MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Sunday, June 9th, 04:31 GMT

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

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

How to

Rules

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

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

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

---

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

Rules

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge the corresponding chef-named recipes (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Silver Credit and Gold Credit to Silver Card and Golden Card, respectively (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Moo Moo back to cow (discuss) Deadline: June 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Spike Top derived from both Buzzy Beetles and Spinies (discuss) Deadline: June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Samus from List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move attack info from Super Hammer to Spin Hammer and move the latter to Super Hammer (move) (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Add Mario Bros. as a related game to the Super Mario series (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Chain Chompikins from Madame Broode to Big Chain Chomp (discuss) Deadline: June 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move List of Toad Town News in Paper Mario to simply "Toad Town News" (discuss) Deadline: June 18th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Young Link and Toon Link info to Link's article (discuss) Deadline: June 20th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Baby Donkey Kong to Baby DK (discuss) Deadline: June 21st, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Grifty to be a Little Mouser (discuss) Deadline: June 22, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)

Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)

Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing, DrippingYellow (ended May 26, 2024)

• ^Note: Requires action from admins.

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)

Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)

Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)

Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Make "Bestiary" its own namespace

Sure, we have a namespace for galleries, but I don't see why we can't do the same for bestiaries. It's the same kind of "special" article that I would define galleries as as well. Therefore, I propose that we rename every instance of [XX] bestiary to Bestiary:[XX].

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: October 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 2, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per proposal.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
3. Niiue (talk) Per proposal.
4. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal. Why not?
5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) This is (similar to?) one of the things Zeldawiki does that I think we should too.
6. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
7. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all.
8. Eldritchdraaks (talk) Switch sides again, Per Toadette's comment.
9. Camwood777 (talk) - Just because we've got fewer bestiaries than galleries doesn't really give much an excuse. This helps keep the wiki more organized than it would be, and that's more than a good enough reason IMO.

Oppose

1. Tucayo (talk) - For galleries it made sense because most major articles had one (there are currently 319); for bestiaries, I don't see the point at all. There are 12 proper bestiaries, I don't think this warrants a namespace by any means.
2. Time Turner (talk) Per Tucayo. I also don't see the benefit of this; it seems like more hassle then it's worth for little payoff when considering the few bestiaries on the page.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Tucayo.
4. Alex95 (talk) - Originally supported, but considering the number of bestiaries there are, per Tucayo.
5. Lcrossmk8 (talk) I don't think we have enough pages of this thing to make it into a separate namespace. Per all.
6. NSY (talk) Per my comment below and Tucayo.
7. Ghost Jam (talk) Per all. I see what's trying to be done here, but it seems overly fiddly considering what is being effected, making this extra work for little reward.
8. Shokora (talk) Per all.
9. Mario Kart DS Fan (talk)Really?! Per all.
10. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all. At least for now I don't see why this is needed.

Comments

I might just be a bit dumb, but I don't fully understand what this means or what the difference is. Could you give an example?-- 12:15, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

For example, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary would become Bestiary:Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga if this were to pass. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

I can only see one problem with this. On every enemy page where the enemy template is placed, transcluding its info from the bestiary page, they look like this:

{{:Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary|transcludesection=Bowser|align=horizontal|image=[[File:BowserRoarSmallAni.gif]]}}

The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.-- 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

Sounds like bot work. 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

Could we keep the current names as redirects until all of the transclusions are fixed?

Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 14:05, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Ultimate Mr. L: Isn't that a standard measure? @Alex95: That was my exact plan for fixing those pages. ^(T|C) 17:37, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Tucayo: "There's too little" is not an argument in and of itself. It's so that normal readers don't get confused into thinking it's an actual article. ^(T|C) 18:00, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

They are articles, though?? What makes them any different from quote pages, lists of badges, recipes, assist trophies, etc.? Bold + italics doesn't make it true. --™ The 'Shroom 22:01, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

Those are actual list articles. Bestiaries are not technically list articles; they are rather pages that are there to have individual sections be transcluded onto actual articles. ^(T|C) 22:07, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

But they are still articles by themselves. I truly fail to see the point here. --™ The 'Shroom 22:09, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

Again, why do you think that they're actual articles? They are not meant to be. ^(T|C) 08:25, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

If we gonna have them as separate namespaces I honestly think the category should expand to all list articles since they are the very similar to bestiaries. I honestly think having a separate namespace for just 12 pages for something very specific is inconsistent and unprofessional. NSY (talk)

@NSY: Again, bestiaries ARE NOT technically list articles; they are relevant sections of a page transcluded onto other articles, and having too few does not make too much of a difference. Also, could you please elaborate on the "inconsistency" argument? I understand it less so than Tucayo's arguments. ^(T|C) 15:10, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Well according to dictionary.com a list is defined as "a series of names or other items written or printed together in a meaningful grouping or sequence so as to constitute a record". Pretty certain an article that has a record of every enemy and their stats falls under that. It's inconsistent because these would the only list articles that got their own namespace, what about the articles listing all the mini games in a Mario Party game, would they also get their own namespace. NSY (talk)

No, because that's an actual list:

• Balloon Burst
• Bombs Away
• Crazy Cutter

Where as the bestiaries are tables:

Name	Location	HP	Items
Bowser	Castle	100	Key
Goomba	Plains	3	Mushroom
Koopa Troopa	Mountains	12	N/A

We don't list out the enemies on a bestiary like we do for every single list on this site. The lists are spilt up into categories, like the Species list, and they only have a name that links to it's main article, ONLY. Nothing else about that link exists on the page.-- 17:32, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

However, there are some "list" articles such as List of enemy formations in Paper Mario that are tables, so the lists are not always simply just a name that links to its main article. I agree that bestiaries are like list articles. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

Didn't know that existed. Is that article necessary? If so, seems like that should be integrated into the Paper Mario bestiary.-- 17:40, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

I feel that there is enough information for it to remain separate (a proposal to merge it could be created though). Even if that and the Thousand-Year Door version were merged with their bestiaries, there are still other list articles that are more than just simply names (see Category:Lists for more examples). --TheFlameChomp (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

There is also List of Sammer Guys. The only reason why it is kept separate from Super Paper Mario bestiary is that it is a list of Sammer Guys fought in an optional thing (though the first 20 are required) and they are too similar to each other. As for another this bestiaries are, they are compendiums which is "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication(not really relevant to these bestiaries, but I am quoting this word for word)" -- definition found by searching compendiums on Bing. The list of enemy formations and others listed here may be the only exceptions, though.

Okay, this just doesn't make any sense at all. How and why in the world would we make this thing its own namespace if there are only twelve of it on the market right now? I don't get it. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

Because it's not really an article. Its main purpose is infoboxes to transclude onto articles. Because it is more than just an article, I feel it warrants its own namespace. It doesn't matter how few of them there are.

Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 19:48, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

But why does it need a separate namespace to exemplify that fact? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 20:00, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Are you suggesting that the Template namspace might be the ideal home for them? (Yeah, it just now occurred to me.) ^(T|C) 13:25, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

...No? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:11, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

Move "Rewrite-expand" to "Incomplete"

I propose we should rename {{rewrite-expand}} for such eventualities. "{{incomplete}}" perhaps? I'm not sure if this belongs in "changes" or "new features," so I'm putting it here.

Perhaps this template should say:

This article is incomplete. You can help by rewriting and expanding it to include more information.

Proposer: Woodchuck (talk) (blocked)
Deadline: October 31, 2017, 23:50 GMT

Oppose

1. Alex95 (talk) - That's just the text for {{stub}}. {{rewrite-expand}} is sort of a mix between stub and {{rewrite}}, the information needs to be rewritten, but also needs to be expanded. Saves having more than one template in a single section.
2. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Curse you, edit conflicts! Anyway... I really don't see any benefit to this. {{rewrite-expand}} doesn't necessarily mean that the article is unfinished; more often, means that it doesn't go into enough detail. All this is doing is using more words and being more specific than the template should be. Per Alex95.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Alex95.
4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) While I'd consider proposing the making of a new "To do" template like what TCRF has, we don't need to change the name of this one, particularly when what it says doesn't really appear to be any different.
5. Mario jc (talk) Per Alex.
6. Lcrossmk8 (talk) The {{rewrite-expand}} template is actually specific about how to fix the article other than filling in a bunch of nonsense or just stuff. Per all.
7. Yoshi the SSM (talk) I thought this would get mass opposition. Anyway... Per all.
8. Mario Kart DS Fan (talk) WHY?! we have the under construction template, so this will be confusing.
9. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all, I think "incomplete" is too vague. It could mean it needs more images, media, rewriting, expansion, completion, cleaning up... it's a hugely long list, and that's why we have lots of separate templates. This one means it needs rewriting and expanding, not anything else, so it needs to stay as is.
10. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) I agree that our system for tagging articles with various problems is very unintuitive and vague with the tag names. {{construction}}, {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite-expand}}, and {{stub}} need to be rethought. Luckily, Porplemontage (talk) agreed with me that {{stub-section}} was not necessary and was merged with {{stub}}.

Comments

@Woodchuck You forgot to Support your own proposal.
Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 20:03, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Wow, you literally copied the last sentence of my proposal above. Just noting that.... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Hey, hello, did you forget to support your own proposal or are you just doing that on purpose? Please don't take offense if you find this annoying, this is just a simple reminder, because I thought you forgot about it. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

Decide if Nintendo Badge Arcade constitutes a guest appearance

Following MarioWiki:Coverage, a proposal must be formed before an article can be created for a guest appearance. Nintendo Badge Arcade already has a page, but better late than never, right? Besides adhering to policy, it's important to decide on this game's coverage status for another reason: the Arcade Bunny. With every guest appearance on the wiki (SSX on Tour, Captain Rainbow, Minecraft, etc.), only the game itself receives a page, while everything of note is merely inserted onto the page. However, Arcade Bunny flies in the face of that, receiving an individual page even though it hasn't made any substantial appearances within the Mario franchise itself (and no, Costume Mario doesn't count, unless you want to have pages about Nisekoi characters and Babymetal due to what is nothing more than a reskin). The page itself doesn't have anything particularly novel, either, and it could easily be inserted into the game's page. If Nintendo Badge Arcade is considered a guest appearance, then the Arcade Bunny page is deleted and all is resolved. The game is definitely a guest appearance and not a crossover, by the way: though numerous Mario sections appear, they are 100% superficial, contributing nothing of value to the game itself, no more than the furniture in the Animal Crossing games. You could have cut-outs of Danny DeVito's head instead of Mario and nothing would be different. There's just enough Mario stuff to warrant the game's coverage on the wiki, but at the same time, there isn't enough to call it a crossover.

Let's nip this one in the bud and clean up the conundrums.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: November 4, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
2. Alex95 (talk) - Per proposal and comments below.
3. Lcrossmk8 (talk) Per all. In all honesty, I don't know. I think this page has something worth classifying it as more than a guest appearance, but seeing as how the Arcade Bunny gets a page even though he has almost nothing to do with the Mario franchise, I think this is the logical option.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) I thought long and hard about it, and yeah, creepy rabbit guy's page seems excessive, let's get rid of it.
6. Mario jc (talk) Per proposal.

Comments

@Lcrossmk8: The "status quo" directly goes against policy and was instated without anything official. We are deciding the status quo now. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:51, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

I am guessing that "support" means it should be constituted as a guest appearance and that "oppose" means it should not be constituted as a guest appearance. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. And anyway, why did nobody take a look at this before? I'm thinking we should just delete the Arcade Bunny article and not constitute Nintendo Badge Arcade as a guest appearance. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

If Nintendo Badge Arcade isn't a guest appearance, what is it? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:59, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

Thing is that several different Mario games appear in this. How would we go about listing that? 23:01, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

What are you referring to? Everything that's related to Mario is already noted on the game's page. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 23:03, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

I say that it is a mix between a crossover and a guest appearance. It crosses over multiple games but doesn't really make an impact, or...wait a minute. How in the world does this thing even matter? I don't know. All I know is that something's up with the Arcade Bunny. I don't know why, but he weirdly reminds me of the Energizer rabbit, you know, the one that appears in the commercials. I don't know, but something tells me we should not delete him. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

what Hello, I'm Time Turner. 23:10, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

If the Nintendo Badge Arcade article is deleted, would we stick "This game's artwork/sprites/whatever appeared in Nintendo Badge Arcade." in relevant articles? I'll admit the page is excessive, going into detail were it shouldn't really. 23:07, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

This proposal is not about deleting the Nintendo Badge Article. It is about whether or not the game is a guest appearance. At most, Arcade Bunny would be deleted. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 23:10, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

Ah, I see. Yeah, this and Arcade Bunny can go more in depth on the Nintendo Wiki. 23:13, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

@Lcrossmk8: I do not believe you can vote for multiple options if the proposal does not have more than two options. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Don't Relate Mario Creatures to real life ones as fact

This is my first proposal, forgive me if it's messed up. Also I couldn't find a good place for a proposal of this fashion, so I placed it here. Unless stated by Nintendo or other first party sources, Mario creatures should NOT be related to real life creatures. A prime example would be Koopa Troopa which some would call a "Tortoise". Another example would be Plessie a creature confirmed to be a dinosaur but not a confirmed species. Thus I propose that we can not assume a creature's species and label it as such. A example of why this issue can be false is Dorrie a creature we related to something in real life, but was confirmed to be something of its own. Also the Mario world is a world where platforms can appear out of thin air, and I think it's best that we try not to apply science to many aspects of the world including the creatures. To fix this I propose that no creature can be primarily labeled as anything it is not refered to (or at least not in the infobox). Any existing pages with this issue should be fixed to only include confirmed information. However a creature can still have it mentioned if they closely resemble something from real life in the Trivia or Physical Description. Also some creatures like yoshi for example is classified as a yoshi and a dinosaur, so he has multiple species, but the yoshi part takes priority as more specific and direct. Wingo is my ideal vision, with it being in his physical description (although I would alter it) and his species is inarguably "Bird".

Proposer: Chat Man (talk)
Deadline: "October 5, 2017, 23:59 GMT"

Support

1. Chat Man (talk) Per Proposal
2. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) I believe this is what led to the misclassification of Rocky Wrench to be classified to be a Koopa when heated debates throughout the years on the Rocky Wrench talk page led to the discovery that the translation was correct about it being a turtle. I think fans made the jump to Koopa when no official source made such a connection between Koopas and turtles.

Oppose

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) I think scientific accuracy and common sense are important. Ergo, this proposal kinda revolts me.
2. Niiue (talk) A lot of Mario species are clearly based on real world animals, and pretending otherwise feels detrimental to me.
3. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) There's a difference between speculation and implication. Speculation is theorizing something like Rosalina being Mario & Peach's daughter. Implication is Koopa Troopas' resemblance to turtles. Per Niiue.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
5. Mister Wu (talk) It was Nintendo which started saying that some enemies were real life animals, notably Lakitus being turtles in Super Mario Bros.. What we are doing here by relating to real life animals, when done properly, actually helps us understanding some design choices and is also a fascinating insight into the design of the characters themselves. As an example, did you know that Wingo has a color pattern (yellow beak, black feathers, orange legs) close to that of an alpine chough, which is indeed a crow, the species mentioned by the developers? Not to say that these relationships are sometimes so evident that they are even noted by people following Nintendo on social media, the example of Glydon being relevant. If you want, we can discuss replacing "is" with "is based on" or even "is likely based on" when Nintendo doesn't directly confirm it or when it is more appropriate, but removing those relationship altogether seems a bit excessive to me.
6. Baby Luigi (talk) Although I'm iffy about making definitive statements about a character's species since that veers on heavy speculation and certainty (for example, this: "Wingo is a crow who...") I don't support getting rid of the connection altogether, for reasons people have already stated. I would at least keep "based on *real life animal" or "designed after *real life animal*. Like, "Loftwings are birds that are designed after shoebills..." rather than saying they ARE shoebills.
7. Time Turner (talk) Per all, especially BL.

Comments

Didn't this proposal already happen? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 02:27, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Different proposal. This is saying don't note similarities in articles proper. For instance, not be able to say Cluckbooms look like Roosters in the articles, and also take the category away. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

How about keeping the information as trivia (ie. so and so creature closely resembles a real-world species), but removing it out of the introductory paragraph? LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

Call a spade a spade, I say. We may be overstepping our bounds to definitively say that x character is literally some real-world species, but it'd be cumbersome and counterproductive to shove any mention of real-world animals to trivia sections, especially when their origins are obvious. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 13:25, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

It would make sense to at least mention it in the physical appearance. Although the main point of the proposal is not to say it isn't a real life creature, but to say that we shouldn't list it as fact. Chat Man 13:40, 29 October 2017 (EDT)

I think we should recheck the proposal and see the main point, we of course tend to use simple wording assuming that readers acknowledge that "is" when talking about ficitonal characters can't be literal - even the "is" of Nintendo when relating to real life animals isn't literal of course. We can discuss being more strict in the wording if you think the current wording could be confusing. The classification is also another beast, as we have to accomodate official information and ease of navigation together. Since the main text of the proposal is rightfully changing - it is allowed and due when the first version didn't catch the actual intention - I would like to know what we are aiming for.--Mister Wu (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2017 (EDT)