MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
LucariosAura (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{/Header}} | |||
==Writing guidelines== | |||
''None at the moment'' | |||
==New features== | |||
''None at the moment.'' | |||
==Removals== | |||
===Remove the [[Template:a|a]] and [[Template:id|id]] templates=== | |||
{{early notice|May 24, 2025}} | |||
Back in December, both the [[Template:a|a]] and [[Template:id|id]] templates were created. One of them was from a [[Mariowiki:Proposals/Archive/72#Add an abbreviation template to type out full game titles|proposal]], and maybe the second one too? I don't know, I couldn't find it in the archives. | |||
# | |||
Anyways, both of these templates aren't really used at all. The a template was created for the purpose of shortening game titles, but I have not seen anyone actually use it. Same thing with the id template. Many users are used to typing out the entire game articles anyway, myself included. | |||
This proposal aims to remove both templates and fix the articles that have them. | |||
< | '''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Delete them both!==== | |||
#{{User|Sparks}} Someone needs to put these templates out of their misery. | |||
#{{User|Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior}} I'll take care of these templates, no problem! Do I have a plan? ...Not really, but I'll do fine, I'm sure! | |||
#{{User|Technetium|T}} These templates are so confusing man. Like my name in this vote! That's how it feels trying to edit pages with these templates on them. | |||
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I don't see "id" used too often, but "a" has been actively detrimental to articles. | |||
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock|Ctccm}} These templates, which ostensibly exist for ease of editing, have only really served to make it ''more'' confusing for editors. Your average editor shouldn't have to memorize which abbreviation is which to edit a page, especially when ''some'' abbreviations already require further elaboration as-is, and the list used lacks parity between the actual abbreviations we commonly use for redirects. Does "MF" lead to ''[[Mario Factory]]'', ''[[Mario's FUNdamentals]]'', or ''[[Mario Family]]''? Trick question--MF ''isn't in the list at all''. On the other hand, "W" is used as the abbreviation for [[Wii]], but [[W]] is actually a redirect for [[Wario]], thanks to [https://web.archive.org/web/20010429172148/http://www.warioland3.com/strategy/body.asp?key_id=N2_SILVER&land_id=N2 an old guide on the ''Wario Land 3'' website]. And considering that deprecating this template could easily be done by siccing PorpleBot on the task... Yeah, we can't say we're endeared to it. It should be deprecated, left with an Abandoned tag so that page histories don't become unreadable, and ''maybe'' we could repurpose a version of [[Template:A/list|the list subpage]] as a maintenance page, to properly showcase the abbreviations we use for games and consoles, when they actually exist; it actually has a rather decent form factor, the list is just... entirely proprietary to the abbreviations we actually use. | |||
#{{User|Pseudo}} Both of these templates seem likely to cause more confusion than anything else. I can see the reasons that one might want to keep them but I don't think they're good enough to justify the potential harm caused by these, especially "a". | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} These remind me of Bulbapedia's linking templates, which is not a good thing. Per Camwoodstock and Pseudo. | |||
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} the minute benefits these templates add aren't enough to counteract how unwieldy they are to use. per all | |||
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Are we really THAT lazy that we can't be bothered to type out the full title of a page? Per all. | |||
#{{User|Jdtendo}} These templates may be handy when you are the one who type them, but they're cumbersome for all other editors that will encounter them afterwards. | |||
#{{User|Altendo}} Per EvieMaybe (see comments). EDIT on 12:22, May 20, 2025 (EDT): The pipelinking for fully-typed out game titles with the identifier and certain italics don't really matter to me, as even though they are somewhat of a burden, I already don't really type out the identifier in whole when linking these types of pages. | |||
#{{User|Mario}} In this case, the longer route is the shortest way home. Trying to figure out what "YCW" is seeing the latest appearance in an infobox from <code><nowiki>{{a|YCW|l}}</nowiki></code> wastes my time, as well as my expressing bafflement at the 1 parameter here, not immediately knowing what the hell "1" does. If that's a bureaucrat's editing here for 15+ years reaction to this, have mercy on newer editors. I've expressed annoyance at the inefficiency dealing with these templates.[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Skeleton_Goonie&diff=4896199&oldid=4896191] At first, I thought it might be a good idea to try to shorten some abbreviations here but the execution is taking an axe to a relatively localized problem. Maybe there are better answers to writing out "Mario & Sonic at the Melting 2025 Winter Olympics at Antarctica" but right now, the solution here creates more problems in the process. | |||
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per Mario. These templates can indeed be helpful, but the parameters can end up being very confusing. I... also may have voted yes on the proposal to bring one of these into existence. | |||
#{{User|Platform}} I've made my objections in the comments. | |||
====Delete a, keep id==== | |||
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} So, here's the thing with me — I make fairly frequent use of {{tem|id}}... but it's ''never'' been for its abbreviation functionality. I use it purely as a quick way to avoid having to type pipe-link text that's just the same thing as the article text. And I think that's a great template to have. It's convenient; it saves space; it gets rid of an annoying redundancy. I have an edit comment somewhere where I say I like the template, unprompted, just because I like it that much. But again: none of that has anything to do with the game abbreviations part of the template. I never interfaced with any of that stuff because it seems cumbersome and I don't understand why you'd want to use it. I expect {{tem|a}} shares its backend with that somehow (maybe it's literally part of {{tem|id}} somewhere) so that functionality would probably break if {{tem|a}} went, but I'd be perfectly fine with that. Getting rid of the repetition in linking to, say, {{id|Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker|microgame}} the microgame is what the use case of {{tem|id}} is to me, and it's a fantastic thing to have a template for. Let's not throw that out with {{tem|a}}. | |||
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} Weak support now. To clarify, the identifier template was created by Porple through [[MarioWiki Talk:Proposals#Identifier template?|a discussion]] relating to [[Category talk:Game series#Remove "(series)" identifier from titles that don't need it|a tied proposal]] that I sided for. The main point of me proposing this template (which I went back to after [[/Archive/72#Add an abbreviation template to type out full game titles|the abbreviation proposal passed]]) was to avoid pipelinking, which I agreed with as I didn't want to write the name of the title, the identifier, and the title again (see [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]]'s comment) just to avoid a redirect or writing the title multiple times. While I do get the point of identifiers for these specifically existing so people don't have to memorize which pages have the identifiers or not, I think that pipelinking is just tiring, especially when dealing with multiple of them. EDIT on 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT): I still feel like this template has a bit of merit for a certain use (see my comment below), but now that Evie's comment explained how to bypass this in the first place (mooting the discussion surrounding the creation of this template), this is no longer my primary choice.</s> | |||
====Delete id, keep a==== | |||
#{{User|Salmancer}} I guess if we want template clutter down... | |||
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} Weak support, if we have to keep one of these. The point of a template made to ease editing is that they are ''optional'', and experienced editors don't necessarily have to use them; both templates show that they are not required to be used, but I still use both on an occasional basis when adding new stuff (I previously replaced links with these templates before I realized the template told me not to do so for preexisting links and only for newly added ones).</s> | |||
====Keep both==== | |||
#{{User|Salmancer}} I've used them, and they'd probably have more widespread use if not for the fact using "a" in a section header is discouraged. (That forces people to type out full game names at least once, which as one might expect encourages copy and pasting that.) Anyhow shortform versions of long phrases are helpful when you're in a hurry and have lots of text to write. Especially if you need to go back and forth between base game and remake behavior, or are in similar situations. Clipboards can only carry one phrase at a time, which makes copy and pasting from the section header much slower when juggling multiple games. "id" is generally less useful due to "link autocomplete" and the "pipe trick", but I believe "link autocomplete" is optional and therefore "id" serves a niche for people who are not using the autocomplete. | |||
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per my other vote. I strongly believe {{tem|id}} is a good and useful template. It's not for {{tem|a}}-related reasons, but if keeping {{tem|a}} is the only way to keep {{tem|id}}, I'll do it. | |||
#{{User|Tails777}} I for sure get the idea behind this, but I feel like we need more guidelines on their use. Using them for something as small as Nintendo DS or Wii is not something that should be encouraged, but using them for titles like ''[[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey]]'' or ''[[Mario & Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games]]'' is still a sense of convenience at least. I'd rather create some rules on their use before flat out removing them. | |||
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} I often use {{tem|a}} in conjunction with {{tem|id}}, especially since it saves a lot of bytes on a page and shortens subjects even more. I mean, I'm ''fine'' with getting rid of {{tem|a}}, but it does further ease the {{tem|id}} template, especially since names are shortened even more. I don't want to type out "<nowiki>[[Captain Goomba (Mario & Luigi series)|Captain Goomba]]</nowiki>". I want to shorten it by writing "<nowiki>{{id|Captain Goomba|M&LSERIES}}</nowiki>". It's a lot easier and shorter.Weak support, I guess, per an unsolved(?) question in the comments.</s> | |||
<s>#{{user|Koopa con Carne}} "both of these templates aren't really used at all." I mean, false. I've been using {{tem|a}} a lot (*cough* when I remember it exists). The reason it doesn't seem used all that much is because its documentation discourages users from reformatting existing game titles with it, and with the site going on 20 years even before the template was created, yeah, obviously the previous method is gonna be way more widespread. As for "id", the reason I haven't used it is simply because I wasn't aware of it.</s> | |||
# | |||
= | |||
* | |||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
These templates would actually be worthwhile if there were a way to automatically substitute <code><nowiki>{{a|SMB}}</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>''Super Mario Bros.''</nowiki></code> when the page is saved, in the same way that <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> gets substituted with the user's signature; but I'm not sure that this is technically possible. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 06:43, May 17, 2025 (EDT) | |||
I'm not too familiar with these templates but my experience with them has been negative. When articles get renamed, merged, or split, the templates break or get linked to the wrong article.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 10:59, May 17, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:Pretty sure we can just use <nowiki>{{subst:a|SMB}}</nowiki>. This will save it as the full link upon saving the page. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 11:05, May 17, 2025 (EDT) | |||
::TEST: <!---{{#if:{{a/list|SMB}}| | |||
#{{ | {{#if:| | ||
[[{{#replace:{{#replace:{{a/list|SMB}}|'''}}|''}}|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|l|{{PAGETITLE|{{#replace:{{#replace:{{a/list|SMB}}|(series)|series}}|(franchise)|franchise}}}}|{{{2}}}}}]] | |||
#{{ | | | ||
#{{ | {{PAGETITLE|{{#replace:{{#replace:{{a/list|SMB}}|(series)|series}}|(franchise)|franchise}}}} | ||
#{{ | }}|SMB{{#if:||<sup style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">[invalid parameter]</sup>{{#if:{{CONTENTPAGE}}|[[Category:Articles with invalid template parameters]]}}}}}}---> EDIT on 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT): Removed coding per Evie's comment. | ||
#{{ | |||
#{{ | |||
::Oh, wow. It did ''not'' go as planned, as it copied the entire template code onto the page, instead of just the link. Visibly, this doesn't look any different, but on the inside, it looks ugly. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 11:07, May 17, 2025 (EDT) | |||
It | |||
:So ask Porplemontage to tinker with the related parameter when that happens. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:36, May 17, 2025 (EDT) | |||
: | |||
i want to point out that you can type any link with an identifier as <code><nowiki>[[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)|]]</nowiki></code>, with the vertical bar at the end, and it'll come out as "[[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)|World 1-1]]" when submitted. <br> | |||
also, {{@|Altendo}}, whatever your test did is messing with the automatic syntax highlighting add-on. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:32, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:Wai-WHAAAT? How long has ''that'' been a thing? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 10:41, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | |||
::Second test: ''[[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]'' | |||
::Well, that actually worked! I might still see a bit of usage in the {{tem|id}} template as sometimes pipelinking is ''required'' (like when italicizing game titles with identifiers where the full title should be shown, which requires writing the page name twice but the second game name is italicized, if there is also a way to bypass this it would be great), but now that I know about this, it should simplify things a lot more! [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | |||
I | ::Doc, I seriously don't know if you're just playing it up or not. I knew about the parenthesis {{wp|Help:Pipe trick|pipe trick}} for YEARS... {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:50, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | ||
:::I actually didn't know that just adding the pipe (which I didn't know was "<nowiki/>|") and nothing more would display the page title without the parenthesis... I thought it would have just made blank space. If I knew this earlier, I wouldn't have even made the id template discussion to begin with. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 13:12, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | |||
' | ::::I can excuse you for not knowing, you've only joined the wiki in 2022, while Doc joined in 2017. But I suppose I might as well be the jaded one here, I first joined the wiki in 2006/2007 after all. Not to mention that I recently found out (as in, a couple months ago I think?) that commas also trigger a pipe trick, so maybe I'm just stupid for assuming that people should know better. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:45, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | ||
'' | :Well, I went down a bit of a rabbithole investigating exactly how long this feature has been a thing... Turns out it's so old it's [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/core/+/d82c14fb4fbac288b42ca5918b0a72f33ecb1e69/includes/Article.php#1444 in the very oldest version of the MediaWiki source code available in its git repository,] which [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/core/+/d82c14fb4fbac288b42ca5918b0a72f33ecb1e69 dates back to April '''2003'''.] So, to say the least, it's not new. [[User:AmossGuy|AmossGuy]] ([[User talk:AmossGuy|talk]]) 13:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | ||
''' | :Huh. That definitely seems to cover the use case I was using {{tem|id}} for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:37, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | ||
::I definitely wasn't aware of this feature. Deleted my vote entirely because, eh, I don't actually care that much what happens to the other template. Auto-fill is useful, too. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:24, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | |||
{{@|Nelsonic}} I don't think you voted on the proposal for the {{tem|a}} template or discussed the {{tem|id}} template, either. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 12:22, May 20, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:{{@|Altendo}} Ah. Okay. I remember seeing it when it was active, I just wasn't sure whether I had voted or not. [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 12:25, May 20, 2025 (EDT) | |||
' | |||
==Changes== | ==Changes== | ||
=== | ===Move back from the "Multimedia:" prefix=== | ||
{{Early notice|May 22, 2025}} | |||
So apparently, PorpleBot moved the page from "List of WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! media" to "Multimedia:WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!". And yes, it's just an example, because all other media pages have been moved to use the "Multimedia:" prefix! And yes, this is my first proposal so I'm sorry if the proposal is very informal. But anyways, every pages involving media files currently has the "Multimedia:" prefix. That makes no sense to me, especially when the old title is "List of WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! '''media'''" for example, and the "media" in the title already makes it clear that it's a page about media files (in this case, WarioWare Inc. media files). This "Camwoodstock" guy said that it's for parity but since the gallery pages are formatted "Gallery:WarioWare: Touched!" for example, it makes no sense to do just the same for the media pages. | |||
'''Proposer | '''Proposer''': {{User|Alphabetlorefan2003}}<br> | ||
''' | '''Deadline''': May 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT | ||
''' | |||
==== | ====Media Page Supporters:==== | ||
#{{User|Alphabetlorefan2003}} Per proposal. | |||
==== | ====Wario, the Opposers:==== | ||
#{{User|Jdtendo}} It makes sense to have a dedicated "Multimedia:" namespace for galleries of media akin to the "Gallery:" namespace for galleries of images, and I don't see the point of reverting to "List of X media" pages. | |||
: | #{{User|Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior}} Per Jdtendo. | ||
#{{User|Arend|Multimedia:Arend}} Per Jdtendo, and my comments down below. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock|Multimedia:Camwoodstock}} <small>first of all why did you use "scarequotes" for us.</small> It's far easier to search for a game's Multimedia page with the namespace rather than to have to write "List of ''x'' media", and it's easier to search for changes to them in Recent Changes/the watchlist. And as for the point of "Gallery: has existed for years, but Multimedia: is new"... Well, yeah. Things change all the time on a wiki, and sometimes, the gaps between certain changes are very large. That's kind of a given with a collaborative writing project. We don't even really understand the point about parity "not making sense"; there's literally a [[Multimedia:WarioWare: Touched!]] to go alongside [[Gallery:WarioWare: Touched!]]. The two match, when they formerly did not, and one was a namespace and one was a list despite the two being functionally companions to one another. And, pray tell, to what end? If this was a push to cut back on dedicated namespaces, why ''only'' the Multimedia pages? Granted, we can't see a proposal to convert all Gallery pages to "List of ''x'' images" going over well... | |||
#{{User|Altendo|List of Altendo media}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|EvieMaybe|EvieMedia}} per these "Camwoodstock" guys | |||
#{{User|Rainbow Road Drifter}} These are collections of audio files in the same way galleries are collections of pictures. They should be named this way to distinguish them from traditional articles. | |||
#{{User|Okapii}} I think those "Camwoodstock" folks were onto something. | |||
#{{User|YoYo}} i don't see your reasoning here... you say it the claim its for "parity" makes no sense, then immediately say an example of it showing said parity?? per all. | |||
#{{User|SGoW}} I love Wario, what a great character. If an option in a proposal is named after him I will certainly be voting for it. | |||
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy|This "Kaptain Skurvy" guy}} Wario is funny so im voting his option <small>(jk...per all.)</small> | |||
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per all. To use an additional example, we already refer to the grouping of [[Play Nintendo]] images, videos, and wallpapers as "Multimedia" (granted, the website does as well, in a sense, as it refers to them as "Media"). | |||
#{{User|Hewer|Hewario}} Get Wario'd! | |||
=== | ====Kat and Ana Comments==== | ||
From what I can gather, Camwoodstock actually was for a regular Media: namespace, as seen [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/75#Create new "Media:" namespace for media subpages|here]], but since Media: is already a namespace that's in use (as an alternative to the File: namespace), the proposal has been vetoed, and it was decided to have the new namespace be called "Multimedia:" instead.<br>Anyway, I don't entirely understand why you want to revert it back? You say that Camwoodstock's reasoning for parity makes no sense because the Gallery: namespace exists... but doesn't that ''corroborate'' to his point? Because, you know, ''it's also a namespace?'' Are you bothered it's ''multi''media now instead of simply "media"? What's exactly your problem with these media pages being its own namespace instead of regular list pages? {{User:Arend/sig}} 05:58, May 15, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:The "Gallery:" prefix has existed for years so adding it now makes no sense. [[User:Alphabetlorefan2003|Alphabetlorefan2003]] ([[User talk:Alphabetlorefan2003|talk]]) 10:07, May 15, 2025 (EDT) | |||
::What's the problem with adding the Multimedia prefix now? The wiki is always adding new features and articles. How does that "make no sense"? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 10:15, May 15, 2025 (EDT) | |||
::Perring Lady Sophie here. Just because the Gallery: namespace has existed for years while the Multimedia: one has not, doesn't mean the latter cannot be added later or ever again. This honestly feels like one of those "I don't like change, everything should stay the same" types of complaint. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:05, May 15, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:For some context, since part of this was on the Discord. Porplemontage explained the full reason behind why Media: was unavailable (it's a default namespace used by MediaWiki internally for handling files, so inserting something into the Media: namespace would have... ''Consequences'' behind the scenes, which is why it doesn't let you do that and just redirects you to a File: page if you try.), and after a conversation, he suggested "Multimedia:" instead, as an alternative that ''doesn't'' run into problems behind the scenes. We were fine with that new name, and offered to remake the proposal, but Porple decided to implement it himself without needing to re-run the proposal for the tweaked, internally-sound name; you'd have to ask him for his reasoning for that one, as we're obviously not him.<br>In short, the idea of a dedicated namespace for Multimedia subpages was our idea, but Porple ultimately chose the name we landed on (with our approval), and he was the one who ultimately helped implement it. (To be honest, the text on the original proposal should probably say "CANCELLED, ALTERNATIVE VERSION PUT INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY" or something like that, rather than just "VETOED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS" with the clarification that the proposal was put into effect immediately with a differing name being a small font subtitle--it'd be far clearer for your average user what happened without them having to consult the archive list and see that it's teal. ;P) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:00, May 15, 2025 (EDT) | |||
WAAAH? There are more Wario's than there are supporters? [[User:Alphabetlorefan2003|Alphabetlorefan2003]] ([[User talk:Alphabetlorefan2003|talk]]) 19:10, May 15, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:<s>Yeah, we pick WAAAAARIOOOOOO</s> But seriously, you have read our reasonings and do understand why we think it's pointless to change it back, right? {{User:Arend/sig}} 03:47, May 16, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:This implies you named the option "Wario" to steer people away from it, which is not really a good way to structure a proposal. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 11:39, May 20, 2025 (EDT) | |||
::If that's true, then yeah, that's not good at all. It introduces bias by saying one is an objectively bad option, when all options are supposed to be objectively equal. Hell, I'd argue it's even a poorly designed way to say an option is objectively bad because people actually ''like'' Wario and thus would be more inclined to choose the Wario option over the boring "return back to the previous status quo" option, backfiring the proposer completely.<br>However, I'm sure it's just coincidence, right? I'm certain that the oppose option is only named after Wario since the proposal has been using WarioWare pages as examples of the proposer's issue. I mean, why else would this very comment section be named after Kat and Ana, then? {{User:Arend/sig}} 05:01, May 21, 2025 (EDT) | |||
==Miscellaneous== | |||
===What is a game? 2: electric boogaloo=== | |||
Per some of the oppose votes on the previous proposal. I can understand not adding these games to the [[list of games]], though I personally do not think they should remain classified as merchandise, either. Because of this, I think these games should have their own spot somewhere, instead of remaining in a list/gallery that covers a wide range of things. I believe these games should move to a dedicated {{fake link|list of physical games}} or something along the lines of that. | |||
(To note, I do not believe this contradicts the recent previous proposal, since this proposal is asking where physical games go, acting semi-independently of the original proposal, though I will temporarily withdraw it if it does contradict/overturn the previous decision.) | |||
=== | |||
I | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nelsonic}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT | |||
=== | ====Create a dedicated list for only physical games==== | ||
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Rainbow Road Drifter}} These should be listed in a single article, and they aren't video games. | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our only wonder is if board games will be on this "List of physical games"; our board game coverage is kind of terrible at the moment. Even still, this definitely makes sense, and if board games can't be on "List of games" for not being video games, there's ''no'' reason various water ring toys ''should''--that should likely be split. | |||
====Create a catch all list of games with both video and physical games==== | |||
#{{User|Nelsonic}} This also works. | |||
#{{User|Rykitu}} I like this option as well. | |||
# | |||
# | |||
====Do not move physical games from their current location==== | |||
' | ====The Comment Games 2==== | ||
' | Don't you have to wait 28 days before a follow-up proposal? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:04, May 7, 2025 (EDT) | ||
:{{@|Camwoodstock}} Yes, but I believe that is if the follow-up proposal contradicts or reverses the option on which consensus was reached from the original proposal. [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 16:07, May 7, 2025 (EDT) | |||
::The phrasing implies it just can't interfere with a concluded proposal less than 28 days ago at all, not just if that proposal passed. Otherwise, if a proposal failed, someone could just.... Create another proposal about the same thing. Immediately. And keep doing that until it passes in their favor. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:11, May 7, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:{{@|Camwoodstock}} Understood, though I was trying to make a proposal on something that was discussed in the original proposal that, while it does relate to physical games, isn't strictly a continuation of the original proposal. I did title the proposal as a sequel, and it does continue discussion on the topic, but I was trying to figure out whether a separate list should be made for these as opposed to placing them on the list of games, since all that was decided in the previous proposal was to not place them on the list of games. I will withdraw the proposal temporarily if this contradicts the outcome of that proposal. [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 16:20, May 7, 2025 (EDT) | |||
::yeah, this does not contradict the previous proposal in the slightest. should be fine {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 17:49, May 7, 2025 (EDT) | |||
Wait a sec...if there ends up being a separate page for physical games, shouldn't there logically be a third page for games that don't fit in either page? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 08:30, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:What games are there that fit into neither list? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | |||
::I don't have any specific examples...but I'm sure there's at least one in the previous proposal (the big one with stuff like rides and water games (those MIGHT count for the "don't fit on either page" thing, but I don't know)). [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)|talk]]) 17:36, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:::Things that aren't games at all (such as rides) don't fit on any list of games. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, May 19, 2025 (EDT) | |||
:{{@|Camwoodstock}} Yeah, I was gonna move the water games and other similar things over (if that works) if this proposal passes, since the resulting list would encompass all physical games. [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 16:50, May 20, 2025 (EDT) | |||
=== | ===Tighten the definition of "item" used by some games' subcategories=== | ||
Within the context of, say, ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'', an "item" is a specific class of game entity that goes in its own tab on the pause menu and tab in the battle UI, and can be used in and out of battle. However, this specificity is not reflected in our category system, under which [[:Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door items]] contains the likes of [[Badge]], [[Hammer]], [[Heart (item)]], and [[Star Piece (Paper Mario series)]]. I think things like these sharing a category with the games' definition of "item" is counterintuitive. Should this proposal pass, "items" such as these, no longer contained within the tightened definition, will be placed into the main category; or their own subcategory if there are enough (though I'm not sure what such a category would be called). | |||
If it's preferable that the "items" label be kept consistent with the rest of the wiki, I would also be fine with splitting these items off into a subcategory (or simply renaming the category if the "normal items" are too few in number) — {{Fake link|Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door consumable items}}, for instance. | |||
Games and series for which I believe this should be done include: | |||
*''[[Super Mario RPG]]'', the ''{{id|Paper Mario|series}}'' series, the ''{{id|Mario & Luigi|series}}'' series, and ''[[Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope]]''. These all share the definition of "item" used in the example at the top of the proposal. | |||
*Various games in the ''{{id|Mario Party|series}}'' series, wherein items are specific things that can be acquired and used at the start of your turn. | |||
*''[[Mario is Missing!]]'' and ''[[Mario's Time Machine]]'' (though the latter already seems to abide by this). I'm more familiar with the former, but [[taxi token]]s and [[walkie-talkie]]s being mixed in with these games' fetch quest items. Mario is Missing tends to use "artifacts" for these objects, so maybe that's the term we should be using here. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': May 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Tighten the "item" category on these games==== | |||
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal. | |||
#{{User|Altendo|Itemdo}} Sounds good from what I can see. | |||
== | ====Split these item classes into their own categories==== | ||
'' | #{{User|Ahemtoday}} Oh, I meant to vote here as well but forgot. | ||
#{{User|Pseudo}} Distinguishing these items from other types of item is useful and important, but I would strongly contend that stuff like Badges and Star Pieces ''are'' items, just a different category from consumable items that are sometimes labeled as just "items". | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We prefer this, personally. It'd be nice to have a clear distinction between types of items found in RPGs aside from just... "Item". Mario Party also has a few color-coded categories for [[Orb]]s in ''5'' to ''7'', and [[Candy (Mario Party 8)|Candy]] in ''8'', which we could potentially distinguish with this. | |||
#{{User|Altendo|Altem Class}} Second choice, per all. | |||
#{{User|Rainbow Road Drifter}} The term is used in RPGs to refer to something that can be bought or sold in a shop, used as the action during the player's turn, and is listed in an Items section in the menu. If an object isn't considered an "item" in the game, it should be in a separate category. | |||
====Do nothing==== | |||
====Comments (item category proposal)==== |
Latest revision as of 06:30, May 21, 2025
|
Wednesday, May 21st, 12:09 GMT |
|
If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.
How to
If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. 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}}.
Rules
- Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
- A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
- Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
- Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
- Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.
- Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (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 wiki staff.
- Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
- 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 "(blocked)" 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.
- Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
- If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
- Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
- 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% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
- Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
- 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.
- After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
- If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
- Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
- 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. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
- 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 formatting
Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option 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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br> '''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT ====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]==== #{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal. ====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]==== ====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[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 simply say "Per proposal."
Poll proposal formatting
As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other. Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).
In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 20 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.
To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".
===[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]==== '''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT ;Support #{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal. ;Oppose ====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]==== '''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT ;Support #{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal. ;Oppose ====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]==== '''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT ;Support #{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal. ;Oppose ====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.
Talk page proposals
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. 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 {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), 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.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Deletions
- Delete Category:Opening scene images and Category:Ending scene images (discuss) by LadySophie17; Deadline: June 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Moves
- Remove "My Very First Nintendo Game Boy" from My Very First Nintendo Game Boy: Super Mario's Adventures and My Very First Nintendo Game Boy: Donkey Kong Country (discuss) by Kaptain Skurvy; Deadline: May 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Merges
- Partially or fully merge floor (block) with floor (discuss) by PopitTart; Deadline: May 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Kamek (Red), Kamek (White) and Kamek (Green) with the colored Magikoopas (discuss) by Kirby the Formling; Deadline: May 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Ruddy Road Paint Guy with Paint Guy (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: June 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Mario Ambassador to Charles Martinet (discuss) by Camwoodstock; Deadline: June 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Spike (Wario Land series) to Spike Trap (discuss) by Camwoodstock; Deadline: June 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Splits
- Split Donkey Kong GB: Dinky Kong & Dixie Kong (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: May 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split every Satellaview re-release (discuss) by Kaptain Skurvy; Deadline: May 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split 9-Volt and 18-Volt's microgame categories (discuss) by Snessy; Deadline: May 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split Baron von Zeppelin from Item Balloon (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: May 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split Chargin' Chuck Corps from Chargin' Chuck (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split Fly (Super Mario Land) from Fighter Fly (discuss) by Nintendo101; Deadline: May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split Golf: Japan Course (Professional Course) and Golf: Japan Course (Champions' Course) (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Decide how Nintendo Switch profile images should be split from Category:Nintendo Switch images (discuss) by Stache; Deadline: May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split Golf: Special Course from Golf: US Course (discuss) by Kaptain Skurvy; Deadline: June 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Split Yoshi Sphinx (landmark) from Yoshi Sphinx (level) (discuss) by Jdtendo; Deadline: June 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Miscellaneous
- Expand Super Mario Wakuwaku Game Land (discuss) by Rykitu; Deadline: May 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Clean up Bumper (Super Mario series) (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: May 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Determine what to do with Template:Lost (discuss) by Camwoodstock; Deadline: May 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Expand Ring Shot to cover other Mario Tennis games as well as Superstars (discuss) by PrincessPeachFan; Deadline: May 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Do not use Super Game Boy Player's Guide as Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins level name reference (discuss) by Snessy; Deadline: May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Apply the minigame category to Mic Space or split Bonus Mic Game from it (discuss) by Snessy; Deadline: June 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Group Mario Kart Tour and Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit with other Mario Kart games (discuss) by Hewer; Deadline: June 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
- Decide what is Heyho Coin Bag (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: June 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024) |
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024) |
- ^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024) |
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024) |
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025) |
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025) |
Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025) |
Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link, Bro Hammer (ended April 18, 2025) |
Make a guideline for covering generic subjects that have a recurring and recognizable design in the Mario series, Koopa con Carne (ended May 4, 2025) |
Rework "References" sections, EvieMaybe (ended May 5, 2025) |
Talk page proposals
Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021) |
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022) |
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024) |
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024) |
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024) |
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024) |
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025) |
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025) |
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025) |
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025) |
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025) |
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025) |
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025) |
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025) |
Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article, EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025) |
Merge the list of references to Super Mario Bros. with Super Mario Bros., Waluigi Time (ended April 6, 2025) |
Split Hammer (move) from Hammer, Blinker (ended April 10, 2025) |
Give Nathaniel's Fun Factory full coverage, Nelsonic (ended April 12, 2025) |
Split Kongo Bongo Island and Jungle Kingdom from Donkey Kong Island, Kaptain Skurvy (ended April 20, 2025) |
Deciding the fate of the last two episodes of Super Mario Maker 2 Challenges!, Rykitu (ended April 27, 2025) |
Merge Coin Area and Coin Block Area, Altendo (ended May 9, 2025) |
Restore general coverage for Pyramid, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 9, 2025) |
Split the Story Mode chapters from Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 13, 2025) |
Clean up Prohibited Command, PrincessPeachFan (ended May 13, 2025) |
Split the individual Picross NP volumes from Picross NP, Nelsonic (ended May 14, 2025) |
Reduce Super Mario Maker info from giant cannon, LinkTheLefty (ended May 15, 2025) |
Writing guidelines
None at the moment
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
Remove the a and id templates
Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on May 24, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.
Back in December, both the a and id templates were created. One of them was from a proposal, and maybe the second one too? I don't know, I couldn't find it in the archives.
Anyways, both of these templates aren't really used at all. The a template was created for the purpose of shortening game titles, but I have not seen anyone actually use it. Same thing with the id template. Many users are used to typing out the entire game articles anyway, myself included.
This proposal aims to remove both templates and fix the articles that have them.
Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Delete them both!
- Sparks (talk) Someone needs to put these templates out of their misery.
- Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) I'll take care of these templates, no problem! Do I have a plan? ...Not really, but I'll do fine, I'm sure!
- T (talk) These templates are so confusing man. Like my name in this vote! That's how it feels trying to edit pages with these templates on them.
- Nintendo101 (talk) I don't see "id" used too often, but "a" has been actively detrimental to articles.
- Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
- Ctccm (talk) These templates, which ostensibly exist for ease of editing, have only really served to make it more confusing for editors. Your average editor shouldn't have to memorize which abbreviation is which to edit a page, especially when some abbreviations already require further elaboration as-is, and the list used lacks parity between the actual abbreviations we commonly use for redirects. Does "MF" lead to Mario Factory, Mario's FUNdamentals, or Mario Family? Trick question--MF isn't in the list at all. On the other hand, "W" is used as the abbreviation for Wii, but W is actually a redirect for Wario, thanks to an old guide on the Wario Land 3 website. And considering that deprecating this template could easily be done by siccing PorpleBot on the task... Yeah, we can't say we're endeared to it. It should be deprecated, left with an Abandoned tag so that page histories don't become unreadable, and maybe we could repurpose a version of the list subpage as a maintenance page, to properly showcase the abbreviations we use for games and consoles, when they actually exist; it actually has a rather decent form factor, the list is just... entirely proprietary to the abbreviations we actually use.
- Pseudo (talk) Both of these templates seem likely to cause more confusion than anything else. I can see the reasons that one might want to keep them but I don't think they're good enough to justify the potential harm caused by these, especially "a".
- Hewer (talk) These remind me of Bulbapedia's linking templates, which is not a good thing. Per Camwoodstock and Pseudo.
- EvieMaybe (talk) the minute benefits these templates add aren't enough to counteract how unwieldy they are to use. per all
- Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Are we really THAT lazy that we can't be bothered to type out the full title of a page? Per all.
- Jdtendo (talk) These templates may be handy when you are the one who type them, but they're cumbersome for all other editors that will encounter them afterwards.
- Altendo (talk) Per EvieMaybe (see comments). EDIT on 12:22, May 20, 2025 (EDT): The pipelinking for fully-typed out game titles with the identifier and certain italics don't really matter to me, as even though they are somewhat of a burden, I already don't really type out the identifier in whole when linking these types of pages.
- Mario (talk) In this case, the longer route is the shortest way home. Trying to figure out what "YCW" is seeing the latest appearance in an infobox from
{{a|YCW|l}}
wastes my time, as well as my expressing bafflement at the 1 parameter here, not immediately knowing what the hell "1" does. If that's a bureaucrat's editing here for 15+ years reaction to this, have mercy on newer editors. I've expressed annoyance at the inefficiency dealing with these templates.[1] At first, I thought it might be a good idea to try to shorten some abbreviations here but the execution is taking an axe to a relatively localized problem. Maybe there are better answers to writing out "Mario & Sonic at the Melting 2025 Winter Olympics at Antarctica" but right now, the solution here creates more problems in the process. - Nelsonic (talk) Per Mario. These templates can indeed be helpful, but the parameters can end up being very confusing. I... also may have voted yes on the proposal to bring one of these into existence.
- Platform (talk) I've made my objections in the comments.
Delete a, keep id
- Ahemtoday (talk) So, here's the thing with me — I make fairly frequent use of {{id}}... but it's never been for its abbreviation functionality. I use it purely as a quick way to avoid having to type pipe-link text that's just the same thing as the article text. And I think that's a great template to have. It's convenient; it saves space; it gets rid of an annoying redundancy. I have an edit comment somewhere where I say I like the template, unprompted, just because I like it that much. But again: none of that has anything to do with the game abbreviations part of the template. I never interfaced with any of that stuff because it seems cumbersome and I don't understand why you'd want to use it. I expect {{a}} shares its backend with that somehow (maybe it's literally part of {{id}} somewhere) so that functionality would probably break if {{a}} went, but I'd be perfectly fine with that. Getting rid of the repetition in linking to, say, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker the microgame is what the use case of {{id}} is to me, and it's a fantastic thing to have a template for. Let's not throw that out with {{a}}.
#Altendo (talk) Weak support now. To clarify, the identifier template was created by Porple through a discussion relating to a tied proposal that I sided for. The main point of me proposing this template (which I went back to after the abbreviation proposal passed) was to avoid pipelinking, which I agreed with as I didn't want to write the name of the title, the identifier, and the title again (see SeanWheeler's comment) just to avoid a redirect or writing the title multiple times. While I do get the point of identifiers for these specifically existing so people don't have to memorize which pages have the identifiers or not, I think that pipelinking is just tiring, especially when dealing with multiple of them. EDIT on 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT): I still feel like this template has a bit of merit for a certain use (see my comment below), but now that Evie's comment explained how to bypass this in the first place (mooting the discussion surrounding the creation of this template), this is no longer my primary choice.
Delete id, keep a
#Altendo (talk) Weak support, if we have to keep one of these. The point of a template made to ease editing is that they are optional, and experienced editors don't necessarily have to use them; both templates show that they are not required to be used, but I still use both on an occasional basis when adding new stuff (I previously replaced links with these templates before I realized the template told me not to do so for preexisting links and only for newly added ones).
Keep both
- Salmancer (talk) I've used them, and they'd probably have more widespread use if not for the fact using "a" in a section header is discouraged. (That forces people to type out full game names at least once, which as one might expect encourages copy and pasting that.) Anyhow shortform versions of long phrases are helpful when you're in a hurry and have lots of text to write. Especially if you need to go back and forth between base game and remake behavior, or are in similar situations. Clipboards can only carry one phrase at a time, which makes copy and pasting from the section header much slower when juggling multiple games. "id" is generally less useful due to "link autocomplete" and the "pipe trick", but I believe "link autocomplete" is optional and therefore "id" serves a niche for people who are not using the autocomplete.
- Ahemtoday (talk) Per my other vote. I strongly believe {{id}} is a good and useful template. It's not for {{a}}-related reasons, but if keeping {{a}} is the only way to keep {{id}}, I'll do it.
- Tails777 (talk) I for sure get the idea behind this, but I feel like we need more guidelines on their use. Using them for something as small as Nintendo DS or Wii is not something that should be encouraged, but using them for titles like Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey or Mario & Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games is still a sense of convenience at least. I'd rather create some rules on their use before flat out removing them.
#Altendo (talk) I often use {{a}} in conjunction with {{id}}, especially since it saves a lot of bytes on a page and shortens subjects even more. I mean, I'm fine with getting rid of {{a}}, but it does further ease the {{id}} template, especially since names are shortened even more. I don't want to type out "[[Captain Goomba (Mario & Luigi series)|Captain Goomba]]". I want to shorten it by writing "{{id|Captain Goomba|M&LSERIES}}". It's a lot easier and shorter.Weak support, I guess, per an unsolved(?) question in the comments.
#Koopa con Carne (talk) "both of these templates aren't really used at all." I mean, false. I've been using {{a}} a lot (*cough* when I remember it exists). The reason it doesn't seem used all that much is because its documentation discourages users from reformatting existing game titles with it, and with the site going on 20 years even before the template was created, yeah, obviously the previous method is gonna be way more widespread. As for "id", the reason I haven't used it is simply because I wasn't aware of it.
Comments
These templates would actually be worthwhile if there were a way to automatically substitute {{a|SMB}}
with ''Super Mario Bros.''
when the page is saved, in the same way that ~~~~
gets substituted with the user's signature; but I'm not sure that this is technically possible. Jdtendo(T|C) 06:43, May 17, 2025 (EDT)
I'm not too familiar with these templates but my experience with them has been negative. When articles get renamed, merged, or split, the templates break or get linked to the wrong article.--Platform (talk) 10:59, May 17, 2025 (EDT)
- Pretty sure we can just use {{subst:a|SMB}}. This will save it as the full link upon saving the page. Altendo 11:05, May 17, 2025 (EDT)
- TEST: EDIT on 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT): Removed coding per Evie's comment.
- So ask Porplemontage to tinker with the related parameter when that happens. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:36, May 17, 2025 (EDT)
i want to point out that you can type any link with an identifier as [[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)|]]
, with the vertical bar at the end, and it'll come out as "World 1-1" when submitted.
also, @Altendo, whatever your test did is messing with the automatic syntax highlighting add-on. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:32, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- Wai-WHAAAT? How long has that been a thing? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:41, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- Second test: Super Mario RPG
- Well, that actually worked! I might still see a bit of usage in the {{id}} template as sometimes pipelinking is required (like when italicizing game titles with identifiers where the full title should be shown, which requires writing the page name twice but the second game name is italicized, if there is also a way to bypass this it would be great), but now that I know about this, it should simplify things a lot more! Altendo 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- Doc, I seriously don't know if you're just playing it up or not. I knew about the parenthesis pipe trick for YEARS...
rend (talk) (edits) 12:50, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- I actually didn't know that just adding the pipe (which I didn't know was "|") and nothing more would display the page title without the parenthesis... I thought it would have just made blank space. If I knew this earlier, I wouldn't have even made the id template discussion to begin with. Altendo 13:12, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- I can excuse you for not knowing, you've only joined the wiki in 2022, while Doc joined in 2017. But I suppose I might as well be the jaded one here, I first joined the wiki in 2006/2007 after all. Not to mention that I recently found out (as in, a couple months ago I think?) that commas also trigger a pipe trick, so maybe I'm just stupid for assuming that people should know better.
rend (talk) (edits) 13:45, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- I can excuse you for not knowing, you've only joined the wiki in 2022, while Doc joined in 2017. But I suppose I might as well be the jaded one here, I first joined the wiki in 2006/2007 after all. Not to mention that I recently found out (as in, a couple months ago I think?) that commas also trigger a pipe trick, so maybe I'm just stupid for assuming that people should know better.
- I actually didn't know that just adding the pipe (which I didn't know was "|") and nothing more would display the page title without the parenthesis... I thought it would have just made blank space. If I knew this earlier, I wouldn't have even made the id template discussion to begin with. Altendo 13:12, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- Well, I went down a bit of a rabbithole investigating exactly how long this feature has been a thing... Turns out it's so old it's in the very oldest version of the MediaWiki source code available in its git repository, which dates back to April 2003. So, to say the least, it's not new. AmossGuy (talk) 13:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- Huh. That definitely seems to cover the use case I was using {{id}} for. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:37, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
@Nelsonic I don't think you voted on the proposal for the {{a}} template or discussed the {{id}} template, either. Altendo 12:22, May 20, 2025 (EDT)
- @Altendo Ah. Okay. I remember seeing it when it was active, I just wasn't sure whether I had voted or not. Nelsonic (talk) 12:25, May 20, 2025 (EDT)
Changes
Move back from the "Multimedia:" prefix
Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on May 22, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.
So apparently, PorpleBot moved the page from "List of WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! media" to "Multimedia:WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!". And yes, it's just an example, because all other media pages have been moved to use the "Multimedia:" prefix! And yes, this is my first proposal so I'm sorry if the proposal is very informal. But anyways, every pages involving media files currently has the "Multimedia:" prefix. That makes no sense to me, especially when the old title is "List of WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! media" for example, and the "media" in the title already makes it clear that it's a page about media files (in this case, WarioWare Inc. media files). This "Camwoodstock" guy said that it's for parity but since the gallery pages are formatted "Gallery:WarioWare: Touched!" for example, it makes no sense to do just the same for the media pages.
Proposer: Alphabetlorefan2003 (talk)
Deadline: May 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Media Page Supporters:
- Alphabetlorefan2003 (talk) Per proposal.
Wario, the Opposers:
- Jdtendo (talk) It makes sense to have a dedicated "Multimedia:" namespace for galleries of media akin to the "Gallery:" namespace for galleries of images, and I don't see the point of reverting to "List of X media" pages.
- Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Per Jdtendo.
- Multimedia:Arend (talk) Per Jdtendo, and my comments down below.
- Multimedia:Camwoodstock (talk) first of all why did you use "scarequotes" for us. It's far easier to search for a game's Multimedia page with the namespace rather than to have to write "List of x media", and it's easier to search for changes to them in Recent Changes/the watchlist. And as for the point of "Gallery: has existed for years, but Multimedia: is new"... Well, yeah. Things change all the time on a wiki, and sometimes, the gaps between certain changes are very large. That's kind of a given with a collaborative writing project. We don't even really understand the point about parity "not making sense"; there's literally a Multimedia:WarioWare: Touched! to go alongside Gallery:WarioWare: Touched!. The two match, when they formerly did not, and one was a namespace and one was a list despite the two being functionally companions to one another. And, pray tell, to what end? If this was a push to cut back on dedicated namespaces, why only the Multimedia pages? Granted, we can't see a proposal to convert all Gallery pages to "List of x images" going over well...
- List of Altendo media (talk) Per all.
- EvieMedia (talk) per these "Camwoodstock" guys
- Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) These are collections of audio files in the same way galleries are collections of pictures. They should be named this way to distinguish them from traditional articles.
- Okapii (talk) I think those "Camwoodstock" folks were onto something.
- YoYo (talk) i don't see your reasoning here... you say it the claim its for "parity" makes no sense, then immediately say an example of it showing said parity?? per all.
- SGoW (talk) I love Wario, what a great character. If an option in a proposal is named after him I will certainly be voting for it.
- This "Kaptain Skurvy" guy (talk) Wario is funny so im voting his option (jk...per all.)
- Nelsonic (talk) Per all. To use an additional example, we already refer to the grouping of Play Nintendo images, videos, and wallpapers as "Multimedia" (granted, the website does as well, in a sense, as it refers to them as "Media").
- Hewario (talk) Get Wario'd!
Kat and Ana Comments
From what I can gather, Camwoodstock actually was for a regular Media: namespace, as seen here, but since Media: is already a namespace that's in use (as an alternative to the File: namespace), the proposal has been vetoed, and it was decided to have the new namespace be called "Multimedia:" instead.
Anyway, I don't entirely understand why you want to revert it back? You say that Camwoodstock's reasoning for parity makes no sense because the Gallery: namespace exists... but doesn't that corroborate to his point? Because, you know, it's also a namespace? Are you bothered it's multimedia now instead of simply "media"? What's exactly your problem with these media pages being its own namespace instead of regular list pages? rend (talk) (edits) 05:58, May 15, 2025 (EDT)
- The "Gallery:" prefix has existed for years so adding it now makes no sense. Alphabetlorefan2003 (talk) 10:07, May 15, 2025 (EDT)
- What's the problem with adding the Multimedia prefix now? The wiki is always adding new features and articles. How does that "make no sense"? — Lady Sophie
(T|C) 10:15, May 15, 2025 (EDT)
- Perring Lady Sophie here. Just because the Gallery: namespace has existed for years while the Multimedia: one has not, doesn't mean the latter cannot be added later or ever again. This honestly feels like one of those "I don't like change, everything should stay the same" types of complaint.
rend (talk) (edits) 11:05, May 15, 2025 (EDT)
- What's the problem with adding the Multimedia prefix now? The wiki is always adding new features and articles. How does that "make no sense"? — Lady Sophie
- For some context, since part of this was on the Discord. Porplemontage explained the full reason behind why Media: was unavailable (it's a default namespace used by MediaWiki internally for handling files, so inserting something into the Media: namespace would have... Consequences behind the scenes, which is why it doesn't let you do that and just redirects you to a File: page if you try.), and after a conversation, he suggested "Multimedia:" instead, as an alternative that doesn't run into problems behind the scenes. We were fine with that new name, and offered to remake the proposal, but Porple decided to implement it himself without needing to re-run the proposal for the tweaked, internally-sound name; you'd have to ask him for his reasoning for that one, as we're obviously not him.
In short, the idea of a dedicated namespace for Multimedia subpages was our idea, but Porple ultimately chose the name we landed on (with our approval), and he was the one who ultimately helped implement it. (To be honest, the text on the original proposal should probably say "CANCELLED, ALTERNATIVE VERSION PUT INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY" or something like that, rather than just "VETOED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS" with the clarification that the proposal was put into effect immediately with a differing name being a small font subtitle--it'd be far clearer for your average user what happened without them having to consult the archive list and see that it's teal. ;P)~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs )
14:00, May 15, 2025 (EDT)
WAAAH? There are more Wario's than there are supporters? Alphabetlorefan2003 (talk) 19:10, May 15, 2025 (EDT)
Yeah, we pick WAAAAARIOOOOOOBut seriously, you have read our reasonings and do understand why we think it's pointless to change it back, right?rend (talk) (edits) 03:47, May 16, 2025 (EDT)
- This implies you named the option "Wario" to steer people away from it, which is not really a good way to structure a proposal. - YoYo
(Talk) 11:39, May 20, 2025 (EDT)
- If that's true, then yeah, that's not good at all. It introduces bias by saying one is an objectively bad option, when all options are supposed to be objectively equal. Hell, I'd argue it's even a poorly designed way to say an option is objectively bad because people actually like Wario and thus would be more inclined to choose the Wario option over the boring "return back to the previous status quo" option, backfiring the proposer completely.
However, I'm sure it's just coincidence, right? I'm certain that the oppose option is only named after Wario since the proposal has been using WarioWare pages as examples of the proposer's issue. I mean, why else would this very comment section be named after Kat and Ana, then?rend (talk) (edits) 05:01, May 21, 2025 (EDT)
- If that's true, then yeah, that's not good at all. It introduces bias by saying one is an objectively bad option, when all options are supposed to be objectively equal. Hell, I'd argue it's even a poorly designed way to say an option is objectively bad because people actually like Wario and thus would be more inclined to choose the Wario option over the boring "return back to the previous status quo" option, backfiring the proposer completely.
Miscellaneous
What is a game? 2: electric boogaloo
Per some of the oppose votes on the previous proposal. I can understand not adding these games to the list of games, though I personally do not think they should remain classified as merchandise, either. Because of this, I think these games should have their own spot somewhere, instead of remaining in a list/gallery that covers a wide range of things. I believe these games should move to a dedicated list of physical games or something along the lines of that. (To note, I do not believe this contradicts the recent previous proposal, since this proposal is asking where physical games go, acting semi-independently of the original proposal, though I will temporarily withdraw it if it does contradict/overturn the previous decision.)
Proposer: Nelsonic (talk)
Deadline: May 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Create a dedicated list for only physical games
- Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
- Rykitu (talk) Per proposal.
- Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) These should be listed in a single article, and they aren't video games.
- Koopa con Carne (talk) Per all.
- Camwoodstock (talk) Our only wonder is if board games will be on this "List of physical games"; our board game coverage is kind of terrible at the moment. Even still, this definitely makes sense, and if board games can't be on "List of games" for not being video games, there's no reason various water ring toys should--that should likely be split.
Create a catch all list of games with both video and physical games
Do not move physical games from their current location
The Comment Games 2
Don't you have to wait 28 days before a follow-up proposal? ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs )
16:04, May 7, 2025 (EDT)
- @Camwoodstock Yes, but I believe that is if the follow-up proposal contradicts or reverses the option on which consensus was reached from the original proposal. Nelsonic (talk) 16:07, May 7, 2025 (EDT)
- The phrasing implies it just can't interfere with a concluded proposal less than 28 days ago at all, not just if that proposal passed. Otherwise, if a proposal failed, someone could just.... Create another proposal about the same thing. Immediately. And keep doing that until it passes in their favor.
~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs )
16:11, May 7, 2025 (EDT)
- The phrasing implies it just can't interfere with a concluded proposal less than 28 days ago at all, not just if that proposal passed. Otherwise, if a proposal failed, someone could just.... Create another proposal about the same thing. Immediately. And keep doing that until it passes in their favor.
- @Camwoodstock Understood, though I was trying to make a proposal on something that was discussed in the original proposal that, while it does relate to physical games, isn't strictly a continuation of the original proposal. I did title the proposal as a sequel, and it does continue discussion on the topic, but I was trying to figure out whether a separate list should be made for these as opposed to placing them on the list of games, since all that was decided in the previous proposal was to not place them on the list of games. I will withdraw the proposal temporarily if this contradicts the outcome of that proposal. Nelsonic (talk) 16:20, May 7, 2025 (EDT)
- yeah, this does not contradict the previous proposal in the slightest. should be fine —
eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 17:49, May 7, 2025 (EDT)
- yeah, this does not contradict the previous proposal in the slightest. should be fine —
Wait a sec...if there ends up being a separate page for physical games, shouldn't there logically be a third page for games that don't fit in either page? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:30, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- What games are there that fit into neither list? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- I don't have any specific examples...but I'm sure there's at least one in the previous proposal (the big one with stuff like rides and water games (those MIGHT count for the "don't fit on either page" thing, but I don't know)). SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 17:36, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- Things that aren't games at all (such as rides) don't fit on any list of games. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:44, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- I don't have any specific examples...but I'm sure there's at least one in the previous proposal (the big one with stuff like rides and water games (those MIGHT count for the "don't fit on either page" thing, but I don't know)). SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 17:36, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
- @Camwoodstock Yeah, I was gonna move the water games and other similar things over (if that works) if this proposal passes, since the resulting list would encompass all physical games. Nelsonic (talk) 16:50, May 20, 2025 (EDT)
Tighten the definition of "item" used by some games' subcategories
Within the context of, say, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, an "item" is a specific class of game entity that goes in its own tab on the pause menu and tab in the battle UI, and can be used in and out of battle. However, this specificity is not reflected in our category system, under which Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door items contains the likes of Badge, Hammer, Heart (item), and Star Piece (Paper Mario series). I think things like these sharing a category with the games' definition of "item" is counterintuitive. Should this proposal pass, "items" such as these, no longer contained within the tightened definition, will be placed into the main category; or their own subcategory if there are enough (though I'm not sure what such a category would be called).
If it's preferable that the "items" label be kept consistent with the rest of the wiki, I would also be fine with splitting these items off into a subcategory (or simply renaming the category if the "normal items" are too few in number) — Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door consumable items, for instance.
Games and series for which I believe this should be done include:
- Super Mario RPG, the Paper Mario series, the Mario & Luigi series, and Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. These all share the definition of "item" used in the example at the top of the proposal.
- Various games in the Mario Party series, wherein items are specific things that can be acquired and used at the start of your turn.
- Mario is Missing! and Mario's Time Machine (though the latter already seems to abide by this). I'm more familiar with the former, but taxi tokens and walkie-talkies being mixed in with these games' fetch quest items. Mario is Missing tends to use "artifacts" for these objects, so maybe that's the term we should be using here.
Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: May 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Tighten the "item" category on these games
Split these item classes into their own categories
- Ahemtoday (talk) Oh, I meant to vote here as well but forgot.
- Pseudo (talk) Distinguishing these items from other types of item is useful and important, but I would strongly contend that stuff like Badges and Star Pieces are items, just a different category from consumable items that are sometimes labeled as just "items".
- Camwoodstock (talk) We prefer this, personally. It'd be nice to have a clear distinction between types of items found in RPGs aside from just... "Item". Mario Party also has a few color-coded categories for Orbs in 5 to 7, and Candy in 8, which we could potentially distinguish with this.
- Altem Class (talk) Second choice, per all.
- Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) The term is used in RPGs to refer to something that can be bought or sold in a shop, used as the action during the player's turn, and is listed in an Items section in the menu. If an object isn't considered an "item" in the game, it should be in a separate category.