MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 19:03, November 14, 2023 by Tails777 (talk | contribs) (→‎Support)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, June 8th, 03:45 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 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{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

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
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 28, 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)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
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

Add tabbers to race/battle course articles

There is only one race/battle course image in the infobox on each race/battle course article. Perhaps there's a possibility to add tabbers to the race/battle course articles.

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: November 18, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal
  2. Super Game Gear (talk) Pretty sure that a precedent has been set for this, but regardless, per proposer.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We were honestly under the impression a consensus was already made on this front, but for the various Mario Kart tracks, this is definitely fine.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  5. Arend (talk) I was also under the impression that this was generally agreed upon in a prior proposal, with many that supported for the Tabber using Mario Kart courses as an example. Since I voted in support of that option with the Mario Kart courses in mind, might as well vote in support here as well.
  6. Tails777 (talk) I supported using Mario Kart as an example. That support still stands. Per all.

Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I want to point out that tabber does not work if JavaScript isn't working. As such, anyone who 1: is using an older system that lacks JavaScript functionality; 2: has JavaScript intentionally disabled; 3: has bandwidth issues and can only load basic HTML; will not be able to see anything but the default tab - or all the images stacked on top of each other awkwardly.
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Doc. Also, Zelda Wiki does this en masse, and let me just say: ew, no.
  3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all, we need to not be similar to Zelda Wiki at all, and tabbers can feel very clunky sometimes

Comments

To clarify, is this about expanding the recent talk page proposal for Mario Party microgames that declared we'd add tabs for multiple images in the case of Mario Party minigames specifically, so that this will cover other templates? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 17:26, November 11, 2023 (EST)

Is this proposal about allowing the use of tabber template on those articles or setting a specific precedent for using them on said type of articles? The template documentation broadly says that it should not be used for anything other than infobox images. Super Game Gear (talk) 17:35, November 11, 2023 (EST)

Is this proposal really necessary? I thought this was already agreed upon in the minigame infobox talk page proposal. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:50, November 11, 2023 (EST)

Yeah, literally all the votes for using tabs (aside from proposer's, RickTommy (talk)) suggested that this option is useful enough to be used for other infobox templates as well, and four of those five votes cited the Mario Kart course infoboxes in particular. The documentation for the Tabber template, which Super Game Gear already linked to, only specifies it shouldn't be used for anything but infobox templates; it does not specify that it should only be used for Mario Party minigame infoboxes: all infoboxes should be fair game, as long as it's used within an infobox. We've already seen the Tabber template being used on articles that aren't about minigames, such as Thwomp and Fire Piranha Plant, you'd think that would be enough green light to apply the Tabber template on Mario Kart courses without the need of a proposal. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 09:53, November 12, 2023 (EST)
Dang, it's already on Thwomp uncontested? Like, "the article with an entire proposal just about what image to use for him" Thwomp? In that case, unless someone really, really objects, we could probably just cancel this proposal by proxy of it having technically already been allowed. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:49, November 12, 2023 (EST)
True. Personally, I think it'd be better to discuss on the template's talk page to clear up on where to expand the scope — and where to limit it — instead of going through countless of proposals like this to gradually decide which pages should be allowed to have the template, especially when the scope is technically already as broad as it can be.
For instance, since the original proposal already decided this for Mario Party minigames, I think that means Mario Kart courses (and their maps), as well as WarioWare microgames, should be fair game too. But as for characters, species and objects, I believe the rule of only using the most recent image for the infobox should still be adhered. While using a Tabber template for enemies with multiple recurring appearances in modern day like Thwomp would be allowed, I think it's kinda silly if we used the same template for Mario's infobox, for example. I also think the Tabber template would be useful to show different regional game boxarts (like how WiKirby does it), but we should put a limit on which regions can be shown. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 16:25, November 12, 2023 (EST)
I think tabber needs to be used within reason, like not adding tons of miscellaneous screenshots, for instance but definitely to avoid galleries with only one image, as I feel it defeats the whole purpose of a gallery. Super Game Gear (talk) 20:49, November 12, 2023 (EST)
Gonna be real here, we don't exactly think anyone's going to be cramming a full gallery's worth of images into these. If it's really that large a concern, we could always try to enforce a "maximum images allowed in an infobox" thing, but being real here... We don't ever see it exceeding 4 naturally anyways, and even then, 4 is an extremely rare case limited basically just to a select few Mario Party minigames. Unless you really want to do that for Gold Digger. But... Don't, those infoboxes are already split up for reasons unrelated to images. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:13, November 13, 2023 (EST)

I also want to point out that Porple, the proprietor, said he doesn't want to see tabber used on the wiki on its talk page. Granted, that was some time ago. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:11, November 13, 2023 (EST)

Being the proprietor shouldn't mean overturning a passed proposal for no reason other than personal preference (and Porple also happens to be the one who enacted the proposal). Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:45, November 13, 2023 (EST)
I didn't say it did. But a lot of people here care about his opinion on matters like this regardless. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:51, November 13, 2023 (EST)
We mean... If it bothers Porple enough/if Porple's changed his tune at some point, he could always just. Vote on this proposal himself. We probably shouldn't be voting for him. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:13, November 13, 2023 (EST)

@Doc Von: So, we fired up our rinkydink Windows XP Virtual Machine, opened Firefox 52.9.0, and went to an article with a tabber (specifically, the version of Thwomp before it had its tabber stripped.) And uh, it worked. We... Genuinely were not expecting it to run--we had issues with that VM a few days ago and about a week ago went through a nightmarish program setup regimen on it that felt like it only worked by a hair, but this worked without literally any fuss whatsoever. We would wager any system too old to load tabbers are too old to connect to the internet at this point--pretty much only leaving severe bandwidth issues causing them to fail to load outright or devices specially configured to prohibit JavaScript in the first place as the only scenarios where tabbers wouldn't work. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:13, November 13, 2023 (EST)

@Koopa con Carne & MegaBowser64: Generally why I suggested earlier in the comments that we should probably discuss where to expand and/or limit the scope for the Tabber template. As I stated, using it for the Mario Party minigames, Mario Kart courses and WarioWare microgames is fine, and using it for video game boxarts (a la WiKirby) should also be fine as long as we put a limit on which regions should be shown, but using it for any character, object and species as well would be a bit silly. Aside from cases such as Thwomp and Fire Piranha Plant, the most recent artwork for those kinds of subjects should still be adhered IMO. I don't think any of us in support of the Tabbers would want cases like the Zelda Wiki, where literally every iteration for literally any subject is featured in an infobox. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 14:12, November 13, 2023 (EST)

I'm definitely in agreement that tabber on major recurring subjects would definitely be going too far, unless this wiki were to be entirely overhauled to have Zelda Wiki's format, then I might reconsider. I'm generally in favor of using Tabber for content with minimal appearances, such as like something that only appears in one, two, or three games, as this can help avoid some annoying single-image galleries. And for if others want to see all images at once, they can create a gallery page to showcase that. Super Game Gear (talk) 14:22, November 13, 2023 (EST)

Add playable appearance of a character in their infobox

One of the most important aspects of a wiki is knowing what is "first" for a particular subject. In the Super Mario franchise, there have been multiple instances of a previously non-playable character becoming playable for the first time. For example, Peach's first playable appearance was in Super Mario Bros. 2, Yoshi's first playable appearance outside of a mount was in Super Mario Kart, Piranha Plant's first playable appearance was in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, and Bowser made his first playable role in Super Mario Kart, a fact that the wiki ignores. And I nearly forgot this one, but you know what is Donkey Kong's first playable appearance? Donkey Kong Circus. Granted, as the original DK, but still. This proposal aims to have character and species infoboxes list a character's first playable appearance in the Super Mario franchise. I wish to show an example of what that can look like, but I have no idea how to make a custom template that slightly edits another one. So for Bowser's article, we'll list this:

Here, an onlooker will be able to find out the first playable appearance of the Super Mario character within their franchise. For crossover characters, the article will list their origin playable role, alongside their first appearance in a game we cover on the wiki. For characters whose debut appearance is also their playable appearance (Mario in Donkey Kong), only their first appearances will be listed, as it would be redundant. For crossover characters, rather than listing both of their first appearances (non-Super Mario and Super Mario appearances), it'll only list their Super Mario appearance. We only need their first playable appearance, but there is another option to include their latest one.

Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk)
Deadline: November 21, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Include only their first playable appearance

  1. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) per proposal

Include both their first and latest playable appearance

Include neither

  1. Hewer (talk) This will inevitably lead to headaches about whether a given appearance counts as playable - even in the proposal, you mentioned that Yoshi was playable as a mount before his first "full" playable appearance. And there's other similar cases too - in a capture, are you playing as Mario or the thing being captured? In Dr. Mario, are you playing as Dr. Mario himself or the pills he throws? In Minion Quest, are you playing as the units you have partial control over? etc., etc. Not to mention this will be entirely irrelevant for the many characters who appear not in games but in other media. We do sometimes note in history sections and such when a game is unambiguously the character's first playable appearance, and I feel like that's sufficient. Also, the proposal seems to contradict itself on whether the original appearances of crossover characters count.
  2. Swallow (talk) Per Hewer, just listing what game the character first appeared in regardless of role is enough. This can also clutter the infoboxes and could lead to others trying to add first/latest appearances of other kinds of scenarios.

Comments

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Remove conjectural treasure names from Wario Land stage articles

The Wario Land II and Wario Land 3 stage articles try to label every single piece of treasure with a unique name, even if they were never officially given one. Wario Land 3 at the very least makes some sense, since a good chunk of the treasures were given official names, and they are listed in a table on the main WL3 article. But for Wario Land II, every single treasure has a conjectural name, often originating from when the articles were created 14 years ago. These conjectural names serve little purpose, since usually conjectural names are given to subjects notable enough to have their own article, whereas here they are functionally identical collectibles tied to certain stages. Personally, I would just remove all the WL2 names to make it more consistent with the nameless treasures from Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3.

Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: November 17, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Remove Wario Land II names only

  1. DrippingYellow (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) These ones have no official names as far as I know, and presenting it as such feels a bit like a relic of a bygone era. Keep the basic descriptions like "this resembles a Metroid" or "this looks like a Game Boy", but otherwise, these "names" don't have to be listed in the sections. Wario Land 3 is a little different since those ones all have names and fulfill other gameplay functions. Basically, just treat them like the first game and it's fine.

Do nothing

  1. MegaBowser64 (talk) After viewing the conjectural names, most of them seem to be very straightforward descriptors, they don't seem to be doing much harm there.

Comments

I'm a little confused with what the second option aims to do. Is it just the remaining few conjectural Wario Land 3 names? Because I can get the rest of those from the Shogakukan guide. I can also double-check the Shogakukan guide of the second game, but I'm pretty sure the treasures are still unnamed there. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:09, November 12, 2023 (EST)

...Probably should've considered that. I didn't realize that the Shogakukan guide had any treasure names. Looking back, I'm not sure why I even added that option in the first place, so I removed it. Feel free to add the other names when you find them! DrippingYellow (talk) 16:36, November 12, 2023 (EST)

@MegaBowser64 The problem I have isn't that these all have unfitting names, the problem is that there's not really any reason to give them a name. It's like giving all the Stamps conjectural names: their uniqueness is purely attributed to their visuals, so if you want to give them identifiers, just... describe them. The treasure names being descriptive is honestly all the more reason why they shouldn't be there, since you can just refer to treasures as what they are, rather than as unique entities with Proper Names (e.g. "The hidden treasure, a goblet" VS. "The hidden treasure, the Goblet"). And as a bonus, the conjectural names also provide some awkwardness in assuming what something is when it is normally unclear, like with the Pearl Idol, the Tome, and the Cave Cone. It's not as if there's a standard being maintained by giving the treasures official-sounding names, either, since again, every single treasure has a conjectural name. Names made up for the sake of neatness just don't feel in line with the spirit of MarioWiki to me. DrippingYellow (talk) 23:57, November 12, 2023 (EST)

But in 3, a majority of them do have a distinct function for opening other stages and causing changes in their gimmicks. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:05, November 13, 2023 (EST)
Indeed, hence why I removed 3 from the proposal. Still, it seems weird to use Wario Land 3 as a baseline for Wario Land II's names, especially when, as I mentioned at the top, Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 doesn't seem to have named its treasures either. DrippingYellow (talk) 00:21, November 13, 2023 (EST)

On merging and/or splitting Super Paper Mario's implied characters

Pictured: Someone too cool to share an article (maybe.)

First and foremost, our sincerest apologies if the following proposal is a little scatterbrained in its initial descriptor: we are writing this at Literally 2AM.

So, we were reading random Wiki articles before bed (as we are want to do), and we stumbled upon this, and it jogged our memory, because this is something that's always confused us. In Super Paper Mario, in the leadin to the bossfight against King Croacus IV, you get little glimpses of the prior Croacus leaders. Now, this is a cool detail and all, but these guys never... Physically appear, in the flesh. Because they're dead and all that.

Usually, when there's just a minor character whose presence is only implied, they just get clumped in to the List of implied characters--we do this with a few characters in SPM that only hold worldbuilding relevance and never get to appear in-game already, namely King Sammer I and the Legendary Pixl.

...And then there's the Tribe of Ancients. Merlimbis, Merlight, and Merloo all get lumped into this article whereas only Merlumina (the only one to appear in-game) gets her own article all to herself. Now, granted, the Tribe of Ancients are extremely important to the game's overall backstory. But the other three just get one article together, whereas the three prior Croacus leaders all get unique articles?

So, like, what's the right way to handle this, and why is (are?) the other article(s?) wrong? This has been driving us batty for a little bit, and we feel like it's about time to do something about it. We can think of a few ways to handle it:

  • Merge the three former Croacus royalty to a "Floro Sapien Royal Family" article: This feels self-explanatory, just make an article analagous to the Tribe of Ancients but for the Croacus royal family. Yes, King Croacus IV would get his own section with a "Main article:" at the start similar to Merlumina as well.
  • Split the Tribe of Ancients entirely: We would create unique articles for Merlimbis, Merlight, and Merloo to go alongside Merlumina's. To be honest, though, we feel like there might not be enough unique information on the other three to warrant a full article, so this might be difficult, though that's not to say there's zero substantial information at all.
  • Merge ALL the articles!: Why should SPM get to be so special with all these Implied characters getting full articles? ...This is kind of a "first thing you'd think of" solution, however, and that's quite a bit of information to just merge into one article. For consistency's sake, we would also merge in Squirpina XIV, seeing as she is similarly only implied yet gets her own article for story prominence. It's worth noting that King Croacus I and Squirpina XIV have multiple images on their articles--which doesn't sound all that important, but currently no Implied character has more than one image in their section, so we don't know how best to handle that.

Articles this could potentially impact:

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: November 19, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Merge Croacus royal family into one article

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) To us, this makes the most sense. They're plot-relevant characters that serve as key portions of a character's backstory, and even if they're admittedly less so than the Tribe of Ancients (being only really relevant in Chapter 5), being relegated to just a chapter didn't stop Squirpina XIV. If we're going to give them all an article separate from the List article, we may as well keep things neat and merge them all into one like we already did for the Tribe of Ancients.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per my comment below.
  3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per yall.

Split Tribe of Ancients into three additional articles for missing members

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Our secondary option would be this--while these articles do risk being rather slim, we don't see them being any stubbier than, say, Queen Croacus II or King Croacus III already are. It's also just generally a lot easier to expand information, rather than contract it, and while we definitely think it'd be worth it in the case of the "merge to a Croacus royal family article" case, we can't say the same for the "merge all" option. So, secondary option it is.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) The problem I have with the first option is that I'm fairly certain it's going to need a conjecture tag, and that'll just look silly.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per all.

Merge the Croacus Royal Family, Tribe of Ancients, and Squirpina XIV into List of Implied Characters

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Of course, having the background royals in one spot would be convenient, and you can argue that these are still fit the "implied" scope since only their likenesses are seen.

Do Nothing

Comments

I can see where you're going with this. All of these characters mentioned do not physically appear in the game, but they have artwork that is found during the story. As someone who has completed Super Paper Mario, I can safely say that all of these characters have such little information on them to give them their own articles. King Croacus's family all should have their own article to share, or they could be moved to the list of implied characters just because they do not physically appear in the game. For Merlumina's case, she appears as a spirit to Mario to give him one of the Pure Hearts, so she actually appears in the game. The rest of the Ancients do not though. For Squirp's mother, a statue of her appears in the game, but she herself does not. Seeing as there's too little information for King Croacus's family, I think giving them an article to share would be the best idea. The list of Ancients already has their own page and to me that makes sense. Squirp's mother I think should be moved to list of implied characters just because she does not physically appear in the game. I have a suggestion to add in an option where only Squirpina should be moved to "List of Implied Characters". As for now, I think merging all of King Croacus's ancestors is the way to go. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks November 12, 2023, 7:58 (EDT)

It should be noted that there is some precedent for splitting any characters who visibly appear physically or otherwise, even besides Super Paper Mario, for example Jack. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:40, November 12, 2023 (EST)

Thanks, the Croacus royalty vs the Ancients seen in the gateway between Flipside and Flopside having, erm, lopsided coverage always bothered me... I just always forgot to make a proposal about it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:56, November 12, 2023 (EST)

It just occurred to me that this proposal is missing the do nothing option. Isn't that mandatory? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:59, November 12, 2023 (EST)

I think so. What if no one wants these changes? link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks November 12, 2023, 13:21 (EDT)
...Your honor, it was 2AM. (We have added this, our bad!) ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:27, November 12, 2023 (EST)

@LinkTheLefty (and we guess pretty much just everyone): Having looked at the text at Not 2AM, we can say that a better article name for option 1 would probably be "Flora Kingdom royalty" seeing as it's expressly called the Flora Kingdom in at least King Croacus I's in-game painting text. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:23, November 14, 2023 (EST)

Unless they're explicitly called "Flora Kingdom royalty", that would still be considered conjectural (like Sunset Express conductor, Sticker Museum curator, etc.). Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:46, November 14, 2023 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4047700"