Merge the identically-named Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest and Donkey Kong Land 2 levels
Do not merge 1-8
This proposal aims to merge the identically named Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest and Donkey Kong Land 2 levels together (e.g. Pirate Panic (Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest) and Pirate Panic (Donkey Kong Land 2) to Pirate Panic). While it is true that the layouts are entirely different in all respects, they are still just as much the same subject as the worlds containing them are (e.g., Gloomy Gulch is obviously the same world in both games, and the map itself was reused from Donkey Kong Country 2). Just because the layout is different doesn't mean that it's a different subject. The level Stronghold Showdown even shares an article between the two games, simply because its layout is the same. The only reason they were split is because of the vastly different layouts, which may have been because it would look too crammed if it were all together in like tables.
However, I've been creating a solution to that. For one, I've redoing several of the Donkey Kong level articles to get rid of the crammed tables and present things in a simpler fashion (which I began doing after discussing it with an administrator) and completed all levels in the original three Donkey Kong Country games. Before getting to the Donkey Kong Land 2 pages I'd like to reintegrate them their Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest level. An example of how such a page would look can be found on my sandbox page, though if this proposal passes, we can adjust the consistent format if needed.
#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Might as well split off GBA Ribbon Road's remake in Mario Kart 8 if layout differences really matter that much. It's more convenient to have just one article with no identifier, anyways.
Oppose
Koopa con Carne (talk) They're different levels regardless of their name being identical, and it's a good excuse to keep the size of their articles in check. The GBA Ribbon Road analogy doesn't hold because the course, while adapted to look good in HD and to make use of MK8's mechanics, maintained its general layout. No, I'd say this case is more similar to Jungle Hijinxs (DKC) vs. Jungle Hijinxs (DKCR), or Bramble Scramble (DKC2) vs. Bramble Scramble (DKCTF), and the proposal is basically supporting their merge on the basis of name alone.
Hewer (talk) The proposal fails to present any reason why splitting levels for having entirely different layouts is a bad thing. In the case of level articles specifically, where the layout is really the subject's most important aspect, having an entirely different layout between games is a good way to determine different levels, and merging levels just because they share a name and a theme is a bad idea. Mario Kart courses are a different situation, as not only is the basic layout unchanged, Ribbon Road's "GBA" prefix proves beyond doubt that it is the same course. A more comparable situation would be the two completely different Sherbet Lands.
DrippingYellow (talk) Having two levels in a single article is unprecedented, and also results in some awkwardness, like two different enemy and object lists, two different layout sections, trivia that applies to one level but not its Donkey Kong Land II equivalent...
SolemnStormcloud (talk) As much as I think Ribbon Road's remake isn't as similar to the original as most would say, at least it's not completely different like these levels are.
YoYo (talk) They're different levels. The Ribbon Road analogy is also very backwards... as they are still both Ribbon Road.
Comments
@Koopa Con Carne: No, there are other reasons why I made this proposal, such as the worlds sharing a page or even one "boss" level, Stronghold Showdown, having the same article between games. It's not just based on the name alone. It's making the point that the layout is the only reason why the articles are split, which is why Stronghold Showdown or the worlds are not split as well as why they share information between Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Land 2. Putting the level pages together would establish a consistency rather than have the information flying all over the place. The levels are not just based on name, but also feature, such as Bramble Blast having barrel-blasting between brambles or Target Terror involving riding a roller coaster. If the two pages are together, it will help list the consistent similarities between the two levels' main features, or when it doesn't, like Glimmer's Galleon (ironically) not having Glimmer in Donkey Kong Land 2. Super Game Gear (talk) 14:37, December 5, 2023 (EST)
They're different levels. Full stop. 1. "The levels are not just based on name, but also feature, such as Bramble Blast having barrel-blasting between brambles or Target Terror involving riding a roller coaster." Once again I bring up Bramble Scramble (Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest) and Bramble Scramble (Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze). Same title, same bramble-based concept. Fits snugly in your reasoning. 2. Splitting Stronghold Showdown would have been nonsense considering it's less of a level and more of a glorified cutscene, whose "layout" is essentially just one long platform where you briefly encounter DK; you can't argue for consistency by pivoting around a minor set-piece that is inherently distinct from all the other levels. 3. The worlds share pages because they're the same exact overarching areas on Crocodile Isle, down to having the same level map. If one were to treat them as inherently different just because the levels within them are, at what point up the hierarchy of "greater locations" would the line be drawn? Splitting them between their SNES and Game Boy appearances would have made as much sense as splitting Crocodile Isle on the same grounds. -- KOOPACONCARNE 15:28, December 5, 2023 (EST)
The Tropical Freeze example is a digression, and it's obvious that Bramble Scramble from that game is not the same, especially because it does not take place on Crocodile Isle, nor does it have the same pinpoint location on the world map like just about every Donkey Kong Land 2 level has with their Country 2 counterpart, which the DKL2 levels aimed to replicate. I would never have proposed to merge the Tropical Freeze level into the Country 2 / Land 2 level As contradictory as this sounds, DKC2/DKL2 levels are both the same levels yet they are not solely from a gameplay point of view, which is because of the layout. There's still the boss levels like Kleever's Kiln and Kleaver's Kiln, which have a nearly identical layout, and Kreepy Krow's boss level also involves climbing up ropes to the next area. The areas range from very different (like Pirate Panic in DKL2 vs. DKC2), to very similar (Kleever's Kiln in both games) to practically identical (like Stronghold Showdown). Super Game Gear (talk) 16:20, December 5, 2023 (EST)
The layouts being different across the two games entails that important objects such as DK Coins and Bonus Barrels are positioned differently--and I'd argue people mostly read these articles for the items and secrets. The circumstances are there to neatly distribute this content between articles instead of lumping it together in one page and, consequently, making the content less accessible. Stronghold Showdown again is a "level" only in the sense that you can individually select it from the world map in much the same way as Funky's Flights II and Kong Kollege. "The Tropical Freeze example is a digression, and it's obvious that Bramble Scramble from that game is not the same, especially because it does not take place on Crocodile Isle" Alright then, take Jungle Hijinxs (Donkey Kong Country) and Jungle Hijinxs (Donkey Kong Country Returns). Same location, same level placement, same concept, with the added quality that they're both in the same series of games. Merge them, then? -- KOOPACONCARNE 17:01, December 5, 2023 (EST)
Yeah, Jungle Hijinxs is a closer example, though I haven't thought about whether to merge those (it might end up looking like the Mario Kart course pages). The similarities between DKC and DKC Returns are significantly less than with DKC2 and DKL2, which even share the exact same storyline & the latter also aims to almost directly carry most things over from Country 2, just on a Game Boy system. There are still more variables of similarities between the Country 2 and Land 2 levels. Most of the returning supporting locations, worlds, enemies, all the same as in Donkey Kong Land 2. The entire set of levels in DKL2 (save for a few) have the exact same name as their DKC2 counterpart, as well as same placement on world map, which I've brought up. They directly carried things over from Country 2, including the world map, but made different level iterations for the game, changing little else (other than what they did not carry over, like Kudgel's Kontest). I don't want to digress too much into the retro Studios games, as that doesn't fully concern the scope of this proposal. However, the Jungle world where DKCR's Jungle Hijinxs takes place is not an exact replica of the Kongo Jungle world from Donkey Kong Country, whilst the world maps in DKC2 and DKL2 are the exact same. There's no Ropey Rampage or Coral Capers in DKC Returns, and all the enemies and collectibles are different. Meanwhile, there's a different iteration of Pirate Panic, Mainbrace Mayhem, Gangplank Galley, so forth so forth in DKC2 and DKL2, both also featuring DK Coin and Kremkoins as the key items. Super Game Gear (talk) 17:21, December 5, 2023 (EST)
Just saw the World 1-1 case brought up. I said earlier in comments (regarding Bramble Scramble) that merging based on name alone shouldn't be the deciding factor, but Country 2 and Land 2, despite being different games, have exceptional variables of similarities to one another. Super Game Gear (talk) 17:31, December 5, 2023 (EST)
Looks like New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U are the most comparable to Country 2 and Land 2. Maybe someday their level pages being merged could be the subject of a different proposal, in which case the New Super Mario Bros. U name takes precedent, due to the Switch version having both games but retaining the part of its New Super Mario Bros. U, whilst Luigi U is an expansion. I'm going off-topic, however, but just wanted to quickly share my thoughts that I may be up for merging those. Super Game Gear (talk) 18:02, December 5, 2023 (EST)
Thanks. -- KOOPACONCARNE 16:06, December 5, 2023 (EST)
@DrippingYellow — Even though I've officially changed my stance on this proposal, I still can play devil's advocate and say those footnotes could be replaced with subheaders. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 19:29, December 6, 2023 (EST)
@YoYo — Ribbon Road's layout differences don't bug me as much after Mario Kart Tour continued to alter the layouts of certain GBA courses (though admittedly, I wish all of their layouts were a bit closer to those of their original versions — Ribbon Road included), but I made that remark on impulse and no longer stand by my initial vote. Please don't bring any more attention to it. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:45, December 11, 2023 (EST)
Remove icons from Lists of Course appearances in Mario Kart Tour
Remove icons from Lists of Course appearances in Mario Kart Tour 16-0
The time has finally come. With Mario Kart Tour ending all new content, it is the perfect time to start addressing some of the.... issues it has caused. Namely bloated article sizes with atrocious loading times. A quick look at Special:LongPages will show you that Mario Kart Tour absolutely dominates the category. In the top 50 longest pages, Mario Kart Tour accounts for 36 of them! And of those 36, 30 are "List of [Course] Appearances in Mario Kart Tour" pages. Worse than just being long pages, these pages are absolutely filled to the brim with images. Looking at the largest offender, the number of images in the article is over 9000! (Literally. There are 9212 icons in the page.) Outdated meme aside, this drastically increases the loading times for the page, especially in slower machines. If you need to find any specific character in this, it also becomes a giant game of Where's Waldo?. (There are only two regular Rosalinas in this page, can you find them?) This proposal aims to address those problems.
Don't get me wrong, I like the icons. They make the page look nice and organized. But when dealing with articles this large, efficiency should be a priority. I have made here an example of what a page would look like following this proposal. I'll be the first to admit it doesn't look pretty. It might not be the easiest to read either, but at least its contents are easily searchable with Ctrl+F, something the original lacks. Most importantly, it is less than half the size of the original, and should load much faster. This should help curb some of the unstoppable growth of Mario Kart Tour, or at least encourage some more discussion on how to stop it.
This proposal applies only to "List of [Course] appearances in Mario Kart Tour". Other Mario Kart Tour pages have different formatting and need to be tackled separately.
Proposer: LadySophie17 (talk) Deadline: December 13, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Support
LadySophie17 (talk) I know this is a lot to change but I intend to take responsibility.
BMfan08 (talk) I think it's bizarre just how many MKT pages have been in LongPages, especially given how we're looking at trimming other pages right now. Per all.
Mushroom Head (talk) I seriously have an eyesore when scrolling through these pages, since they are so ridiculously long and image-full. Also I tried to preview the largest offender, and it said "An error occurred while attempting to preview your changes. The server did not respond within the expected time."
Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. In addition to taking forever to load, the images end up making everything ironically blend together and it actually makes it harder to find information you're looking for, rather than just, say, Ctrl+F finding it in the text version. We can accept something looking a little garish if it's much more practical!
Waluigi Time (talk) Between the long load times and the lack of page text making it a lot harder to actually find information, I'm in full support.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Seriously considered opposing this, since I thought itd make the table harder to comprehend, but now I support because of the compaints that the table icons are an "eyesore". Also, per all, because adding many icons slows down loading.
Archivist Toadette (talk) While the recent page trimmings in general concern me a little (since some articles in question would already be very long by nature and are likely to only become longer and longer over time), I do agree that this will reduce the clutter on each table and give our readers a better navigational experience. Per all.
ExoRosalina (talk) Per all, and yeah it will destroy my loading time even on better internet if so many icon images have included like around 4GB or higher.
Glowsquid (talk) Per Sophie. These pages badly need chemo.
Oppose
Comments
Honestly, I'd kind of prefer a half-way point. The actual icons are fine, but then you have things like 512x512px kart artwork that's been shrunk down to tiny size. I think images that are small by default should be kept while ones that are large and just shrunk past the point of recognition should be nixed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:48, December 6, 2023 (EST)
I definitely agree with Doc. BOWSER... (talk) 20:36, December 6, 2023 (EST)
Now HOLD ON. Looking at the example page, I noticed that the boxes where the icons normally are end up being very cramped. That could potentially be a problem. The crampedness currently seems to be just for karts and gliders, but only because the boxes for characters are big. I think we could fix this NOT by removing every single icon, as that COULD, not likely but it's possible, create a precedent for icon removal, but by changing the box sizes so that there's as little cramping as possible. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:41, December 8, 2023 (CST)
I can see the character boxes being cramped due to the large amount of characters, but I believe the solution for that is to make the character boxes larger than the other boxes. I still fully intend to remove all of the icons for this page, as letting only character icons stay makes the table inconsistent, and makes characters not searchable, which defeats one of the purposes for this proposal. — Lady Sophie(T|C) 14:58, December 8, 2023 (EST)
No, I said change the sizes of the boxes, not remove all icons but the character icons. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:08, December 8, 2023 (CST)
Add unique final lap music to the infoboxes of certain Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8 (Deluxe) courses
Do not add 1-1-4
In Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8, and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, certain courses have their final lap music altered beyond increased tempo and pitch. Some have a different, shorter intro, one has added instrumentation, and three even start at the end of the song rather than the beginning. I was thinking about adding these unique final lap songs to their respective courses' infoboxes. They are technically different songs from their normal versions, after all.
I know what you'll probably be asking: Would this improve the wiki in any way, though? Yes, actually. Right now, we're having to tediously list out each course whose final lap song has a unique intro, and while it isn't too bad right now, I could see this becoming terribly clunky if future Mario Kart games include more unique final lap songs. By including these songs in their courses' infoboxes instead, we shouldn't need to point this out every time this occurs in the Mario Kart series.
Note that this proposal only affects courses from Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8, and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe — while games like Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Wii also have final lap songs that skip parts of their normal versions (and it may be worth doing a proposal for them later), most to all of their courses have this trait and it wouldn't be as notable for them.
EDIT: Following concerns that most of these aren't different enough from their normal versions, I've added an option for just adding 3DS Rainbow Road, N64 Rainbow Road, and GCN Baby Park's final lap songs, as theirs start from the ending of the normal version's music and are therefore the most unique.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Would not it just pad the page's file size up? The page would have to load a bit slower to accommodate these new final lap media files. They are basically the same music, but sped up.
Ahemtoday (talk) I'm not particularly moved to add something into the infobox to make a trivia bullet point shorter. If the list of courses this applies to gets so long that it's untenably unwieldy, I think at that point it'd be so common that it wouldn't be worth listing at all.
Arend (talk) From what I can gather, the only differences most of these listed final lap versions have is that they have just the shorter intro, and the way these are different are... kinda minor? Certainly only slightly more notable than all the intro-less Mario Kart Wii courses, but not really notable enough to require inclusion on the course pages either. I certainly never noticed that MK7's version of Rock Rock Mountain had a different final lap intro. 3DS Rainbow Road and N64 Rainbow Road I feel are the only Final Laps notable enough to be included, and it's only because they skip a huge portion of the original music track and begin near the end instead. Dolphin Shoals's final lap will just play the entire Dry Land version throughout the whole course instead of at the end...which also isn't justifiable to include since the regular Dry Land version is already on the page; I think a Trivia item can simply cover that already. I'm pretty sure only a handful of Mario Kart Arcade GP DX Final Lap versions are more notable because some have a different, shorter loop that goes gradually faster per loop (then again, I think I only noticed that with Bon Dance Street and Pac-Man Stadium, and I'm honestly unsure about those two).
ExoRosalina (talk) It would waste the time if we add the final lap versions, because like in Mario Kart Wii, it skips the first part but with exceptions are Toad's Factory and Ghost Valley 2. In similar reasons with Ahemtoday, it will be very unnecessary if we add the info box for final lap versions.
Comments
@PnnyCrygr — Agh, didn't take that into consideration... Still, it's better to not have to point out every course with a unique final lap intro every time another one appears in the series. I've added another option for just adding the final lap music of 3DS Rainbow Road, N64 Rainbow Road, and GCN Baby Park. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 19:42, December 7, 2023 (EST)
@Arend — Not that it will change your opinion, but Dolphin Shoals' final lap music also has added whistles. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 19:42, December 7, 2023 (EST)
@Ahemtoday — If the list does end up getting that long, I think we should still give some coverage to these unique final lap songs. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 09:00, December 8, 2023 (EST)
@ExoRosalina — The Mario Kart Wii courses have their intro skipped entirely, while the Mario Kart 7 and 8 courses in question use a different, shorter intro. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 09:00, December 8, 2023 (EST)
Ultimately, I won't mind if this proposal fails — this was a throwaway proposal made as a form of catharsis while I was stressed. All of us have our ideas that we think would improve this wiki, but of course, not everyone will agree with every idea. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 09:00, December 8, 2023 (EST)
merge both 6-2-0-0
These articles have been around for far too long. Let's look at what we have here:
Exhibit A: Chain Chomp (Elder Princess Shroob). It's effectively just a purple Chain Chomp with Shroob-like eyes, and it only appears during a specific attack used by Elder Princess Shroob during her first phase. It is not targetable nor does it have a distinct official name. There is an inquiry about a possible Japanese name, but nobody has responded to it.
Exhibits B & C: Digi-Koopa and Digital Boo. Just like Exhibit A, these only appears as parts of an attack during a specific boss fight, namely Bowser Memory ML. In particular, the Koopa's only role is to shrink Bowser Memory M after he uses his Super Mushroom attack, and it doesn't even appear in the remake. They also have no official name, with their articles currently using one-off generic terms from a Prima guide as their titles.
I see no reason for these to be separate articles. The content on Chain Chomp (Elder Princess Shroob) can simply be covered on the Chain Chomp and Elder Princess Shroob articles, and the Koopa and Boo have no reason to be split from Bowser Memory ML, especially since the bosses themselves are merged. I could maybe see a case for keeping the Chomp if that Japanese name is confirmed to be official, but the others have got to go.
Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Deadline: December 17, 2023, 23:59 GMT
SolemnStormcloud (talk) Primary choice, though this is subject to change if a source is found for the aforementioned Japanese name. Per all.
LadySophie17 (talk) Honestly, even if the Japanese name for the Chain Chomp is real, it should probably stay merged, with a redirect page.
Ahemtoday (talk) I don't think the presence of a Japanese name changes the fact that these are... basically just articles on specific enemy attacks, which we don't otherwise do for the Mario & Luigi series.
Camwoodstock (talk) Unless we can verify the Shroob Chain Chomp has or doesn't have a proper name in Japan, we're not keen to merge that one juuust yet. These guys, though... We mean, Digi-Koopa was so forgettable they forgot him in the remake. And without the precedent of Shroob-ified versions of Mario enemies being a thing (we'd like to single out Shroob-omb here, who while they're Technically™ unique enemies that you can target on their own, they literally only exist alongside the Support Shroobs... who in of themselves, only exist alongside the Commander Shroobs. While not exactly comparable per say seeing as you can't target the Shroob Chain Chomp, we feel like there's something to be said about how much more remote the Shroob-omb is yet it has its own article.), these digital guys having their own article feels a whole lot more superfluous.
Might also be worth pointing out that the Koopa is not in the BIS remake at all. Nightwicked Bowser 15:34, December 10, 2023 (EST)
Added. 15:35, December 10, 2023 (EST)
Changing Sic Rules
canceled by proposer
(Note: I'm not pushing anything at all. I just want to see what MarioWiki thinks about this proposal.)
A LOT of MarioWiki users, like me, see [sic] on articles. Sic basically means that the error was made by the publishing, not the wiki. I want to replace [sic] with something else. Sic on Wikipedia explains 3 ways to replace sic. So, how should we do it?
Camwoodstock (talk) We don't really see the issue with retaining the "(sic)" labels, personally; especially since, unless we missed something, it's not like there's any specific issue with the current usage of "(sic)"? Replacement sacrifices accuracy to the source material, which makes acknowledging typos in said source material a total nightmare, and appending either "recte" or "read" don't really add any further clarifications than what would, presumably, already be provided, as well as naturally take up more space. And using "recte" or "read" interchangeably would be a complete nightmare; there's no worse standard than having zero formal attempt at a standard, it'd almost universally just be as if "recte" was the victor by the fact that "recte" is shorter than "sic, read". The "(sic)" label is just a concise, clearly-understandable label that pretty much anyone can understand in an extremely brief manner; it's super simple, which none of the other options are despite yielding no further benefits to them.
Koopa con Carne (talk) Wikipedia is not a guideline. What they're listing in that article are merely observations of how erroneous text has been rectified in quotes and transcripts throughout editorial history--and, to be honest, it's not immediately clear to me if the "[sic: read]" example even passes Wikipedia's own notability standards in the first place. If one wishes to correct factual inaccuracies in quotes on this wiki, they could just use the sic template and then employ the {{footnote}} template or a "ref" tag or something like that.
Comments
Restrict drive-by templating and major changes to proposals and talk page proposals
canceled by proposer
I was informed on July 19 this year that per this proposal, I must start a discussion or proposal in the talk page first. This time, I've come up with a proposal to restrict major changes and drive-by templating to proposals and talk page proposals. As you can see, the {{talk}} template will recommend that users make a proposal for a major change in order to try to help and resolve the issue. I was wondering if there's a possibility to restrict major changes and drive-by templating to proposals and talk page proposals.
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Deadline: January 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Waluigi Time (talk) Going straight to a proposal isn't always a good idea. Discussion can be very helpful to determine if a proposal is even necessary. Sometimes the suggestion may get strong support and can be done without a proposal, or it may be heavily opposed and the user who made the suggestion will decide not to pursue a proposal at that time. Complex issues may warrant a discussion first to determine the specifics of the proposal. Also, not allowing these templates to be used for active discussions will make them less visible and more likely to go unnoticed. This change will likely only harm discussion outside of proposals and the proposer makes no argument why we should do this. As for restricting major changes to proposals, this is basically done already and it's a completely separate issue from drive-by templating, so I'm not sure why they're being clumped together in this proposal.
Swallow (talk) Per Waluigi Time, if there's an active discussion then these templates do help direct users to those.
Comments
Going straight to a proposal is never a good idea; it is always a bad idea. Can we cancel this proposal that I made? GuntherBayBeee 15:56, December 26, 2023 (EST)
It's not always a bad idea, if you want to cancel this proposal you can just cut and paste it straight into the archive now. Nightwicked Bowser 17:43, December 26, 2023 (EST)
Sparks (talk) After giving it some thought, it would be better if these categories affected characters who look exactly like who they're meant to copy. I don't know everything about the Mario franchise, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of lookalikes out there.
SolemnStormcloud (talk) I'd honestly be in favor of deleting these categories as I feel they're too broad to be useful, but as that's (currently) not an option, I can live with trimming the definition.
Camwoodstock (talk) These categories are at the risk of becoming way too broad to even be useful; there's a world of a difference between a robotic copy of Princess Peach that's basically just Peach with a few metal-y textures on her visually, and... an entirely different princess character from an entirely different spin-off series, that serves as the primary antagonist of a game and is capable of growing in size and changing elements, who just happens to have a superficial color resemblance to Princess Peach in her boss fight. We have to be putting down hard barriers for what counts as "resemblance" here, because otherwise, you could make an argument that in the article's current state, and due to events in Superstar Saga, that Luigi is a peach look-alike. And that is a sentence that hurts to type.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This is getting ridiculous. Abuse of categories like this is why we had to get rid of Category:Villains, among others. Let's be sane, OK?
OmegaRuby (talk) : Seeing these lookalike categories listing characters like Ditto or Master Shadow just for being able to copy the appearance of the character is ridiculous. There's a clear difference between characters designed to be lookalikes or copies of a character and characters that use similar design tropes as the original character, but not an exact clone or lookalike. Per all.
Waluigi Time (talk) Characters happening to share some design elements isn't a useful category, it's trivia at best.
Conradd (talk) This category is named lookalikes, meaning they resemble a certain character, they're not specifically clones. They are related because of certain design traits or ideas. This category hasn't been "abused", mind you. What you are asking is a different category.
Comments
Having played Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam recently, there are paper versions of pretty much every character (including Luigi, because of Paper Luigi in the music player). King Boo also temporarily turns into Paper Princess Peach and Bowser before the fight with him. It might be a stretch for King Boo, but would the Paper versions count in this proposal? Sparks (talk) December 20, 2023, 7:13 (EDT)
Within Paper Jam's context at least, I would also consider the paper characters' lookalikes. It is the only game King Boo shapeshifts so I wouldn't agree with adding these categories for him either, compared to Doopliss who turns into Mario's form for quite a large amount of time. Nightwicked Bowser 07:19, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Okay. Is there a category of Mario/Luigi/Peach/Bowser clones? If there isn't, then many of these characters would fit that category. Conradd's oppose vote does have me on the fence about voting though, they kinda do look like Mario and Peach, but there's no way Daisy is a Peach lookalike. Sparks (talk) December 20, 2023, 7:22 (EDT)
Daisy was lookalike of Peach if you consider her original design from Super Mario Land. Luigi was a lookalike of Mario because, for a time, he was indistinguishable from Mario in either sprite form or promotional material. Neither of them resemble their originals design now, but Luigi is still consider a lookalike, i don't see why it shouldn't be the case for Daisy too. --Conradd (talk) 07:35, December 20, 2023 (EST)
But Peach never appeared in Super Mario Land, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make. (T|C) 07:40, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Wasn't Daisy a reskin of Peach until she wasn't? Isn't the connection between Peach and Daisy evident enough? Luigi never appear alongside the Fury Shadow in Bowser's Fury. --Conradd (talk) 07:52, December 20, 2023 (EST)
No, I don't see it that way. The developers of Super Mario Land likely never saw it this way either. (T|C) 08:03, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Are you seriously arguing with me that Daisy's original design from Super Mario Land wasn't based on Peach's classic design and that this is all just coincidence? --Conradd (talk) 08:09, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Why future games keep entertain this connection if they are unrelated? The most recent example that comes to my mind being Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with the echoes fighter thing. --Conradd (talk) 08:14, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Isn't Wario appearance based on Mario? Guess what, Wario is in the Mario lookalikes category. Isn't Waluigi appearance based on Luigi? Guess what, Waluigi is in the Luigi lookalikes category. This isn't new infos guys. Come on. --Conradd (talk) 08:25, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Being a perversion of their design isn't the same as being an uncanny doppelganger. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:09, December 20, 2023 (EST)
If we go that route, we better removed Luigi, Wario, and Waluigi from the categories then. --Conradd (talk) 11:17, December 20, 2023 (EST)
I'd be good with that actually. Nightwicked Bowser 11:22, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Wait, they're actually in those categories? (actual pause of us checking) ... Oh my goodness. Um, no offense, but we feel like these should've been gone before this proposal even began. Mario's even has Luigi and Wario! (Somehow--thankfully--not Waluigi, though? We guess Waluigi is the result of a Ship of Theseus of Mario...) ~Camwoodstock(talk) 11:29, December 20, 2023 (EST)
I could see Luigi being on there, since early on he actually was a palette swap of Mario, right down to the artwork. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:38, December 20, 2023 (EST)
No. If we are changing this to only accept clones we should remove Luigi also. I can't believe some of you are ok to include Green Mario but not Orange Peach. --Conradd (talk) 11:43, December 20, 2023 (EST)
@Doc Von: We guess? ...But given Luigi has his own category for look-alikes, we feel like having them in each others' categories is a little silly. And also, to play devil's advocate, please don't actually take this as a serious suggestion, given Luigi's debut was in Mario Bros. (Game & Watch), you could technically argue that a Luigi Look-alike (and for that matter, a Mario look-alike due to Mario's Cement Factory) is... Mr. Game & Watch. also holy cow maybe we should like. have this conversation in another part of this comments section. that is 14 colons there and our right hand's already getting carpal tunnel-themed flashbacks to a certain Dino Piranha on fire from that alone ~Camwoodstock(talk) 11:52, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Daisy was never a full-on palette swap of Peach; she always had some distinct aspects of her design, even in the early art. Peach having a color swap resembling Daisy in Smash isn't the same as it being Daisy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:13, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Ok dude --Conradd (talk) 12:17, December 20, 2023 (EST)
I was on the fence with including deletion on this proposal, still not sure if want to add that at the moment. Nightwicked Bowser 10:17, December 20, 2023 (EST)
In spite of your vouching for shapeshifter characters on these categories, such characters are actually one of my primary reasons for wanting these categories deleted. Not only is it weird to call Ditto, a creature from a completely different franchise, a "lookalike" of Mario, Luigi, etc. for example, it's also somewhat redundant with Category:Shapeshifters. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 11:53, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Honestly, I agree at that point. You all agree to rework these categories without having correctly defined what is a clone and what is not. Y'all know what's going to happen next? This proposal will likely pass, and not too long after that, someone will make another proposal requesting a new rework because they find these categories to be vague, contradictory, or nonsensical. --Conradd (talk) 12:16, December 20, 2023 (EST)
I've decided to remove that part in the proposal and focus on actual copies of characters, which I'm pretty sure we have decided on already. Nightwicked Bowser 12:21, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Y'all do whatever you want. I don't want to be part of this stupid conversation anymore. --Conradd (talk) 12:26, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Would Mechakoopas no longer be a sub-category to Look-alikes for Bowser if this goes through? We feel like they should, considering they hardly look like him outside of SMW and have kinda gradually become their own thing, but we feel like we should bring that one up in a formal capacity. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 12:54, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Mechakoopa design is almost certainly derived from Bowser's original weird sprite, so in a sense, they are. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:53, December 20, 2023 (EST)
I believe Mechakoopas are often stated to be mechanical Bowsers or something. Nightwicked Bowser 14:00, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Fair point. We see that on a few occasions they're even called Mecha-Bowsers. But, given the article for Mechakoopas themselves is absent, it still strikes us as weird... ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:12, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Silly question that we swear is related; we're working on a huge dissertation of every article in these categories, just to sort through our thoughts on each of these and hopefully serve as a resource for where we could draw the line. The problem is that this thing is currently 10,000 characters and we haven't even covered Peach or DK's categories! We're literally giving these a sentence or two tops aside from extreme exceptions, we're trying to keep things brief for once! ...Should we, like, put these elsewhere, or what should we do so we don't completely dominate the comments section with this thing? ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:12, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Maybe a userspace page? Your dissertation probably won't change my opinion, but it should still be shared nonetheless. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 14:53, December 20, 2023 (EST)
That works for us! A 15k-character whopper of a page, a full enough description of every page in the five mentioned categories by the proposal, and if we feel the pages should stay, go, or something we could decide in a future proposal in weird edge cases. We don't expect anyone to fully read this and type up a full counter-point to everything here (and to be completely honest here, please don't; we wrote these with the idea of "if another proposal occurs, we will elaborate then" in mind, and any clarifications right now would just be us re-iterating our exact points all over again, and to be real here, our wrists are mad enough at us for this one!), but we hope you can see our through-line with this one and have a rough model of how a trim-down could look like; though, of course, nothing in this is final, this is all the opinions of one body that is very, very frazzled all things considered. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 16:52, December 20, 2023 (EST)
Nicely done! If it's worth mentioning, the current consensus on the shapeshifters is to exclude them. As for how to handle the Mechakoopas in Category:Bowser lookalikes, we could probably just include Mecha-Bowser, Bowser???, and maybe the standard Mechakoopa, but none of the Mechakoopa variants. I have no idea how to handle Eddie the Mean Old Yeti... SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:00, December 20, 2023 (EST)
We missed Mecha-Bowser and Bowser???, good eye. Those should probably also go in there, seeing as "Bowser-themed Mecha" is its own genre of Bowser look-alike (like all the weird robo-Peaches and duos that are vaguely based on the Mario brothers)... We have already reached a mini 5-stages of grief about Eddie the Mean Old Yeti, and have accepted he's probably best to exclude by default just because his article currently makes it unclear if he's a Kong or a full-on Yeti, but we should likely hold a proposal to determine if we add him in after the fact. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:06, December 20, 2023 (EST)
If "Kongs" can be gorillas, monkeys, chimpanzees, and orangutans, then they can be yetis, too. (I'm still convinced Candy is a sasquatch.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:41, December 23, 2023 (EST)
Split the "[remake title] + [completely new game title]" games
Split completely new games from remakes 9-0
Something that's been itching on my mind for a while. In the case of games (predominantly remakes) where there is what amounts to two separate games on one pack, we cover them both on one page, despite the needless bloat and resultant detail-cutting this causes. The games I am talking about specifically are Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey, and Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, though I want this to create a precedent for any later releases to come. The respective title mentioned after the "+" is, for all intents and purposes, a completely new game that shares a pack and assets with the former (along with a storyline and setting for the M&L ones, albeit with a different focus). The gameplay itself is radically different for each, and along with being given their own titles, they are treated as a "two games in one" style multipack, like, say, Zelda's A Link to the Past + Four Swords (which were also the only way to play GBA-type ALttP and FS prior to the latter's limited-run DSiWare enhanced port, I may add).
I suppose the main reason they aren't split is that we generally discourage splitting modes from the game pages. And while that's fine in, say, Mario Party games where different modes amount to a different set dressing and order of what is done, these have radically different features and play styles, so it's not comparable. Plus, one particular mode in one Mario Party game, Super Duel Mode, is so massively different from the rest of the game it gets its own page.
I also find this to be similar to the Mario Bros. Classic included on GBA games; though of course, it has to be split considering it was on no less than five carts.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all + Cam & Tori's Puzzle League. We feel like these "side-modes" they keep adding in these re-releases (which, let's be real here, these are basically new full campaigns) generally go less documented just because we have to fuse them together into articles. It'd be like if every article on Inkipedia had to combine Octo Expansion with base Splatoon 2; we feel like how they handle things would be a good model for what these split articles could look like, actually.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Per Everyone + Dr. Crygor's Mix-Ups
Jdtendo (talk) Per all + Jdtendo's New Campaign that Could Be a Game in and of Itself
BMfan08 (talk) Follow the riveting tale of one user's vote in BMfan08's Decision + Baby Mario's Quest for a Bottle of Milk, available in most retail stores! (Per all.)
Oppose + Waluigi's Warpath
Comments + Pauline's Concerto
Just to be certain, if we split articles like Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, that means the original Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury gets to stay too, right? Of course, the relevant Bowser's Fury information would get its own article, but the game is still sold as the Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury package, and Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury also boasts several differences in the Super Mario 3D World half compared to the original Wii U release. On another note, games like Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey are actually called Mario & Luigi RPG 1 DX and Mario & Luigi RPG 3 DX in Japan, so I think in their case, it's more appropriate to use the game mode's name for the respective latter halves' articles... which in Bowser's Minions's case, would be Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser. rend(talk)(edits) 07:30, December 23, 2023 (EST)
Of course. Though with that note on the Japanese names, I suppose we won't need to split the M&L campaigns as well, unless they're lacking the DX on the in-game select. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:53, December 23, 2023 (EST)
Merge the "Microgames" sections of WarioWare hosts into their "History" sections
Look at the "Microgames" sections in articles for WarioWare series hosts; they are basically multiple one-liner paragraphs that describe what the microgames of the host are about, and how the player can play them. It is rather un-encyclopedic for a section to have paragraphs with only one or two sentences each; moreover, the writing is blah. The general host's "microgames" section goes like this (take a long good look at Jimmy T's section for example):
[Y] comes with their own set of microgames in all games of the WarioWare series except [X].
In [X], [Y] hosts [Z] microgames, which involve [A] microgames.
[...]
In [X], [Y] hosts [Z] microgames, which involve [A] microgames.
The second sentence in the above appears repeatedly per one-liner paragraph, marking the need for these "paragraphs" to be relocated to the host's "History" section. Ideally, a paragraph corresponding to "This Game" will be relocated to the section named "This Game". And so on. Before the writing of this proposal, Mona, Dr. Crygor, and 9-Volt already had their "microgame" sections incorporated into their "history" sections.
Proposer: PnnyCrygr (talk) Deadline: December 28, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Merge "Microgames" sections into "History" sections
Allow the {{tabber}} template to be used with infobox images for {{game infobox}}
canceled by proposer
I just saw something on WiKirby, and game pages have box arts, cover arts, and logos in different regions. Right now, I was wondering if the Super Mario Wiki could allow the {{tabber}} template to be used with infobox images for the {{game infobox}} template. I created some samples for Super Mario Odyssey and Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars, that way you'll never need to go to the respective games'image galleries. Here's an example:
October 27, 2017 October 27, 2017 October 27, 2017 October 27, 2017 October 27, 2017 October 27, 2017 December 1, 2017 December 1, 2017 March 16, 2020
Language(s)
Deutsch English (United States) Español (España) Español (Latinoamérica) Français (Canada) Français (France) Italiano Nederlands Русский 한국어 日本語 简体中文 繁體中文
Super Game Gear (talk) I love the feeling of easily toggling between thumbnail-size images whenever possible rather than refer to tiny gallery images, which makes it hard to compare without opening in separate tabs.
Oppose
Camwoodstock (talk) We feel like tabbers should be used sparingly--namely, when (hopefully a small amount of) different designs for things are used at the same time, concurrently. Boxart and logos would be much better suited for a gallery; there's just too many of them, and they aren't really "different"; it's almost always the same core design, just with different text. Sure, there's exceptions to that, but they're just that--exceptions--that is definitely not the norm for localized boxarts. Just because we have tabbers doesn't mean we need to use them all the time, y'know... ;P
Swallow (talk) Tabbers may seem like a convenient idea on paper, however since I heard that it only works with java script which not all devices may support, it may be best for the courtesy of any kind of reader to refrain from using tabbers period.
Koopa con Carne (talk) One variant of the box art is enough. Setting aside my personal dislike of the tabber format, it's best to only employ it when the subject has different concurrent appearances--or, concerning Mario Party/Kart levels, when the image in the infobox depicts a more modern rendition of the level's original appearance. Per Camwoodstock.
PnnyCrygr (talk) If one turns off javascript the infobox will just be a paddy column full of images
Comments
i think it should only be used when there's two very different boxarts. if we're gonna be toggling between a bunch of nearly identical boxes with different stamps on the bottom we might as well not have the tabber at all. now, a game like yoshi's island, where the japanese and international boxarts are VERY different, it might be worth considering. is there a way to solve the javascript tabber issue, anyways? EvieMaybe (talk) 21:53, December 29, 2023 (EST)
Just ask Steve. He'll be able to solve the javascript tabber issue. GuntherBayBeee 23:44, December 29, 2023 (EST)
Clarify stance on Japanese-derived internal names
Consider Japanese, use over internal names 6-0
The wiki's policy on official name priority seems to suggest that they are only to be used if there is a distinct lack of official English names. However, there's a notable grey area in this policy: what are we intended to do when the internal names are derived from Japanese words, but typed out in English letters? There are a few article titles that come to mind where the official Japanese name is used instead of the internal name: several Super Mario Bros. Wonder enemies, including Suppoko (formerly "Uminoko"), and a few Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat enemies such as Gōrumondo (known as "Garigari" in the files). Uminoko and Garigari are clearly derived from Japanese words, so the question is: should we consider these kinds of internal names Japanese names, or English names?
Consider them Japanese names, use names in official material over internal names
DrippingYellow (talk) I don't think we should consider these English names, even if they are written in English characters for the purposes of file organization.
Jdtendo (talk) I would even say that "English letters" is a misnomer: those are actually Latin letters, and they are used to write numerous languages besides English. Just because a word is written in Latin script does not mean that it is in English.
Consider them English names, use internal names over Japanese official material
Comments
This proposal passing wouldn't really change how we generally do things. Is this just to establish something more formal? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:11, December 31, 2023 (EST)
Indeed, I'm pretty sure we've HAD a proposal on this very subject before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:03, January 1, 2024 (EST)
I'm not sure it would. This proposal does not specify whether it would apply to internal names containing both Japanese and English words. Jdtendo(T|C) 05:57, January 4, 2024 (EST)
My take is that if the name is by the Japanese, the name is Japanese. SmokedChili (talk) 15:09, January 4, 2024 (EST)
Disallow the use of individual promotional artwork in character -- history -- sections
Keep 1-15
An illustration of a video game controller with the words "Image not available" overlaid above it, used as an image placeholder in the Super Mario Wiki
To see what I am talking about, check out Mario's history article. There are a bunch of white/transparent backdropped promotional artwork thumbnails spread across the whole article. They are pointless, why such? Such these mainly pad the article and serve no purpose other than to ornament the section with color or illustrations. Worse, some have captions that state the obvious or lack thereof. In History of Mario (example again) there is a picture of Mario jumping in Super Mario Bros. Wonder section, only for the caption to say: "Mario in Super Mario Bros. Wonder". Others like the images in article's sections for Dr. Mario World and Super Mario-kun lack captions and are just promotional art.
There should be a rule in the (MarioWiki) name space that should probably state that
In the character's respective "History" section, images should have a useful purpose to exist in the section (e.g. clearly explain the role of the character in the game) rather than merely illustrating or decorating the section. Promotional images depicting the character's appearance only are discouraged in order to prevent padding.
This proposal concerns image use in history sections, NOT every section in the character articles. If this proposal wins, these transparent image thumbnails in history sections should be replaced with screencaps, have some sort of plot device depicted concretely, or be captioned usefully. How would it feel?
Proposer: PnnyCrygr (talk) Deadline: January 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Sparks (talk) Per PnnyCrygr. Showing screenshots definitely beats past artwork without gameplay.
Oppose
Koopa con Carne (talk) not all promo artwork illustrates a character's appearance in a game the best it can, but that doesn't invalidate the ones who do. Case in point, the Super Mario Wonder render very concisely shows how Mario was also subjected to that game's unique aesthetic direction; an entire screenshot with various extraneous elements wouldn't communicate that as efficiently. The choice of a particular image for a section should fall under the editors' discretion and, at most, be discussed individually among users.
Biggestman (talk) Per Koopa con Carne. also it's just more fun to read something if there are images.
Waluigi Time (talk) While I can agree that these are overused and that screenshots from the game may sometimes be better for illustration than promotional artwork, a full ban from using them for history sections at all is overkill and probably going to do more harm than good. If a piece of artwork isn't illustrating something well, then it can just be replaced, that's the collaborative nature of the wiki.
FanOfYoshi (talk) This doesn't sit well with me. Per all.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per KCC--in plenty of games, screenshots can generally end up super noisy with other elements to them; not just UI, but entire enemies, other items, other characters... A screenshot is only as clear as it is focused on exactly one element, and if literally anything else is in frame, it kinda falls flat. While we can understand maybe replacing, say, Super Mario-kun's image with a scan from the manga itself, there's no real reason in the case Super Mario Bros. Wonder to force a screenshot of Mario in that game, when a render that is very specifically of Mario in that game would do the trick just as well.
Sparks (talk) Changing my vote to oppose. The characters' artwork does show how the character has evolved over the years as well. Per all.
Mario (talk) In Mario's page, I did look over the images used in the history section and Ive personally justified their inclusion. We should be trimming images on these longer pages though. We don't need a promo render for every New Soupy Goomba in the history section when Goomba hasn't changed in the slightest.
Hewer (talk) Per all, this would be a pretty pointless limitation that would hardly solve anything.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. Having those images does show how a character has evolved over the years, which is an important feature to have. It makes sense as it's supposed to be a history page, and images are history too.
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. While I prefer using screenshots, the promotional artwork still does often show how a character has evolved.
Comments
Fine. I consider now that images should be in the history section to illustrate a characters evolution over the games, with one subsection having a promo art for that. Proposal shall be failed inevitably and shall keep all those images. it isn't ripe for cancelling PnnyCrygr 18:17, December 29, 2023 (EST)
Do not delete 0-1-8
Okay, so I'm really not a fan of infoboxes that are solely focused on one game, considering how we had the Super Mario RPG bestiary infoboxes, but when the remake was announced, those suddenly had to be done away with. The 3DS version of Luigi's Mansion is faithful to the original, so there isn't as much infobox clutter, but its purpose, if anything, feels similar to those vertical bestiary infoboxes, like the Super Mario RPG ones that had to be done away with.
If this passes, all instances of the portrait ghost infobox will be replaced with the standard character infobox. My idea is that we convert it into a horizontal infobox (which should be fine, considering pages like Gobblegut do this), but I'll also leave an option for those who want to vote for its deletion entirely.
Super Game Gear (talk): Actually, this option is preferable over deleting it outright.
Leave as-is
Hewer (talk) I don't really get what the benefit is of removing an infobox designed to convey the information as efficiently as possible. The only argument given by the proposal is that an infobox specific to Super Mario RPG got removed, despitetherestillbeingseveralothergameandseries-specificinfoboxes (that wasn't even all of them). Also, as an aside, if your plan is to change the design/layout of the infoboxes, why not just make that this proposal instead of needlessly splitting it up?
Camwoodstock (talk) - Per Hewer, especially on that last point; we'd get it if this was a general "convert game-specific infoboxes to horizontal templates, and then introduce more standardized infoboxes for these articles in the future" proposal, but to change only one of those infoboxes feels... A little silly, right?
Swallow (talk) It is better than adding a lot of parameters to a standard infobox that would only be relevant to one game.
You should make horizontalizing an option, then. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:49, January 2, 2024 (EST)
I don't know how to do that, and even if we were to make something consistent across all 23 portrait ghosts (i.e. horizontal infobox in a statistics section), that would eliminate its purpose of being a vertical infobox. I'll let this proposal run its course, but would we still get consensus on converting the portrait ghost infobox into a horizontal infobox? Super Game Gear (talk) 12:31, January 3, 2024 (EST)
As long as it's within three days of the proposal's creation, you can edit it to add another option in addition to the current support and oppose options. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:45, January 3, 2024 (EST)
Do not create 1-11
Hi, i was wondering if a article can be made listing all the television networks that the Mario and Donkey Kong TV Shows and Movies aired on.
The reason we need this article on the wiki is i want to document the networks that aired the shows in every region in a list so that it can be well-documented here on the wiki and also preserved for the future for anybody that wants to know what networks aired the shows on in other regions such as Jetix for example.
Sparks (talk) I understand your idea for the networks, but there may not be that many to warrant a category for them. Per all.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Swallow--while this isn't useless information, it almost definitely doesn't need to have a whole article to itself (we're ignoring the idea of making YouTube it's own disambiguation page in this proposal because it is way out-of-scope for "just the DiC Mario cartoons"). Just expand the "Distributor(s)" section of the infobox, within reason of course (so like, don't put just straight-up "YouTube" in it.), and we don't think anyone would particularly bat an eye.
Biggestman (talk) "Here we go! Again? Again?" Again? Again? Again? Again? Again? You have already tried and failed very similar things through 8 DISTINCT TPPs, just give up. Per all.
Arend (talk) While this isn't entirely useless (to be honest, it is a better idea than the eight different proposals about adding pages for the streaming services that could've easily been made into a single proposal (could be a BJAODN contender?)), I'm also not sure if it's entirely necessary for this wiki, either. I'd take up to Camwoodstock and Mario's suggestions if I were you.
Comments
@Mario: I don't necessarily think we need this article but I disagree with the notion that this information is too irrelevant to cover on the wiki. Couldn't it be seen as the equivalent of what consoles a game can be played on? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:06, January 6, 2024 (EST)
@Arend: NGL, we already have a drafted proposal for a YouTube disambiguation page locked-and-loaded on our Notepad++. We're just waiting for the 28 day cooldown between proposals on the same topic to expire before actually, y'know, putting it to a vote. ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 12:43, January 10, 2024 (EST)
Create a navigation template for non-Mario characters
Create template 7-0
There are several characters documented on the Super Mario Wiki whom did not originate from the Mario universe, but rather an external series/franchise. These crossover characters range from Sonic the Hedgehog (and others from the titular series), Link, Kirby, Mega Man and more. Instead of having to scroll through a multi-paged category or searching and hoping they're here just to find one article, wouldn't it be more convenient for readers and editors to be able to access all of these characters via a neatly-organised navigation box?
The navbox could be sorted by either series of origin, their roles in their crossover appearances, or both. I think this would be a good idea because, as I said before, the only alternatives right now are to scroll through a giant category page or search the character's name in the search bar and hope for the best. If this proposal is approved, leave it to me to create the template; it would be my responsibility due to the idea originating from me.
Camwoodstock (talk) While the prototype sandbox version is a little rugged, actually improving the aesthetics and giving its character roster another skim is something that can be done in due time. Off the immediate top of our head, no thoughts just going, a lot of the comics characters could easily qualify, but things like that are better suited for after the template is voted into existence. What we've got so far, we think looks nice and is, above all else, easy to navigate--which, y'know, is a big thing for a navbox to do right.
Ahemtoday (talk) Just realized I hadn't supported this yet.
Tangentially related, but we just took a look at the category linked in "more", and it's a doozy. In addition to characters that are from external series altogether, such as say, Plok, characters that are from games that happen to have been co-developed by non-Nintendo companies are also clumped in here. We'd guesstimate roughly half of this category is just stuff from either Smash or Super Mario RPG, and while you can argue the former makes some sense to include, the latter absolutely shouldn't be here; especially seeing as we sure don't clump together every last Mario Party original character despite those being primarily by Hudson. If they really had to be included, the Wario Blast bosses are only included via their category being a subcategory--sure, we don't have a blanket "Super Mario RPG characters" category, but we feel like you could easily make one even if just for this. Why the hey is this not already the case for either partially or fully third-party games?
More directly related, however, with the category in its current state, we're almost hesitant to vote on this... At all. Would we just have a section that's "Here's every original character to Super Mario RPG because Square Enix isn't Nintendo! This is a helpful navbox when you're looking for Dr. Wily." Yes? Then we don't want to even think about that navbox. Are we going to hopefully repair the category and use that as a basis for the navbox? Yes? Then we might be on-board. But until then, we literally don't feel like we can vote either way in good conscience because hopefully, now that we've brought it up, this category can get all its gunk fixed. also sorry if we sound dismissive, we're not trying to be! we just want to make it clear this category is in a BAD state rn.~Camwoodstock(talk) 15:01, January 4, 2024 (EST)
I recently had a discussion with fellow user Juju1995 on how to handle the original characters of Super Mario RPG and Diddy Kong Racing for Category:Third-party characters. We didn't come to any conclusion, however. Other than the idea to add subcategories I gave there, another possible solution to fixing Category:Third-party characters would be to tighten the definition to characters that are both not owned by Nintendo or its subsidiaries and come from a series also not owned by Nintendo or its subsidiaries. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:24, January 4, 2024 (EST)
We feel like the requirements kinda need to be tightened, because in the current state the category is just flooded with Smash and SMRPG characters... And redirects to Mega Man's article as various forms he's taken on in the different spinoff series, just because of his Final Smash. (...Do any articles at all actually use these redirects? We might need to make a proposal on that.) ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 22:15, January 4, 2024 (EST)
You'd also have to apply the definition change to Category:Third-party species and Category:Third-party locations, even though neither category is in quite as bad a state as the one for characters. The fact we even have more than one "third-party" category makes my idea about adding subcategories no longer viable. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 23:49, January 4, 2024 (EST)
I understand that the category is currently in a higher priority as of now in terms of fixing, reorganization and whatnot. Therefore, wouldn't a navbox also be convient in that scenario too? It's obviously gonna take a while to fix the category, so users and readers currently have to just wait for the issue to be resolved for an easier method of finding this type of characters. As I said before, the navbox would be far more organized than how the category currently is. So, it wouldn't really make sense to not do it in many regards. Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. 07:07, January 5, 2024 (EST)
We suppose that makes sense, we just wanna make it abundantly clear that copy-pasting the category 1:1 for the navbox is a Terrible, Awful, No Good Idea™, since... well, you've heard us gob about the state of the category for a bit now, we hopefully don't need to repeat ourselves. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 09:22, January 5, 2024 (EST)
You are correct, but the navbox obviously wouldn't include every article from the category. Firstly, any redirects wouldn't be included. Secondly, there are a few characters that wouldn't count as necessary (e.g. the Super Mario RPG characters arguably don't exactly count as third-party since they only appear in a Mario game). Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. 10:00, January 5, 2024 (EST)
Touche, not including redirects is kind of a given, and odds are the SMRPG characters are not long for the category. We're still a little too concerned to vote one way or the other, seeing as we'd like to see a draft of what the template could look like before making any solid decisions, but this has our provisional approval now, now that that's been made clear. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 10:32, January 5, 2024 (EST)
"...we'd like to see a draft of what the template could look like before making any solid decisions..." If you do want me to do this, I'd happily make a proof-of-concept in my user sandbox page. Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. 11:14, January 5, 2024 (EST)
I've finished making the navbox, and it can be viewed in my sandbox! Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. 13:13, January 5, 2024 (EST)
We like what we're seeing here! While there's a few characters that got missed in the absolute chaos that is the article in its current state--mostly characters that are only in various comics (pouring one out for my boy Plok right now and obligatory mention of the true Classics of Article that is Chuckie)--there's ample time to remedy that and manually cross-check everything; hopefully once the category's pruned of all the SMRPG stuff and is easier to review, we can get to adding what was missed, but we definitely like the list we're seeing. We think it's a good sign that we're thinking of what else we can include for the sake of thoroughness, rather than asking what we need to remove for the sake of pruning extraneous characters that shouldn't have been added in the first place. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 15:03, January 5, 2024 (EST)
Thank you for your feedback! I know the proof-of-concept isn't exactly the highest quality, and I am aware there are many characters I missed (keeping track of them all is harder than you think), but I'm glad it at least strengthened this proposal's chances of being approved! Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. 06:01, January 6, 2024 (EST)
A silly question; we'd like to potentially release a proposal that would impact the Third-party characters category, albeit only in regards to articles that are present to it via redirects--specifically about the presence of many copious redirects to Mega Man just because of his Final Smash. Could we start that now, or should we wait for this proposal to conclude first? ~Camwoodstock(talk) 10:32, January 5, 2024 (EST)
I see no problem with doing so. Go ahead! SolemnStormcloud (talk) 11:49, January 5, 2024 (EST)
There seems to be a lot of talk about the third-party characters in this proposal for a non-Mario characters navigational template. However, I'd like to remind everyone that characters such as Link, Bubbles, Inkling and Villager are also non-Mario characters, being from The Legend of Zelda, Clu Clu Land, Splatoon and Animal Crossing respectively. Since only third-party characters are being discussed here, I thus have to ask if Category:Characters from other Nintendo games will also be included on the navigation template, since they aren't Mario characters either. I have to assume as such because Nintendo characters like Link and Kirby are mentioned by the proposer, but no one else seems to talk about it! I can imagine that the template would get subcategories like "Nintendo characters" and "Third-party characters" and then go from there, and then have an "Other" subcategory for the Smash Bros. character lists since these lists contain both Nintendo and third-party characters from Brawl onwards. rend(talk)(edits) 17:02, January 6, 2024 (EST)
Oh my goodness, you're right! My apologies, I was completely unaware of this category until now. I also have to admit I completely forgot about characters such as Bubbles and more, so while I did account for characters such as Link, Kirby and Villager, it's even more obvious how many characters I overlooked. The prototype I made is merely a proof-of-concept and doesn't entirely reflect how the navbox will look if this proposal is approved. Therefore, I wasn't too worried about including every character in case it took too long or I made some inaccuracies. However, I may make a second revision to accompany for these additions just for the sake of convenience. Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. 07:58, January 7, 2024 (EST)
I definitely see the reasoning behind sorting characters in the navbox by what Mario media they appear in, but the issue with that is that they can easily appear in multiple things. I see you have them listed in multiple places on the navbox, but I just feel like we're bound to end up with a bunch of duplicate entries. Do you think it would make more sense to categorize them by their source series, instead? Ahemtoday (talk) 13:32, January 7, 2024 (EST)
I can see how that makes sense. I did say above that I will make a second revision, so I will keep that in mind. Yours truly, RetroNintendo2008. 14:42, January 7, 2024 (EST)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies
Remove 8-0
A bit of an extension of this proposal, but this time focusing solely on Super Mario RPG enemies and bosses. Lots of enemies in this game can use exact same spells such as Flame Wall and Water Blast, which then leads to Category:Fire creatures and Category:Water creatures being added to every single article of enemies that use those attacks (this even leads to Czar Dragon being in Water creatures, and look at the amount of categories Valentina falls under). I still think this is taking these categories a bit too far and because these spells are shared between lot of different enemies I don't think they fit too well.
Proposer: Swallow (talk) Deadline: January 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Sparks (talk) Per Swallow. There are too many enemies that can do lots of elemental attacks, such as Czar Dragon, a fire enemy that can do Water Blast.
Camwoodstock (talk) Now that you've pointed it out, we can't unsee it. How is Zombone, the undead version of the fiery Czar Dragon, only an Air creature? This ought to have been done awhile back, frankly--per proposal.
LinkTheLefty (talk) If Pokémon has taught us anything, it's that move attributes aren't necessarily indicative of monster types.
Mario (talk) Just imagine if Mario and Pokemon had a crossover.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Way too many elemental abilities per enemy, so going with Spark's vote. Imagine if those categorized enemies were airbenders, waterbenders, firebenders, et cetera, or even Avatars.
Mister Wu (talk) Well, yeah, definitely the spells that they can cast don’t necessarily define what they are. I’m still not sure why they thought that the Czar Dragon should be able to cast Water Blast, though…
Oppose
Comments
You think Valentina's bad? Exor falls under almost all of the elemental creature categories, only missing Category:Air creatures. Category:Water creatures isn't listed, but Exor's Neosquid Mouth can use Water Blast. Yeah, that's excessive. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 16:09, January 6, 2024 (EST)
Rename the "List of <cartoon> episodes with <character>" articles to "History of <character> in <cartoon>" (and also, don't category-ify them)
Do nothing 2-1-4
The following proposal covers the following articles:
Since categories have apparently become talk of the town, we thought we'd revisit a proposal we made ourselves. It's been over a month since a proposal we created to convert the List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa article (and later, a few others) to categories, and while the changes from the proposal haven't been implemented, but in the time since then, we've had second thoughts about that proposal in the first place. So, we thought we'd put it into a new proposal, seeing as we can't exactly withdraw a proposal that's technically already passed.
Originally, the plan was to convert this article, as well as the aforementioned articles, into categories. But having looked at them now, we feel like we understand what they're trying to do better. In Hip Koopa's case, this was information already present elsewhere, but in the other articles' cases, this is actually split off from their History articles, and in Candy Kong's case, it's just split off from her article outright. We don't think a category cuts it for coverage anymore; especially since a merge to the pre-existing History articles, or in Candy Kong's case, to her article, would actually be more cumbersome than what we're doing. These were split off for a reason, mostly for the sake of size. People can get a general overview of, say, Mario in the DiC Cartoons in the History of Mario page, and then go to the subpages to learn about his role in every episode individually, since it'd otherwise take up too much space in the article. In the extreme case with poor Candy Kong, her article length would literally be doubled by a merge!
There's just three options this time, and hopefully, they're easier to understand too:
Keep the articles, and rename to "History of <character> in <cartoon>": The change is simple enough--just rename the articles! These are already functionally history articles, which are only really "list" articles in the sense that they divide things up by episode; the only change would be to the name! And, you know, not saying that we're going to turn these into categories later.
Keep the articles, but keep the "List of" name: Alternatively, we could simply overturn the proposal to turn these into categories, but retain the current names they have. We don't see why you'd do that but then not rename, but to each their own, we suppose.
Do nothing: The prior proposal will still need to be done in this case, seeing as this is to overturn a proposal that, while it passed, hasn't been enacted yet.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: January 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Keep the articles, and rename to "History of <character> in <cartoon>"
Camwoodstock (talk) We think we've made it clear this is our choice by now. These articles do have merit in existing as split articles, something we failed to see back then and have been kicking ourselves for (that's an exaggeration, but it's irked us!). However, we wish to address that naming misnomer, and hopefully clear up these articles' intent in the future; both to prevent stuff like this from happening again, but also to make it easier to find these articles for people who need them. It's a little silly how, as far as we've been able to find thus far, these are the only articles that go over a character's history, yet are named "List of".
Hewer (talk) I still don't think it's really necessary to keep these split from the history sections/articles but I do see the argument for it and this is a better naming choice if that's what we're going with (and we should probably also make more of these articles for other characters if this passes).
Keep the articles, but keep the "List of" name
Camwoodstock (talk) If all else fails, while we dislike the "List of" name and feel it's a misnomer, we dislike the idea of these becoming categories and being merged even more now that we've had time to reflect. Especially now that we've seen other such problem categories; this has the potential to get out of hand, fast, and we'd like to nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem for some poor user in 2033.
Do nothing (Proceed with categorization per previous TPP)
Ahemtoday (talk) I'm not really convinced by articles being longer — in my mind, if there are more things to cover in an article, then... yeah, it should get longer. This goes double for the History articles, which basically exist because they're huge — if they weren't, then they wouldn't be necessary; they'd just be part of the main article. And it seems silly to me to have the Mario article, which then splits off into History of Mario, and then that splits off into History of Mario in The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 and History of Mario in The Super Mario Bros. Super Show. You'd need a dedicated proposal encompassing a lot more than just the cartoons to convince me we should do something like that.
Hewer (talk) Can't decide whether this is my first or second option but per Ahemtoday (and if this option passes then we ought to expand the history sections/articles of other characters to also cover their roles in every episode).
PnnyCrygr (talk) After further consideration, I have decided to oppose this change because it is confusing; per everyone.
Comments
Why not make categories anyway while still keeping the split articles? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:35, January 6, 2024 (EST)
If there's enough demand, we could add that as an option; though personally we're worried about over-complicating this proposal as-is, when the original was already probably needlessly over-complicated in retrospect. ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:27, January 6, 2024 (EST)
I feel like it might even be doable without a proposal, I just wanted to make clear that I don't think making categories and keeping the pages are mutually exclusive. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:57, January 6, 2024 (EST)
I think in the end we should just have a list of episodes they appear, plus perhaps a sentence or two of their roles in in a collapsible, similar to Koopa Paratroopa having these lists of levels they appear in. There's no need to provide exact summaries of their particular roles in these episodes. It works well enough for Yoshi, see History_of_Yoshi#Super_Mario_World_television_series which I think the list is presentable enough. Now, for characters like Mario, it's probably better to list what episodes he doesn't appear in or doesn't play a big role anyway, buuuuut I still don't think the split episode pages are useful even for Mario in the end. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:03, January 6, 2024 (EST)
WTF, why do any of these pages exist? How many AOSMB3 episodes DON'T have Mario in them, or DKC episodes without DK? I don't think you need to do any restructuring or renaming of any of these, just delete them all. Shadow2 (talk) 00:13, January 9, 2024 (EST)
See the previous proposal on them. Despite their names, the purpose of these articles isn't just to list episodes that the characters are in, it's to be like a history section explaining their roles in each episode. Hence why the aim of this proposal is to fix the misleading names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:55, January 9, 2024 (EST)
Create a category for cowhands
Create a category for cowhands 11-0
Howdy pardners! I was taking a look at the current discussion going on in the Category talk:Pirates page, and Mario made a suggestion to create a category for cowboys (but to address to both genders, I've decided to name it cowhands).
The problem is, I don't know how many cowhands there are in the Mario franchise. The only one I can think of is Bravado, because it was from Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope, a game I have played. So as such, I would kindly request that any viewers who see this proposal to add characters in the comments. If this proposal passes, a category on cowhands will be created and added to all necessary characters.
Proposer: Sparks (talk) Deadline: January 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
PnnyCrygr (talk) On second thought, maybe it's for the best; organization allows for greater convenience of finding what character you want to find. In this case, cowhands. If this proposed category weren't there, there would be no convenient spot to find cowhand character articles.
Mario (talk) Stick 'em up. We have pirates and ninjas. Might as well have something for the cow people.
Camwoodstock (talk) Alright, you're now as ready as you'll ever be to experience "The Mario Wiki Category With No Name". Good luck. (per all)
Tails777 (talk) I've been thinking it over for a while and I have supported the idea from the get go, but I do believe making sure other similar categories are organized properly first so that this one can follow suit. Cause there's a difference between being a cowboy/cowgirl and dressing up as one.
#PnnyCrygr (talk) Probably unnecessary, and I too think the number of Super Mario cowhands featured here are scarce. #Super Mario RPG (talk) Per PnnyCrygr. #Swallow (talk) I can't think of any western characters either. EDIT: maybe the three Paper Macho outlaws in Paper Mario: The Origami King even if they're basically dressed and named that for a theater performance, and still wouldn't be enough to warrant a category.
Might need a different name so it wouldn't be confused for "Characters made in Western countries". Because that's what I first thought of instead of anything related to the Wild West, Old West or Western Frontier. rend(talk)(edits) 01:18, January 15, 2024 (EST)
I guess I can change it to "Old West characters". That would be better and less confusing. Sparks (talk) 08:44, January 15, 2024 (EST)
Cowboys still exist in real life, though, that wasn't solely a frontier/goldrush occupation. That's just where they had (or for many fictional depictions, still have) the most popularity; note that some of the included characters aren't really 'old' West-themed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:35, January 16, 2024 (EST)
Perhaps the name "Category:Cowhands" could work instead? SolemnStormcloud (talk) 11:02, January 16, 2024 (EST)
Maybe cowhands is the right word, but does it fit all of these characters? Sparks (talk) 11:06, January 16, 2024 (EST)
Name changed to "cowhands" for the time being. If someone has a better name idea you're welcome to speak it. Sparks (talk) 20:30, January 16, 2024 (EST)
Might as well put this here. Here is a list of all characters that would be affected by this proposal if it passes (please note that I'm not super familiar with Saturday Supercade, so I apologize in advance):
Noted! Sparks (talk) 20:46, January 16, 2024 (EST)
Note for the above list: Please don't add in any of King Koopa's alter egos that fit the category, because the article is a list and even has alter egos that would fit other categories like Category:Pirates. Sparks (talk) 21:22, January 16, 2024 (EST)
Legitimize the usage of tabber to compare between appearance iterations of locations and minigames in general
do not change 3-10
This proposal aims to legitimize the use of the tabber template based on the two already approved cases: minigames in the Mario Party series and race courses in the Mario Kart series. Both of these pre-approved cases compare the different iterations of a minigame and race courses respectively.
I'm aware that there's been conflict and confusion over the use of the tabber template. For example, recurring WarioWare microgames have not been approved when the case for using them is very similar to the Mario Party minigames. It's difficult to determine what the fine line is, but the documentation shows a rule of thumb that's based on the pre-approved cases. If the proposal passes, this will allow using tabber solely for the purpose of comparing between different iterations of locations and minigames. The exception to this is major recurring locations that do not exist in the same iteration and form throughout their appearances, such as Bowser's Castle and Peach's Castle. Tabber will continue to be used only in infoboxes.
Here are some examples of what will be allowed and what counts as "comparing between appearance iterations," if this proposal passes, and anything very similar to these cases will be allowed:
Courses and rooms in a game with a remake (i.e. Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS, or Luigi's Mansion GCN to Luigi's Mansion 3DS)
Microgames in the WarioWare series
Levels in the Super Mario games and Donkey Kong Country games
And just so it's clear, proposal is not about allowing the use of tabber to compare between different formats (e.g. artwork to sprites to models), and those will remain disallowed even if this proposal passes.
Edit: I think the number of images in tabber for the proposed cases above should be no more than five, meaning pages such as World 1-1 from Super Mario Bros. won't get the template.
Somethingone (talk) Maybe it's because I'm currently much more active on a different wiki with different rules that does use tabbers often, but I don't see why this should be an issue? From what I can understand, "Tabbers need JavaScript to even work" is a bit of a non-issue when the Tabber page plainly says "For users without JavaScript, all tabbed imaged will be stacked vertically, so their infobox experience should remain unchanged." - so either it works or it's as if the Tabber wasn't there, neither of which cause significant issues. Maybe the Tabber just looks off to some people because right now, it takes the form of a basic link? A tab border and a little font change would go along way if that's the case.
Oppose
Camwoodstock (talk) While we see some merit in some tabbers, we don't really like... well, um, any of these. For "levels shared between remakes", see the state of this old revision of Bowser in the Fire Sea to see how that can backfire--if that link didn't work, it was set up with a tabber that is for Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS, yet the images provided are both Super Mario 64 DS, meaning it's functionally 2 images for the same thing; even if that were resolved in a way that was not just "removing the tabber", we don't see any substantial reason to include it when a gallery does just as good, if not better at conveying the information anyways. For Microgames, while there are some Microgames that have merged infoboxes like, say, Eject Reject where this could maybe work, it certainly doesn't# work for Microgames that function noticeably differently across their incarnations like Gold Digger that have their infoboxes split. We genuinely don't understand what is meant by "Levels in the Super Mario games and Donkey Kong Country games"--is it like Bowser in the Fire Sea above, or is it something else entirely? Nowhere is this clarified in the proposal, so we don't actually know what we're voting on here... As for NPC locations, this just kinda falls back into the remade course dilemma where the images are just too similar, and a gallery would be better fit. There are places where tabbers fit and make sense and have something over a traditional gallery, but basically all of these are not it. We've said it before, and we'll say it again; just because we have tabbers does not mean we need to use tabbers whenever one can fit.
Mario (talk) I'm opposed to tabber creep on the wiki. Tabber I think overall hinders usability in the wiki and has javascript issues.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Mon, just remove it from the places you shouldn't have put it. I'm tired of this.
DrippingYellow (talk) Wait, if I'm reading this correctly: this wouldn't even allow tabber in just an infobox, but in any situation where locations are being/could be compared. I mean, when has an "NPC Location" ever appeared in an infobox? Besides, 99 times out of 100, a "(left) Original game, (right) remake" should suffice. Hard oppose. My initial complaint has been addressed, but I still don't see the value in comparing levels in the infobox that are identical in terms of layout and only vary visually.
Swallow (talk) Per all, because of javascript we should be strictly limiting usage of tabbers rather than using it in way more areas.
Tangentially related: We'd honestly just like to let the record state, in completely unambiguous terms, we personally think that in addition to the Mario Party and Mario Kart tracks it's already permitted on, the only other place we can think of off the cuff where we should put tabbers is the Thwomp article and nowhere else, because they seems to be the only thing Nintendo has 2 concurrent designs for that they regularly fluctuate between, which is like. The primary reason to even use tabbers. Nothing in this proposal has been a concurrent design that Nintendo flips back-and-forth between, if we might add, which also probably contributes to our vote rationale, but it's already so long and we'd feel bad for adding onto it. ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 10:39, January 18, 2024 (EST)
Okay, I've added in the hard limit of five for this proposal, and I clarified that this will only apply to infoboxes. Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:47, January 18, 2024 (EST)
How could we forget him so soon,,, our socially awkward son,,, You're right, our apologies! ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:34, January 18, 2024 (EST)
@SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) To be fair, the author did clarify that this proposal only applies to infoboxes after I raised my concern about that. DrippingYellow (talk) 17:58, January 19, 2024 (EST)
@Somethingone "It either works or it's as if the tabber wasn't there" isn't quite accurate in practice; If the tabber doesn't work, then you can definitely sense it is missing by the fact that the infobox has images haphazardly stacked together with no identification. Worst-case scenario, the stacked images actually stretch the infobox vertically to more than half the length of a moderately short article. You could put labels underneath the image that show up regardless of whether javascript is on or off, but they could be seen as unnecessary while the tabber is functional. And therein lies the problem: what looks nice with tabber enabled does not necessarily carry over when JavaScript is disabled, and vice versa. We should not be relying on something external to the text and image viewing in order to make the article visually appealing. DrippingYellow (talk) 23:57, January 22, 2024 (EST)
@DrippingYellow I think you misunderstood. I said that if it was JUST "use tabbers in infoboxes". I MEANT "use tabbers in infoboxes" WITHOUT RESTRICTION ala SONIC RETRO! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:24, January 23, 2024 (CST)
Cull categories from or delete the various Mega Legends & Mega Man moveset redirects
Remove all categories, retain redirects 6-3-0-0
Pictured: Mega Man, and 6 redirects to him.
Full disclosure, we made this with the approval of the person currently running a proposal about the Third-party characters category. If this is an overstep for whatever reason, we can cancel this and launch it later on.
All of these redirects exist to lead back to one spot--Mega Man's final smash. MegaMan.EXE, Volnutt, and Star Force Mega Man are all entirely identical category wise; Mega Man series, Third-party characters, Smash 4 3DS and Smash 4 Wii U trophies, and Smash Ultimate spirits. And then Mega Man X is in all of those, and also in Robots. Protoman and Bass lack the 3DS trophy category, but have the Robots category. Rush and Beat are also part of the custom special moves categories, and robots, and the rest.
We'd get these redirects being in these categories if any of these guys had appeared in a comic or cartoon relevant to Mario like Mega Man himself did, but as far as we can tell, none of them do; they're exclusive to either Mega Man's final smash, or his Up+B move--and poor Proto Man and Bass only get to be there for Ultimate, while Beat, bless his robot bird heart, he's only here for a custom move in Smash 4! The result is that a few of these aforementioned categories just kind of get clogged with needless Mega Man's final smash or Up+B redirects--in a few cases, some of these are literally right next to one another alphabetically!
Now, we do acknowledge a counterpoint that we have categories for Smash 4 custom special moves, as well as Smash 4 trophies and Smash Ultimate spirits. This is way out of the scope of this proposal, but while we feel as though the trophies categories are largely redundant nowadays since we've been gradually scaling back Smash coverage to things that aren't related to the Mario series, we understand those categories do still currently exist, and they have trophies and spirits; those inclusions do make sense. In addition, in Rush and Beat's case, we understand their presence in Category:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U special moves entirely--they exist entirely to be the focal point of the move, and the move with Beat is literally named after him. But um... Look, we're going to be real here; outside of them being in those categories, which seem to be outdated as-is as our trophy list articles have culled any non-Mario trophies, we can't think of any other compelling category to put these guys in. Though, since they are reasonable to put them in, we have an option to retain those categories for the time being.
Now, while putting these things in categories is beyond us, we can understand keeping the redirects themselves for the sake of the Wiki search function--there's likely someone out there who's been getting to Mega Man's final smash by simply searching one of Mega Man's variants (or Proto Man and Bass), and Rush and Beat are valid names for Mega Man's Up-B in Smash. But having these all fully categorized feels... a little overkill, right?
And even worse, and our ultimate point here; having all these redirects in these categories where they don't really fit in causes certain categories to decay heavily in usability. Yeah, this is mostly about Category:Third-party characters, but also the Category:Robots category get rather gunked up because of this. Which is pretty silly when Mega Man himself is in both of those categories! So, there's a few options we can understand taking:
Remove all categories period, keep the redirects: This would effectively leave the redirects solely to catch searches. We feel this may be extreme in the case of Rush and Beat's cases, but we understand. We didn't bring it up, but the Category:Mega Man series category is related to his Smash appearances, so those would also vanish. We refuse to comment further on the state of that category, this proposal is long enough, but uh... It's a thing, alright.
Remove the Third-party characters and Robots categories, keep the trophy/spirit/custom move/Mega Man series categories and keep the redirects: Like the above, but we leave an exception for the explicitly Smash-related categories.
Remove all categories and remove the redirects: The full-on nuclear option. DELETE EVERYTHING!!! This feels a little extreme, especially in Rush and Beat's case, but we figure it's worth acknowledging it.
Do nothing: We'll just... Keep every category as they are. We don't really like this, considering Mega Man is currently linked to 9 times in the Third-party characters and Robots categories (once for his actual article and 8 redirects), but hey, we are required to have this as an option, so we're not going to decline it just because we dislike it.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: January 12, 2024, 23:59 GMTExtended to January 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to January 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Remove all categories, retain the redirects
Camwoodstock (talk) Our secondary choice, but this definitely feels like a rather nuclear option (somehow even moreso than the "delete the redirects" one!).
Mario (talk) These just take up space in the category. Them being redirects is also pretty obnoxious (if you're searching these on the wiki, maybe to check if they have any appearance in some obscure German comic the way Mega Man did, they're just all going back to that trivial part of the article) and I wouldn't be opposed to deleting these either.
Remove the Third-party characters and Robots categories, retain the redirects and Smash categories
Camwoodstock (talk) This is our primary choice, if we haven't made it clear. We do see the value in retaining those categories while they still exist in their current states, and removing them would only make sense if we began pruning Smash-related categories--not exactly unlikely, but definitely not right now, and way out of the scope of this proposal. But the Third-party characters and Robots categories should've been pruned long ago if you ask us; There's literally 8 redirects to Mega Man in these categories at the moment. Besides, even if it is true that Beat is a robot, that's not exactly helpful information when his only Mario presence is as a custom special move.
Hewer (talk) Per proposal, seeing as Mega Man already being in the categories makes the bunch of redirects a little redundant.
I'd move to pruning the Smash Bros redirects in categories such as Category:Pokémon series. It'll probably happen sooner or later but worth thinking about. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:31, January 5, 2024 (EST)
I agree, we need to get rid of all non-Super Mario content in Super Smash Bros.Super Game Gear (talk) 12:34, January 5, 2024 (EST)
sharpens axe 🪓 I'm still looking at those bloated list pages with red in my eyes. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:53, January 5, 2024 (EST)
Not to derail the discussion, but I still think we should merge those list pages on a per-game basis rather than covering the entire series, like I have partially done with the page for the original Super Smash Bros.. That way, it covers their existence and basics without needing to go into detail. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:03, January 5, 2024 (EST)
Yeah, your idea seems okay. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:16, January 5, 2024 (EST)
We saw that, and it's a nightmare. We explicitly want to save that for a future proposal, since it's way out of the scope for this proposal (which, believe us, we just made originally for Third-party characters before a category-themed rabbit hole dropped us inside it and we had to climb out of it), but in the meantime, let's play a game; how many times does Category:Mega Man series redirect you to Mega Man after several distinct article merges? ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:38, January 5, 2024 (EST)
I counted 28. Twenty-eight. (29 if you count the Charge Shot disambiguation page.) That's as many pages as most Robot Masters have hit points. Also, why do we even have redirects for Elec Man's Thunder Beam and Zero's techniques? Elec Man and Zero are not playable characters but Assist Trophies, which don't even have individual pages anymore. We also don't have redirects for moves used by non-playable Pokémon like Eevee's Take Down (nor do we need them), and I highly doubt anyone would be looking for these moves on this wiki. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 14:57, January 5, 2024 (EST)
We initially counted 29 (not even including Charge Shot!), which we think is terrifying that we somehow came out with different answers (the culprit was Thunder Beam, we forgot Elec Man was an assist trophy, probably because he isn't even in this category. Poor guy.). We think the only reason redirects like the special weapons even exist is just because of legacy--awhile back (and we mean awhile back, like, pre-Smash Ultimate), Smash moves were split into their own articles. They've somehow never been questioned until right now. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 15:27, January 5, 2024 (EST)
That's true for the Special Weapons Mega Man uses, yes, but the redirects for Thunder Beam and Zero's techniques were created pretty recently — September 24, 2023, to be exact. We had long since merged the Assist Trophy summons to the Assist Trophy page. EDIT: I discovered redirects for many other named Assist Trophy moves, also created on September 24, 2023. I don't know why we should have redirects for them but not the non-playable Pokémon's moves — or better yet, why we need them at all. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:47, January 5, 2024 (EST)
October 27, 2017
October 27, 2017
October 27, 2017
October 27, 2017
October 27, 2017
October 27, 2017
December 1, 2017
December 1, 2017
March 16, 2020
- Everyone 10+
- Seven years and older
- Twelve years and older
- Parental Guidance
- Six years and older
- General audience
- Six years and older
- All ages
- Eight years and older
- Six years and older
- Parental guidance
- Seven years and older
- Seven years and older
Game Card
Digital download
- Everyone
- Three years and older
- General
- All ages
Optical disc
Game Card
