|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
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 <nowiki>{{user|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.
This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==Writing guidelines==
===Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables===
Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen [[World 6-B (New Super Mario Bros.)|here]], this is awkwardly written as
*"[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"
and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of
*"[number] + (∞ x [number]),"
with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
<br>(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)
<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
'''Deadline''': September 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
#*Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
#*Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
#*Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#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. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#"<nowiki># </nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Sysop]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#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 a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals can not be made about [[MarioWiki:Administrators|System Operator]] promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].
#If the Sysops 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.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
====Support====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Altendo}} - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.
__TOC__
====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
Inspired by my recently passed Thanks proposal and engagement with editors over time, I think a precedent has been set to add more [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] features on to the wiki so that (willing) members may enjoy engaging with one another and feel motivated when others compliment their work, or just personal appreciations.
===Make bestiaries or not?===
The main thing this proposal is focused on is the {{iw|mw|Extension:WikiLove|MediaWiki extension}}, which is called WikiLove. On the rationale of the {{iw|mw|WikiLove}} page, it says that lesser experienced users may feel discouraged when looked down upon by more experienced editors as they try to figure out how to do wikis, and this could help motivate not only newer editors, but also more experienced editors.
Ok so users have been arguing on if there should be a bestiary for enemies or not(like a collection of all the enemies from a game in one article). Really, why do we need a bestiary? I'm not the best at explaining, but my reasons on why there shouldn't be a bestiary are below.
It says one can make custom WikiLove messages. Being a wiki on ''Super Mario'', I think this wiki could aim to do WikiLove messages themed around the ''Super Mario'' franchise. The community can decide on WikiLove messages if this proposal passes (e.g., one message could say like "You're a super star like Mario"), as well as personalized ones toward editors. But if others do not want involvement, the courtesy policy can be updated to reflect this.
#First of all, bestiaries are worthless because you're just deleting a list of enemies from a main article , and then putting that content into a new sub-article and adding stuff, like where the enemies appear. But why don't we just keep all that in the main article and not have a whole article on enemies and where they appear? In fact, writing about where enemies appear in main articles or bestiaries, as you can just click on the link to that enemies page and read about where they come from there!
I wish there were more images to show, but here's a [[mw:File:WikiLove-screenshot-2014.png|representative image]] to show how WikiLove would look. Would it be worth giving this a try?
#Some users made a huge table for the BiS enemies. I can tell that it took them a lot of work, and if the BiS enemies are put in a bestiary, than those tables have to be deleted! And there's no point of erasing great work!
#Bestiaries can make some stubs. How? Some games such as Mario is Missing, Yoshi's Cookie, Super Mario Bros., and Mario Bros. have very few enemies. Making their list in a bestiary will make a short list, resulting in an unwanted stub.
#Why do we need bestiaries when '''we have categories about enemies'''? You can just go to category:Paper Mario enemies or category: Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story enemies, then click on the link to their article, and read about where they appear.
#Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries! We may not be Wikipedia, but it is a much more experienced wiki. The users they probably know better than to put in bestiaries.
HOWEVER, games in the [[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario series]] and [[Super Mario RPG]] SHOULD have bestiaries because their games have psychopath thoughts/tattles and bestiaries. But yeah, no need for bestiaries on those other games. Happy voting!
'''Edit:''' For clarity, if this proposal passes, this also means WikiLove templates will be created, like how Wikipedia has them. It can be what the community decides, and categorical examples could include {{iw|wikipedia|Template:Happy New Year|seasonal}}, {{iw|wikipedia|Template:Doggy|animals}}, {{iw|wikipedia|Template:Glass of milk|drinks}}, or {{iw|wikipedia|Template:Friend|expressing friendships}}, and obviously ''Super Mario''.
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Fawfulfury65}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 5, December 2009, 15:00
'''Deadline''': September 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Make Bestiaries for all articles====
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} This would be a great form of positive feedback to counter the struggles faced by new and existing editors alike, since learning how to use a wiki is more difficult than you might expect. Ultimately, this should increase the feeling of community around the wiki to keep editing from feeling like a chore.
# {{User|Derekblue1}} I know people are happy with what I do ever since I update the Discord server on my progress on ''Mario is Missing!''. The WikiLove extension will make people feel more connected. I see this as a boost of encouragement just like the Thanks extension.
#{{User|Technetium}} Seems really fun, especially if we go full on Mario theming with it!
#{{User|Sparks}} Hooray for more positivity!
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} <s>give me my glass o' milk now</s> This seems like it would be a nice addition to the wiki. Per all!
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} I know I had a rough time when I first joined some of the websites I'm currently on today, so I'm all for this! I just love having the option to thank people and encourage them! Per all!
#{{User|BMfan08}} Sure! I'm all for kittens (I could even make do with [[Kitten|Mario kittens]]). Per all!
====Bestiaries should be developed for RPG game articles only; unnecessary for other genres====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per above.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Keep it!!! Bestiaries are for Paper Mario and MRPG stuff, since it actually tells about the enemies in the game. The Mario & Luigi series is RPG series and hav enemies too, but don't describe them in the game. Easy choice.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} - I'd have to go with you guys on this one. I know how hard you all worked to finish the whole thing. Per FF65.
#{{User|Dry Paratroopa}} - Per BMB.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per my comments below.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Per all. Another thing really unnecessary. Most of bestiaries are small, poor and so-simple lists that can be created within main articles without any complication. Why making those simple things harder?
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} - Per all,we don't need this,they make the pages of their respective games shorter and make the pages of the "bestiaries" a stub,Really not necessary!.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Well, considering the fact that I think the gallery is stupid, at least I don't have to go to another article just to read info on the enemies.
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - No, it's all right in the game article. However, in RPG games we may put them in alphabetical order.
#{{User|Frostyfireyoshi}} - Per all. Only the Paper Mario series actually requires bestiaries.
#{{User|Redstar}} - Bestiaries are, for the purposes of this wiki, a list of enemies found in a particular game, as well as their vital statistics, locations, and a description if the game provides one. Due to the nature of bestiaries, they can be quite long and thorough, so must be split from the main article. Bestiaries, however, are not always necessary, and in fact are only really helpful for RPG games. There are currently four Mario RPG games: [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]], [[Paper Mario]], [[Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door]], and [[Super Paper Mario]]. A bestiary for each would prove legitimate and useful. I oppose this proposal because it seeks to make bestiaries unnecessary for ''all'' game articles, RPG or otherwise. I agree bestiaries are not necessary for the regular platformer and puzzle Mario games, but banning them entirely from the RPG games is simply too far.
#{{User|Rouge2}} I think the enemies of a certain evolution like Goomba and Gu Goomba, should be merged.
====Comments====
====Comments====
Is this proposal supposed to delete all bestiary articles or only those pertaining the M&L series? Lists of enemies should belong on the game's article (Paper Mario games shouldn't get any special treatment). I'd support preventing all bestiary articles.--{{User|Knife}}
{{@|ThePowerPlayer}} I realized WikiLove templates could fit into the scope of this proposal, so it's been updated, if your "Support" will count towards voting for those as well. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 22:24, September 13, 2024 (EDT)
Uhm... Does this Proposal actually intent to change anything? If so, then the header of the second paragraph is misnamed. If not, then what's the point? - {{User|Edofenrir}} 20:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:I think it's only gonna change the newly added bestiaries of M&L series. I've gotta disagree with you Knife, though. Mario and Luigi series have no bestiary, while the Paper Mario series have bestiaires (Tattles, Catch Cards, and whatever the heck they are).{{User|Gamefreak75}}
::No this counts for all articles on games. Not the Mario and Luigi series. So if the most users think that there shouldn't be a bestiary, than we will only have any, unless it is really needed(like for PM games). But if the most users want there to be bestiaries, than we'll put bestiaries for all games. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:::I'm not really too fond of bestiaries for the M&L series, but if this proposal passes, do we have to create bestiaries for SMS and NSMBW and other games?{{User|Gamefreak75}}
Yes but I honestly doubt we'll have to make any bestiaries. A lot of uses didn't like the idea of bestiaries, but I made this proposal to solve an argument. I hate when people fight on the internet. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:Yeah, but I think the bestiaires for PM games should stay.{{User|Gamefreak75}}
::Yes, because PM has tattle info and stuff needed for bestiaries. Just for the PM series. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:::Perfect! I shall vote now.{{User|Gamefreak75}}
Uhm... I just want to inform you, that, should the Proposal pass in favour of the site who is leading atm, absolutely nothing will happen, because the header says "Keep as is". - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::FF65, when you mentioned the BiS table stuff, I think that one user made it, while another user fixed a grammar problem (not trying to be selfish, just stating that fact) :) - {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
So do have to change something because the header says "keep as is"? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:Wait, I have a question, does that mean that the PM bestiary will cease to exist if this is heading in the direction the atm side is on? {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::The Proposal should probably be rewritten. It seems to cause much confusion. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:::Ok ok I fixed it a bit! Does it make more sense? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::::Well, it's more straight forward now, so I guess yes. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
There seems to be some confusion as to what a bestiary is. A bestiary is a complete list of all enemies found in a particular game, as well as the places they are located. It has absolutely nothing to do with tattle information, and in no way ends up as a stub. Really, Fawful is misleading you all as he apparently hasn't even read the current [[Paper Mario (Bestiary)|bestiary]] for the Paper Mario page. The intent of bestiaries are to avoid crowding main articles and expand on information that would otherwise be a list. Please, look at all the information before casting your votes. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:23, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:Ok forget about the stub parts. Yes, I read the bestiary for PM, a list that can be added to the main PM article but isn't. And if bestiaries don't include tattle info, than that just makes bastiaries more worthless. And putting all that in the main article won't clutter up anything, in fact, if you really want to know where certain enemies appear, than just check out their article, that simple! We don't need bestiaries, Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries on games! {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::We're not Wikipedia. If we were, we wouldn't even be covering half the article as it is. And bestiaries aren't worthless... The entire point of them is to clean-up the main article, because no one wants to read a list of enemies found in that game. It takes up space for more important information. Splitting that list off into its own page, as well as expanding it to include location information, both cleans up the main article and keeps information presented in a more specialized location. Really, the only reason ''against'' this is because it's a little more work. The only reason you brought it up is because you don't like the things needed to be done to make the Mario & Luigi page worth Featuring. Laziness does not excuse professional standards. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:46, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:::If you want to continue this discussion, then do it without accusations! Everyone, maintain a mature standard of debating please! - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::::I would like to, but I don't approve of someone going behind my back and lying about what something constitutes just so they can avoid doing it. This entire proposal is based on personal misconception, which implies Fawful didn't even ''look'' at the bestiary page as an example. I just hope we can both resolve it and get people looking at the facts. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 23:06, 29 November 2009 (EST)
CoinCollector: Bestiaries are '''not''' meant to be simple lists. They are a more thorough amount of information detailing locations in-game found, stats, and in-game tattle or player's guide information. These are things that should be there anyways, but if they were would take up too much room and so are moved. Several articles already do this and it's ''supposed'' to be done for all of them, but hasn't already. The only reason this is up for proposal is because Fawful and MATEO don't want to do the necessary work to make their articles worthy of Featuring, so are attempting to side-step it by creating a proposal to undermine current standard. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 02:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:Making a bestiary in that way is similar to create an article for each enemy found in the game. Adding too info for enemies in the game's article makes the enemies' articles themselves redundant and useless, even making an attachment on that issue. In other words, you would like to "merge" (or "copy" or whatever) the info seen from multiple articles into one... {{user|Coincollector}}
::It's not similar to that at all. Enemies stats differ from game to game, so in actuality this ''splits'' that information from the main articles to the related game articles, thus saving space. There is no merging at all. The main articles, such as a Goombas, for example, shouldn't be swamped with technical information from each game. It should only cover the history of that enemy throughout the games. Stats and such is better suited for the bestiary related to each game. An example of what a basic bestiary is would be the [[Paper Mario/Bestiary]], which simply lists each enemy and the location they're found at. A more extensive bestiary is the one for [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Tattle Log)]]. This information is individual from game-to-game, specifically the RPGs, so the RPGs are the only games affected to such a degree. Other games, such as Super Mario Sunshine, only need to be filled out in the basic way. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 03:10, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:That info fits without problems in the main article, so, why move it? in fact, I see there is no official descriptions (eg: in-game info) or something like that as to fill the "missing space" for those lists, just technical information (HP, Attack, Defense, etc) and that's fairly short. Changing over the info for the character articles will look them more formal but less dynamic - and maybe is by the fact that looks like we abused the purpose of the information tables, but that's other tale. The tattle log of Paper Mario looks like for me a walk-trough than real information... Well, that's just my opinion. {{User|Coincollector}}
::It should be moved because it's ''supposed'' to have all that essential information filled out, but if it did it would take up too much space. That's why bestiary pages are warranted. The problem is that the [[Goomba]] page, for example, used the correct table for an enemy while the [[Amazy Dayzee]] page does not. It uses the box associated with the RPG game. These main character pages shouldn't have all that technical information and should focus on the history, appearances, etc. The technical information should be moved to the corresponding game bestiaries, where they provide better focus and clean up the various related articles. Also, the Paper Mario bestiary looks that way because it's unfinished... It's supposed to look like the TTYD one. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 03:53, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::Hey, I made this proposal to solve arguments you know! And stop it, Redstar, here, you're calling me and MATEO lazy, you called me a liar(which I am absolutely not!), and you're telling everyone that I'm misleading them! And now you're arguing with a sysop! Just wait until Dec. 5th when more users decide. Until then, I'm done with this, I'm going to fix up my proposal's description and wait for other users to vote on which they want. I hate arguing! {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::::It's called discussing, not arguing. I have perfectly valid reasons for believing you both lied and are lazy. For laziness, I discussed many points on why I felt the Mario & Luigi page wasn't yet ready for Feature-status, including splitting off the enemy list into a bestiary. Rather than give reasons not to do it, or simply split it (which was all I asked, was to split it and we could work on expanding it later) you came here and formed a proposal that, if passed, results in you ''not having to do it''. How is avoiding work or discussion not lazy? As for lying, your initial proposal stated that forming a bestiary would delete work already done and create nothing but a stub. Both are untrue because moving all this work to a new page as-is does not delete it, and if it would become a stub, then that's because it's ''already'' a stub. Splitting it doesn't change a single thing. It can't become something unless it already is that thing. You may not have lied, but you obfuscated the facts. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 09:02, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::::I made this proposal to stop the endless chat going around on those nomination pages. That's not lazy at all. My reasons on why we shouldn't make bestiaries are stated above. Therefore, we will wait for others user to make up their mind. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::::::That was ''not'' chatting, that was discussion on issues relating to the article that you could have easily argued there. Instead, you formed this proposal. If you didn't like the proposed work to make the article fit for Feature-status, then you should have provided legitimate reasons against it. Instead I find this proposal a means of sidestepping professional discussion for a chance to not do the work. I don't want to argue over this, but I would like you to admit to what is obvious. Wikis take compromise and collaboration, not finding ways to get around work or discussion. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 09:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)
Fawfulfury65 recently re-wrote his proposal to better explain reasons against forming bestiaries. I will now write a rebuttal to each point explaining why bestiaries are both a good idea, and why his reasons are misinformed. Here we go:
#Fawful asks why we can't just have the information on the main page. Well, truthfully, we can, but the reason why we ''shouldn't'' is because there are simply so many enemies that by naming them all, it becomes nothing more than a list. Even if they are fitted into tables, that list becomes much larger and, while more "pretty", takes up space. Splitting it to a new sub-article saves space on the main article as well as allows the information to be presented to its fullest where it won't distract from the main information. He also suggests simply clicking the enemy links to read on their main articles where they're located... Well, the problem with that is that enemies appear in more than one game. Any information on how and where they appear in ''this'' game simply won't be provided. The bestiary would provide actual locations in the game where they are found, giving far more information than can be found otherwise.
#Fawful's second point is that the current list of enemies are presented in a table, which took "hard work". I can personally vouch that the tables are very badly-written and lack in-depth information. I cannot see much of any work having been put into them at all. Regardless, these tables won't be deleted on splitting. There's no reason to, so there's nothing to fear.
#He suggests that bestiaries would create stubs for games that don't have a large amount of enemies. This is false thinking because bestiaries are only necessary for the RPG games, which both have a large number of enemies as well as a plethora of statistics for those enemies. No game articles besides the RPG ones are affected by this, because only the RPG articles need it.
#We need bestiaries because they provide quick and easy information for enemies found in a game. Categories are not a legitimate substitute because people don't often look up categories, and categories only list articles. Categories provide just as much information as using the search-function does, which simply does not work.
#Finally, Fawful points out that Wikipedia doesn't use bestiaries, so why should we? Well, Wikipedia also doesn't create articles about specific enemies, so I think that explains why Wikipedia does not apply here.
I hope all those points explain why I feel bestiaries are both necessary and logical. Perhaps a few people will change their votes, but if not, I hope you all feel you have the correct facts and are making an informed decision. Thank you.
:Just to point out, my proposal goes for all games. Also, be aware that I am a she, not a he. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::Sorry. I don't know how I would have known, but sorry for the presumption. To respond to the clarification of your proposal, bestiaries are currently only meant to be for RPG articles, and since your proposal is to not have bestiaries, than technically your proposal wouldn't extend past RPG games anyways. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 09:40, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::MATEO: Did you even read any of my points or look at any of the bestiaries there already are? They're nowhere near being a stub! [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::BabyLuigiOnFire: What Gallery do you mean? And the [[Paper Mario/Bestiary]] isn't exactly something that can fit on its main page. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:45, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::: I think she(BL on fire) meant the separate page of images (such as artwork and screenshot) found in articles like [[Wario]] or [[Luigi]] because I'm not too fond of it either. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
I changed my vote because I realized this proposal changes nothing already done, and actually agrees with my initial position. It was just so badly presented I had no idea what Fawful was trying to get at, but in the end I realized we can both benefit from this proposal. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 00:55, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Half of you need to re-vote, seeing as how this proposal is now changed to remove Paper Mario bestiaries.--{{User|Knife}} 14:20, 1 December 2009 (EST)
I was actually thinking we could change the PM bestiary to Paper Mario/Tattle Information because most of it is tattle info. Then all the hard work going into the sub article wouldn't get deleted if the most users decide to get rid of all bestiaries. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:It's actually a bestiary that contains Tattle information. Super Mario RPG doesn't have Tattle information, but it does have Psychopath thoughts. There's a clear different, so bestiary is a broad term that works for all four games. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 15:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)
@Redstar: You can't make a new option without defining it. What exactly are you opposing? Instead, make the header something specific like "Allow RPG bestiaries only". Also, since the proposal has been changed, those votes without valid reasons will be removed. {{User|Knife}}
:Okay, I'm tired. Are you telling me I need to oppose something more specific? I'll re-work my oppose just in case. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:40, 1 December 2009 (EST)
No, you misunderstood me. I meant change the title of your section from "oppose" to an option more specific.{{User|Knife}}
Ok I agree that it should only be for Paper Mario games and SMRPG, but no other games, so my proposal wa, once again, edited. Hopefully, now I won't have to edit it anymore. So everyone can change their vote or whatever. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
I really like this, but does Porplemontage know about this proposal? I know he approved and implemented the "Thanks" extension, but I just wanna be sure! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 22:37, September 13, 2024 (EDT)
:{{@|Sparks}} The proposal is easily viewable on this page. And the proposal basically concerns a WikiLove system in general (since I updated it to also mention templates), so something like {{fake link|MarioWiki:WikiLove}} page can be set up with the corresponding templates. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 08:17, September 14, 2024 (EDT)
::Alrighty! Good to know. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 08:52, September 14, 2024 (EDT)
==Removals==
==Removals==
''None at the moment.
''None at the moment.''
==Splits & Merges==
==Changes==
===Merge RPG Boss Aspects With Main Boss Articles===
===Rename the remaining baseball teams to their current titles===
This proposal is for support of moving a particular type of boss minion (as explained below) in the RPG games to their related main boss article. This is because these particular minions are ''only'' encountered in battle alongside bosses, because their Tattle information suggests they are either a part of or actually are the boss, because the main boss article is lacking complete information, and finally, because the splitting of these minions has largely resulted in stubs.
One thing is certain: ''Mario Super Sluggers'' was first released in Japan almost three years after ''Mario Superstar Baseball'' was first released in said country. In this case, I humbly suggest that there's a possibility to move the remaining baseball team pages with their ''Mario Superstar Baseball'' name to their current name from ''Mario Super Sluggers''. So far, the current names already in use are the [[Peach Monarchs]] and [[Bowser Monsters]].
The following are a list of which minions are proposed to be merged, to whom, and why.
The following of the remaining pages will be affected by the move:
#The four Elemental Crystals in [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]], being [[Fire Crystal]], [[Water Crystal]], [[Earth Crystal]], and [[Wind Crystal]]. All but the Wind Crystal are stubs, composed of mostly only a single sentence and an enemy template. These enemies are only ever fought alongside [[Culex]], whose article already covers most of the information these stubs have. I propose merging these articles as sections of the main Culex page and creating redirects.
Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to move the remaining baseball teams with their ''Mario Superstar Baseball'' names to their current ''Mario Super Sluggers'' titles.
#The [[Bowser???]] article to the main [[Koopa Bros.]] article as a sub-section. This enemy is not another boss, but a different round of the Koopa Bros. battle. In fact, the Bowser??? is occupied and controlled by the Koopa Bros., making it more a weapon than an actual character/enemy. It should be noted that the Koopa Bros. article contains information on all four Ninjakoopas, rather than each of them having their own page. Merging would make this article more comprehensive.
# The [[Tubba Blubba's Heart]] article to the main [[Tubba Blubba]] article as a section. Though sentient, Tubba Blubba's heart is essentially the same character as Tubba Blubba and acts as the first round to that boss fight. Dividing them gives the impression that both are bosses, despite the fact they're the ''same'' boss, as well as treats them as different characters. The heart is more like a different personality than a character. Merging with the main Tubba Blubba page completes the article and joins together the fragmented description of the two-part boss battle.
#The [[Petit Piranha]] and [[Lava Bud]] articles with the main [[Lava Piranha]] boss article. They are only ever encountered during the boss fight with the Lava Piranha. In fact, Lava Bud's Tattle description says "Lava Buds are little flower branching out from the main stem of the Lava Piranha.". This clearly points out they're only different "heads" of the same enemy. Petit Buds are spewed from Lava Buds, making them also part of the Lava Piranha. All are really the same enemy, so they should be merged to provide comprehensive information on the singular character.
#The [[Tuff Puff]] article into the main boss [[Huff N. Puff]] article. Tuff Puffs are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Huff N. Puff, and their Tattle information even says "These are the Tuff Puffs that break off when you damage Huff N. Puff." This clearly makes them the same enemy, just different "heads". Merge as a section.
#And, finally, the [[Crystal Bit]] article into the main boss [[Crystal King]] article. Just like all the previous examples, Crystal Bits are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Crystal King. Also, like some of the previous examples, their Tattle description says " This is a Crystal Bit. '''Basically, Crystal Bits are just pieces of the Crystal King.''' You can drop 'em with ease. Their Max HP is 1 and they're only dangerous when the Crystal King spews 'em out. Their defense power is 0. These guys are pretty weak. They'll keep coming, though, until you've finally beaten the Crystal King." This clearly says they are the same enemy, just different "pieces".
In summation, here is a quick and easy list of what this proposal will accomplish:
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#Remove stubs by merging them with their main articles
#Create more complete articles by piecing together all the information in one place
#Remove unnecessary division of information
And reasons why:
#The information is divided. Putting it all in one place creates more complete articles as well as removes stubs
#Many of these divisions are enemies that are either different rounds of a boss, or just their weapon. Still others are just pieces of the boss, so aren't really a different enemy
If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to use the Comments section below. Hopefully I provided enough information to make a decision. If you agree with this proposal in general, but you don't agree with some of the merges or are wary of the reason ''why'', feel free to comment about it and we can discuss it. This is a big proposal and I don't want anyone Opposing if they don't agree with just one aspect.
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Redstar|Redstar]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' December 8, 2009, 17:00
====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Redstar}} - Per proposal
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} First off, we'll just put their tattles in the same article. Not really any harm in that. Since those enemies are controlled of part of that enemy, they should be in the same article. So per Redstar's proposal.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Kept forgetting to do this during my ongoing sports project.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - First of all for all the opposers, they are battled at the same time, asist in the battles, and has too much information linking to the bosses. Also, do we want stubs, or articles? This is too little information for both the bosses and minions to be articles beyond stubs.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} The most recent names should be prioritized.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - This would combine all kinds of useful information into one place - making it easier to access.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Definitely.
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}}- Per all, we '''need''' this!
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per (baseb)all.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} These are stub-like articles that are just simply part of the bosses. I think it's ridiculous that projectiles or other stuff like that used by bosses have their very own article.
#{{User|Hewer}} Don't see why not.
#{{User|Knife}} - Changed vote. I recently stumbled on [[Straw]], which technically is part of a boss. If this proposal fails, we would have to keep that article. We'd also have to split [[Exor]] for consistency (which is literally composed of body parts). Just because an enemy can be targeted and has a tattle, doesn't mean it needs an article.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal. Sounds like a good idea.
#{{User|Vellidragon}} - Per Knife, mainly. Having individual articles for different parts of the same boss/enemy seems unnecessary; it's like devoting an individual article to [[Corkpedite]]'s body (or the Goomnut tree in the [[King Goomba]] battle for that matter, since it can be targeted). I see no reason not to merge them, all it would do is make getting information on the respective boss fights easier since it's all in one place.
# [[User:Lu-igi board|Lu-igi board]] at the very least merge the crystals with Culux
====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Different tattles, different battles, different enemy, different article
#{{User|Vini64}} Per Tucayo.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Tucayo.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - The enemies you have listed there are minions of a greater boss. They are affiliated with him, they take out his orders without complaints, they even may go as far as to sacrifice themselves for him, but ther are not '''identical''' with him. We cannot just say that they are the same when there is no solid proof. On the other hand, there is evidence that they are separate beings by the different tattles! Under this circumstances, merging these articles would not be recommendable. This is why I disagree! So per me, and per Tucayo!
#{{User|FunkyK38}} - Per Tucky and Edo. They shouldn't be merged, and with all these merges, where are we going to draw a line for what needs to be merged and what doesn't?
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per Tucayo and Edo.
#{{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}} Per Tucayo and Edofenrir.
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per Tucayo and Edo.
#{{User|King Bean}} - Per Edo.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
====Comments====
====Comments====
@Tucayo: Lava Piranha before and after becoming covered in fire gets a different Tattle description... Does this make the two different enemies? No, it doesn't, and many other enemies are of the same circumstances. Many of these proposed merges have Tattles that specifically say they are a part of, or the ''same'' being as the enemy. The different body parts of [[Exor]] aren't divided among different articles, even though they each have different stat-spreads and tattles (Psychopath Thoughts). Likewise, all of these "minions" or extensions of the main boss are fought in the ''same'' battle, not different ones. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)
===Decide how to handle the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes===
:Thanks for noticing, we should split Exor. {{user|Tucayo}}
Currently, in infoboxes, the "latest portrayal" section of it is inconsistent across characters. When ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'' came out, for example, it listed both [[Kevin Afghani]] (Mario's current voice actor) and [[Charles Martinet]] (who voices Mario in ''The Thousand-Year Door'' from original archival voicing) as Mario's latest portrayals, yet [[Jen Taylor]] (whose voice clips were also reused) wasn't added to Peach's latest portrayal. Therefore, to make these infoboxes consistent for characters with multiple voice actors, I am proposing several options:
::Uhh, yeah. I don't think anyone's going to support splitting a character just because they have different points of attack. But if this proposal fails, I suppose it would extend to Exor. I suppose next you'll want to make individual pages for the Koopa Bros.. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:57, 1 December 2009 (EST)
*Option 1: Only add in the current voice actor for the character (reissues with archival voices from retired voice actors will not be added).
:::Of course we wouldnt split Exor, that was sarcasm. Its a single enemy. {{user|Tucayo}}
*Option 2: Only add in the voice actor for the character in the most recent game (reissues with archival voices will overtake the "current" voice actor if the latest one did not record voice lines for the character, the current voice actor will be re-added to the infobox following the release of a game with voices from the current voice actor).
*Option 3: Add both the current voice actor and the voice actor for the latest release (this puts two voice actors in the "latest portrayal" section if the character is voiced via archival footage from a retired voice actor, but the current voice actor also gets to remain. When a new game comes out with new voice lines from the current voice actor, the voice actor from the previous release will be removed).
*Option 4: Do nothing (infoboxes with both actors will not change, and same with infoboxes with the current actor even if a game featuring archival voicing from a retired voice actor is the latest one).
Quote Edofenrir: "And next we merge Magnus Van Grapple with Lord Crump? It's the same guy, just surrounded by a load of metal." Well, yes. I go to [[Lord Crump]]'s page and see a section very vague. If I want the whole story, I have to go to the [[Magnus Van Grapple]] page. Why do I need to jump around to get all the information? Magnus Van Grapple is ''not'' a character, and is ''not'' a boss... Lord Crump piloting it is, so the experience should be told from his perspective, not from an inanimate object. This proposal changes little. All it does is move all the information to one place where it is the most productive. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 17:18, 1 December 2009 (EST)
With regards to mixed use of voices, if multiple voice actors voice a single character in a single game, the latest person who voiced the character as of the game's release takes priority, meaning that archival voices from retired actors will not appear in the infobox if the character in that game is also (and especially mostly) voiced by the current actor for that character. As for other media (like ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Movie]]''), whether or not the game/other media actor takes priority or if both should be listed is also of question, but I will likely wait until the [[Untitled The Super Mario Bros. Movie follow-up|follow-up]] to create that proposal.
Just to be absolutely clear, are you proposing that the 8 cases listed above should be merged, or that those and all similar cases should be merged? {{user|Twentytwofiftyseven}}
'''EDIT:''' With regards to [[User:Tails777|Tails777]]'s vote, I don't know exactly how it will play out if Option 3 passes, although I will say if a game (like a compilation) does have a single character voiced by more than one voice actor who isn't the current one, the latest voice actor whose voice clips are used in the game as of the game's release will be the second option added to the infobox (like Peach in ''3D All-Stars'', who would've listes Samantha Kelly as her current and ''Galaxy'' voice actress, as well as Jen Taylor as her ''Sunshine'' voice actress, although I don't think it would be that consistent because it would exclude Leslie Swan, her ''64'' voice actress, but since Jen Taylor was the more recent of the two, she is the one who is listed).
BMB: Yea, we dont want stubs, we want artciles, so lets ''expand'' those, merging is not a good solution. {{user|Tucayo}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Altendo}}<br>
::I'm only proposing this for these 8 specific cases. There may be similar situations, but those won't immediately be affected. They should at least be discussed on their respective pages, though, if someone deems a similar merge necessary.
'''Deadline''': September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
@FunkyK38: The line will be drawn quite cleanly. Merges will not occur all over, rendering this Wiki a copy of Wikipedia. There will still be articles dealing with a singular topic, hotlinked from main articles. The only reason these are brought up is because they are all aspects of the same enemy, just different "attack points", so to speak. Dividing them is unnecessary and only serves in spreading information which should be read in one place. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:58, 1 December 2009 (EST)
====Only add in the current voice actor====
#{{User|Altendo}} Primary choice. "Latest portrayal", to me, means the person who last voiced the character, and I don't think archival voices should count as this, especially since those voices were recorded before the current voice actor. This also avoids the issues of multiple voice actors voicing a single character in compilations and switching/adding or removing voice actors when reissues and original games come out (as described below).
#{{User|Shadow2}} Re-using old sound clips has no bearing on a character's "Latest portrayal". Charles does not voice Mario anymore, and to list him as such just because of older re-used sound clips is misrepresentative.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per both, this is the less misleading option (the infobox doesn't specify whether the "latest" voice actor was just re-usage of old voice clips, so listing both Charles and Kevin gives the impression that they're both actively voicing Mario, which is wrong).
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.
After reading over my list of suggested merges, I've decided that Chompy to Tutankoopa and Shy Squad to General Guy could easily be cut. They, to a degree, are individual enemies so are more on-the-fence compared to the other examples. Would anyone change their vote in favor of this proposal if these two were removed? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:06, 1 December 2009 (EST)
====Only add in the the voice actor for the "latest" game====
#{{User|Altendo}} Tertiary choice. If "Latest portrayal" really means the person who voiced the character in the latest game, regardless of said actor's as-of-game-release status, then maybe archival voices can count because it is the voice of the character in the "latest" game. I do not recommend this option as this will cause a lot of infobox editing and switching voice actors when reissues (particularly ports and remasters) do inevitably come out, and if a compilation game (like ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'') comes out, multiple voice actors who voice the same character in a single compilation (like [[Princess Peach]], who had [[Leslie Swan|three]] [[Jen Taylor|voice]] [[Samantha Kelly|actresses]] in a single compilation) will stack up in the infoboxes. And when a new game comes out, all of that is thrown out the window, reverting to their current voice actor. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"|This is why some were against enforcing the absolute "latest" portrayals in a previous proposal]]. The only reason why I am for this is consistency.
====Add both current and latest voice actor====
#{{User|Altendo}} Secondary choice. It feels nice to respect both the voice actor who is currently voicing the character and the person whose voices, even in archival, are the sole ones used in the latest game. However, my point about voice actor switching, while not as big as an issue because archival voice actors will only be added rather than replace the current one, still kind of stands because reissues will add the archival voice actor for one game, only to remove it when a new game comes out. Additionally, if compilations ''only'' contain voices from retired voice actors, this will stack it up even more (although for ''3D All-Stars'', it still wouldn't change much due to Peach's ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' voice actress still being her current one). Still, this does make the infoboxes consistent.
#{{User|Tails777}} I agree with this one more; it's best to keep it up to date when it comes to VAs, but it isn't uncommon for various games to recycle voice clips (TTYD once again being a good example). I feel it is best to at least acknowledge if voice clips get recycled in this respect, though I also feel this should be limited to one at a time, in case there are examples where someone had more than even two voice actors.
Wait a sec, I'm not understanding. The Proposals page never had a ''removal of votes'' section. Why this proposal have? {{User|Vini64}}
====Do nothing====
Alright, now you are fighting dirty. The rule you are refering to applies only in case of bad-faith or reasons that are so blatant that the wiki cannot support them. This rule is '''in no way''' a green card for expelling other people's opinions of their value. Tucayo's vote is valid, and mine was too! Stop this attempts to rig the Proposal! - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:The section is not simply for bad-faith votes; it is also for votes with no given reason and I'm afraid your vote falls under that category. Your vote was: And next we merge Magnus Van Grapple with Lord Crump? It's the same guy, just surrounded by a load of metal. I disagree. per Tucayo. Where is the reason in that? If you want Magnus Van Grapple merged with Lord Crump or not then say so but do not put it as a vote. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::I disagree with the removal of Tucayo's vote. Nintendo is horrendously vague about so many things ([[Bowser]] vs. [[Dry Bowser]], anyone?), so believing that a sentient heart (or whatever) is a character unto itself is a perfectly valid opinion. Tucayo belives they are separate beings - and so must the people per-ing him - and so believes they deserve separate articles; this is a perfectly valid reason to oppose this proposal. It's not misinformation, it's just one way of looking at things; you got a problem with it, take it up with him, but it's not enough to call a vote over. - {{User|Walkazo}}
Walkazo: Until further notice there is not removal of removal of support/oppose votes nominations or comments sections. If you wish to have either of these things done then propose it here or on the admin boards but don't just go ahead and do it. I disagree with the removal of Tucayo's vote but there should be no comments placed there at all. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:I'm sorry redstar, edofenrir's vote is valid as it pers tucayo's vote which is also valid so I will not be able to vote to remove it (thought the rest of the vote ''is'' invalid) {{User|Marioguy1}}
::The abuse of democratic values that were given to the users of this wiki in this Proposal is shocking. This foul display of abuse to gain personal advantages utterly disgusts me. I am disappointed. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
I believe that people should be able to vote about what they think without fear of their votes being rendered, "invalid" and getting removed. The people of this wiki should be free to vote about what they see fit, and neither Tucayo or Edofenrir's votes are invalid. {{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}}
:I agree ATM but unfortunately what if I added the vote GOOD IDEA, I SUPORT LULZ!!!!!!!!!!!!? That vote would have necessary removal but, as edofenrir said, this function should be reserved for that function only - that is why I have removed my vote to remove his vote. {{User|Marioguy1}}
In the past, I saw votes saying "Good idea" that were not removed. Why these are being now? {{User|Vini64}}
:The rules were changed {{User|Marioguy1}}
::There was always a rule against votes like that, but sometimes there was simply no one around to remove them. - {{User|Walkazo}}
How exactly is Tucayo's vote "not specific"? He's stating the fact that they are different enemies, so they get different articles. Just because he didn't write it in a textbook fashion (i.e. "They are different enemies with different tattles, thus they should have different articles") doesn't make the vote invalid. -- {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
:For everyone else, I don't understand what the big deal is. The option is there to remove votes, and three people voted. Obviously, two people agreed with me. That is very democratic, and Edo's vote was simply "I disagree". He should have provided a better reason then that, which he now has. As for my response to Stooben, Tucayo's vote is misleading and has two incorrect points. He states that these enemies are different, and fought in different battles. They are not. They are fought only in the same battle, and their tattles say they are part of or actually are the boss. So, he's lying. Saying their Tattles say they're different enemies is wrong. His vote has two wrong points to two valid ones, so the whole thing should be removed and, if he so chooses, re-added with entirely valid reasons. I don't want people to read his vote and think all those points are true when they're really not. If they're really such different enemies, then why do the Crystal Bits tattle say "They are pieces of the Crystal King", Tuff Puffs say "They break off from Huff N. Puff", and Petit Piranha's says "They are flowers that grow off the stem from the Lava Piranha"? Since when are pieces of my body not considering me? They also say that these different Tattles are indicative of different enemies... Well, then we should get to work splitting the different forms of Smithy and Exor, as well as any other boss that has multiple body parts and a different Tattle for each. Clearly, if my hand has a different description from my chest, they're not a part of me and different entities. They should be split for consistency. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 04:45, 5 December 2009 (EST)
I will not remove neither modify my vote, because I know it is perfectly valid. In the worst of the cases, I can just per Edo ;) {{user|Tucayo}}
:And yet, Edo's vote is ''still'' leaving much to wonder about. What exactly is this "solid evidence"? Likewise, how is your vote "perfectly valid"? You say they're different enemies, and different battles... Why and how? I've offered undeniable evidence supporting the contrary, while your vote simply states something and doesn't back it up. I felt Edo's vote and yours lack merit, and at least for Edo's I got two votes and that of an admin. How exactly is that "rigging" it? If MATEO and MG1 were socks, yes. But they're not. They're two people that agreed, and one person with authority-bound honor... You said that I was close-minded in that chat, but you're the one that has so far refused to offer any explanation for your opinion. I've explained my reasons and revised my proposal many times over, yet ''I'm'' the close-minded one? Please, all I'm asking is for a legitimate rebuttal, and not just a disagreement. You're biding your vote for MG1's Koopa proposal below, until the difference between Koopas and Koopa Troopas is defined, so why can't you define the difference between your own reasons? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 11:16, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::For the record, none of the people who voted to remove Edofenrir's vote were administrators. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter, as this does not change the weight of a vote. Also, why did you think you can remove a vote that was supported by a valid reason? The rule said that a vote has to have ''no'' merit or be cast in bad faith. You've said yourself that Tucayo's vote had some merit, so it wasn't not eligible for removal under that rule. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}}
:::He basically said that he doesn't want to merge the articles because they deal with different individuals. I got it, many other users got it, I'm sure everyone should be able to get it. Every information you need is up there, so use your eyes and read it! If you still say you don't get it then, then you probably don't want to get it to have a point to remove it. On a side note I recommend you to learn more about democratic values, and how abusing them leads the entire system to collapse. And please, don't type a respond to justify everything (once again). Use this energy to think about what other people told you, and what you attempted to do here. If you are not ready to do that, I have nothing more to say to you. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::::@Twentytwofiftyseven: I'm fairly sure MG1 is an admin of some sort. And Tucayo's vote holds two invalid points contrasts by two valid ones, so shouldn't that make the entire vote invalid?
::::@Edofenrir: You and Tucayo say they're different individuals, but neither of you have provided a reason as to ''why'' while I have provided their Tattle descriptions which explicitly say they ''are'' the same individual... I also know as much about democratic values as I need to, and I in no way abused them. How did I? I used a system already in place, I put up a vote, and two people besides myself voted. If I was "abusing" it, then I wouldn't have received anything. You're the one abusing it through your position of sysop and basically changed the rule to negate true democracy and put the power to remove votes ''only'' in the hands of sysops. If sysops are voting, and sysops have votes that should be removed, then how is it democratic if no one can vote? It can only be "discussed" now... And after the discussion, then what? Is there a private vote for only sysops? I don't understand how that is any more democratic than what we already had, but you claim was somehow "rigging". [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:39, 5 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Your comment just showed me that you don't care about what other people tell you. I see no point in going on, since you don't even want to reconsider. I'm not that eager to waste my time talking to someone who won't listen. Good afternoon. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
Redstar: I am not an admin of any sort unless you mean on userpedia and could we please, as Edo said, drop this subject? The admins are coming out with an advancement on rule #4 and we just have to trust them on that; wait a couple days until the rule has come out and then propose it. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:Edo, I don't even know what you're talking about. You keep accusing me of all these things and getting heated over a simple proposal. You're the one that's being rude and not listening... I mean, just look at the edit history. You say "Eat it" as the summary for editing your vote. Is that any way for a sysop to behave? You're supposed to be professional and courteous, yet you rudely attack me and accuse me of all these things. I'm just trying to help improve the wiki in ways I believe would be good. MG1, sorry, I thought you were one. On Bulbapedia, welcome templates are automated and any of that stuff is only handled by admins. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:59, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::Well, as admin it is my duty to be impartial, and that's why I didn't give you a warning for nominating my vote to be partially removed (which is btw the same as proposing to rewrite my vote, which is a ''heavy'' violation the rules). As a human being it is my right to be pissed to have my vote and the vote of a friend of mine assassinated by dubious usage of rule no. 4. I also have to ask you to quote correctly. I said "Eat this" in a joking way, when I rewrote my vote. And now, as MG1 said, this discussion should be ended. I suggest you to re-read what I said, what Walkazo said, and what Stooben Rooben said at your talk page. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
'''Redstar''': as an administrator, i '''order''' you to drop this. If you continue this you '''will''' get a warning. Thanks and have a nice day. {{user|Tucayo}}
:You're ordering me to drop something that happened six hours ago? >_> [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:38, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::Yes, '''I AM'''. {{user|Tucayo}}
:::Why is that even necessary? I've been here for the entirety of those six hours, so it should be obvious it was already discontinued. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:46, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::::Because there is no reason i could know you were here all that time. {{user|Tucayo}}
:::::The Recent changes page says which users are currently online. I'm currently online, and have been for six hours. Six hours have passed since the last comment on this page. Quite obviously, I had no intention of responding. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:52, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Just a little pointer for everyone before this discussion is ended for good: The user list at the recent changes sometimes acts buggy and does not always acurately display who is online at that time. It's not the best source. - {{user|Edofenrir}}
===What's a Koopa?===
I think that the pages [[Koopa]] and [[Koopa Troopa]] should be merged together because, frankly, what on earth is a Koopa? The page lists all of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas and that could be done on the page Koopa Troopa or not done at all because it is not necessary. When I think of Koopa, I think of turtle enemy-thing in Mario but this page does not describe the turtle-enemy thing, it describes its sub-species and all of those subspecies descriptions are one sentence long with {{tem|main}}! I think that Koopa=Koopa Troopa and I'm sure you will agree.
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' Friday December 11th, 2009 (8:00 EST)
====Merge====
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Per above
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per MG1
#{{User|4DJONG}} marioguy has made a good point also, the "koopa" article is pointless, simply pointless, because "Koopa" is just another name for Koopa Troopa.
====No Merge====
#{{User|King Bean}} - No. Koopa is not the same as Koopa Troopa. Koopas are species, while Koopa Troopas are sub-species.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} The [[Koopa]] article is information on other Koopas (Hammer Bros., Dry Bones, Paratroopas) and the [[Koopa Troopa]] article is about a type of Koopa, Koopa Troopa. Look over those articles again, they are about two different things.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Having a catch-all Koopa page is good, since [[Bowser]] and [[Lakitu]]s aren't anything like [[Koops]] or [[KP Koopas]], but there should still be a separate "Koopa Troopa" page for the species. Saying the "Troopa" just refers to them being soldiers is just splitting hairs - are all Hammer Bros. brothers? Unlike Bowser's unnamed species, at least the little guys have a title that has been applied to their kin and no one else - unlike "Koopa" which has many meanings - and ignoring that would be foolhardy in the face of all the other organization issues Nintendo forces upon us (like Bowser's species).
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Walkazo. It'd make more sense in this case (to me, anyway) to leave [[Koopa Troopa]] at it's current location, than move it to [[Koopa]] and move the current Koopa article to {{fakelink|Koopa (species)}}. Besides, "Koopas" has been used several times in Mario games to indicate the ''species'' of Koopa. (And what is "Koopas" but the plural form of "Koopa"?)
#{{User|RAP}} - Per Walkazo, and Stooben Rooben. {{fakelink|Category:Koopas}} pretty much sums up how all the arguments as well.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Stooby boy and Walka girl.
#{{user|Vini64}} Per all.
#{{User|Redstar}} - Merge unnecessary. Simply re-write the [[Koopa]] article to more clearly describe the Koopa ''group'', rather than identifying them (incorrectly) as a species.
====Comments====
====Comments====
I was having a discussion on a similar topic just yesterday, concerning the Hammer Bros. I think the entire thing is sort of speculative since the page amounts to more than a cherry-picked list of various turtle-like enemies, entirely excluding other candidates. If it was truly extensive, it would list a lot more. But by the same token, it'd be speculation because who knows what a "Koopa" really is? The manual says "Koopa tribe", but the term "American" covers a lot of different races and ethnicities. Whether they meant "Koopa race" or "Koopa social-group", who knows. I feel a complete overhaul of the way we classify the enemies is in order. I really don't feel Boomerang Bro., Sumo Bro., Fire Bro., etc. should be considered "sub-species" of Hammer Bro. Related (as in similar, not blood-related) enemies, yes, but the current terms really deliver inaccurate connotations. Care to make this proposal a bit more general, MG1? If so, I'd be happy to support. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 11:56, 4 December 2009 (EST)
I'm conflicted between simply listing only whoever is currently voicing the character vs. potentially opening a can of worms by listing multiple actors from archival clips, even though that would respect the portrayals from the most recent game whether it used newly recorded or archived voices. No matter how this proposal ends up, I think that a future proposal should consider standardizing the "Portrayals" header in the character articles themselves. For Mario, the list of portrayals does a great job at comprehensively documenting everyone who has officially voiced Mario, but falters in conveying the inconceivable magnitude of media in which Martinet has voiced Mario, and how much he has contributed to the character's brand recognition to the point where many people will continue to see him as ''the'' voice of Mario, even moving forward as Kevin Afghani takes on that role. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 23:57, September 16, 2024 (EDT)
:Reversinator: Aren't enemies species as well? Redstar: It's easy, Koopa and Koopa Troopa are the same thing. Koopa is like an expanded <nowiki>==Sections==</nowiki> section for Koopa Troopa. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::...I guess so... Fine, I'll change my vote. {{User|Reversinator}}
[[Super Mario World]] indeed lists Koopa Troopas simply as "Koopas" in the credits, which would suggest that only those are called "Koopas" and the enemies that aren't directly related to the Troopa are not. I don't think the Koopa article can be merged with Koopa Troopa like that however, since the majority of species listed in it are, in fact, quite clearly not Koopa Troopas. What it would need is a title change, or possibly a complete removal in favour of the [[Koopa Troop]] article.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 12:28, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:As I said, cut the speculatory-fat and rename it "Koopa tribe" (as you were great to bring up). I'm sure there would still be speculation involved, but far less. The name issue needs to be resolved the two articles' subjects re-defined, anyways. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:31, 4 December 2009 (EST)
::Will someone please explain to me What a Koopa is? This is why I named the proposal what I named it, because I have no idea what a koopa is. As far as I know, Koopas don't exist and are just another name used for Koopa Troopa. Whether they're listed as Koopas or Koopa Troopas in the credits, they're still the same thing and that thing can be renamed, like redstar said, ''after'' we figure out what they are. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::I believe "Koopa", as suggested by the "Koopa tribe", is meant to encompass all the various turtle-races into a singular group. (Though, as far as we know, Piranha Plants could be Koopas as well under the "tribe") Koopa Troopas are just the catch-all, generic Koopa, which is why they can be called just Koopas. (Like in many sci-fi works, humans are so common that they're the "standard" in judging appearance and so on). I always just took the term Troopa, and thought it meant Koopa Troopas were "troopers"... Perhaps it's just a title? They're Koopas, unless they're a member of the Koopa ''Troop'', in which case they're "Troopas". Does that make sense? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:48, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:::As far as I'm aware, "Koopa" in the Japanese games has always been no more than a name; that of [[Bowser]], to be exact. The mention of a "Koopa tribe" and names like "Koopa Troopa" are afaik exclusive to the English localisation (Koopa Troopas for instance are named Noko-Noko in Japan, Koopa Paratroopas are Pata-Pata), and I don't think it has ever been officially stated what a "Koopa" would be according to the translators. The closest information we can get is the Koopa Troopas being referred to as Koopas in SMW's ending, which as Redstar pointed out may just as well mean they are the most common members of a Koopa tribe (which would include other sub-species as well) as it may indicate that Koopa and Koopa Troopa refer to the same thing. No real clarity seems to come from official sources.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 13:04, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Vellidragon: That's what [[Koopa (disambiguation)]] and {{tem|articleabout}} are for :P<br>
Redstar: All of that goes under [[Koopa Troop]]. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:The Koopa Troop is the personal army of Bowser's (hence the "Troopa" part applied to Koopas that fight for him... Not that no Koopa that isn't sided with him has the Troopa part). The Koopa ''tribe'' would be a more broad grouping covering all Koopas regardless of political alignment. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 13:49, 4 December 2009 (EST)
::I agree with you on that part but we are straying off topic here, whether Koopa Tribe should be created or not is a topic for later discussion, right now we're talking about merging two articles together and I think we should get back to that. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::King Bean: Can you elaborate on that? {{User|Marioguy1}}
Okay, how about this: Koopa is the species name for the generic-turtle enemies in the game, namely "Koopa Troopas". "Troopa", however, is a job title or position. Koopa Troopas are members of the Koopa Troop, making them troopers. This is supported by the Koopa Paratroopas, who take their name from paratroopers, or parachuting soldiers. This suggests that normal, wingless "Troopas" are also soldiers... Also take into account the RPG games, where we get most of our information. Enemy Koopa Troopas are specifically said to be working for Bowser. Compare this to Kent C. Koopa, an enemy that works alone, and note that his Tattle information calls him simply a "Koopa". No "Troopa" part. All the non-enemy Koopas in Koopa Village and, later, in Petalburg, are simply called Koopas. It seems highly likely that the difference is Koopa is species, and Troopa is title/position, much like the various "Bros." enemies carry the weapon or technique they use as a sort of job position-title. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 17:54, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:Fawfulfury: I have read the articles over again, again and again and, whether you like it or not, Koopas and Koopa Troopas are the same thing; just because the article is a list of different types of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas doesn't make it a valid article in the slightest. I could very well put {{tem|sectionstub}} under almost every single one of those sections! The article has many tiny sections displaying stuff that, if it should be here at all, should be under {{fakelink|List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies}}. If you still believe in your cause; what's a koopa? I'll tell you what it is, it's a Koopa Troopa; that article was obviously made by someone who didn't know we had an article on Koopa Troopas already. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::What makes that so "obvious"? I'd rather say the article was made by someone who believed "Koopa" to be a collective term for all the turtle-like enemies in the Mario games, which may or may not be true, since the games are rather vague on that.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 12:57, 5 December 2009 (EST)
:::Walkazo: Would you consent to having these articles merged but a "List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies" made? Because I think most people that type in "Koopa" are looking for a Koopa Troopa and not a list of their subspecies. We could add the list of subspecies to [[Koopa (disambiguation)]]. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::::No, because calling anything a "subspecies" is pure speculation: we can justify calling things like [[Chargin' Chuck]]s "species" on the Koopa page because of their unique biology, but that's not the case with things like [[KP Koopa]]s, [[Dark Koopa]]s, [[Shady Koopa]]s, [[Mask Koopa]]s, [[Koopatrol]s and many other variations of Koopa Troopas Mario has encountered. (See [[User:Walkazo/Essays#Koopa_Taxonomy|here]] for why this is the case; it's a long essay, but I tried to make it interesting for all you non-biologists.) Why should we create a speculatively titled List page when the [[Koopa]] page is a perfectly good platform to list not only the types of Koopa Troopas, but of ''all'' Koopas, which, unlike the list-template {{tem|Koopa Troopas}}, hasn't been done yet? The same goes for adding a list to the disambiguation page. There's a link to [[Koopa Troopa]] in the first paragraph of the general Koopa page, as well as a link to the disambiguation page, and making one extra click of the mouse is not going to inconvenience anyone looking for the Troopas. It might even teach them something about Koopas in general if they choose to read the Koopas page first - especially if we clean it up a bit. The potential value of an annotated list of Koopa species far outweighs the benefits of saving that space with a merge and using templates and categories to list things instead; my reasons why are included in the essay I linked to above (primarily in the last two paragraphs), which also has [[User:Walkazo/Essays#Lakitu|an example]] of what the page could look like with a little expansion. - {{User|Walkazo}}
Can we at least establish that Koopa is ''not'' a species and that [[Bowser]]'s article should not be classified as having the species [[Koopa]]? That is the real reason I made this proposal anyways...{{User|Marioguy1}}
:Well, the Koopa page has been re-written and expanded a bit. "Koopa" is no longer presented as a species. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 00:52, 6 December 2009 (EST)
::It's ''not'' a species. It is (IMO) a fan-made subject used to describe the generic creatures carrying shells on their backs. I have no idea why we have [[Bowser|someone]] categorized as one but I plan to change that. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::I didn't say they were a species.
:::@KingBean: Koopa Troopas aren't sub-species. They're simply Koopas working as soldiers (troopers) for Bowser. This is supported by the Paper Mario Tattle descriptions.
:::@Walkazo: It's not splitting hairs, it's fact. And ''none'' of the Bros. enemies are brothers; it's a title. The comparison to Troopas is moot. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 18:59, 6 December 2009 (EST)
==Changes==
==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''
<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
Latest revision as of 08:38, September 17, 2024
Current time:
Tuesday, September 17th, 12:39 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.
"Vote" periods last for one week.
Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
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
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}}.
Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
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.
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 administrators.
Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
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.
No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
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.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
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% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
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.
If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
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.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Basic proposal and support/oppose format
This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "September 17, 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".
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.
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}}.
All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
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
Split Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath (discuss) Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Split Banana Peel from Banana (discuss) Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Consider the "Blurp" and "Deep Cheep" in the Super Mario Maker games an alternate design of Cheep Cheep with the former twos' designs as a cameo rather than a full appearance of the former two, in line with the game's own classification (discuss) Deadline: September 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Split truck into cargo truck and pickup truck (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables
Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen here, this is awkwardly written as
"[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"
and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of
"[number] + (∞ x [number]),"
with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)
Altendo (talk) - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.
Hewer (talk) I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
Inspired by my recently passed Thanks proposal and engagement with editors over time, I think a precedent has been set to add more WikiLove features on to the wiki so that (willing) members may enjoy engaging with one another and feel motivated when others compliment their work, or just personal appreciations.
The main thing this proposal is focused on is the MediaWiki extension, which is called WikiLove. On the rationale of the WikiLove page, it says that lesser experienced users may feel discouraged when looked down upon by more experienced editors as they try to figure out how to do wikis, and this could help motivate not only newer editors, but also more experienced editors.
It says one can make custom WikiLove messages. Being a wiki on Super Mario, I think this wiki could aim to do WikiLove messages themed around the Super Mario franchise. The community can decide on WikiLove messages if this proposal passes (e.g., one message could say like "You're a super star like Mario"), as well as personalized ones toward editors. But if others do not want involvement, the courtesy policy can be updated to reflect this.
I wish there were more images to show, but here's a representative image to show how WikiLove would look. Would it be worth giving this a try?
Edit: For clarity, if this proposal passes, this also means WikiLove templates will be created, like how Wikipedia has them. It can be what the community decides, and categorical examples could include seasonal, animals, drinks, or expressing friendships, and obviously Super Mario.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) This would be a great form of positive feedback to counter the struggles faced by new and existing editors alike, since learning how to use a wiki is more difficult than you might expect. Ultimately, this should increase the feeling of community around the wiki to keep editing from feeling like a chore.
Derekblue1 (talk) I know people are happy with what I do ever since I update the Discord server on my progress on Mario is Missing!. The WikiLove extension will make people feel more connected. I see this as a boost of encouragement just like the Thanks extension.
Technetium (talk) Seems really fun, especially if we go full on Mario theming with it!
DryBonesBandit (talk) give me my glass o' milk now This seems like it would be a nice addition to the wiki. Per all!
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) I know I had a rough time when I first joined some of the websites I'm currently on today, so I'm all for this! I just love having the option to thank people and encourage them! Per all!
@ThePowerPlayer I realized WikiLove templates could fit into the scope of this proposal, so it's been updated, if your "Support" will count towards voting for those as well. Super Mario RPG (talk) 22:24, September 13, 2024 (EDT)
I really like this, but does Porplemontage know about this proposal? I know he approved and implemented the "Thanks" extension, but I just wanna be sure! Sparks (talk) 22:37, September 13, 2024 (EDT)
@Sparks The proposal is easily viewable on this page. And the proposal basically concerns a WikiLove system in general (since I updated it to also mention templates), so something like MarioWiki:WikiLove page can be set up with the corresponding templates. Super Mario RPG (talk) 08:17, September 14, 2024 (EDT)
Alrighty! Good to know. Sparks (talk) 08:52, September 14, 2024 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Rename the remaining baseball teams to their current titles
One thing is certain: Mario Super Sluggers was first released in Japan almost three years after Mario Superstar Baseball was first released in said country. In this case, I humbly suggest that there's a possibility to move the remaining baseball team pages with their Mario Superstar Baseball name to their current name from Mario Super Sluggers. So far, the current names already in use are the Peach Monarchs and Bowser Monsters.
The following of the remaining pages will be affected by the move:
Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to move the remaining baseball teams with their Mario Superstar Baseball names to their current Mario Super Sluggers titles.
Decide how to handle the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes
Currently, in infoboxes, the "latest portrayal" section of it is inconsistent across characters. When Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door came out, for example, it listed both Kevin Afghani (Mario's current voice actor) and Charles Martinet (who voices Mario in The Thousand-Year Door from original archival voicing) as Mario's latest portrayals, yet Jen Taylor (whose voice clips were also reused) wasn't added to Peach's latest portrayal. Therefore, to make these infoboxes consistent for characters with multiple voice actors, I am proposing several options:
Option 1: Only add in the current voice actor for the character (reissues with archival voices from retired voice actors will not be added).
Option 2: Only add in the voice actor for the character in the most recent game (reissues with archival voices will overtake the "current" voice actor if the latest one did not record voice lines for the character, the current voice actor will be re-added to the infobox following the release of a game with voices from the current voice actor).
Option 3: Add both the current voice actor and the voice actor for the latest release (this puts two voice actors in the "latest portrayal" section if the character is voiced via archival footage from a retired voice actor, but the current voice actor also gets to remain. When a new game comes out with new voice lines from the current voice actor, the voice actor from the previous release will be removed).
Option 4: Do nothing (infoboxes with both actors will not change, and same with infoboxes with the current actor even if a game featuring archival voicing from a retired voice actor is the latest one).
With regards to mixed use of voices, if multiple voice actors voice a single character in a single game, the latest person who voiced the character as of the game's release takes priority, meaning that archival voices from retired actors will not appear in the infobox if the character in that game is also (and especially mostly) voiced by the current actor for that character. As for other media (like The Super Mario Bros. Movie), whether or not the game/other media actor takes priority or if both should be listed is also of question, but I will likely wait until the follow-up to create that proposal.
EDIT: With regards to Tails777's vote, I don't know exactly how it will play out if Option 3 passes, although I will say if a game (like a compilation) does have a single character voiced by more than one voice actor who isn't the current one, the latest voice actor whose voice clips are used in the game as of the game's release will be the second option added to the infobox (like Peach in 3D All-Stars, who would've listes Samantha Kelly as her current and Galaxy voice actress, as well as Jen Taylor as her Sunshine voice actress, although I don't think it would be that consistent because it would exclude Leslie Swan, her 64 voice actress, but since Jen Taylor was the more recent of the two, she is the one who is listed).
Proposer: Altendo (talk) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Only add in the current voice actor
Altendo (talk) Primary choice. "Latest portrayal", to me, means the person who last voiced the character, and I don't think archival voices should count as this, especially since those voices were recorded before the current voice actor. This also avoids the issues of multiple voice actors voicing a single character in compilations and switching/adding or removing voice actors when reissues and original games come out (as described below).
Shadow2 (talk) Re-using old sound clips has no bearing on a character's "Latest portrayal". Charles does not voice Mario anymore, and to list him as such just because of older re-used sound clips is misrepresentative.
Hewer (talk) Per both, this is the less misleading option (the infobox doesn't specify whether the "latest" voice actor was just re-usage of old voice clips, so listing both Charles and Kevin gives the impression that they're both actively voicing Mario, which is wrong).
Only add in the the voice actor for the "latest" game
Altendo (talk) Tertiary choice. If "Latest portrayal" really means the person who voiced the character in the latest game, regardless of said actor's as-of-game-release status, then maybe archival voices can count because it is the voice of the character in the "latest" game. I do not recommend this option as this will cause a lot of infobox editing and switching voice actors when reissues (particularly ports and remasters) do inevitably come out, and if a compilation game (like Super Mario 3D All-Stars) comes out, multiple voice actors who voice the same character in a single compilation (like Princess Peach, who had threevoiceactresses in a single compilation) will stack up in the infoboxes. And when a new game comes out, all of that is thrown out the window, reverting to their current voice actor. This is why some were against enforcing the absolute "latest" portrayals in a previous proposal. The only reason why I am for this is consistency.
Add both current and latest voice actor
Altendo (talk) Secondary choice. It feels nice to respect both the voice actor who is currently voicing the character and the person whose voices, even in archival, are the sole ones used in the latest game. However, my point about voice actor switching, while not as big as an issue because archival voice actors will only be added rather than replace the current one, still kind of stands because reissues will add the archival voice actor for one game, only to remove it when a new game comes out. Additionally, if compilations only contain voices from retired voice actors, this will stack it up even more (although for 3D All-Stars, it still wouldn't change much due to Peach's Super Mario Galaxy voice actress still being her current one). Still, this does make the infoboxes consistent.
Tails777 (talk) I agree with this one more; it's best to keep it up to date when it comes to VAs, but it isn't uncommon for various games to recycle voice clips (TTYD once again being a good example). I feel it is best to at least acknowledge if voice clips get recycled in this respect, though I also feel this should be limited to one at a time, in case there are examples where someone had more than even two voice actors.
Do nothing
Comments
I'm conflicted between simply listing only whoever is currently voicing the character vs. potentially opening a can of worms by listing multiple actors from archival clips, even though that would respect the portrayals from the most recent game whether it used newly recorded or archived voices. No matter how this proposal ends up, I think that a future proposal should consider standardizing the "Portrayals" header in the character articles themselves. For Mario, the list of portrayals does a great job at comprehensively documenting everyone who has officially voiced Mario, but falters in conveying the inconceivable magnitude of media in which Martinet has voiced Mario, and how much he has contributed to the character's brand recognition to the point where many people will continue to see him as the voice of Mario, even moving forward as Kevin Afghani takes on that role. ThePowerPlayer 23:57, September 16, 2024 (EDT)
Sparks (talk) 
22:37, September 13, 2024 (EDT)
ThePowerPlayer 23:57, September 16, 2024 (EDT)
