MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, June 9th, 08:46 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

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)

List of Talk Page Proposals

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Add navigation boxes for games articles and their subpages

I propose we make boxes to navigate through games page/subpages, like this example that might be used in the Mario Kart Wii article:

These boxes can be placed on top of the pages to make navigation simpler than looking for sections inside the articles (even because in some pages they are spread in a confusing way). With this, we can erase incomplete or empty sections with "Main Article: List of [such game] beta elements" or "Main Article: List of glitches in [such game]" and things like this being all the text in them (like this and this).

As I said with the comment below, the box can sum every of these sections (gallery, beta elements, glitches, media, staff and quotes) in one line, so we won't need the sections just to mention the subpages exist. See this example.

Proposer: Ultra Koopa (talk)
Deadline: June 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Ultra Koopa (talk) My proposal, so I support it.
  2. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Awesome idea, per proposal.
  3. MegaKoopa (talk) Not just because it's the easiest way to find the subpages (as we have the content table with the use of sections), but also because all those sections can be summed up in one line.

Oppose

  1. Time Turner (talk) We already have a big list of sections for an article, right near the top. Having a template for it really isn't necessary.
  2. Aokage (talk) Per TT. And I think placing that at the top of the pages would look ugly.
  3. Walkazo (talk) - Completely unnecessary. The main article is where the important info is, and the ex-subpages are extra, so why would we advertise them front and center in an ugly box that distracts the readers from the whole reason they came to that main page: to read the article. The TOC will get them down to the sections that link to the ex-subpages, and if it's done right, you should be able to get there using the game's basic category too.
  4. Yoshi876 (talk) Per TT and Walkazo.
  5. Ace Shadow (talk) Per all.
  6. Mariotime11 (talk) Per Time Turner and Walkazo.
  7. Tucayo (talk) - Per all.
  8. Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per all; we don't need more templates like that.
  9. S78 (talk) Per all, these would just take up extra space.

Comments

But, wait, don't we have the Table of Contents for that? LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Table of Contents? Where's this? Ultra Koopa (talk)
There's a big box at the beginning of an article, after the opening paragraph(s), showing the links to all the headers. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Oh, these, okay. But even with this, there are lots of sections to choose and still have the bunch of short sections. Ultra Koopa (talk)
I am not entirely sure what you're saying. Time Turner (talk)
The sections like this one are just like redirect pages converted into sections, so they are too short. There are also the ones with examples, like this one, but they are kinda useless because there's already the link for those and more images/beta elements/glitches/etc in the section itself. With the box, all of these pages are listed in one single line with no need of sections just to mention they exist. Ultra Koopa (talk)
As seen here, empty redirect sections are not actually allowed, and should be replaced by succinct overviews of the pages in question (and not just random samples of the other page, although it's hard to summarize an image gallery). So that's a moot point. - Walkazo (talk)

Ugly? Distracting? In my opinion, it's far better than sections that take unnecessary space. MegaKoopa (talk)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. But you're still arguing against an organization standard that is already outdated: once they're updated, those sections won't be wastes of space anymore. - Walkazo (talk)

Removals

None at the moment

Changes

Semi-protect Glitch List pages

Often, glitch pages have become a target of Template:Plainlink, Template:Plainlink, and Template:Plainlink information, as well as just Template:Plainlink. And most of this is done by either accounts created very recently or anonymous users. Therefore, I am suggesting that all the glitch list pages be protected (so that only autoconfirmed users can edit them), to prevent this sort of thing.

Proposer: Mariotime11 (talk)
Deadline: June 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Mariotime11 (talk) Per my reasoning above.
  2. YoshiKong (talk) – Strongly agree with the proposed action. If I had a dollar for every time I witnessed an anon writing an unreferenced, slack effort at writing a decently written paragraph, clogged with the usage of second person, I'd have like fifty bucks and no sense.
  3. Yoshi876 (talk) It's true some anons add real glitches, but they also add what they want, so per proposal.
  4. Tucayo (talk) - Per all, especially YK.
  5. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Per all. I have to disagree with YoshiKong, though, since I think it's closer to one hundred and thirteen dollars with twenty-two cents.
  6. GBAToad (talk) Per all, especially YK and LGM. Forget dollars, if I had a candle for every time that's happened, I'd have a considerable amount of scents.
  7. Ace Shadow (talk) Per all.
  8. Iggy Koopa Jr (talk) Only trustworthy users that have tested the glitch themselves, and puts a reference to for ex. A Youtube video should be able to edit those pages.
  9. Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) I replaced a glitch with one that works because I tested it. So, Per YohsiKong in the way that I would have a billion dollars for vandals that come around.
  10. S78 (talk) Per all and YoshiKong.

Oppose

Comments

Whilst I agree, sometimes anons add valid glitches, so there needs to be someway that they could inform us and it'd also allow us to test it to make sure it isn't false. Yoshi876 (talk)

@Yoshi876: That's true, but see YoshiKong's reasoning above; the probability of anons adding crap to glitch pages is much higher than them adding legitimate glitches. Mariotime11 (talk)
They could ask someone to add the legit glitch, on the talk page, maybe? — Banon (talk)
@Banon: Are you talking about if this proposal was in effect, anons could request it to be added? Mariotime11 (talk)
I;d say so, because obviously there are anons out there out who do have a valid glitch to add and that would be the only way. Yoshi876 (talk)
Yeah, they could add it in that way if they're actually planning to make constructive edits, but
Some anons do actually make constructive edits (such as adding legit glitches), but they reason I'm proposing this is because the vast majority of anons who edit glitch pages vandalize them. So yeah, anyone who wants to add in something would have to request it. Mariotime11 (talk)
Yes, I meant that. Banon (talk)
All of those money estimates are wrong, it would definitely be around $384.62 Mariotime11 (talk)
Not including taxes. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Should we do the same thing with beta pages? Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk)

Loosen FA Requirements for Coverage

"This article doesn't cover details from the Super Mario-Kun (both versions). It can't be featured."
"It doesn't have details about the appearances from those Satellaview games."

Nowadays, our requirements for nominations for Featured Articles have tightened. It's a great thing, since we are following the mantra of "articles that represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer."

I still have a problem, though.

Number 8 on Featured Article requirements state that articles must "have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles." My problem is that we interpret this as including all appearances including from obscure media, especially the difficult-to-access ones. The biggest problem is how extremely tough it is to acquire information, especially detailed, adequate information from such media. Lacking detailed information from a few obscure, limited availability games, such as those from Satellaview and Japanese-only comics such as Super Mario-Kun shouldn't be the difference between a quality article and a crap article.

I'm not saying that we disregard the obscure, difficult-to-find media. I am suggesting, however, that such media should be treated as the "above and beyond" and the "extra credit". We should at the very least acknowledge such media exists and that the character made an appearance, but if there is anyone out there that is willing to add detailed information to the acknowledgement, more power to the article and the person.

I'm not saying either that we should feature incomplete articles. I'm suggesting instead that if an otherwise excellent article covers the vast majority of information while leaving out some detailed information from those "holy grails" out, we should let it be featured. In other words, we shouldn't prevent an article from being featured just because it doesn't have the intricate plot details from stuff related to St.Giga. On the other hand, we should prevent an article from being featured if it lacks information from Super Princess Peach and Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix.

Also, if something is relatively obscure, but highly accessible via emulators, YouTube videos, and the like, then it is mandatory for the article to have this coverage.

Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Deadline: June 26, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. LeftyGreenMario (talk) This loosening requirement should help establish a bit more leeway in featuring articles. We also shouldn't attempt to unfeature an article just because the Super Mario-Kun section is a one-liner.
  2. Mr. Game & Watch (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Tails777 (talk) Per proposal
  4. Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal.
  5. GBAToad (talk) Per proposal.
  6. MeritC (talk) Per all; my stance is that as long as all angles of said content in question for the article are covered, length should not be an issue. The professional standards would still be a must for any article to be in featured territory, regardless of size.
  7. Glowsquid (talk) - see comment below. If hunting down St.Giga's archive is required to feature the Mario page, there's something wrong.
  8. Aokage (talk) Per Glowsquid.
  9. Mariotime11 (talk) Per proposal and Glowsquid's comment.
  10. Baby Luigi (talk) Per all. I hate it when I work especially hard on an article (eg Baby Mario) and found out it had some hard to acquire media I couldn't access, which was the one and only reason it couldn't be featured, despite its other FA quality. Nothing is perfect, and if we set our standards this high, nearly every article in the wiki will be unfeatured because of it.
  11. Jazama (talk) Per all
  12. Ace Shadow (talk) Per all.
  13. Banon (talk) — It's not the right way to go.

Oppose

  1. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) I oppose for several reasons:
    1. This set up would make certain info more important then others which I believe is wrong because all info should be treated equally because everything is of the same importance to the wiki.
    2. FA's are supposed to be the best of the best when it comes to quality how can you tell me that it is a quality article when it either lacks or only has incredibly vague info on a certain subject?
    3. This proposal is basically meangigless because even if you loosen the FA standards by allowing sections like "Daisy appears as a prominent character in the Japan-only Super Mario-Kun manga. Daisy first appears in the Sarasaland chapters, where she is again Tatanga's captive. Tatanga plans to force Daisy to marry him. After the Sarasaland chapters, Daisy's role switches to that of a heroine. She then appears alongside her close friends Mario, Luigi, and Peach. Daisy is a consistently reoccurring character in the Super Mario-Kun series." to fit rule 8 you still have to deal with rule 5 which states that any article with an improvement tag can't be featured. Therefore articles with sections like that couldn't be featured because they are sections stubs because they lack adequate information since they only tell the literal bare bones and don't go into detail about what the character does only saying that they appear.
  2. Superchao (talk) Per Marshal Dan Troop.
  3. Turboo (talk) - Per Marshal Dan Troop.
  4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  5. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per MDT, especially for the 2nd reason he gave. There are plenty of FA, so it's not like the FA standards are messed up.
  6. Time Turner (talk) Per all.
  7. Pinkie Pie (talk) Per all
  8. Tucayo (talk) - Per Shoey.
  9. Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per Dan.

Comments

Would this also include very obscure Japan-only games as well? Mr. Game & Watch (talk)

I'd say only if they have an adequate amount of quality information. Yoshi876 (talk)
Yeah. I stated that we should at least mention the game, but when it's extremely difficult to find the details of the said game, it shouldn't be the difference between a featured article and a regular or bad article. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

I feel there's a difference between obscurity and availability. For the former, take the example of Virtual Boy Wario Land and When I Grow Up. Both games may be obscure, but they were released in the west, are widely available via online shopping and Perfectly Legal Means, and have plenty of writeup and video footage to go around (the wiki's When I Grow Up page pretty much has the content of the entire game short of the coloring). As such, there's not really an "excuse" to not have information from these games.

On the other hand, some subjects are simply not available. Games on the Satellaview were distributed via radio broadcast from a closed source, which closed shop quite a while ago. While fans had a limited success recreating the content of some Satellaview games via magazine scans and vintage videos, a lot of it (including the Mario games) is not accesible and can only be consulted via blurry youtube or niconico videos. With the current "complete info or gtfo" standard, anything that's known to appear in a Satellaview game essentially can't get featured, which is pretty dumb. And while Mario Artist: Communication Kit (to take one example) is not lost to time like the Satellaview stuff is, it's still hardly accessible to the English fandom; the game was only released in Japan, on a rare add-on (only 10.000 unit) that's yet to be emulated, and there's little footage or writeups about it online. As such, it's not unreasonable to expect sections about that game to lack information. --Glowsquid (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

Indeed, there's a difference between obscurity and rarity, but sometimes, it goes hand-in-hand. You have said, "With the current 'complete info or gtfo' standard, anything that's known to appear in a Satellaview game essentially can't get featured, which is pretty dumb." I'm trying to address that problem, exactly, but I fear that it is poorly worded. Maybe I need to reword my proposal here. I'm trying to address the difficult-to-access ones here the most. Not only the Super Mario-Kun is Japan-exclusive, there are barely any translated versions, so it's out of reach for most of us.
Do you think it's a good idea to reword the proposal? I mean, I should change the subject on "availability" rather than "obscurity". Again, I thought the two often go together. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Marshal Dan Troop, I have several rebuttals against your argument.

  • Treating all information as equals shouldn't be the right way to go when it comes to covering all information. If that's the case, then games from the discontinued Satellaview need equal treatment, but the elusiveness of those games make it extremely difficult to get such coverage. If an article gets unfeatured simply because it lacks some information for a difficult-to-access game, then we have a flaw in the system.
  • The best of the best doesn't mean it is flawless. It simply means it's the best of the best. The coverage is outstanding, the pictures are adequate, and the writing is well done, but by no means is it perfect. And how many times do I have to repeat this: the difference between a quality article and a crap article shouldn't be determined by the detail and length of a section of BS Super Mario USA.
  • Such sections shouldn't get rewrite-expand templates in the first place. Many featured articles, such as Baby Luigi. Baby Peach, Wario, Doopliss, Fawful, Koopa Bros., and Goomba deal with Super Mario-Kun appearances in a one-liner or bare-bones manner. Technically, by going by our standards of the time of this writing, then all of these could be unfeatured simply because it lacks information on those sections. I fear many more articles simply don't list the comic. And that's just Super Mario-Kun. Basically, by going by our standards, any article related to a character that appears in Super Mario-Kun can't be featured.

LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Yes, the Satellaview games need equal treatment. Banon (talk)
Okay, why should we expect as much extensive coverage from Satellaview games as we expect extensive coverage from Gamecube games? Did you read Glowsquid's comment? LeftyGreenMario (talk)
I know the information is hard to find, but I meant that since it's as canon, it deserves equal treatment. But yeah, not featuring an article because of this is not the right way to go. I changed my vote. — Banon (talk)

Split characters like Koopa, Shy Guy and Wiggler into a character page from the species

I feel the rule with characters like Koopa and Shy Guy should be a whole species article should change. Characters like them make appearances in spin off titles like the Mario Tennis and Mario Kart series and they shouldn't be in the article of their species. So I think we should split characters like Koopa, Shy Guy, Wiggler and Boo from their species articles and into their own character articles. Because I'm sure the Koopa in the Mario Kart series is a notable one from the Koopa species.

Proposer: Tails777 (talk)
Deadline: June 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

Oppose

  1. Aokage (talk) Nothing suggests that the random playable enemies like Koopa are always the same character. A "Koopa Troopa" character hasn't been established, unlike with Yoshi and Toad for example. Also per Turboo and Yoshi876's comments.
  2. MeritC (talk) No, the method that we're covering these cases are as fine as it is. No need to split them into specificed character articles just because they participated in spinoff installments. I'm sorry, but I say no on this case.
  3. Yoshi876 (talk) Per comments below, I'm sorry but all I see is pages that are completely composed of small sections with minimal detail.
  4. Tails777 (talk) After a lot of thinking, I now have to go against my proposal since I have no proof to back my point up.
  5. Walkazo (talk) - If it can be proven that certain generic enemies are being represented by a recurring individual, yeah, make pages for them, but it must be done on a case-by-case basis, not with one blanket proposal.
  6. Mariotime11 (talk) Per all.
  7. Jazama (talk) Per all
  8. Ace Shadow (talk) Per all.
  9. Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per Aokage.

Comments

I don't really get the point of this; I guess you could make an article if you really tried, but... wouldn't it just be simple details of the Koopa's appearance in the games? It doesn't even appear different from a normal green-shelled Koopa. - Turboo (talk)

And wouldn't this make quite small articles that are composed of mostly 1-liners. 'Koopa appeared in the Mario Kart series, his karts are ...'? Yoshi876 (talk)
No cause Koopa appears in multiple Mario Karts, he's a host in Mario Party 4, playable in Mario Party 9, there is plenty of information about these characters because they've made many appearances as either playable characters or important characters in other games. The amount information for the Mario Kart series would be no different than that of any other character. Tails777 (talk)
Yeah, a Koopa appears in those games. What makes you think it's always the same one? A Koopa Troopa character named Koopa Troopa hasn't been established. Same thing for Shy Guy, Wiggler and Boo. Aokage (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
Then why does the specific Koopa in Mario Party DS get an article? A Wiggler appeared in the same game and didn't get an article. Tails777 (talk)
From what I remember, that Koopa had characterization that set him apart from the generic Koopa(s) we see in Mario Kart and the like. - Turboo (talk)
But what about the Wiggler? And the Magikoopa? LeftyGreenMario (talk)

@Yoshi876: Most of Koopa Troopa's spin off information are already one or 2 liners anyway. Most of the information there is given about the species appearance in the mainstream games. Koopa has made important appearances in spin offs and I don't find it fitting to describe all that in an article that talks about the various Koopas that have appeared. Tails777 (talk)

What's the evidence that the Koopa Troopa in all the spin off's is the same Koopa Troopa? Marshal Dan Troop (talk)
This lets me bring up something that I've always wanted to bring up: what's the evidence that the Toads that show up in various games are one character (Toad)? Time Turner (talk)

Add images unrelated to games in the subject's gallery

According to our coverage policy, "all content from such sources is allowed on this wiki, without speculating on what content from what source is "more official" than other content from other sources."

Somehow, this doesn't translate to a subject's, specifically, a character's gallery. The only thing we have in the galleries are images related to the games. What I don't understand is how we don't include images from other media including the TV shows, the anime, and other screenshots, including scans from published comics. Merchandising is probably another territory, though, so I'm excluding images pertaining to merchandise. The same thing goes for the "Super" "Mario" "Bros." "film" (it's not Super, it's not Mario, it doesn't have any brothers, and it's not what you call a film). That means, the "Super" "Mario" "Bros." "film" won't be covered.

Anyway, my proposal simply states that we should include images from the aforementioned sources so we have a wide range of images covering from Donkey Kong to Mario Kirby Meisaku Video, from Super Mario Bros. 3 to The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3, and from Super Mario World to Super Mario World. I think that makes sense. We just have to create a section for these images. It can go below video game screenshots and the caption shows the link to the show or the episode title.

As for comics, perhaps it should go in a separate section, as in "scans" or something like that. It should be the last, but not least, section, after the screenshots from video games and television. I don't know where else it should go without breaking the consistency.

If this proposal passes, in other words, that means we don't have to search in many, many pages to find a picture of Luigi scoffing tacos and animation errors as a side from the episode Template:Fakelink in the website. We just have to find it in the gallery.

If there is anything I overlooked, please say so!


Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Deadline: June 27, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. LeftyGreenMario (talk) I, for one, had to search for many pages to find an appropriate picture for Toad from the show, while I can simply look in his gallery to find an appropriate picture for Toad from the games.
  2. GBAToad (talk) Fully support this. Per proposal.
  3. SuperYoshiBros (talk) I agree, except the movie. That's totally different from the games, so I don't think they belong there (Toad is someone completely different, Bowser is actually a good guy's name etc.).
  4. Yoshi876 (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Banon (talk) Per proposal: I thought it was already the policy. Also, I agree with SuperYoshiBros: our wiki doesn't consider that Mario and Mario (film character) are the same person.
  6. Walkazo (talk) - Per LeftyGreenMario. And yeah, the movie characters are considered separate from the main characters, so they should definitely stay off the galleries, however, I think it'd be a good idea to have a line in the gallery intro saying something like: "For images of the Luigi character from the SMB movie, see [here], for images of Baby Luigi, see [here]."
  7. Mariotime11 (talk) Per all, this would make finding images much easier.
  8. Jazama (talk) Per all
  9. Ace Shadow (talk) Per all.
  10. Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk) Per SYB and Walkazo.
  11. S78 (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

While we're at it, perhaps we should call for scans from comics and other printed publications to be added to the character galleries too... - Walkazo (talk)

Yeah, I was thinking about that as well. I'm not sure if we should scan whole pages or just crop one panel with that character, though. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
More focused images would probably be better, but a lot of the comic scans are already one or two panels, so that works. Either way, not every image that has a character in it has to go on the gallery, so any scans or screenshots that don't really fit or bring anything worthwhile to the gallery need not be included. That'll help keep the size of the page reasonable, too. - Walkazo (talk)

@Walkzao: I agree with the new lines for the intros. I added it on the forum thread. Banon (talk)

What should we call the heading for these images if this passes? I was thinking maybe Media, but that could include video games too, so maybe two sections, for Printed Media and Television. SuperYoshiBros (talk)

I was discussing about it with GBAToad, so here, you can have a look. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
In short, the "Screenshots" section will have two subsections: "Video Games" and "Animation". A new section dedicated to printed media ("Scans") will be placed after "Screenshots" to contain scans from comics, game manuals and other publications. GBAToad (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1498021"