to prevent these articles from coming into play here. With this policy, some articles that feature a rather generic representative of a species with very few character traits that would instead get a merge with their species articles or at least in a list. Currently, there doesn't seem to some policy that is against the idea of having these characters aside from the Minor NPCs policy which really only covers conjecturally named NPCs and not characters who are named but only have very few traits and not even a unique design. However, their redirects will still have categories so that users can know the different members of their species when browsing them. In a perfect world, Flaky would get a mention in Flurry's article, we put Jerry in Magikoopa, and we would merge Chanterelle with Toad (species). It's worth noting that we have recently been creating history articles so that they can go there instead. An argument users may use is that they are named characters and, therefore, must get articles no matter what. So what I want to tell you is this: How helpful are these articles? Sure, they are pretty interesting one-off characters, but are people dying to see a whole article on them?
Imagine if one Goomba was named Bob in one cutscene and had no other traits in some random Super Mario game. Then, one day, we made an article describing him and mentioning his bare-bones character traits. I don't know about you, but I learned nothing from it. We even merged Koopaphobia, a fictional phobia, with Indiana Joe because he's the kingpin for that phobia, the entire thing is played as a joke, and nothing is getting lost by integrating it with him. Our lord and savior, Pink Donkey Kong Jr., is now merged with who his counterpart was, and not everything was lost through the merge. Cowboy Jed has a son who does not get a separate article, but we mention it in his article. And all three Luigi's Mansion games have lists for each of the named Boos. We aren't missing much by merging these fellas; no offense to them, especially the pink little guy.
Note that we aren't merging these articles right now but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles. That way, we don't have to create concise articles that say nothing. After this, we can create proposals to merge certain articles that feature a named character with very little traits that make them unique from their species. It is worth noting that if they do return in a later work and have tons of new character traits, they can finally get their articles. It's the curse that set Ashley and Red free.
EDIT 12/1/23: I have some new clarifications, as well as some new additions as well. Firstly, Tuxie is yet another case of us merging a rather minor character. So there is that for you. Lastly, some new additions people have suggested:
The only one I did not include was Red Shy Guy and that's mainly because of his unique history section. Therefore, I don't think it's that big of a deal. That being said, the name is quite generic, so there's that. I admit I haven't played the RPG games, so there's that. I'm also not putting Izzy on here because he's connected to some event. Sure, his article is pretty short but to claim he's an incidental character is incorrect. At the very most, he could be merged with The Play Nintendo Show and at the very least, he could stay. On another note, I have finally made a conceptual policy for what it could look like if this proposal is a success. I'll occasionally update this when given certain suggestions.
Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk)
Deadline: December 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Support
- TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per proposal
- Koopa con Carne (talk) Per all.
- Arend (talk) Per all; I've been wondering for a while why Gary from Super Paper Mario gets to stay when he's even less of a character than his unnamed Goomba friend that got merged with the prime Goomba article a while ago, also due to proposal.
- Super Game Gear (talk) Per Sparks and others.
- Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, but especially Arend--why Gary (Super Paper Mario) keeps his article but we have long since merged his unnamed partner that was more substantial than him is beyond us. It just seems kinda silly to have all these full articles for one-off characters with absolutely zero distinctions to them beyond their name, and while there's a few notable exceptions that hold key relevancy to part of a game's plot (such as, say, Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King), a character where a lot of the point is that he is entirely indistinguishable but trying to be unique through his actions), they are absolutely few and far between and you can count them on basically one hand.
#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
#DrippingYellow (talk) Makes total sense to me. Gary, come home... to the main Goomba article...
#FanOfYoshi (talk) I've adressed Koopa Captain not so long ago, and this proposal pretty much sums it up, so definitely up for it. Per proposed.
#Sparks (talk) These characters, especially Jerry are just articles of very short information because they are "unique" compared to their species. Per all.
Oppose
- Mario (talk) Oppose mostly on technicality: there are too vague of provisions on this proposal. This proposal identifies an issue which I agree with. But it doesn't outline a clear method of action to take besides "delete articles of subjects that are too minor to justify a page". I believe deleting one-liner tiny pages of non-notable members clearly meant as a throwaway name to establish a world is already fairly standard wiki practice, but admittedly inefficient (you either hope your talk page comment gets enough replies to swiftly delete or you run a proposal that runs for two weeks that gets a pretty good consensus in like, under 24 hours). Also as this proposal mentions, several of these pages are being dealt with in talk pages more than a few times, such as named Scarescraper ghosts, "Koopaphobia", Pink Donkey Kong Jr., and whatnot. Enacting this proposal due to its vague provisions is going to be a challenge, and while the current examples are obvious, we may run into some articles that might bring up disagreements (Will the minor friendly NPCs in the Paper Mario games be affected? All? A few? Most? One example. People are already bringing up other examples in the comment section that just seems better off on case-by-case discussions) and we already have a bit of a backlog of these kinds of proposals. The proposal ends with "but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles." What policy? Can we see a draft of it? Where will it go? I'd like to see what this policy entails in before the proposal is made.
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per Mario. I don't have a problem with these types of articles myself, but I'd rather have an addition to MarioWiki:Minor NPCs that would allow for discretion that we can then address on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket proposal like this.
- Axis (talk) Even with the updated proposal, I do not believe the guidelines for which character should or shouldn't have a page are clear enough, the current policy is consistent and understandable for everyone. Would we need to go through every character and individually discuss every single minor NPC from this point on? Would minor NPCs from the Paper Mario series be merged now, and which ones should stay? I believe consistency takes precedent over redundancy.
- Hewer (talk) This only makes it harder to determine which characters do and don't get merged and generally has the potential to make it harder to find information. I think the logic behind the current policy that an individual name means an individual character is fine, and I don't really see what the problem is with having these articles, short or otherwise. Something being minor or obscure is a bad reason for it to not get a page in my opinion.
- Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
- Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
- Tails777 (talk) I can agree to sorting out which minor, one-off characters deserve articles or not, especially with the meme in the examples, but I kinda have to agree with the opposition here. Per Mario and Axis notably.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
- FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
- Ninja Squid (talk) Per all.
- Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.
- YoYo (talk) Per all.
- Sparks (talk) I Changed my vote to Oppose. As weird as it is that these characters have articles, I can agree with the others here about which characters would be affected by this proposal. It's too vague and would cause a lot of confusion if this passes.
- PnnyCrygr (talk) It would be tedious to redirect evry affected minor charatcer article to its "list of" section. Opposing.
- Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
BIS also has Kuribo, instead of logically redirecting to Goomba. In my opinion, it is hands-down the worst offender of this. Another thing all have in common is being throwaway names in group scenes, so no individual plot importance. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:20, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Would Gary (Super Paper Mario) also fit? His unnamed partner with about as little story relevance was merged into Goomba (now History of Goomba) a while back. We'd barely even have to change the Super Paper Mario entry in question — just replace the link on Gary's name with bold markup. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:48, November 30, 2023 (EST)
@TheUndescribableGhost: I guess you could include Socially Awkward Piranha Plant too lol. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:53, November 30, 2023 (EST)
- Oh my gosh, that one NEEDS to be on BJAODN! The title alone is already hilarious.
rend (talk) (edits) 15:58, November 30, 2023 (EST)
- The Characters page on BJAODN is getting quite long as-is, so I'm thinking about creating a "Minor/incidental characters" page for BJAODN with every character that ends up getting merged through this proposal as well as Goomba (Super Paper Mario character) and Koopa (Mario Party DS). SolemnStormcloud (talk) 16:06, November 30, 2023 (EST)
- Well, I guess there's no need for that BJAODN page! I agree with the idea of merging these incidental characters and thus choose to abstain rather than oppose, but we should look at them on a case-by-case basis rather than creating a policy with no cutoff point for notability. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:06, December 3, 2023 (EST)
- Eh, I'd say that one's as valid as Izzy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:03, November 30, 2023 (EST)
- Izzy actually co-hosted an official Nintendo show with a series of episodes, though. Socially Awkward Piranha Plant is just an obscure meme only posted on Nintendo's social media once. I'm for merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant, but Izzy can stay. Super Game Gear (talk) 16:41, November 30, 2023 (EST)
- ^I agree with you on merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 17:40, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Maybe also Johnson (Super Paper Mario) who was only named to be part of a running gag of the series. 
Nightwicked Bowser 
15:58, November 30, 2023 (EST)
- On that note, the Hammer Bro captain (whose name is conjectural) and Private Koopa could be included as well. rend (talk) (edits) 09:25, December 1, 2023 (EST)
Maybe Sunset Express Shy Guy too? His article is definitely more detailed than the others mentioned, so maybe he won't be affected by this proposal. He doesn't offer much to the story though unlike Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King), so who knows? 
Sparks (talk) 
December 1, 2023, 09:37 (EDT)
@Supporters: Thank you so much for the help I'm getting on the proposal! I wasn't expecting this one to get a lot of support. Special thanks to Doc von Schmeltwick, SolemnStormcloud and Koopa con Carne for helping me here. And yes arend, I would totally love a section like that. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 12:29, December 1, 2023 (EST)
@Mario: Thanks for mentioning this as I may have not made it that clear. My intent is to enforce a policy that states that if a incidental character in question doesn't have enough traits to be notable on having a wiki article, they'll be merged elsewhere. Currently, there isn't a policy on this aside from a similar one regarding Minor NPCs which judging by its description, would pretty much allow instances if that character has a name. The examples I provided where characters who don't have that many traits as of now to make an article actually useful. Keep in mind we aren't doing anything to the articles right now; that will happen if this proposal ends up being successful. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 13:34, December 1, 2023 (EST)
- Isn't the scope of this proposal just kind of the general aim for this policy page anyway? There's already an implicit guideline concerning potential conjecturally-named NPCs: "if a minor NPC can be shown to have importance to the game or story" There even is an old revision to the page that might've been made to deal with these kinds of articles (although insufficient admittedly)[1] but later removed to allow for user disrection[2] (and yeah individual discretion seems like my way to go with these kinds of pages). So would this proposal effect changes to this page?
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:41, December 1, 2023 (EST)
- Well, that policy only mentions Minor NPCs that don't have a name. Plus, I also brought up two character are from a TV show and a movie who aren't NPCs by technically because they aren't video game characters. The Minor NPCs policy is rather vague on this and only exists to make sure Goomba (Super Paper Mario character) doesn't happen. I guess I can look into what Waluigi Time suggested. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 14:08, December 1, 2023 (EST)
I do think that NPCs in standard gameplay of the first three Paper Mario games should be exempt, as they all have tattles that provide some insight into who they are. Not so much the ones from the glorified cutscenes in Castle Bleck. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:07, December 1, 2023 (EST)
- ^Agreed. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:29, December 1, 2023 (EST)
- Which ones are you talking about? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 16:17, December 1, 2023 (EST)
- All of the named minor characters you can tattle on the field in PM, TTYD, and SPM. For instance, the people of Flipside who all have their own little personalities despite just being "talk to" characters. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:06, December 1, 2023 (EST)
@Axis Can you name character that you're confused about in regards to this proposal? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 15:36, December 1, 2023 (EST)
I'll have to address an error to one entry of the list of additional suggestions in your latest edit: "Johnson the Hammer Bro". Johnson is actually a Koopa Troopa, as stated in his article, and it's also made clear in the caption of the article image that Johnson is on the very right. The Hammer Bro on the very left of the same image is actually still the Hammer Bro captain (he's Johnson's captain, which is the reason for his conjectural name in the first place). rend (talk) (edits) 15:44, December 1, 2023 (EST)
@Hewer: "This only makes it harder to determine which characters do and don't get merged and generally has the potential to make it harder to find information." The proposal clearly mentions that it'll to be easy find certain information. For example, if one wants to find Flaky, they can type their name in the search box and be redirect to the section of the Flurry article. "and I don't really see what the problem is with having these articles, short or otherwise. Something being minor or obscure is a bad reason for it to not get a page in my opinion." The proposal is concerning articles that are so short, they aren't helpful in the slightest. Why is the Chanterelle article is totally fine to keep when they just say hi to Toad? If they were merged with the Toad species, nothing is getting lost here. Or Flaky in which the article tries speculating where they appear. I mentioned the hypothetical Bob the Goomba example. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 16:16, December 1, 2023 (EST)
- Why is the Chanterelle article not fine to keep when they're a named character? If we were to merge Toad General with the Toad species, or Chef Toad, or Toad, no information would be lost. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the best choice for organisation. I don't see what the issue would be with the hypothetical Bob the Goomba - there not being much to say about a subject doesn't make it an invalid subject to have its own article. And Flaky's article should be improved to not have speculation, that's not really an argument for or against this proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:31, December 1, 2023 (EST)
- Toad General is fine to keep because he actually has some unique characteristics. Ditto for Chef Toad. Really, I can't make more arguments since you think it's perfectly okay to have these articles which is fine; I just can't really refute these points. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 17:48, December 1, 2023 (EST)
I'm going to try to review the proposed policy page User:TheUndescribableGhost/Incidental characters. I'd like to add that if an incidental character/object is recurring despite of a meager role and a simple subject of a running gag (say for instance, some Toad is called Sam in a random joke and then you see someone refer to Sam again in the ending of the game, or you see Sam being mentioned again in a sequel; this is like Johnson but you see "Sam" the couple of times he's mentioned) it probably should be also worth an article. Try not to be too disappointed if this proposal fails, okey dokey? Even if this doesn't pass, it's probably worth keeping these "notability" guidelines in mind and still attempt articles for deletions and whatnot with that framework. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:30, December 1, 2023 (EST)
- It's fine, Mario; I think it's really cool we're having these discussions and I can sorta see why people are hesitant because it's hard to draw the line. The Sam example I do agree with to some degree. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 10:52, December 2, 2023 (EST)
An idea just dawned upon me. Why don't we have a page titled "List of named incidental characters" or something like that where we can put the content of all of these pages, like what we have for implied characters? There wouldn't be any information lost, and the content of a named character wouldn't be awkwardly merged with the species article if it caused any problems. DrippingYellow (talk) 00:11, December 3, 2023 (EST)
- Because the line between incidental and not is much harder to draw than the line between implied and not. How minor does a character have to be to be "incidental"? There's no real metric that can be used. Not to mention it may end up being a very big page depending on where that arbitrary line gets drawn, especially since these characters all have images unlike most of the implied characters. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:46, December 3, 2023 (EST)
- Yeah, a list is a bad idea. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 11:56, December 3, 2023 (EST)
- I did make it a point to specify named "incidental" characters, which I don't think are nearly as numerous as you seem to worry. And I think this proposal already provides a good guideline for what characters could be considered incidental. Heck, I'd argue that an "incidental" character list would be more clear-cut than the implied characters list, which includes characters ranging from King Croacus IV's predecessors, which actually have visible paintings of them, to a name-drop of Mr. Bean clearly intended as a throwaway pop culture reference, and even Johnson, who isn't "implied" at all; he actually appears in-game, more like the "incidental" characters we're talking about if anything. DrippingYellow (talk) 13:52, December 3, 2023 (EST)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
Sparks (talk) 
December 1, 2023, 09:37 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:30, December 1, 2023 (EST)
