MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
===Do not surround song titles with quotes===
This is a change to [[MarioWiki:Manual_of_Style#Italicizing_titles|this section of our Manual of Style]]. Currently, our policy is to surround song titles with quotation marks whenever they appear. However. We are a Mario wiki, and the Mario series overwhelmingly ''does not'' do this.
 
The comparison arises to italics, but I feel there's quite a difference between that (an effect applied to text) and the inclusion of punctuation marks, which ''are'' text in and of themselves. Not to mention, unlike italics, which would require special programming to implement, quote marks are supported by anything that supports English text, meaning it's not a question of technical limitations — every game that names its songs is perfectly capable of listing them inside quotation marks, and yet they make the choice not to.


==New features==
As such, surrounding song titles in quotes is questionable as adherence to an unofficial naming scheme over the original one. Not to mention the effects this can have on lists of song titles — their inclusion on [[Template:DDRMM]] fluffs up the width of the song section by the width of ''several'' song titles.
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
I'd also like to take the opportunity to mention how inconsistently these quote marks are applied across the wiki already — many entries in [[:Category:Music]] do not use them in their article, none of the lists of songs from the shows or of WarioWare DIY records use them, [[Starring Wario!]] and ''only'' Starring Wario has had its article title changed to have the quotes. I take this to mean the rule is not serving the wiki as it stands.
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
The one exception to everything I've mentioned thus far is ''Paper Mario: The Origami King''{{'}}s music discs: [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]], [["Heartbeat Skipper"]], [["M-A-X Power!"]], and [["Thrills at Night"]]. These are the only time the names of songs are formatted this way (possibly due to the items being CDs ''of'' the songs and not the songs themselves). Therefore, '''these will be the only exception if this proposal passes, and will keep their quote marks'''.
===Reconsider mainline status of ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Super Mario Maker 2'', and ''Super Mario Run''===
Hi, we're doing this again! As you may or may not know, back in 2018, I ran a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Merge Super Mario Land series, Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Run into "Super Mario" series|successful proposal]] to get the wiki to consider ''[[Super Mario Land]]'', ''[[Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins]]'', ''[[Super Mario Maker]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' as entries of the mainline [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]]. Based on the sources and information I had at the time, the decision felt sound, and the wiki's userbase agreed. However, in the five years that have passed since then, new information has come to light that has led to me reconsidering my opinion on the subject in regards to ''Super Mario Maker'' and ''Super Mario Run''.


For starters, my main source on this argument came from [https://mario.nintendo.com/history/ Nintendo's official timeline page], which alongside the games most commonly agreed to be mainline, included ''Maker'' and ''Run''. In the time since, this page has been updated, and with the inclusion of games that are unambiguously re-releases of existing games, such as ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]'' and ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'', it raises the question of if this is a reliable list of "distinct entries in the mainline ''Super Mario'' series" at all. Additionally, in official [https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/ask-the-developer-vol-11-super-mario-bros-wonder-part-1/ dev interviews] released in the buildup to the release of ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'', ''Wonder'' is treated as the first mainline 2D Mario game in 11 years, with both ''Maker'' games being brought up as if they're something else entirely. I could also bring up the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'', which treats ''Maker'' as a spin-off as well.
To circle back around to my original point: I think the nail in the coffin for displaying music this way is [[Nintendo Music]]. This application, specifically meant to play music, does not surround their names with quote marks. And yet [[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music|this article]] surrounds them in quotes anyway, stringently adhering to our unofficial way of formatting these over the way Nintendo Music actually formats them. It's almost ''lying'', frankly.


So, if being on Nintendo's official timeline doesn't necessitate a game being a distinct mainline entry, and official material from Nintendo treats the ''Maker'' and ''Run'' games as spin-offs, then should we still include them as mainline entries in the ''Super Mario'' series? Under this proposal, the ''Maker''s and ''Run'' would be treated as "Related games" in a similar vein to ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' and ''[[New Super Luigi U]]'', and would be excluded when numbering the mainline Mario series (''Wonder'' would be treated as the 19th mainline game rather than the 22nd). It would also, somewhat annoyingly, lead to us having to reorganize the "History" section for pages on a bunch of characters, objects, and enemies, so apologies in advance.
So, our options:


Relevant pages are [[Super Mario (series)]], [[Super Mario Maker]], [[Super Mario Maker 2]], and [[Super Mario Run]].
* '''Option 1: Exclude quote marks from song titles in all cases.''' Our manual of style will remove the mention of song titles from the section of italicizing titles. Just for clarity, this excludes Origami King's CDs.
* '''Option 2: Keep quote marks when song titles are used in a sentence, but exclude them from standalone appearances of the title.''' Such standalone appearances would include article titles, navboxes, infoboxes, track listings, and table entries. Just for clarity, this option, too, excludes Origami King's CDs.
* '''Option 3: Do nothing.''' I guess this option ''includes'' Origami King's CDs.


'''Proposer''': {{User|WayslideCool}}<br>
'''Proposer:''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Stop considering all three games mainline====
====Option 1====
# {{User|WayslideCool}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} My primary choice. I've firmly laid out my reasons why here.
# {{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. I've done [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XejJ6PzPtEw extensive research] on the subject of which games people consider to be part of the mainline series, and while there isn't anything close to a total consensus, most people do agree that the ''Maker'' games and ''Run'' are not mainline.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I prefer to think of each music as a work in its own right rather than a part of some "greater whole". ''[[Jump Up, Super Star!]]'' is more than just a piece of ''Super Mario Odyssey''{{'}}s OST. Therefore, song titles should be italicized like any other work and not be in quotation marks as if they were merely chapters.
# {{User|Camwoodstock}} That makes sense to us. If Nintendo's stopped really considering the Makers and Run as mainline games as of Wonder's release, it probably seems only fair to stop counting them ourselves. Especially seeing as people already don't really treat them as mainline games if The Video Essay You've Probably Seen By Now If You're A Longtime User Of This Wiki That Was Linked Above™ is to be trusted.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, and there's [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Italics formatting of boat names, fictional products, and others|precedent]] for following Nintendo's official formatting in spite of usual conventions. The inconsistencies described in the proposal ought to be fixed regardless of the outcome, though.
#{{User|ToxicOJ}} Second choice.
#{{User|Biggestman}} While I to a degree understand the entire thing with the songs simply being a part of a greater thing, that isn't really fair when I would make an argument some of these songs are a larger part of the series' history than those "greater" things. For example music from Yoshi's Story is still used relatively often to this very day, but Yoshi's Story as a whole is just kinda there. Per all, too.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal. ''Run'' is an auto-runner game rather than a regular platformer, and ''Maker''s are not centered around the builtin levels but rather around user-created levels.


====Change nothing, keep all three games as mainline====
====Option 2====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - The confusion here stems from conflating the overall ''Super Mario'' series with the specialized ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' subseries, which is made up of the various 2D games starring Mario and Luigi (ie, omitting the ''Land'', ''Maker'', and ''Run'' games, as well as, of course, the 3D games). I have the bones of a page for a SMB series article [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario Bros. (series)|here]].
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I will settle for this — part of my ire toward the quotemarks is that I find them highly unsuitable for these particular usages.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Secondary option, per my comment below in Option 3.
#{{User|Axis}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, plus these games were considered part of the series in [[Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary#Games|35th anniversary stuff]], so I think the official stance is clear. And as much as I like the video the supporters bring up, what fans say isn't a valid argument, see [[Spiny Shell (blue)|Blue Shell]].
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} You're the doc, Doc.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per all.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Per Doc. I'd also like to point out that "entirely new" Mario games as mentioned in the interview could very well exclude the Mario Maker series, since their game styles are all derived from earlier Mario games. Either way, what exactly is "mainline" is not determined by the developers, but by Nintendo themselves (i.e. Miyamoto saying Zero Mission isn't a mainline Metroid game wouldn't mean anything). I don't feel like recent re-releases being placed on the list devalues that in any way.<br>(I neglected to mention when I first wrote this comment that there's a good reason why ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'' seems to treat Super Mario Maker like a spinoff: both the game and the book were released as a tie-in for Mario's 30th Anniversary (little over a month between them), it makes perfect sense that the Encyclopedia would cover it separately.)
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} I mean, it's too early to tell if Nintendo is actually going reconsider these games as a spin-offs. It's a trick business, because there's the series and [[Super Mario (franchise)|franchise,]] but this is far too early to make a judgement. Also, the way encyclopedia treated ''Mario Maker'' was more the recent game released at the time. I mean, who knows. A new book could exclude these games, but given the situation right now, this is the safest option.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Doc; they're stating in the interview that Wonder the first new 2D game in the Super Mario <u>Bros.</u> series since NSMBU. Mario Maker and Mario Run aren't Super Mario Bros. titles, but they are Super Mario titles, as listed on the American Mario site. There's a distinction. Also not sure how Some Guy's "extensive research" has any relevance here; it's a survey with a sample constituting like, what, 0.001% of Mario fans? Fan opinion is not taken into consideration on this wiki anyway, unless it's confirmed to act as a significant backdrop for a decision by Nintendo.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Conradd}} Let's wait and see what Nintendo thinks of these games in the future before making a decision.
#{{User|Mateo}} This shouldn't even be discussed in the first place. Like it was mentioned before here and in [[Talk:Super Mario (series)|other pages]], ''Super Mario '''Bros.''' Wonder'' is officially (and consistently: https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/nintendo-direct-june-2023-recap/ https://store-jp.nintendo.com/list/software/70010000068687.html even in [https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/ask-the-developer-vol-11-super-mario-bros-wonder-part-1/ said interview]) considered the first ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' game (or full-fledged/traditional game, it means the same distinction) since ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' but '''all''' of them are officially considered mainline games and are listed as such in official sites (and the ports are virtually the same game so of course they'd include them). The encyclopedia is not a reliable source and it's outdated, as seen in its own page. We all should follow the ''facts'', not ''personal preferences''. Unless their status is officially changed (which is unlikely), this is the way it should be. Also Per all other reasons.
#{{User|ExoRosalina}} Per all for some reason; because I think Run, Mario Maker series could consider as mainline
#{{User|Arend}} Per all. Considering the ''Land'', ''Run'' and ''Maker'' games as spinoffs to the ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' subseries should be fine enough, and I think that's what Nintendo meant when not including these games when stating ''Wonder'' is the latest ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' game since ''New U''.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all.


====Consider ''Maker'' and ''Maker 2'' mainline, but not ''Run''====
====Option 3====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''{{wp|The Color of Water}}''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''{{wp|Resident Alien (TV series)|Resident Alien}}''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the ''Super Mario'' franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per N101. quotation marks are a writing convention! most mario games also don't have italic titles, but we italicize them anyways because it's a formal writing convention that makes sense
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Strong oppose, per all. This is a well-recognized writing convention, the fact that Nintendo doesn't typically follow it within their products is irrelevant.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Nintendo101. These quotes are here for a reason, no matter how remote it may seem.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Quoting songs is from the manual of style itself, it's the same reason we italicize game titles. I would go even further and quote song titles as a display title like I did in "[[Starring Wario!]]"
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - "Because game writing" is what leads to wikis encouraging jokey sarcastic writing, which I'm pretty sure is not the direction we want to go.


====Consider ''Run'' mainline, but not ''Maker'' and ''Maker 2''====
====Comments====
#{{User|Sparks}} I thought it over now and I say that ''Super Mario Run'' plays like a traditional ''Mario'' 2D game, although on mobile instead of consoles. Like what I said in my comment below, I think the ''Mario Maker'' games are just sandbox games, and thus I don't consider them mainline ''Mario'' games. ''Super Mario Run'' is the normal ''Mario'' gameplay, and thus I think it is a mainline ''Mario'' game.
If this passes, how would it affect coverage of non-Mario music? Our only options are either to have two standards, or ignore established convention based on what Nintendo does for media they had no hand in actually producing. Neither seems ideal to me. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:24, November 10, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Seandwalsh}} Per Sparks. ''Super Mario Run'' has pretty consistently been considered mainline despite what many fans arbitrarily want to believe. Since the Super Mario Maker games have become their own beast I think their status is a little more up in the air.
:We'd treat non-Mario music the same as Mario music. Established convention doesn't mean much when we're always saying on this page that we're not other wikis and we don't necessarily need to do things the way other wikis do them. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)
# {{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
::I don't think anyone is advocating to hold onto a convention just for the sake of it. Rather, that we should hold onto the convention because it is useful and the proposal doesn't provide persuasive reasons to abandon that usage, or at least it does not for me. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Swallow}} My preferred option.
In addition, I wouldn't use applications such as Nintendo Music as proof that we shouldn't abide by formatting either. Neither music metadata nor files themselves quote song names, neither does [https://open.spotify.com/track/433JymbpWnRMHXzp1oTRP7 Spotify] nor [https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Bother-Shakira/dp/B000BUEG9U Amazon Music]. Yet {{Wp|Don't Bother|Wikipedia still does}} because that's how it's standardized in writing articles. In addition, you pointed out how "Starring Wario!" is the outlier as your point, I've '''only just started working on those articles''' mate. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:01, November 10, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all. Super Mario Run is platforming, no matter what you want to call it, so it should be main series. Mario Maker features drastically different, non-platforming gameplay at its core, so it should not be main series.
:Even Wikipedia doesn't use the quotes in article titles though. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:17, November 11, 2024 (EST)
# {{User|DesaMatt}} Per all.
::I would support an option that called for just removing the quotation marks in the header for articles (as done {{wp|I Am the Walrus|here}}, which should be compared to {{wp|Magical Mystery Tour#Track listing|here}}). This is not uncommon in written books on music. But there currently is no voting option to do just that. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Super Game Gear}} I've always felt that ''Super Mario Maker'' games were their own thing.
{{@|Ray Trace}} I'm aware it's in the manual of style. That's why the proposal is about changing the manual of style. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|ToxicOJ}} First choice.
:I'm not talking about the wiki's manual style. I'm talking about general guidelines especially [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html MLA] {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 15:41, November 11, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all. The ''Maker'' games are less games and more tools or platforms to create games. Although a story mode is present, it mostly serves as one big ideas book for people to take notes from, as levels are made in the editor with items all available to the player, save a few.
::If it's not ''our'' manual of style, then there's no reason for us to care about it because we don't use it. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, November 11, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
:::''Our'' manual of style '''is based on this manual of style.''' {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:11, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::If it's only ''based on'' it, then it ''isn't'' it. The manual of style is ours, so this quote mark convention has to survive on its own merits, not just by virtue of being in someone ''else's'' manual of style. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:22, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::Not using general formatting standard guidelines solely because "we shouldn't just because we're not them" is not a good argument. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::Well, then — '''Nintendo doesn't do this either, so there's no reason for this wiki to ''pretend'' like they do.''' That's been my argument this whole time. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::The main difference is that they're a video game, and they're inherently informal in their presentation. They're not trying to write things and bios formally, they're trying to present writing to players, so formatting like italicizing game titles is optional, because that's what it's set out to do. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, our writing formatting is far more similar to Wikipedia which observes these things and MLA writing guidelines, and how to format sourcing, and it's something we ''should'' emulate over a video game's script. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:47, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::{{@|Ahemtoday}} I don't think that is the strong argument you think it is, because almost no piece of media where it has become conventional to include quotation marks include them themselves. They are not on the back of most [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/e1/7e/abe17ef61a737df53498f93487668213.jpg albums], [https://images.template.net/89102/novel-table-of-contents-template-wvzrz.jpeg books], or [https://addbcdbimages.s3.amazonaws.com/nick/sbsp_fish_bowl.jpg title cards for television shows]. But they are all still presented with quotes arounf them in reference material like Wikipedia and physical books. What makes the Nintendo music we cover here so different that warrants unique treatment? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:53, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::Nintendo doesn't always italicize game titles either, this site does. To be honest, though, I'm not sure how consistently this wiki observes MLA. There's some superficial basis in it (mostly coming off of Wikipedia's style guide, which is sprinkled with some MLA), what with the titles of whole works being written in italics and those of constituent parts of a work being surrounded by quotes, yet the manner in which citations are formatted, arguably a priority of any academic style guide, seems rather peculiar to Wikipedia's house style. Take any citation formatted using the {{tem|cite}} template on this wiki and compare it to how [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_formatting_and_style_guide.html MLA proposes it is done] <small>(owl.purdue.edu)</small>. There's also been at least [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Italics_formatting_of_boat_names.2C_fictional_products.2C_and_others|one attempt]] at explicitly adopting a standard purveyed by MLA that got shot down. Not to digress too much, I just wanted to point out that MLA is not currently as pervasive here as it's made out to be and can't be appealed to solely because of a few instances that (happen to) observe it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:20, November 11, 2024 (EST), edited 19:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::I am personally forgiving on how we structure citations in that template, because many academic journals don't adopt the MLA structure either. Everyone does something a little different from one another. The information included in a citation is more important than how it is organized, and things like ISBN are pretty helpful for an online reference like Super Mario Wiki.
::::::::But I also don't believe in supporting conventions just for the sake of them ''being'' conventions. I'd rather support them if they are beneficial. What are your thoughts on what I said in my vote above? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:33, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::I cannot argue with your vote. If a writing standard promoted by outside guides can harmonize with the needs of Mario Wiki, there's no reason not to adopt it. Quotation marks serve their purpose well in this case. so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:10, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::Cool! I was just curious. I value your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:14, November 11, 2024 (EST)


====Other====
I'm realizing I haven't given my full thoughts on {{@|Nintendo101}}'s vote yet. I agree that there are benefits to formatting song titles in this way (particularly in sentences, which is why I have the option to keep the quote marks exclusively ''in'' sentences) — but this formatting scheme misrepresents how the actual works in question are referred to by official media. I had to ask a friend who had Nintendo Music to find out whether or not the app displayed song titles in quotes, because I couldn't trust this wiki to tell me — and, like I said, Nintendo Music ''doesn't''. Yet [[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music|this article]] writes the song names as if it ''does'', because apparently this convention is more important than this kind of information. I know this is a minor piece of information, but this formatting convention causes me to be '''unable to trust the wiki about it'''. No benefit can counterbalance that. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 20:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:I am sorry that you felt mislead, but are you sure it is not because you were unfamiliar with this being a convention for music pieces in the first place? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:12, November 12, 2024 (EST)
::I was well familiar with the convention and how this wiki used it at the time, which is why I knew to ask a friend instead of taking the wiki's word for it. I take such a hardline stance against it not because this untrustworthiness has personally wronged me, but because untrustworthiness is a failure of the wiki on principle. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 00:02, November 13, 2024 (EST)
:::I am sorry, I was not referring to Super Mario Wiki in isolation. I was referring to the convention at large. In books and articles on music, regardless of topic, individual pieces are placed within quotation marks. I know I myself first learned one is supposed to put quotation marks around music titles while I was taking English class in middle school. So while I am sympathetic that this bothered you, I do not agree it is misleading. Maybe the issue lies with folks who do not have a lot of experience reading or writing about music. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:05, November 13, 2024 (EST)
::::Whether or not readers are familiar with the convention doesn't change the fact that the convention is not reflective of what is being talked about. The only reason wiki readers know [["Thrills at Night"]] and its ilk are actually surrounded in quotes officially is because we haven't been thorough in applying this convention. If we ''did'', then the distinction would vanish completely, because the wiki currently considers adhering to this guideline more important than this kind of information. You can't pin that on readers being unfamiliar. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:17, November 13, 2024 (EST)
:::::I have contacted the director of the Purdue OWL at Purdue University to ask them how one should cite music tracks that already has quotation marks rendered in their name. However, to be honest, I am still not really sure what the issue here is. How are the quotation marks any different from italicization of video games and albums? The name ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' is not displayed anywhere in Nintendo's official material italicized, but we do it for the same reasons one puts quotation marks around music tracks - because it is a useful MLA convention. For music, it is unclear to me on what is being miscommunicated or lost when they are accurately displayed between quotation marks, especially since articles for "Thrills at Night" and other tracks are accompanied with [[:File:PMTOK Thrills at Night.jpg|screenshots that show how they are rendered in-game]]. Is this not sufficient? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 14:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)
::::::It is not sufficient. To begin with, not every use of song titles is accompanied by images showing that the music titles are formatted without quotes — the majority of articles in [[:Category:Sound tests]] do not have such images. (Not to mention that to use these images to establish the formatting of every song title in a given game would require a comically excessive amount of images.) Furthermore, even if they ''did'', this information would be entirely invisible to users of screen readers, raising accessibility concerns. This information can't be conveyed by images alone. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 15:14, November 14, 2024 (EST)
:::::::Couldn't it just be clarified in the article itself that a piece of music is displayed with quotations mark around it? It is not a very common thing to do. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)
::::::::Writing in an explicit note clarifying that ''this'' time the article is actually reflective of how the music is referred to officially is a much more convoluted way of going about this compared to just referring to them in the official way to begin with. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 16:50, November 14, 2024 (EST)


====Comments====
Biggestman: The formatting of quotes in songs aren't discussed from a cultural relevancy angle, they're in context of being part of an album. It's the same reason short poetry gets quotes, but novels get italicized, we'd quote "The Raven" but still italicize ''The Day My Butt Went Psycho''. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:40, November 15, 2024 (EST)
Personally, I think the ''Mario Maker'' games are just games where players around the world could share and post levels online (I know ''Mario Maker 2'' had a story mode but still), but ''Super Mario Run'' is different. It's not a sandbox game and has worlds, levels and many playable characters. I'm kinda leaning towards keeping ''Run'' as a mainline ''Mario'' game, but I'll think it over first. {{User:Sparks/sig}} October 31, 2023, 12:46 (EDT)


===Add identifiers to near-identical titles===
Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: [[Mark (Mario Tennis series)|Mark (''Mario Tennis'' series)]] and [[Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)|Mark (''NES Open Tournament Golf'')]]). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means [[Color coin]] (''Super Mario Run'') and [[Colored coin]] (''Wario Land 3'') do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include [[Secret Course 1]] (''Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins'') and [[Secret Course 01]] (''Super Mario Run''), [[Spyguy]] (''Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis'') and [[Spy Guy]] (''Paper Mario''), and [[Rollin' Down the River]] (''Yoshi's Woolly World'') and [[Rolling Down the River]] (''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'').


It's worth noting that Nintendo is extremely inconsistent with regards to which games are part of this series, and that this wiki ''already'' doesn't use the exact set of games found in official sources as its definitive list. There isn't an "objective" answer here; any decision for how to classify the games in this series will be a ''decision''. Attempting to reach a definitive answer that isn't based on fan interpretation is literally impossible. Categorically, everyone here is a fan, and we are interpreting things. There's no way around that. Even if you point to one specific list Nintendo has used and say "yes, this is the definitive Canonical list of mainline ''Super Mario'' games", the choice to prioritize that source over other sources would itself be subjective fan interpretation. [[User:JanMisali|JanMisali]] ([[User talk:JanMisali|talk]]) 17:07, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
This proposal aims to amend [[MarioWiki:Naming]] to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.
:The whole wiki could technically be considered fan interpretation, but that's fine if it's fan interpretation of official sources, not fan interpretation with no official basis (e.g. "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because Nintendo never counts it as such" is fine, "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because most people don't think it is" is not). Anyway, I don't think I'd say Nintendo's stance is ''extremely'' inconsistent - the only differences I notice between the current official [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/en/history/index.html website] [https://mario.nintendo.com/history/ lists] are that the Japanese version has The Lost Levels, Mario Maker 3DS, SMB 35, and Wonder while the English one doesn't. The two Maker games and Run are always considered part of the series in these official sources, so even if the wiki's current list is inaccurate (I've honestly started considering reclassifying Mario 35 while writing this comment), the games concerned by this proposal aren't part of that inaccuracy. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
::There are, however, more than just those two sources. I think "''Super Mario Run'' isn't mainline because the developers of ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' don't consider it to be mainline" is just as valid as "''Run'' is mainline because there's a website that puts it in the same list as the mainline games and some but not all reissues of mainline games". Which source you prioritize is entirely a matter of opinion, at which point I think what the most common opinion happens to be can absolutely be a relevant deciding factor. [[User:JanMisali|JanMisali]] ([[User talk:JanMisali|talk]]) 18:38, October 31, 2023 (EDT)


@Doc von Schmeltwick: Question: Would you consider the ''Run'' and ''Maker'' games, and maybe even the ''Land'' games, spinoffs of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries? All of them feature 2D platformer gameplay in the same vein as other ''Super Mario Bros.'' games (in fact, they all feel closer as ''Super Mario Bros.'' titles than even ''Super Mario Bros. 2''), with ''Run'' in particular featuring the same style of graphics and similar music as ''New Super Mario Bros. U'', and ''Maker'' in particular featuring four gameplay styles based directly on four ''Super Mario Bros.'' games. I personally feel it would be wrong to ''not'' consider them ''Super Mario Bros.'' titles (or at least ''Super Mario Bros.''-adjacent titles) ''purely'' because there's no "Bros." in the title. Keep in mind that we have dozens of Mario spinoffs despite the main series and franchise as a whole being called ''Super Mario'', and that 90% of these spinoffs don't include "Super" in front of "Mario" in each title, so the full "Super Mario Bros." name having to be in the title shouldn't be the deciding factor IMO.<br>I understand that you might think this has little to do with the proposal itself, but I feel this is also relevant to your vote, since you brought your concept for a ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries page up there. {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:29, November 1, 2023 (EDT)
Note that this proposal only covers names that are '''semantically identical''', and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. [[Buzzar]] and [[Buzzer]] have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. [[Balloon Boo]] and [[Boo Balloon]] are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.  
:The Super Mario series and Super Mario Bros. series share the same first four games, so by definition anything exclusive to the former is a spin-off of the latter. The reason the Super Mario Bros. series was brought up was to explain why the Wonder devs considered it the first Bros. game since NSMBU. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:56, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
:Until the statement from the ''Wonder'' devs, I included ''Run'' as well. The ''Maker'' series would count, except ''2'' has the ''Super Mario 3D World'' style, which is of course part of the ''[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario 3D (series)|Super Mario 3D]]'' subseries instead. As for how they'd relate to each other, I'd consider ''Land/3D/Maker/Run'' to be derivative of ''Bros.'', but not direct subseries of it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:04, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
::I get where you're coming from about this ''Super Mario'' and ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries distinction Doc, but bringing all of this up raises a very important question to me, which is... where did you get your list of ''Super Mario Bros.'' games from? It feels weird to me to make a point about how "fan interpretation doesn't matter" in the context of deciding which games are mainline, only to include in your counterargument... a list of games that, as far as I am aware, is largely derived from your own interpretation. We can infer that Nintendo has acknowledged the existence of a ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries, and that ''Maker'' and ''Run'' are not part of it but ''U'' and ''Wonder'' are, but past that, any decisions we'd make are largely based on conjecture. Yeah, it's reasonable to assume that if ''U'' is part of the series, then so are the other three ''New Super Mario Bros.'' games, but without an official statement, can we really be certain? For all we know, the title ''[[New Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' could be treated as proof that ''[[New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'' shouldn't count. [[User:WayslideCool|WayslideCool]] ([[User talk:WayslideCool|talk]]) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
:::[https://topics.nintendo.co.jp/article/6e4c7b40-bd33-4556-8ec3-0c865904ef13 There's this list of nine Super Mario Bros. games], but (if Google Translate is to be trusted) the wording implies that they're just examples and it's not an exhaustive list. Regardless, what matters to the proposal is that the Maker and Run games are Super Mario but not Super Mario Bros. What else is in the SMB series is irrelevant, and it's also not something that's even covered in the mainspace as far as I'm aware. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
::::Pretty sure Blhte confirmed that was simply a list of random side-scrollers Mario's been in. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
:Amittedly, this is very silly, and we know for a dang fact this is not what Doc Von meant by this--this is just us bringing it up for the sake of being as thorough as possible, even to a <s>highly il</s>logical extreme. But it is worth noting that, uh, defining what counts as a mainline Mario platformer as hinging ''entirely'' on the inclusion of the word "Bros" not only leads to weird exclusions such as the two Lands, but... um... [[Super Smash Bros.|some]] [[Super Mario Bros. Print World|rather]] [[Super Mario Bros. & Friends: When I Grow Up|silly]] [[New Super Mario Bros. Wii Coin World|''in''clusions]], to put it lightly. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 21:12, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
::But of course; I'm only talking about the side-scrolling platformers based around Mario (and usually Luigi). Granted, I was the one who wanted to include ''Super Paper Mario'' and ''Super Mario Kart'' as "related" games to the ''Super Mario'' series, so maybe it's not so far off of a comparison after all :P [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:49, November 3, 2023 (EDT)


'''Edit:''' Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include [[Family Basic (microgame)]] and [[Family BASIC]] (as ruled by [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|a proposal]]), [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)|Hot Air Balloon (''Donkey Kong'' franchise)]] and [[Hot-air balloon]], [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]], and [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] and both [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)|Avalanche! (''Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix'')]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)|Avalanche! (''Mario Party 4'')]]. If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.


I feel obligated to ask this: what other lists of mainline Mario games have been made by Nintendo over the years? Genuinely not sure where else Nintendo has addressed this. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:55, November 1, 2023 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT


I kinda feel the need to draw attention to a pretty major point I made in the proposal, which is "How much can we really trust the Nintendo of America Super Mario Website as a canonical list of which games should be considered mainline?" This list excludes ''[[Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels]]'', includes ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'' but not ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'', treats recent rereleases like ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]'' as distinct entries, but not earlier ones like ''[[Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3]]''. I get the impression what we're seeing is less "canonical Nintendo-approved list of which games should be counted as distinct mainline entries" and more "Nintendo is a corporation that wants to promote their recent titles and is throwing in anything recent that vaguely falls under the ''Super Mario'' banner". Like, I don't know how bold a stance this is, but I don't think it's completely out of the question that a game can be a ''Super Mario'' game without being a mainline entry. (Hi ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island''!) [[User:WayslideCool|WayslideCool]] ([[User talk:WayslideCool|talk]]) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
====Support====
:The list is ordered by US release date, so it makes some sense that they would exclude The Lost Levels because of its weird release history outside Japan. The Japanese version of the site, ordered by Japanese release date, does have The Lost Levels. And ports are all listed separately on the [[Super Mario (series)]] article anyway because that's just how the series pages are organised. The official list being used to promote games does not change the fact that it is Nintendo's official list of Super Mario games, and also isn't a reason that we should discount specifically Maker and Run any more than it's a reason we should discount the Land games or the 3D games or whatever else we feel like excluding. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per.
::Well, we ''did'' decide that ''Bowser's Fury'' and ''Maker for 3DS'' go in the "Ports, remakes, and compilations" category, despite it being arguable that both games could very well count as full sequels. And yet ''Super Mario Bros. 35'', which again is on the same list of games without any distinction being made between it and other titles, doesn't count as a mainline entry ''or'' a reissue? I'm not suggesting that strictly adhering to Nintendo's apparent classification of these games would be ''better'' than the way we're doing it now, but we definitely are currently already discounting a few games entirely on the basis that Nintendo's classification of them doesn't make sense. [[User:JanMisali|JanMisali]] ([[User talk:JanMisali|talk]]) 11:43, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal.
:::You do have a point with Mario 35 like I mentioned earlier, but if there are discrepancies between our classification and Nintendo's, I think the solution is to fix them rather than use that as a reason to become even less accurate. Also, how exactly could those ports be considered "full sequels"? A port with new content is still a port and still falls under that section, I really don't see how there's an argument to be had there. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:14, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
::::Playing devil's advocate here, ''Bowser's Fury'' is a completely new game that just happens to also include a port of a previous game. ''Maker for 3DS'', while ''mechanically'' nearly identical to ''Maker'', has completely original levels, making its single-player "campaign" exactly as different as, say, ''The Lost Levels'' is from ''Super Mario Bros''. Is that enough of a reason to justify actually calling them mainline entries? No, but it ''is'' enough, I think, to question exactly how objective the reasoning currently being used to disqualify a handful of the games on "the official list" really is. Clearly, not all of the games on this list "really count" as mainline ''Super Mario'' games, and it's not as simple as just pointing to some of them and saying "okay, these are reissues, so they go somewhere else". [[User:JanMisali|JanMisali]] ([[User talk:JanMisali|talk]]) 12:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
:::::In the case of the ports specifically, I don't think it's really an argument of mainline vs. not. Note how in history sections on the wiki ([[Blooper]] for an example), the "Super Mario series" section covers ports as well since they're considered part of the series (this is even true for things that appeared in the ports but not the original like [[Toadette]]). They're listed separately in series pages and navboxes just because it's important for organization to distinguish between entirely new games and re-releases of old ones. And I still don't think the fact of them being ports is really up for debate - Bowser's Fury and the pre-made levels in Mario Maker aren't standalone games so they can't be counted separately from the ports. To get back to the topic of the proposal, I still don't see a good enough reason to distrust the official list and decide that we should exclude specifically Maker and Run. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:28, November 3, 2023 (EDT)


I think whether a game counts as mainline or not boils down to platforming. This is the core of the mainline Mario series. And in the case of the Mario Maker games, platforming is not at the core of it. The central concept, the critical quality of these games, is creating levels. Sure, platforming is a part of it, but say you open up one of the games for the first time. You've already played most of the 2D Mario games, and you're excited to see what this game has to offer. You don't go into course world and start playing levels, you explore the new, central concept of the game: Making levels. That's why it's called Super Mario "Maker" and not Super Mario Player. Sure, you can play user-created levels, but how would you be able to do that without ''users creating levels?!?'' Think about it. Users create levels, users play user-created levels. If it weren't for the creating aspect of the game, there would be no game! [[User:MegaBowser64|BOWSER...]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 10:49, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
====Oppose====
:Platforming is still a very central part of the Mario Maker games, you can't make levels without playing them and playing other people's levels in Course World is also a major aspect of the games (not to mention the pre-made levels they all have). But more importantly, what you personally think makes a game mainline isn't what matters - what matters is that Nintendo officially considers them to be mainline games. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:02, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
#{{User|Altendo}} I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with ''identical names'', not similar names.
:Per Hewer. While it's true that level creation is a core aspect and the whole point of the ''Super Mario Maker'' games, it should be noted that platforming is just as important, since, well, you'd be platforming in the levels that were created. If it wasn't important, why give the option to play those levels in the first place? Why does the creator need to test the levels in order to ensure they're fully playable before submitting them online? Why would there be a separate mode in which players can play a collection of random levels created by other players, which unlocks an extra goodie when completed every time?<br>Not to mention that [https://images.launchbox-app.com/1963d6bd-278e-48e7-9342-903048a89b1b.jpg the back of the box] notes three points: Play, Create, Share; and also lists the slogan "Everyone can play it, anyone can make it".<br>''Also'', the levels can be styled after one of four ''Super Mario Bros'' games, and even ''Super Mario 3D World'' in the sequel, and all styles look, sound, and play almost identical to the original games. The ''Maker'' games use five core ''Super Mario'' games as a core part of its core aspect; it's basically a core Super Mario platformer through and through with a level editor. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:17, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Altendo, this is what [[Template:Distinguish]] is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
::Fair enough. Just as a thought though, I see the Mario Maker games as more of an ''adaptation'' of previous games, using older content as a tool to create a new gameplay mechanic. It barely has any new content in terms of what can be used in future games, and is basically just "squash a whole bunch of old stuff together and throw in a level editor". Another point to be made is the lack of actual content created by Nintendo in the Mario Maker games. Sure, they made some levels, but it's just like in Geometry dash where no one really plays the official levels. Just because of the massive differences between the Mario Maker games and the average 2D Mario game, I think it should be a spin-off. I'm not saying there aren't tons of similarities, it's just that the similarities aren't overly prominent. [[User:MegaBowser64|BOWSER...]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 14:44, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Hewer.
:::[[Big Mushroom|There]] [[Bumper (Super Mario series)|are]] [[Mystery Mushroom|enough]] [[Weird Mushroom (item)|original]] [[Fire Koopa Clown Car|things]] [[Coursebot|in]] [[Mary O.|the]] [[Super Hammer (Super Mario Maker 2)|Super]] [[Yamamura|Mario]] [[Nina (Super Mario Maker 2)|Maker]] [[Soundfrog|games]] [[Partrick|to]] [[Mr. Eraser|give]] [[Worldbot|them]] [[Dash Block|their]] [[Koopa Troopa Car|own]] [[Moon (Super Mario Maker 2)|identity]] (certainly not "barely any" no matter how you slice it, probably not far off from how many things some of the NSMB games introduced and definitely more than The Lost Levels introduced). And your claim that there is a "lack of actual content created by Nintendo" [[Template:SMM levels|is]] [[Template:SMM2 levels|untrue]]. And "massive differences" also isn't much of an argument when this is the same series that includes both [[Super Mario Bros.]] and [[Super Mario Odyssey]]. But again, most importantly, how you see the games doesn't matter, how Nintendo sees them does. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:11, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
#{{User|Dine2017}} Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.


===Make coverage of playable Toads and playable Yoshis consistent with each other===
====Comments====
I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the [[Secret exit]] article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. [[Family Basic (microgame)]] recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from [[Family BASIC]] [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|was deemed unreasonable]]. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)]] (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from [[Hot-air balloon]]. [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] has an identifier to separate it from [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]], even though both of them have exclamation marks. [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]] get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made [[Family Basic]] a redirect to [[Family BASIC]], so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)


Currently, this wiki has separate articles for [[Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series)|Yellow Toad (''New Super Mario Bros.'' series)]] and [[Blue Toad (character)]], but does not have separate articles for the different color Yoshis that are playable in ''Super Mario Run'' and ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'', instead covering them all under the [[Yoshi (species)]] article. This inconsistency is a little bit silly, as there isn't really anything that differentiates the Toads that couldn't also be said about the Yoshis. While I don't have a particularly strong preference for ''how'' this should be changed, I do think it would be a good idea for this to be changed to become more consistent.
==New features==
===Create a category for "catch-all articles"===
By "catch-all article" (tentative term; please suggest names) I mean those that describe elements that are not related, but share an article because they boil down to the same generic, '''often''' real world object. Many of them fit what the [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects|guidelines]] call a "generic subject". Examples of this kind of article are:


Here are what I consider to be the main options for how to resolve this inconsistency:
*[[Hook]], which includes the object from ''[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]'' and the hooks on poles from ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'';
# Create new articles for all the different color Yoshis. These would not, for example, discuss ''every'' light-blue Yoshi, but only the specific character named Light-Blue Yoshi who is playable in ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''. This would be analogous to how the articles about the playable Toads are written.
*[[Lift]], which includes the yellow lifts seen in ''Super Mario'' games, elevators from ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'', Moving Platforms from ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis]]'', among others, all just basic platforms;
# Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the [[Toad (species)]] article. This would be analogous to how the playable Yoshis are currently covered.
*[[Bubble]], which includes the underwater bubble from ''[[Super Mario 64]]'', the player-carrying bubble from ''[[New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'', the Bubble trap from ''[[Diddy Kong Racing]]'', among others;
# Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into one singular "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" article, and leave the coverage of Yoshis as-is. (Creating a separate article for all the different color playable Yoshis collectively would be more consistent, but is also a bad idea.)
*[[Banana]], which includes the bananas from the [[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'']] series, the bananas from the [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|''Donkey Kong Country'']] games, the bananas from ''[[Yoshi's Story]]'', among others;
# Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the main [[Toad]] article, and move the coverage of the different color playable Yoshis into the main [[Yoshi]] article. That is, treat these characters purely as variations of Toad (character) and Yoshi (character), like Pink Donkey Kong Jr. or players 3 and 4 from ''Mario Bros.'' (Game Boy Advance).
*[[Heart (item)|Heart]], which includes the heart item from ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'', the one from ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns]]'', the one from ''[[Dr. Mario World]]'', among others.


Personally, I think of these the third option is the most sensible, and would be the least disruptive.
They may also boil down to a similar ''fictional'' basic concept, which are their own distinct thing, despite all of them taking a similar form:


*[[! Block]], which includes the red blocks from the [[Yoshi's Island (series)|''Yoshi's Island'' games]] games, the block-spawning yellow blocks from ''[[Super Mario Maker 2]]'', the ! Block switches from the [[Wario Land (series)|''Wario Land'' games]];
*[[Poison Mushroom]], which includes the mushrooms from ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels]]'', the Poison Shroom item from the early [[Paper Mario (series)|''Paper Mario'' games]], among others;
*[[? Panel]], which includes the panels from ''[[Super Mario Kart]]'', the ones from ''[[Paper Mario: Color Splash]]'', and others.


This affects [[Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series)]], [[Blue Toad (character)]], [[Yoshi (species)]], and potentially [[Toad]], [[Toad (species)]], and [[Yoshi]].
Compare subjects to which this category would '''not''' apply, like [[? Block]] or [[P-Switch]], where every reappearance of the subject is really a deliberate revisitation of a specific concept that already existed.


'''Proposer''': {{User|JanMisali}}<br>
This category would be applied to articles on concrete subjects only (most of which, if not all, would be objects).
'''Deadline''': November 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT


====Create new articles for individual playable Yoshis====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
#{{User|Tails777}} This has always been a goal for me. Multi colored Yoshis have had consistent playable appearances and consistent differences across multiple games. Beyond just ''Super Mario Run'' and ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' and regardless of whether or not this option covers such things, this is the step I'd rather take.
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad (species)====
====Support====
#{{User|Somethingone}} Primary choice; I agree this situation is the same as the colored Yoshis, but I don't necessarily think that splitting a member solely because they are playable is a good rule to follow. There's little indication that the two toads are unique beyond them being playable.
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} My proposal.
#{{user|Blinker}} Per proposal, I agree that something should be merged here. Considering they've been collectively referred to as "Toad" in U Deluxe and the Wonder direct, I think this makes more sense than the "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" option. Not sure about the character/species distinction though. The line between the two pages feels quite arbitrarily drawn, for the most part, but there are instances of both playable and non-playable Toads in the character article, so if playability isn't the criterion, might as well play along with the Toad article's being written as though it's about an individual, I guess.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per proposal, this is probably the closest to what I want in the long run.
# {{User|Okapii}} I don’t mean to diminish the amount of effort and care that went into the pages for Blue and Yellow, but tbh I just don’t think there is enough merit to warrant these two having their own pages, or even a shared one. Taking a look at the talk pages for both shows that there has been confusion for years as to what even constitutes an appearance for these two, because they are so generic in design, personality (or lack thereof), and ability.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Seeing as we nixed unique articles for each individually colored Yoshi long ago, this definitely makes more sense to us. We don't really have a dedicated Green Toad article, so these two having articles feels like a remnant of a long-bygone era of the wiki.
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} omekapo jelo Toad en laso Toad, mi wile ken sina. Jokes aside, I initially thought of the idea of merging to two into their own article as a duo, but the more I thought about it, it's actually debatable on whether or not Nintendo has made any distinction on ''who'' is exactly the Yellow or Blue Toad in many games. I know it's a controversial stance, but the same issue applies to [[Birdo]] and [[Boom Boom]]. Whenever Nintendo puts these characters in a game, they don't make it very clear on who ''the'' Birdo or Boom Boom is. Compare them to Toad, [[Lakitu (Mario Kart referee)|Lakitu]], and Kamek in comparison [[Toad (species)|to]] [[Lakitu|their]] [[Magikoopa|species]]. There's enough information to tell the characters and species apart here. In this case, we are talking about two colors with flat personalities. I'm not going to ''deny'' that Nintendo wasn't trying to make these Toads special, but with the advent of tons of Toad colors in other ''Super Mario'' games, there's almost a level of speculation on who the actual Yellow or Blue Toad is. Both colors appear in the ''Mario Baseball'' games and there is even another [[Yellow Toad (Toad Brigade)|Yellow Toad]] in the Toad Brigade. That one in particular has a [[Yellow_Toad_(Toad_Brigade)#Names_in_other_languages|unique Japanese name]] while the two Toads are actually given [[Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series)|generic]] [[Blue_Toad_(character)#Names_in_other_languages|Japanese names]] ([[List_of_rumors_and_urban_legends#Bucken-Berry_and_Ala-Gold|if only they went for Bucken-Berry and Ala-Gold]]). ''Super Mario Maker 2'' also has a Blue Toad in Mario's construction crew and Nintendo doesn't specify if he's the same dude. I don't agree with merging these with the Toad character, because the Toad modifier only really applies to [[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe|one game]] and in that case, the generic instance of "Toad" in that game while probably intentionally meant to reference ''the'' Toad, was really an attempt to merge these characters into one. I mean, it's not like [[Toad#New_Super_Mario_Bros._U_.2F_New_Super_Mario_Bros._U_Deluxe|we're missing out on that detail.]] So until Nintendo starts to
#{{User|ToxicOJ}} Per all.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Camwoodstock and TheUndescribableGhost.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all.


====Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad into "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad"====
====Oppose====
# {{User|JanMisali}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see how such a category would be useful, and I don't like that it's pretty subjective and is based on a trait shared by the articles rather than the objects themselves. Even if there was value in distinguishing these pages, I don't think a category like this is the way to do it.
# {{User|Somethingone}} Second choice, better than nothing and seems to be how they're handled now.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Is [[History of Mario]] a catch-all article because it covers both a fictional character and [[Bob Hoskins]]? We would have to have that sort of debate for too many articles to count. This is too subjective and doesn't really accomplish anything.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per proposal, this is probably the most clear-cut.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Unnecessary, and the word "generic" alone is unclear whether it goes by the definition of real-life or ''Super Mario''.
# {{User|LadySophie17}} This makes the most sense to me, like other character pairs that have appeared in the series.
#{{User|Arend}} Honestly, the inclusion of fictional items like Poison Mushroom, ! Block and ? Panel would make it more confusing for me what a "catch-all article" is supposed to be; if it's supposed to be about generic subjects, then their inclusion would definitely muddy the concept quite a bit. Not to mention that the term "catch-all article" isn't clear enough as it is.
# {{User|Seandwalsh}} Second choice. Only option that makes sense of the ones proposed. I would just oppose any change but nobody’s backing that horse.
#{{User|Hewer}} Funnily enough I was planning on a proposal to get rid of the identifiers on the Yellow Toad and Blue Toad articles before this one started. Anyway, the two always appear together and seem to be considered the same character in NSMBU Deluxe, so a merge makes sense the more that I think about it.
#{{User|Tails777}} Secondary option. These two Toads normally appear in the same games at the same time with the same roles. I'd argue they're more deserving of shared articles than [[Ashley]] and [[Red]] were (even if they are split now)
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} Sure, let's do this. I'm not a fan of the "''New Super Mario Bros.'' series" identifier anyways, since it's technically a sub-series, but that's a discussion for another time.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} They have enough of a significant role that I don't think we should just be burying them in the Toad species article, but there's not really anything you can say about one that you can't say about the other, so this seems reasonable enough.
# {{User|DesaMatt}} First choice.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} per all of yall.
#{{user|7feetunder}} I had already suggested this on Yellow Toad's talk page previously, and would have eventually proposed the merge myself had this proposal not been made first. Yellow Toad and Blue Toad appear in the exact same games and have the exact same role in each one, so much so that some of their article sections are nearly word-for-word identical. The only thing that really sets them apart is their color.
#{{User|Swallow}} My preferred option


====Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad, and move coverage of individual playable Yoshis to Yoshi====
====Comments====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per proposal, leaning less toward this than the others for now, though.
My gut reaction is that I disagree that the Poison Mushroom and Lift articles encompass generic subjects. They are supported as discrete in the paratext for these games. But even if narrowed to articles I agree are generic, it is not inherently clear to me what the benefit of having a "catch-all category" would be. My general view is that there are quite a few subjects that we consider to be generic which really are not. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:45, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:What would be some subjects you don't consider generic? My case for the Lift is that it's an article that encompasses almost all types of flat, moving platforms (a basic platforming game object), many even with their own distinct names; I believe you could even argue for some of the versions to get their own articles. And yeah, I agree that there's no huge benefit to having this category, as it would be there mostly for the sake of acknowledgement that "this article does not describe the history of a single idea, but it's instead an aggregation of the histories of various ideas that fit under this umbrella". {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 16:25, November 10, 2024 (EST)


====No change====
===Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts===
# {{User|LadySophie17}} Second option. They are fine as is.
I'm currently contributing to ''[[Mario & Luigi: Brothership]]'' content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that [[Glohm]] enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.
# {{User|Seandwalsh}} First choice.
# {{User|DesaMatt}} Second choice.


====Other====
This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:


====Comments====
1. '''Glohm enemies get their own articles.''' They get their own dedicated pages.
 
2. '''Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts.''' This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.
 
Let's see what happens!


===Clarify and expand coverage of recurring musical themes===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br>
Before we get into the proposal, let me lay out some helpful definitions for terms I will use.
'''Deadline''': December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Definitions'''
====Create new articles for Glohm enemies====
*'''Another Game''': A game that is neither the original game nor a remake of the original game.
#{{User|Sparks}} My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
*'''Any Form of a Theme''': The original version, an arrangement, a past arrangement, a remix, a past remix, a vocalization, or a past vocalization of a theme.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We give articles to [[Elite Dry Bones|other stronger]] [[Shy Guy R|RPG enemy]] [[Antasma X|and boss variants]], so why should Brothership be any different?
*'''Appearance''': The inclusion of any form of a theme in a piece of media, either in its entirety or only a part.
#{{User|Tails777}} They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
*'''Arrangement''': A new rendition of a theme that features different instrumentation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, or timbre than the original version. It can be a rendition of the theme in its entirety or a rendition of only a part of the theme.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
*'''Media''': Games, remakes of games, movies, TV shows, albums, official live performances, sheet music books, etc.
#{{User|Zootalo}} The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
*'''Original Version''': A theme as it was originally heard in its very first appearance with no audible alterations. It can be the original version in its entirety or only a part of the original version.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
*'''Original Game''': The game in which a theme appeared for the first time.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
*'''Past Arrangement / Past Remix / Past Vocalization''': An arrangement/remix/vocalization that debuted in a previously released piece of media.
*'''Remix''': The original version of a theme that is modified by changing the tempo or pitch or adding new percussion/beats, but it can still be recognized as a variation of the original version and not an entirely new rendition.
*'''Remake''': For the purposes of this proposal, a "remake" refers to a remake, port, re-release, or remaster of a game.
*'''Retro Service''': A solely service dedicated to playing retro games, such as [[Virtual Console]], [[Nintendo Switch Online]], or ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' series [[masterpiece]]s.
*'''Theme''': A recognizable musical idea that encompasses melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, or timbral elements. Can be either a musical composition or a sound effect.
*'''Vocalization''': A rendition of a theme that is hummed, sang, or otherwise vocalized without instruments. (Includes a cappella renditions)


[[Project:Proposals/Archive 52#Create pages with renditions of recognizable music themes|This proposal]] that passed back in 2018 created the groundwork for the creation of articles about recurring musical themes. I think that this was a great first step in establishing coverage of a very important aspect of the ''Super Mario'' franchise. However, I feel that the standards it set need some improvements and clarifications. This proposal set the following standard for what qualifies a theme for an article: “''the theme must be renditioned in at least 8 games, not counting remakes or reissues.''” The term “renditioned” has been interpreted to mean that the game includes an entirely new arrangement. It doesn’t make sense to limit what counts as an appearance to entirely new arrangements, because whether or not a theme is “recurring” has nothing to do with it being an arrangement, a past arrangement, or the original version. For example, a theme that has been included in exactly 8 games, each featuring an arrangement, would qualify for an article as a recurring theme. However, a theme that has been included in 20 games, but only 6 of those feature arrangements, would not receive an article as a recurring theme. It doesn't make any sense to say the the first theme is recurring but the second one is not. Additionally, I think that we should include appearances in other pieces of media, such as ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'', rather than just limiting it to strictly games.
====Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them====


For these reasons, I propose this new standard to be used going forward: '''For a recurring theme to qualify for an article, it must appear in at least 8 pieces of ''Super Mario''-related media. Appearances of the theme in retro services do not count towards the threshold requirement.'''
====Comments====
{{@|Zootalo}} The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are. {{Unsigned|Nightwicked Bowser}}


Appearances that do not count towards the article creation threshold should still be noted that within the recurring theme's article, such as appearances in retro services and non-''Super Mario''-related media.
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


Here are examples of what would and would not count towards the “8 pieces of media” threshold under this framework:
==Changes==
===Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)===
''Mario Kart Tour'' has quite the reputation on this wiki in terms of pages, at one time nearly forming the top ten of the largest pages here in terms of bit size. However, what was glossed over was the size of Tour's template, being large enough to hold several templates within itself, and making the page, should the user click on it, almost double in length, more so with the other templates open. Using [[DS DK Pass]] as an example, a page for a race course that doesn't have a lot of information on it making for a relatively quick read, is now nearly half taken up by the monstrously large ''Mario Kart Tour'' template.


:'''Counts towards the threshold:'''
A total of four sub templates exist within the ''Mario Kart Tour'' template: Characters (and their skins), Vehicle Parts, Courses, and Other (miscellaneous). For example, if the Courses template were split off and applied to DS DK Pass' page, it would make for a much more palatable experience for those looking for courses found in ''Tour'', rather than making the reader scroll for a centuries and looking for it amongst a sea of numerous skins and kart parts.  
*Any form of a theme in the original game.
*Any form of a theme in a remake of the original game.
*Any form of a theme in another game.
*Any form of a theme in a remake of another game.
*Any form of a theme in any other type of ''Super Mario''-related piece of media.
:'''Doesn't count towards the threshold:'''
*Any form of a theme in a retro service.
*Any form of a theme in a piece of non-''Super Mario''-related media.


'''Proposer''': {{User|ToxicOJ}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|MightyMario}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|ToxicOJ}} Per proposal.
#{{User|MightyMario}} I heartily endorse this proposal.
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} I agree. Then again, there are 1-ish things that don't make sense. If remakes aren't counted for the "8 pieces of media" threshold, then shouldn't Super Mario All-Stars and/or Super Mario 64 DS not count?
#{{User|Tails777}} I kinda agree with this. I feel this would be a bit more organized too, so people don't have to scroll through loads of characters, karts and other things just to find the tracks section. I have found myself on numerous occasions jumping from track articles and with ''Tour's'' template, it was rather irritating searching through massive sections of characters and tours just to find tracks. I support this idea.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Sounds good. Sonic123's remark makes sense though, there should be a very clear-cut line for remakes.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} We've split navigation templates for [[Template:NSMBW levels|much less]], this makes sense for the sheer amount of content in the game.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} You could probably also change the whole "8 instances" line to say "8 ''unique'' instances" and then define what counts as a unique appearance of the song, rather than trying to mesh it all together like this (our brain kinda melted trying to read this at first... we blame a toothache ;P), but we definitely think cleanly defining what counts as a new instance of a song rather than just it appearing in another port is ''very'' handy to have, and is something sorely missing.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
#{{User|Conradd}} Per proposal. However, I have a question regarding Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros. Are the original themes played on this GBA port streamed, or remade with samples recorded from an NES, or were they remade from scratch to sound as close as possible to those played on NES with the GBA soundchip (like the Game Boy with Super Mario Bros. Deluxe)? If it's the latter two, shouldn't those technically be considered rearrangements? Super Mario Bros. Deluxe was clearly aiming for an authentic NES experience but was limited by its hardware, yet we still consider what came out of it as rearrangements and not reuses). I guess I'm arguing about the degree of sound fidelity here. Should music (game program instructions) played on different revisions of a soundchip be considered a rearrangement? (For example the NES with the Ricoh 2A03 (+ revisions) for NTSC regions and the Ricoh 2A07 (+ revisions) for PAL regions)
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Agreed with all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Now that the consistency problem seems to have been fixed, per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Great proposal! Per.
#{{User|Dark Jonathan}} I didn't know Tour templates gave so many problems, but hey, that's a good proposal.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all.
#{{User|BMfan08}} I was just thinking about this the other day when I was changing tense on tour articles. It's definitely a lot to take in, and it's also overlooked because people don't put into a template quite as much as they do a page. I agree with this idea.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per all.
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} This will make page-by-page navigation of MKT articles more efficient or convenient. Supporting.
#{{User|Mario}} The size of this nav template would make Wario proud, but I'm sure this complaint has already been forwarded to a lot of aspects of Mario Kart Tour content on this wiki.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} I'm  personally fine with the whole "remakes shouldn't count" rule because of my personal belief that it's not really evidence of a theme being "recurring". I feel if it's in a non-remake, it does indeed speak more to how Nintendo and other developers treat the song. Also, if we were to give articles to themes with like, three unique arrangements (like Mega Mushroom for instance), it'll just be a stub article. Also, the "Any form of a theme in a piece of non-Super Mario-related media." sounds good on paper, but sounds rather vague to me. If we are talking about "cameo" games on the wiki (''LEGO City Undercover'' using the Super Star theme), that's fine, but does that also reach [[Mario + Rabbids (series)|full coverage crossovers]], [[Super Smash Bros. (series)|selective coverage crossovers]], [[Sonic Lost World|guest appearances]]? If I was making this proposal, I would've only counted games we cover on the wiki because we ''actually'' gave these games articles. I do understand wanting to cover some themes because yeah, I do agree that ''are'' recurring to some degree. Part of me kind of wants to see a {{Fake link|List of recurring themes}} for themes that we don't give full-fledged articles but do acknowledge for those that want to see what theme has appeared more than one time, using your idea. It's the same idea that the ''[[List_of_fighters_debuting_in_Super_Smash_Bros.|Super]] [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|Smash]] [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl|Bros.]]'' [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U|list]] [[List_of_fighters_debuting_in_Super_Smash_Bros._Ultimate|pages.]]


====Comments====
====Comments====
{{User|MegaBowser64}} Sonic123 isn't my username, but other than that, I agree. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 13:28, November 3, 2023 (CST)
I think alternatively, they could be given different collapsible sections, like we do with the galleries template. But I agree it is overwhelmingly enormous. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:58, November 10, 2024 (EST)


Regarding {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}}'s point, the standard regarding remakes is that the only appearance that doesn't count is when original theme is in a remake of the original game (i.e. ''Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.''). This distinction only applies to remakes of the game where the theme ''first'' appeared. Appearances of the original theme or arrangements of the theme in remakes of subsequent games does count (i.e. ''Super Mario 64 DS'' or ''Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury''). The intention behind this is to ensure that a theme does not end up qualifying solely based on the game of origin being rereleased in its original form over and over again. In other words:
We're talking about the navigation template at the bottom of these pages, right? Because that's the only Tour-related template on the DS DK Pass article (subpages notwithstanding) and it's indeed quite huge. If we do split it off into several subtemplates, I suppose it'd be comparable to various levels from specific platformer titles having a navbox template for themselves instead of sharing a primary nabvox template with the rest of that game's content (e.g. [[Super Bell Hill]] featuring {{tem|SM3DW levels}} instead of {{tem|SM3DW}}); or the existence of various navigation templates for the various microgames or minigames in specific ''WarioWare'' or ''Mario Party'' title. So while it's atypical for us to split ''Mario Kart''-specific nav templates, it's not unheard of for us to split off nav templates in the first place. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:04, November 10, 2024 (EST)
*Original theme in original game '''(Counts)'''
*Original theme in remake/port of original game '''(Doesn't count)'''
*Original theme in other game '''(Counts)'''
*Original theme in remake/port of other game '''(Counts)'''
*New arrangement in other game '''(Counts)'''
*New arrangement in remake/port of original game '''(Counts)'''
*New arrangement in remake/port of other game '''(Counts)'''
*Reused arrangement in other game '''(Counts)'''
*Reused arrangement in remake/port of the original game '''(Counts)'''
*Reused arrangement in remake/port of other game '''(Counts)'''
*Any type of appearance in a Virtual Console/Arcade Archives/Nintendo Switch Online game '''(Doesn't count)''' [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 14:34, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
:I get why a new arrangement makes it enough to count, but I don't understand the logic behind counting reused arrangements in ports of games other than the original. If reused arrangements in ports shouldn't count, then I think we should be consistent about that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:43, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
::Under this framework, reused arrangements in ports would count. The only thing that wouldn't count are inclusions of the ''original version'' of the theme in ports of the theme's ''first game of appearance''. [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 14:46, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
:::Was just about to say that but you said it for me. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 13:50, November 3, 2023 (CST)
:::And that's what I have a problem with. Why is that the case? What makes reused arrangements in ports of other games more valid than reused arrangements in ports of the original game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:53, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
::::When you say "reused arrangements in ports," does that include the very first version of a theme (''Super Mario Bros.'' original version of the "Ground Theme" in ''Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.''), or just reused arrangements in ports (''Super Mario All-Stars'' arrangement of the "Ground Theme" in ''Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition'')? [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 14:58, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
:::::ToxicOJ has a point. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 14:01, November 3, 2023 (CST)
:::::I'm saying that neither of those cases should count. For example, Super Mario 64 DS reusing the arrangement from SM64 shouldn't count, for the same reason that ports of Super Mario Bros. that use the original theme shouldn't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:12, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
::::::The only reason I make the distinction between ports of later games and ports of the original game is to prevent a situation where a theme could be considered "recurring" without ever either changing its arrangement or being included in a different game from the original. If a past arrangement is reused in a port of another game, then that problem has already been avoided so there's no need to exclude that appearance. To be honest I'd rather count both of these situations towards the threshold than neither of them, but I thought that this was the best compromise standard. [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 15:19, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
:::::::WHOO! This needs to stop! {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 14:28, November 3, 2023 (CST)
:::::::I wouldn't mind counting both either, I just have a problem with the inconsistency of counting one and not the other. It feels much more simple and logical to either count or not count all reused appearances in ports. And if we want to fully solve the problem you've described then we'd need to not count both, otherwise it would still be possible for a theme with only two appearances and one arrangement to be considered recurring. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:00, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Ok. Thanks! {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 13:38, November 3, 2023 (CST)


In response to your question {{User|Conradd}}, I define an arrangement as "''a new rendition of a theme that features different instrumentation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, or timbre than the original version''," and I define an original version as "''a theme as it was originally heard in its very first appearance with no audible alterations''." Under these definitions, if a game includes a perfect, 1-to-1 match of how the theme sounded in its original game, then it is considered a reuse of the original version of the theme, and if it is not a perfect, 1-to-1 match, then it is considered an arrangement or remix, depending on the nature of the changes. The distinction comes down to audible differences. If the "Ground Theme" sounds different in any way for another game such as ''Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.'' or ''Super Mario Bros. Deluxe'', then that would be considered an arrangement. Regarding differences in soundchips between regional versions of the NES and ''Super Mario Bros.'', I've not seen anything to suggest that the theme was not directly ported as an exact match of how it sounds in the original Japanese version, even though different regions technically use different soundchips, so that would be considered a use of the original version of the theme unless an audible difference between regions could be shown. [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 01:52, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
===Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading===
:Could the tempo difference between NTSC regions (60Hz) and PAL regions (50Hz) qualified as rearrangement? --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 02:46, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
It's been two years since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Do not use t-posing models as infobox images|the previous proposal]] had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take [https://www.models-resource.com/resources/big_icons/4/3950.png?updated=1673644745 this image] for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:
::Ok so I checked just to be sure and was surprised to see that in fact the PAL version of the game is faster than the NTSC version (I was sure it was the other way around, but there has a difference, at least in the tempo) I did more research and find that if you disable the lock chip on your NTSC NES (mod) or play on an NES Toploader with a PAL cartridge, the music plays even faster. on the contrary, if you disable the lock chip on a PAL NES and try to play an NTSC cartridge, the music is slower. So it's like this:
::*disabled lock chip on PAL console + NTSC cartridge (slow speed) https://youtu.be/u8rNd4zK4lo
::*'''unmodified''' NTSC console + NTSC cartridge (normal speed) https://youtu.be/iy3qq7zc4EY
::*'''unmodified''' PAL console + PAL cartridge (fast speed) https://youtu.be/ulqS2JOGsb4
::*lock chip disabled on NTSC console + PAL cartridge or NES Toploader + PAL cartridge -> (fastest speed) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/acCBsBmWxZ8 (mod NTSC) ; https://youtu.be/nNsFBqb48RY (Toploader) --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 12:52, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
:::After looking into this situation a little more, I think that this is a unique instance that warrants an exception and would not count as a rearrangement, only because this 50hz vs. 60hz differences affects all PAL games universally, so I think it should be treated similarly to our policy on regional differences in naming, and we would use the NTSC 60hz version, but I'm open to different solutions. [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 12:37, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
::::Sorry, your response camed before mine. Is this universal across all games? Now we know that PAL SMB plays faster than its NTSC counterpart, what about SMB2, SMB3 or any other Mario related games on the system? Are all NES PAL games faster than their NTSC counterparts, no matter what? What about SNES, N64, GameCube... is there any difference in music speed in different regions for those system as well? --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 13:07, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
:::::I'm not sure. I definitely think that these differences should be mentioned in the themes' articles, but since we're dealing with regional differences between the same game rather than differences between two seperate games, I would say that this would not count towards the threshold. [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 13:31, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
::::::I guess I'm bringing that up because we recently accepted the SMB3 theme in WarioWare: Move It! as different, which is a faster version of the original in this case, so I guess I want to make sure, but since WarioWare: Move It! is different game, that counts, right? (did i get it? lol) What about the Hurry Up! version of the originals, that should count too, no? For example: Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) and Ground Theme, Hurry Up! (Super Mario Bros.) --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 14:09, November 4, 2023 (EDT)


I don't mean to be rude to you, Toxic, but I think you should have thought more about your proposal before making everyone vote. We now need to compare your old proposal with the rearanged one to see if we still agree with our votes, and I think it's annoying. Has anything substantial changed? If yes maybe we should reboot the counter. --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 01:56, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
{{tem|image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}
:I'm sorry, you're 100% right, that's my bad. Most of the change is general clarification, rewording, and adding a list of definitions of terms used. The one change in substance is that I now include appearances of the original version of a theme in remakes of the original game in order to keep a consistent standard. Both of these changes were in response to multiple comments addressing these issues, so I figured it would be best to make those changes less than 24 hours after I created the proposal. I am totally fine with resetting the counter if that needs to be done. [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 02:04, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
 
::I think the best thing to do is to reach out to those who have already voted and tell them to go check the new proposal to see if they still agree with theirs votes so that everyone is on the same page. I think I would be lame to start over. Do you want to change something first? --[[User:Conradd|Conradd]] ([[User talk:Conradd|talk]]) 02:46, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.
:::That’s a good idea, I’ll reach out to them. I’m pretty happy with how the proposal looks now, so I won’t change it again. [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 02:53, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
 
::::Popping in to say we saw and uh, we're still in support ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 10:43, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
<s>#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots|this]] is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.</s>
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there [[:File:PiantissimoUnmasked.png|can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models]], and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have ''if'' they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there ''are'' scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
#{{User|Mario}} Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.
 
====Comments====
Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds ([https://www.models-resource.com/resources/big_icons/4/3950.png?updated=1673644745 like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl], Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)


To address your point {{User|TheUndescribableGhost}}, "''Any form of a theme in a piece of non-Super Mario-related media''" refers to pieces of media that are not covered by the Wiki (such as ''Lego City Undercover''). The other examples you cited, full coverage crossovers (like ''Mario + Rabbids''), selective coverage crossovers (like ''Super Smash Bros.''), and guest appearances (like ''Sonic Lost World'') would all count as ''Super Mario''-related media since they are covered in some form by the Wiki. [[User:ToxicOJ|ToxicOJ]] ([[User talk:ToxicOJ|talk]]) 12:50, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models ''as they are''. [[:File:MLNPC.png]] is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 11:23, November 22, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, November 22nd, 16:55 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for one or two weeks.
  • 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 autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (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 two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  5. 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.
  6. 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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • 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.
  7. 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.
  8. A proposal cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  9. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  10. 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.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  13. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  14. 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.
  15. If the wiki staff 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.
  16. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  17. 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.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. 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, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 22, 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

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 for proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by the additional rules below:
  3. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  4. 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

  • Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Remove identifiers for Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf) and Ike (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!), Starluxe (ended November 21, 2024)

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)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Do not surround song titles with quotes

This is a change to this section of our Manual of Style. Currently, our policy is to surround song titles with quotation marks whenever they appear. However. We are a Mario wiki, and the Mario series overwhelmingly does not do this.

The comparison arises to italics, but I feel there's quite a difference between that (an effect applied to text) and the inclusion of punctuation marks, which are text in and of themselves. Not to mention, unlike italics, which would require special programming to implement, quote marks are supported by anything that supports English text, meaning it's not a question of technical limitations — every game that names its songs is perfectly capable of listing them inside quotation marks, and yet they make the choice not to.

As such, surrounding song titles in quotes is questionable as adherence to an unofficial naming scheme over the original one. Not to mention the effects this can have on lists of song titles — their inclusion on Template:DDRMM fluffs up the width of the song section by the width of several song titles.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to mention how inconsistently these quote marks are applied across the wiki already — many entries in Category:Music do not use them in their article, none of the lists of songs from the shows or of WarioWare DIY records use them, Starring Wario! and only Starring Wario has had its article title changed to have the quotes. I take this to mean the rule is not serving the wiki as it stands.

The one exception to everything I've mentioned thus far is Paper Mario: The Origami King's music discs: "Deep, Deep Vibes", "Heartbeat Skipper", "M-A-X Power!", and "Thrills at Night". These are the only time the names of songs are formatted this way (possibly due to the items being CDs of the songs and not the songs themselves). Therefore, these will be the only exception if this proposal passes, and will keep their quote marks.

To circle back around to my original point: I think the nail in the coffin for displaying music this way is Nintendo Music. This application, specifically meant to play music, does not surround their names with quote marks. And yet this article surrounds them in quotes anyway, stringently adhering to our unofficial way of formatting these over the way Nintendo Music actually formats them. It's almost lying, frankly.

So, our options:

  • Option 1: Exclude quote marks from song titles in all cases. Our manual of style will remove the mention of song titles from the section of italicizing titles. Just for clarity, this excludes Origami King's CDs.
  • Option 2: Keep quote marks when song titles are used in a sentence, but exclude them from standalone appearances of the title. Such standalone appearances would include article titles, navboxes, infoboxes, track listings, and table entries. Just for clarity, this option, too, excludes Origami King's CDs.
  • Option 3: Do nothing. I guess this option includes Origami King's CDs.

Proposer:: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) My primary choice. I've firmly laid out my reasons why here.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) I prefer to think of each music as a work in its own right rather than a part of some "greater whole". Jump Up, Super Star! is more than just a piece of Super Mario Odyssey's OST. Therefore, song titles should be italicized like any other work and not be in quotation marks as if they were merely chapters.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, and there's precedent for following Nintendo's official formatting in spite of usual conventions. The inconsistencies described in the proposal ought to be fixed regardless of the outcome, though.
  4. Biggestman (talk) While I to a degree understand the entire thing with the songs simply being a part of a greater thing, that isn't really fair when I would make an argument some of these songs are a larger part of the series' history than those "greater" things. For example music from Yoshi's Story is still used relatively often to this very day, but Yoshi's Story as a whole is just kinda there. Per all, too.

Option 2

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) I will settle for this — part of my ire toward the quotemarks is that I find them highly unsuitable for these particular usages.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Secondary option, per my comment below in Option 3.

Option 3

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a greater whole (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in The Color of Water. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of Resident Alien. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "Gusty Garden Galaxy" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and Gusty Garden Galaxy is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) per N101. quotation marks are a writing convention! most mario games also don't have italic titles, but we italicize them anyways because it's a formal writing convention that makes sense
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Strong oppose, per all. This is a well-recognized writing convention, the fact that Nintendo doesn't typically follow it within their products is irrelevant.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. These quotes are here for a reason, no matter how remote it may seem.
  5. Ray Trace (talk) Quoting songs is from the manual of style itself, it's the same reason we italicize game titles. I would go even further and quote song titles as a display title like I did in "Starring Wario!"
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  7. Axii (talk) Per all.
  8. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - "Because game writing" is what leads to wikis encouraging jokey sarcastic writing, which I'm pretty sure is not the direction we want to go.

Comments

If this passes, how would it affect coverage of non-Mario music? Our only options are either to have two standards, or ignore established convention based on what Nintendo does for media they had no hand in actually producing. Neither seems ideal to me. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:24, November 10, 2024 (EST)

We'd treat non-Mario music the same as Mario music. Established convention doesn't mean much when we're always saying on this page that we're not other wikis and we don't necessarily need to do things the way other wikis do them. Ahemtoday (talk) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)
I don't think anyone is advocating to hold onto a convention just for the sake of it. Rather, that we should hold onto the convention because it is useful and the proposal doesn't provide persuasive reasons to abandon that usage, or at least it does not for me. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)

In addition, I wouldn't use applications such as Nintendo Music as proof that we shouldn't abide by formatting either. Neither music metadata nor files themselves quote song names, neither does Spotify nor Amazon Music. Yet Wikipedia still does because that's how it's standardized in writing articles. In addition, you pointed out how "Starring Wario!" is the outlier as your point, I've only just started working on those articles mate. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 21:01, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Even Wikipedia doesn't use the quotes in article titles though. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:17, November 11, 2024 (EST)
I would support an option that called for just removing the quotation marks in the header for articles (as done here, which should be compared to here). This is not uncommon in written books on music. But there currently is no voting option to do just that. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)

@Ray Trace I'm aware it's in the manual of style. That's why the proposal is about changing the manual of style. Ahemtoday (talk) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I'm not talking about the wiki's manual style. I'm talking about general guidelines especially MLA BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 15:41, November 11, 2024 (EST)
If it's not our manual of style, then there's no reason for us to care about it because we don't use it. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Our manual of style is based on this manual of style. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 18:11, November 11, 2024 (EST)
If it's only based on it, then it isn't it. The manual of style is ours, so this quote mark convention has to survive on its own merits, not just by virtue of being in someone else's manual of style. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:22, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Not using general formatting standard guidelines solely because "we shouldn't just because we're not them" is not a good argument. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 18:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Well, then — Nintendo doesn't do this either, so there's no reason for this wiki to pretend like they do. That's been my argument this whole time. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)
The main difference is that they're a video game, and they're inherently informal in their presentation. They're not trying to write things and bios formally, they're trying to present writing to players, so formatting like italicizing game titles is optional, because that's what it's set out to do. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, our writing formatting is far more similar to Wikipedia which observes these things and MLA writing guidelines, and how to format sourcing, and it's something we should emulate over a video game's script. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 18:47, November 11, 2024 (EST)
@Ahemtoday I don't think that is the strong argument you think it is, because almost no piece of media where it has become conventional to include quotation marks include them themselves. They are not on the back of most albums, books, or title cards for television shows. But they are all still presented with quotes arounf them in reference material like Wikipedia and physical books. What makes the Nintendo music we cover here so different that warrants unique treatment? - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:53, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Nintendo doesn't always italicize game titles either, this site does. To be honest, though, I'm not sure how consistently this wiki observes MLA. There's some superficial basis in it (mostly coming off of Wikipedia's style guide, which is sprinkled with some MLA), what with the titles of whole works being written in italics and those of constituent parts of a work being surrounded by quotes, yet the manner in which citations are formatted, arguably a priority of any academic style guide, seems rather peculiar to Wikipedia's house style. Take any citation formatted using the {{cite}} template on this wiki and compare it to how MLA proposes it is done (owl.purdue.edu). There's also been at least one attempt at explicitly adopting a standard purveyed by MLA that got shot down. Not to digress too much, I just wanted to point out that MLA is not currently as pervasive here as it's made out to be and can't be appealed to solely because of a few instances that (happen to) observe it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:20, November 11, 2024 (EST), edited 19:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
I am personally forgiving on how we structure citations in that template, because many academic journals don't adopt the MLA structure either. Everyone does something a little different from one another. The information included in a citation is more important than how it is organized, and things like ISBN are pretty helpful for an online reference like Super Mario Wiki.
But I also don't believe in supporting conventions just for the sake of them being conventions. I'd rather support them if they are beneficial. What are your thoughts on what I said in my vote above? - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:33, November 11, 2024 (EST)
I cannot argue with your vote. If a writing standard promoted by outside guides can harmonize with the needs of Mario Wiki, there's no reason not to adopt it. Quotation marks serve their purpose well in this case. so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:10, November 11, 2024 (EST)
Cool! I was just curious. I value your perspective. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:14, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I'm realizing I haven't given my full thoughts on @Nintendo101's vote yet. I agree that there are benefits to formatting song titles in this way (particularly in sentences, which is why I have the option to keep the quote marks exclusively in sentences) — but this formatting scheme misrepresents how the actual works in question are referred to by official media. I had to ask a friend who had Nintendo Music to find out whether or not the app displayed song titles in quotes, because I couldn't trust this wiki to tell me — and, like I said, Nintendo Music doesn't. Yet this article writes the song names as if it does, because apparently this convention is more important than this kind of information. I know this is a minor piece of information, but this formatting convention causes me to be unable to trust the wiki about it. No benefit can counterbalance that. Ahemtoday (talk) 20:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I am sorry that you felt mislead, but are you sure it is not because you were unfamiliar with this being a convention for music pieces in the first place? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:12, November 12, 2024 (EST)
I was well familiar with the convention and how this wiki used it at the time, which is why I knew to ask a friend instead of taking the wiki's word for it. I take such a hardline stance against it not because this untrustworthiness has personally wronged me, but because untrustworthiness is a failure of the wiki on principle. Ahemtoday (talk) 00:02, November 13, 2024 (EST)
I am sorry, I was not referring to Super Mario Wiki in isolation. I was referring to the convention at large. In books and articles on music, regardless of topic, individual pieces are placed within quotation marks. I know I myself first learned one is supposed to put quotation marks around music titles while I was taking English class in middle school. So while I am sympathetic that this bothered you, I do not agree it is misleading. Maybe the issue lies with folks who do not have a lot of experience reading or writing about music. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:05, November 13, 2024 (EST)
Whether or not readers are familiar with the convention doesn't change the fact that the convention is not reflective of what is being talked about. The only reason wiki readers know "Thrills at Night" and its ilk are actually surrounded in quotes officially is because we haven't been thorough in applying this convention. If we did, then the distinction would vanish completely, because the wiki currently considers adhering to this guideline more important than this kind of information. You can't pin that on readers being unfamiliar. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:17, November 13, 2024 (EST)
I have contacted the director of the Purdue OWL at Purdue University to ask them how one should cite music tracks that already has quotation marks rendered in their name. However, to be honest, I am still not really sure what the issue here is. How are the quotation marks any different from italicization of video games and albums? The name Paper Mario: The Origami King is not displayed anywhere in Nintendo's official material italicized, but we do it for the same reasons one puts quotation marks around music tracks - because it is a useful MLA convention. For music, it is unclear to me on what is being miscommunicated or lost when they are accurately displayed between quotation marks, especially since articles for "Thrills at Night" and other tracks are accompanied with screenshots that show how they are rendered in-game. Is this not sufficient? - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)
It is not sufficient. To begin with, not every use of song titles is accompanied by images showing that the music titles are formatted without quotes — the majority of articles in Category:Sound tests do not have such images. (Not to mention that to use these images to establish the formatting of every song title in a given game would require a comically excessive amount of images.) Furthermore, even if they did, this information would be entirely invisible to users of screen readers, raising accessibility concerns. This information can't be conveyed by images alone. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:14, November 14, 2024 (EST)
Couldn't it just be clarified in the article itself that a piece of music is displayed with quotations mark around it? It is not a very common thing to do. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)
Writing in an explicit note clarifying that this time the article is actually reflective of how the music is referred to officially is a much more convoluted way of going about this compared to just referring to them in the official way to begin with. Ahemtoday (talk) 16:50, November 14, 2024 (EST)

Biggestman: The formatting of quotes in songs aren't discussed from a cultural relevancy angle, they're in context of being part of an album. It's the same reason short poetry gets quotes, but novels get italicized, we'd quote "The Raven" but still italicize The Day My Butt Went Psycho. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 21:40, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Add identifiers to near-identical titles

Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: Mark (Mario Tennis series) and Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means Color coin (Super Mario Run) and Colored coin (Wario Land 3) do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include Secret Course 1 (Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins) and Secret Course 01 (Super Mario Run), Spyguy (Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis) and Spy Guy (Paper Mario), and Rollin' Down the River (Yoshi's Woolly World) and Rolling Down the River (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!).

This proposal aims to amend MarioWiki:Naming to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.

Note that this proposal only covers names that are semantically identical, and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. Buzzar and Buzzer have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. Balloon Boo and Boo Balloon are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.

Edit: Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include Family Basic (microgame) and Family BASIC (as ruled by a proposal), Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) and Hot-air balloon, Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame), and Avalanche (obstacle) and both Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4). If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) per.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Altendo (talk) I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with identical names, not similar names.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Altendo, this is what Template:Distinguish is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
  3. Ray Trace (talk) Per Hewer.
  4. Dine2017 (talk) Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
  5. SeanWheeler (talk) Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.

Comments

I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)

i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the Secret exit article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. Family Basic (microgame) recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from Family BASIC was deemed unreasonable. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from Hot-air balloon. Avalanche (obstacle) has an identifier to separate it from Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4), even though both of them have exclamation marks. Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame) get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. EvieMaybe (talk) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)
This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made Family Basic a redirect to Family BASIC, so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)

New features

Create a category for "catch-all articles"

By "catch-all article" (tentative term; please suggest names) I mean those that describe elements that are not related, but share an article because they boil down to the same generic, often real world object. Many of them fit what the guidelines call a "generic subject". Examples of this kind of article are:

They may also boil down to a similar fictional basic concept, which are their own distinct thing, despite all of them taking a similar form:

Compare subjects to which this category would not apply, like ? Block or P-Switch, where every reappearance of the subject is really a deliberate revisitation of a specific concept that already existed.

This category would be applied to articles on concrete subjects only (most of which, if not all, would be objects).

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Bro Hammer (talk) My proposal.

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) I don't see how such a category would be useful, and I don't like that it's pretty subjective and is based on a trait shared by the articles rather than the objects themselves. Even if there was value in distinguishing these pages, I don't think a category like this is the way to do it.
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Is History of Mario a catch-all article because it covers both a fictional character and Bob Hoskins? We would have to have that sort of debate for too many articles to count. This is too subjective and doesn't really accomplish anything.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Unnecessary, and the word "generic" alone is unclear whether it goes by the definition of real-life or Super Mario.
  4. Arend (talk) Honestly, the inclusion of fictional items like Poison Mushroom, ! Block and ? Panel would make it more confusing for me what a "catch-all article" is supposed to be; if it's supposed to be about generic subjects, then their inclusion would definitely muddy the concept quite a bit. Not to mention that the term "catch-all article" isn't clear enough as it is.

Comments

My gut reaction is that I disagree that the Poison Mushroom and Lift articles encompass generic subjects. They are supported as discrete in the paratext for these games. But even if narrowed to articles I agree are generic, it is not inherently clear to me what the benefit of having a "catch-all category" would be. My general view is that there are quite a few subjects that we consider to be generic which really are not. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:45, November 10, 2024 (EST)

What would be some subjects you don't consider generic? My case for the Lift is that it's an article that encompasses almost all types of flat, moving platforms (a basic platforming game object), many even with their own distinct names; I believe you could even argue for some of the versions to get their own articles. And yeah, I agree that there's no huge benefit to having this category, as it would be there mostly for the sake of acknowledgement that "this article does not describe the history of a single idea, but it's instead an aggregation of the histories of various ideas that fit under this umbrella". Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 16:25, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts

I'm currently contributing to Mario & Luigi: Brothership content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that Glohm enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.

This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:

1. Glohm enemies get their own articles. They get their own dedicated pages.

2. Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts. This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.

Let's see what happens!

Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create new articles for Glohm enemies

  1. Sparks (talk) My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) We give articles to other stronger RPG enemy and boss variants, so why should Brothership be any different?
  3. Tails777 (talk) They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
  4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  5. Zootalo (talk) The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
  6. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.

Include Glohm enemy coverage on their normal counterparts' articles without creating new articles for them

Comments

@Zootalo The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightwicked Bowser (talk).

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)

Mario Kart Tour has quite the reputation on this wiki in terms of pages, at one time nearly forming the top ten of the largest pages here in terms of bit size. However, what was glossed over was the size of Tour's template, being large enough to hold several templates within itself, and making the page, should the user click on it, almost double in length, more so with the other templates open. Using DS DK Pass as an example, a page for a race course that doesn't have a lot of information on it making for a relatively quick read, is now nearly half taken up by the monstrously large Mario Kart Tour template.

A total of four sub templates exist within the Mario Kart Tour template: Characters (and their skins), Vehicle Parts, Courses, and Other (miscellaneous). For example, if the Courses template were split off and applied to DS DK Pass' page, it would make for a much more palatable experience for those looking for courses found in Tour, rather than making the reader scroll for a centuries and looking for it amongst a sea of numerous skins and kart parts.

Proposer: MightyMario (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. MightyMario (talk) I heartily endorse this proposal.
  2. Tails777 (talk) I kinda agree with this. I feel this would be a bit more organized too, so people don't have to scroll through loads of characters, karts and other things just to find the tracks section. I have found myself on numerous occasions jumping from track articles and with Tour's template, it was rather irritating searching through massive sections of characters and tours just to find tracks. I support this idea.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) We've split navigation templates for much less, this makes sense for the sheer amount of content in the game.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
  5. Super Mario RPG (talk) Agreed with all.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
  7. Dark Jonathan (talk) I didn't know Tour templates gave so many problems, but hey, that's a good proposal.
  8. BMfan08 (talk) I was just thinking about this the other day when I was changing tense on tour articles. It's definitely a lot to take in, and it's also overlooked because people don't put into a template quite as much as they do a page. I agree with this idea.
  9. SeanWheeler (talk) Per all.
  10. PnnyCrygr (talk) This will make page-by-page navigation of MKT articles more efficient or convenient. Supporting.
  11. Mario (talk) The size of this nav template would make Wario proud, but I'm sure this complaint has already been forwarded to a lot of aspects of Mario Kart Tour content on this wiki.

Oppose

Comments

I think alternatively, they could be given different collapsible sections, like we do with the galleries template. But I agree it is overwhelmingly enormous. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:58, November 10, 2024 (EST)

We're talking about the navigation template at the bottom of these pages, right? Because that's the only Tour-related template on the DS DK Pass article (subpages notwithstanding) and it's indeed quite huge. If we do split it off into several subtemplates, I suppose it'd be comparable to various levels from specific platformer titles having a navbox template for themselves instead of sharing a primary nabvox template with the rest of that game's content (e.g. Super Bell Hill featuring {{SM3DW levels}} instead of {{SM3DW}}); or the existence of various navigation templates for the various microgames or minigames in specific WarioWare or Mario Party title. So while it's atypical for us to split Mario Kart-specific nav templates, it's not unheard of for us to split off nav templates in the first place. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:04, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading

It's been two years since the previous proposal had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take this image for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:

{{image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}

That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If this is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models, and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have if they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there are scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
  7. Mario (talk) Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.

Comments

Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds (like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl, Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models as they are. File:MLNPC.png is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4440797"