MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 18:22, February 16, 2024 by Windy (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, May 8th, 05:29 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 on proposals with more than two choices.
  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 by a margin of 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: "May 8, 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 {{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}}.
  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

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)
Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)
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)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
Merge Start Dash with Rocket Start, Koopa con Carne (ended August 17, 2023)
Use italics for the full title of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass, Hewer (ended September 15, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Decide which series certain Yoshi games are related to, GuntherBB (ended December 14, 2023)
Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)
Replace "List of Game Over screens" and "'Game Over' as death" sections with a "History" section, DrippingYellow (ended December 20, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make major changes to the MarioWiki:Links page, PnnyCrygr (ended January 10, 2024)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the "Johnson" running gag into one page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)
Merge Masterpieces to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U articles, Camwoodstock (ended March 31, 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)
Rename Beanstalk to Vine, DrippingYellow (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Standardize a "Cameo appearances" section

Following in the footsteps of this proposal, I'm creating another to standardize a "Cameo appearances" subsection of a History section of instances when something ONLY cameos or is referenced within Super Mario media. If there's an existing "Other appearances" subsection, the "Cameo appearances" one would precede it, as this is a Super Mario wiki.

I feel that when reading a History section, one would mainly expect to read about games or media where something has a physical role, including if it's a minor one. And a cameo doesn't really constitute equally as much as contributing to a subject's history so much as it merely being a footnote. Besides, when the cameos are all together in a single section (or subsections if there's enough to say, but usually cameos don't have more than one or two sentences), then it's easier to refer to every time a subject made a cameo throughout the course of its appearances.

For example, in Mario Golf: World Tour, the only form of an appearance that Reznor has is their name is sometimes shown on the scoreboard. This is a recurring instance for several other characters and species throughout the Mario Golf series, such as Phantamanta in Toadstool Tour and Advance Tour.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: February 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.

Oppose

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) "History" suggests just that: a history of the subject across Mario media. Any cameos and mentions are obligately part of that history and should be treated on the same level as the physical appearances. The extent of an appearance is not relevant to how a subject's coverage is organized; if Toad makes a cameo in game X, that's still a given role which deserves a section of its own among Toad's other roles instead of being lumped together with other perceived minor roles which may lead to textual bloat. (The following string of sentences isn't extraordinarily readable: "Toad makes a cameo in game X, where he is seen in A level. He also appears briefly in game Y. Toad is also mentioned in game Z on the scoreboard. He also makes a cameo on game board B of game XY.")
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, and I'd also rather avoid basing organisation on subjective classifications like cameos where possible.
  3. Swallow (talk) If it's a game that's fully within our coverage, then it should still be in the main history section. What does and doesn't count as a cameo to go into another section could get subjective too.
  4. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Comments

So this proposal is meant to get the cameo appearances of something to their own section rather than having them spread out over the article? If that's the case, it can help provide the main information while listing the minor information at the very bottom or something. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 18:14, February 9, 2024 (EST)

No, this proposal is only for media where something only cameos and has no further role. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:16, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Okay. Thanks for the clarification! link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 18:19, February 9, 2024 (EST)

I also made a proposal to include non-Smash appearance more than a year ago, but failed. Windy (talk) 17:22, February 16, 2024 (EST)

Standardize the "Other appearances" scope to include anything that's not a Super Mario game

This proposal adds on to my "Cameo appearances" proposal. This proposal aims to standardize an increased scope of the "Other appearances" subsection to include anything that isn't a Super Mario game. It helps affirm the idea that this is a Super Mario wiki and helps the non-Super Mario appearances stand out to readers more easily.

For example, if this proposal passes, any Super Smash Bros. series section, along with possible subsections, will be a sub-section of "Other appearances." Also, I've seen already five equal sign headings for Classic Mode route for Ultimate fighters and sometimes Subspace Emissary. I don't think MediaWiki supports six equal signs, but those could be summarized and included in the section for the game itself, if a decision has to be made.

Sidenote, but if the subject in question makes only trophy, sticker, spirit cameos, the standard would still be to keep them under "Other appearances," because, as stated in my preceding proposal, the "Cameo appearances" subsection would be for Super Mario media only.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: February 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) The other appearances section is currently used for games that aren't given their own articles on the wiki, and I think it should stay that way - the whole reason we have pages for some non-Mario games is because they feature significant Mario content. "This is a Super Mario Wiki" as an argument is getting old - we're only covering this stuff in the first place because it's relevant to Super Mario, so the implication it falls out of the wiki's scope in some way feels incorrect. No matter where you stand on the Smash Bros. coverage debate, I don't think there's much room to argue that the appearances of Mario characters in the games aren't major (and your description of how big the Smash sections already are isn't really helping your argument that we should shove them under another subsection).
  2. Swallow (talk) Per Hewer
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
  4. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Comments

Sorry for more questions, but games like the Super Smash Bros. series, Fortune Street, and Nintendo Land would count as "other appearances"? Would spin-offs like the Mario & Sonic and Mario + Rabbids series count in this proposal? I feel the latter two I mentioned focus on Mario characters, but I agree that the former three I mentioned are "other appearances" for them. I'm leaning on the "support" option, but I want to think about this first. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 18:34, February 9, 2024 (EST)

Well, Mario's in the title of the latter two you mentioned, so it's clearly a part of the Super Mario franchise (whether partial or entirely is up for debate). As for SSB, Fortune Street, and Nintendo Land, those would definitely count as "other appearances." Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:36, February 9, 2024 (EST)
That's what I was thinking, but Hewer makes a good point. I now feel conflicted to vote and I think it would be better off if I didn't vote at all. In the past I have supported proposals because I thought my reasoning was good but then others had information of their own, which convinced me to change sides or remove my vote entirely. I don't want this to be another instance of that. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 18:40, February 9, 2024 (EST)

@Hewer: They definitely are major, no doubt, but they're not Super Mario. There's already an issue where people think SSB is a Super Mario spinoff, and seeing it under "Other appearances" would better show that it's not part of it. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:43, February 9, 2024 (EST)

Would it, though? "Other appearances" sections had Super Mario games in them for years before that 2021 proposal finally established a consistent usage for them, so it's clearly not immediately obvious to a reader what they're for. And the wiki doesn't call SSB a Mario spinoff anywhere to my knowledge, so it seems to already be doing its part in helping this "issue". I don't see much of a reason to get so hung up about whether they're Super Mario or not when they're still major appearances in the history of the character. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:51, February 9, 2024 (EST)

Decide how to incorporate Wonder Effects in Super Mario Bros. Wonder course articles

With more and more course articles being created for Super Mario Bros. Wonder (hooray!), there’s a consistency issue going on - how the Wonder Effects are incorporated into the articles. Some articles have them in the "layout" section of the article, while others have their own section dedicated to the Wonder Effect of the course.

Compare these two courses with each other to see what I mean:

What this proposal is meant to accomplish is to keep consistency throughout the course articles for Super Mario Bros. Wonder. That’s why I have three options to vote on:

1. Have the Wonder Effect be described in the "layout" section of the course articles

2. Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the course articles

3. Do nothing (leave everything as is)

Having a section dedicated to the Wonder Effect will make it easier to find, so that's something.

Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: February 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Have the Wonder Effect described in the "layout" section of the course articles

  1. Sparks (talk) Personally I think including the Wonder Effect in the "layout" section is better because it’s part of the course and usually changes the layout of the course. The articles I have created for Super Mario Bros. Wonder have this feature.
  2. Swallow (talk) Primary choice because there are a few levels (particularly the Special World levels) where the Wonder Effect lasts pretty much the whole level; the Wonder Flower is collected near the start and Wonder Seed is collected near the end. I'm not sure the second option would work too well for these kind of levels.
  3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Articles will be easier to read this way.
  4. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.
  5. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  6. Dark-Boy-1up (talk) Per Swallow.

Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the articles

  1. Tails777 (talk) Personally speaking, given how just about every level has a Wonder Effect and how the Wonder Effects are basically the main gimmick of the game, I see no problem with giving them their own section. Whether it be a sub-section of the layout or a section overall, anything providing proper info on what the Wonder Effect is will do. Honestly, I could go either way on this, but the importance and notability of the Wonder Effects make me lean more to giving them their own sections.

Do nothing

Comments

Decide how to handle the toy enemies from across the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series

The remake of Mario vs. Donkey Kong redesigned a number of enemies from the original release, namely Thwomps, Thwimps, and Boos, to have a toy-like appearance, while giving the Bird enemy an organic appearance in contrast to its clockwork incarnations from the series. The wiki is currently set up such that the series' toy enemies are split from their original counterparts, though, seemingly, this is less due to gameplay and identification reasons and more to have a consistency with how the playable Mini toys are handled in relation to their base characters. While there have been proposals here and there on handling particular Mario vs. DK toys in certain ways, the consensus on their general set-up seems to be pieced together from these smaller discussions rather than something formal. It would therefore be consistent with the current status quo to give the remake's redesigns their own pages solely on the basis that they're now toys rather than the real deal.

This would be a bit silly, though. Enemy redesigns happen all the time, often they alternate between games, and may even fulfil their own gameplay role; yet, none of these was enough to have Thwomp's page split between its spiked and non-spiked variants. The spinning-drum Thwomps in the Mario vs. DK remake are simply an interpretation of the base Thwomp that plays into the game's theme; mechanically, they're the exact same as the Thwomps in the original release. That said, one particular enemy, Boo (toy), has significant enough differences from its base enemy to perhaps warrant a separate article; details on that, shortly.

What this proposal aims to do is decide upon a more strict guideline for the coverage of these toy enemies opposite of their originals. Please note: the toy variants regarded by this proposal are those who have minimal to zero mechanical differences from their base counterparts and are (mostly) identified the same way. Toy enemies who are derivative of a Super Mario species, but have their own special mechanics and are clearly identified as though they are a separate thing, are excluded from this proposal. There's a list of excluded enemies at the end of the proposal.

For this proposal, I came up with these options:

  1. Merge all the toy enemies with their base counterparts, where applicable.
  2. Merge most toy enemies, but keep Boo (toy) and any future similar cases split, according to the explanations in the "Enemies included by the proposal" list below.
  3. Split all the toy enemies from their base counterparts, including mere redesigns.
  4. Do nothing.
Enemies included by the proposal

Should be (kept) merged if option 2 wins:

  • Bird (toy) - in its organic Mario vs. Donkey Kong remake appearance, it acts the exact same as its toy appearances throughout the series. Its page should be renamed "Bird (Mario vs. Donkey Kong series)".
  • Fly Guy (toy) - pretty much just Fly Guys in everything but the toy appearance. Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move, their sole appearance to date, identifies color variants as "[color] Mini Fly Guy", but overall they are not given a distinction. Should be merged with Fly Guy.
  • Monchee - conceptually and nomenclaturally the same thing as the long-tailed monkey from GB Donkey Kong, except it's a toy. Merge with Monkikki.
  • Ninji (toy) - jumps up and down like a Ninji. Is a Ninji by name. Merge with Ninji.
  • Pokey (toy) - It moves from side to side like an actual Pokey. It's true that you can destroy one through moves that require direct contact, something that you wouldn't expect to do with regular Pokeys, but Mario Kart Tour puts that notion to rest. Merge with Pokey.
  • Shy Guy (toy) - In the original game as well as its remake, they are mechanically identical to the Shy Guys in Super Mario Bros. 2. Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move calls color variants "[color] Mini Shy Guys", but they're overall just Shy Guys. Merge with Shy Guy.
  • Snapjaw (toy) (added at request): It has a plasticky, "Crocodile Dentist"-style appearance in this series, but is mechanically identical to the bear-trap Snapjaws from Donkey Kong Jr.. Keep merged with Snapjaw.
  • Snifit (toy) - same thing as the Snifit from Super Mario Bros. 2. In Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again!, they have spikes on their heads, but that's just a visual indicator that you can't stand on them like in the game's predecessor. Should be merged with Snifit.
  • Thwomp (toy) - appears in the Mario vs. DK remake as a redesign of the original Thwomp. It otherwise acts the exact same. Keep merged with Thwomp.
  • Thwimp (toy) - similar case to Thwomp (toy). Keep merged with Thwimp.

Should be (kept) split if option 2 wins:

  • Boo (toy) - though nigh on undistinguishable from regular Boos in the Mario vs. DK remake, the ones in Mini Mario & Friends: amiibo Challenge display different behavior: they only stop in place when they enter a bright area, not when you look at them, and allow you to pass through them in this state. I'd say this page should be left intact, with the remake appearance covered here for legacy purposes.
  • Any future enemy in the series with a gameplay function which is peculiar to it and not the base enemy. (Given option 2 wins, if any of the toy enemies in the "should be merged" list gain a special role in a future Mario vs. DK game, they'll be (re-)split as a whole.)

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: February 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. Hewer (talk) This feels comparable to how we don't split enemies from the Paper Mario games just for being made of paper when they're otherwise presented as the same enemy in a different style. And Boos having a weakness to light isn't exclusive to the toys, so that doesn't feel like a good reason to make an exception for them. The same enemies can and do have functional differences between completely different games.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal and Hewer.
  3. Somethingone (talk) I always found these splits a bit weird. Per proposal.

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4 (do nothing)

Comments

There's also Snapjaw's plastic design in the series, which is currently merged despite being different from the metal bear trap enemies. Also, why are Yariho and Polterguy excluded? According to the JP names, they are counterparts to Spear Guy and Boo Guy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:05, February 16, 2024 (EST)

Added Snapjaw. As for the others, that's getting into discussions about lang-of-origin, author's intent etc. and I figured these would be best left for another time. Yariho and Polterguy's JP names listed on the wiki come from licensed guides, and even if they are present somewhere in-game, the series of games themselves were largely developed by an American division. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:39, February 16, 2024 (EST)

Add the "Talk page proposal and support/oppose format" to the "Talk page proposals" section

The "Talk page proposals" section in the header is missing a talk page proposal and support/oppose format, and that is confusing. I was just wondering if there is a possibility to add the format to the talk page proposals section.

This header will be placed after the talk page proposal rules:

<h3 style="color:#000">Talk page proposal and support/oppose format</h3>

The first paragraph will read as follows:

“This is an example of what your talk page 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 after starting a new fitting section and paste it into that section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your talk page 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]". Talk page 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 talk page proposal can be amended as necessary.”
—First paragraph

This is what the example placed after the first paragraph will be as follows:

{{TPP}}
[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, 14 days after the talk page proposal was created), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "August 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT"]

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

===Oppose===

===Comments===

The paragraph placed after the example will read as follows:

“Users will now be able to vote on your talk page proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own talk page proposal just like the others.”
—Paragraph placed after the example

The final paragraph will read as follows:

“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 talk proposal. If you are voting on your own talk proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".”
—Final paragraph

And that's what the new section for the talk page proposal and support/oppose format will look like. In addition, a parenthesized reading from the basic proposal and support/oppose format section will be changed from "14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals" to "14 for writing guidelines". Would that example be a better idea when making talk page proposals?

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: February 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

Comments

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4145799"