MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 178: Line 178:
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I don't think a blanket deletion of these is a good idea. Some characters don't need them, but other characters like Mario and Bowser, who play major roles in nearly every episode of the cartoons they appear in, would have very long sections in their already massive pages. I'd prefer this to be handled on a case-by-case basis. That can be said, I'm open to re-merging in the future if it can be demonstrated that characters with lots of appearances could have sections of reasonable length.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I don't think a blanket deletion of these is a good idea. Some characters don't need them, but other characters like Mario and Bowser, who play major roles in nearly every episode of the cartoons they appear in, would have very long sections in their already massive pages. I'd prefer this to be handled on a case-by-case basis. That can be said, I'm open to re-merging in the future if it can be demonstrated that characters with lots of appearances could have sections of reasonable length.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time, I do not feel that a complete blanket deletion is the best way to go about it. I have explained more of my reasoning in the comments below.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time, I do not feel that a complete blanket deletion is the best way to go about it. I have explained more of my reasoning in the comments below.
#{{User|KPH2293}} Per Waluigi Time. I think case-by-case is the way to go.


===Comments===
===Comments===

Revision as of 23:36, December 21, 2020

Image used as a banner for the proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, May 21st, 09:27 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
  2. 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.
  3. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  21. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  22. 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

Moves

Merges

Splits

Miscellaneous

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)

List of ongoing talk page proposals

None at the moment

Unimplemented proposals

# Proposal User Date
1 Decide how to cover recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series BBQ Turtle (talk) July 17, 2018
2 Split Jump Block (Mario & Wario) from Note Block Alternis (talk) July 21, 2019
3 Reorganize and split Gallery:Toys and other Merchandise galleries Results May Vary (talk) July 30, 2019
4 Split all multi-items in the Mario Kart series Archivist Toadette (talk) October 12, 2019
5 Include information on Construction Zone for the rest of the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series Koopa con Carne (talk) November 24, 2019
6 Split backwards somersault info and merge it to Backflip Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) February 26, 2020
7 Create a "character/species" infobox Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) April 16, 2020
8 Split the attacks from Paper Mario: Sticker Star and Paper Mario: Color Splash Scrooge200 (talk) July 4, 2020
9 Split the enemy variants from Wario World Koopa con Carne (talk) July 11, 2020
10 Split the item lists from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) July 12, 2020
11 Clean up Category:Undead and Category:Deceased Pokemon (talk) August 6, 2020
12 Reorganize images in levelboxes pertaining to games with remakes, remasters, etc. DarkNight (talk) September 30, 2020
13 Decide on the terminology to define tiers in Mario Kart Tour Koopa con Carne (talk) October 19, 2020
14 Create articles for minor locations in Super Mario Sunshine The Mansion (talk) October 30, 2020
15 Create an article for Cheese the Chao BBQ Turtle (talk) November 25, 2020
16 Create an article for Froggy BBQ Turtle (talk) November 25, 2020

Writing guidelines

Italics formatting of boat names, fictional products, and others

A disagreement between LinkTheLefty (talk) and me has started in Talk:The Princess Peach, a talk page concerning a ship (not the princess herself!) in Paper Mario: The Origami King. I and others advocated italicizing the name of the ship as it is consistent with MLA standards.

LinkTheLefty, however, argued these points:

  • The suggestion to italicize ship names contradicts with MarioWiki:Naming#Italics: "Italics are used in main and gallery namespace page titles in the same way that they are used in text."
  • The in-game name for the ship is not italicized, and we shouldn't be italicizing names that Nintendo doesn't italicize to "fix" their formatting.
  • The MarioWiki:Manual of Style makes no mention of italicizing boat names.
  • MLA may not be a relevant standard to follow as it is not explicitly stated to be followed in our wiki. Additionally, style guides such as AP Stylebook or U.S. Navy Style Guide does not italicize ship names.

I hope I have accurately summed up LinkTheLefty's points. If I have misrepresented their comments or left out any important points being made, please let me know.

I, however, disagreed, arguing the following points:

  • I do not see a contradiction. "Text" in the cited sentence refers to the content of an article, not in-game text as I assume that's being argued. The sentence in the naming guidelines refers to the wiki's requirement to italicize the titles of the subject to be consistent with the game text. For example, Mario Party 4's article needs to include {{italic title}} to italicize the article header per policy.
  • The text in a video game medium is different from in an encyclopedia and thus is not subject to formatting standards that we have. Additionally, video game medium tend to not italicize in-game names. I cite non-italicized game names from the tips from Super Smash Bros.. There is also mention of Super Luigi series. Finally, we already italicize implicit names in the big list in List of implied entertainment which are likely not italicized in the in-game text.
  • If our Manual of Style already takes elements from MLA (which is does by advocating italicizing "games, series, movies, television programs, albums (music) and publications (print: comics, books and magazines) [...]") but does not explicitly state adhering to MLA), then we should be expanding what needs to be italicized to include ship names and other applicable titles, even if they are fictional, in accordance to MLA (Wikipedia italicizes fictional titles too, see Pequod (Moby-Dick); I assume it's reasonable to use Wikipedia as an example).
  • If MLA is not relevant, then we should be following styling standards from other wikis. Wikipedia is a major wiki and it italicizes ship names, so I believe it makes sense to try to follow Wikipedia in that regard. I do concede that there are some Wikipedia guidelines not strictly followed in our wiki (such as minor grammar and spelling errors in [sic quotations needing to be silently corrected] while we include [sic] even for minor grammar errors).

My proposal is to amend our Manual of Style to add italicizing titles not already mentioned in our Manual of Style, but outlined in the MLA guidelines. We should have it be policy to italicize ship names, play names, artwork, web publications, and anything else not already mentioned in our Manual of Style. If MLA is not relevant, then we should be at least following a bit of what Wikipedia does, as we're an internet wiki that is designed similarly to Wikipedia. We also must include names of fictional elements such as fictional books, fictional games, and so on. I believe this is simply just a policy update to keep up with increasing standards with this wiki over time.

Even if this proposal is rejected, there has to be some clarification of what should not be italicized, and if it is rejected, I'm going to try to get a discussion running on what we can agree should not be italicized.

Proposer: Bazooka Mario (talk)
Deadline: December 26, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Change the guidelines

  1. Bazooka Mario (talk) I think it's reasonable to italicize ship names and I do think policy should be updated to reflect any other applicable titles that need to be italicized and are not explicitly mentioned in our Manual of Style.
  2. Archivist Toadette (talk) I think it's reasonable enough.
  3. Ray Trace (talk) I was the one who decided to italicize ship names. I think it's formal writing and it should have been done earlier, honestly.
  4. DarkNight (talk) Per all.
  5. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per all and MLA FTW.
  6. Doomhiker (talk) Per all. Just because were not Wikipedia doesn't mean we can't do some things like Wikipedia. And using proper and professional formatting isn't "being fancy for the sake of being fancy", it's being formal.
  7. TheDarkStar (talk) - per all

Do not change

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per myself in The Princess Peach talk page and summarized points. All I'd add is that it's not just the text within video games that hasn't been italicizing ship names, but also Nintendo Power and related guides as far as I'm aware. Additionally, I'm still not sure why MLA style in particular should be adopted when even certain other styles disagree and have other ideas. Personally, I think a fan wiki can easily afford to adopt and discard the conventions that work best for it in its own Manual of Style, and as-is is closer to our goal of being as official as possible. Also pointing out observations in the comments below such as the full-on rejection of enforcing MLA in proposals and discussions, shortsightedness of modeling ourselves after other wikis that don't have the same goals, science fantasy/fiction vehicles unnecessarily affected in accordance, etc. And for those repeating that the MLA is just more "formal" - the MLA was designed with the express intent of academic/scholarly purposes. Those who drafted our Manual of Style understood that there are other valid ways to suitably formalize and knew to draw the line at overcorrection.
  2. Alex95 (talk) - Having ship names in the mix would probably be confusing considering we've only been italicizing media names and nothing else. "The Princess Peach" is not a media. I think the point of italicizing titles is to make it clear on what's media and what's not (though I see the Super Luigi series is an outlier here, given it is not a real piece of media).
  3. Keyblade Master (talk) - Although this is something the Kingdom Hearts Wiki does (for the ships in the Pirates of the Carribean worlds), doing it here would be a bit too much.
  4. AwdryFan1997 (talk) Per all who disagree. I like the idea of italicizing the names, don't get me wrong, but if a multimillion-dollar company like Nintendo doesn't bother with MLA, why should we? It feels like we're going out of our way to be less accurate. And, yeah, again, let me re-emphasize the "per all" thing, we're not Wikipedia and we shouldn't hold ourselves up to the MLA standards. We're MarioWiki, we're independent, and we're well past the days of being overly fancy for the sake of it. If the ship names were italicized in the games themselves, by golly would I want us to do so as well. But they don't, so, let's just not.
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
  6. Glowsquid (talk) Per everything LTL wrote on this topic (I will also say that the suggestion WIkipedia is in any way a standard to be followed is fundamentally offensive to me.)
  7. Jazama (talk) Per all.
  8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per LinkTheLefty on the issue of MLA, and I also do not agree with using the standards of other wikis such as Wikipedia to determine our own standards.

Comments

Alex95: According to guidelines, this won't lead to italicizing shop names and locations as they're not normally italicized. See Wikipedia as a bit of a guide to see how things will get italicized (note that ship names are indeed one of the few things not in the big list of long works that are italicized). There seems to be a reasoning behind the italicization of ship names (here). Whether a work is fictional or not seems irrelevant, as, again, I cite List of implied entertainment.

Keyblade Master: There has to be a reason Kingdom Hearts Wiki does this? Why can't MarioWiki do it? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:42, December 12, 2020 (EST)

Different Wikis don't have to have the same rules as each other. They even allow strategy writing while we don't. Mario jumping Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8
I understand there's a precedent for italicizing ship names. I just think we should keep it to media titles, for this wiki, so people don't think The Princess Peach is a book title or something. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 18:47, December 12, 2020 (EST)
I'm fairly certain context clues help out identifying what the title is rather than glancing at a name, as it can be argued that you could also mistake Super Luigi series as a video game series and not a fictional book series. BabyLuigiFire.pngXiahou Ba(the Nasty Warrior) 18:50, December 12, 2020 (EST)
Fair enough. It's a personal preference, then. Alex95sig1.pngAlex95sig2.png 18:51, December 12, 2020 (EST)
(ec) Keyblade Master: This is true that our policies and styling should not mirror wikis just because other wikis do it, but I'm asking for why this needs to be different in MarioWiki than in other wikis? We do have certain formatting consistencies across wikis, including italicizing game names and bolding the first instance of an article name in the body text, and my reasoning for this is that there's a sort of implicit formatting professional standard that emphasizes readability and consistency.
(ec) Italics will not introduce confusion. Chances are, many readers already know names for ships are already in italics as it's widely practiced (even if not always consistent) in other wikis, and even if MarioWiki is their first exposure to an italicized ship name, they can easily take inferences from context clues what the Princess Peach refers to and learn that ship names are in italics. Furthermore, italics already encompass many different kinds of works and is always reliant on context; Donkey Kong Country: Rescue on Crocodile Isle is referring to a book but can easily be interpreted as a title for a video game without any context or prior knowledge of the media. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:58, December 12, 2020 (EST)
I'm not sure how Kingdom Hearts handles things (preliminary glancing suggests that series also doesn't italicize ships but there are so many different games and versions it may not be consistent), but I don't think it was sufficiently answered why the wiki must adopt this aspect of MLA style specifically when Nintendo themselves demonstrably do not. Other styles are just as valid if not moreso for the general purposes of a wiki. LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:22, December 13, 2020 (EST)
Nintendo is inconsistent with italicizing game titles: they don't do it for in-game text either, especially in Smash Bros. bios for characters where game titles are left unitalicized. I don't think they're the ideal model to look to when it comes to formatting things in an encyclopedic fashion because they serve a different medium: it's unnecessary for them to italicize things for in-game purposes. BabyLuigiFire.pngXiahou Ba(the Nasty Warrior) 14:53, December 13, 2020 (EST)
But I still fail to understand what makes going further with MLA style ideal for this encyclopedia. There's a difference between italicizing subjects that exist in the real world and italicizing subjects that have never been officially italicized as they simply don't exist. In the end, it's a stylistic choice that not everyone universally uses - so again, why even enforce MLA in particular? Consider also that the topic of MLA has come up several times in the past, and each time it was decided not to strictly use it. Also, I understand that not all in-game text supports italics - which is why I am additionally referencing manuals, Nintendo Power, and related guides and supporting material, where it would have made the most sense to italicize these things (for example, here is the "SS Tea Cup" on the Wario Land II website). Different styles are meant for different purposes - for example, the U.S. Navy Style Guide specifies not to use "the" before a ship's name, running counter to "the Sweet Stuff" and "the Princess Peach" among all other mentions - so is it really our role to fix what, by most accounts, isn't broken? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:12, December 13, 2020 (EST)
I realize that we're not explicitly using MLA but I think italics for works and the odd ship name is the way to go and in terms of general formatting, I think it's best to follow closer to that. I don't think it's that much of a major change but I'd like to see text for ship names appear similar to the ship names in Wikipedia, as well as fictional works. Citations should be formatted by the way and there's agreement that we need the formatting here and I'll still pressure featured articles to have proper sourcing. I think style guides can be inconsistent and some game guides don't italicize ship names, but I'm not really seeing the connection we have to make between game guides and wiki compared to looking at examples from big wikis. I will ask, however, about the reasoning for format to begin with: why do we bold the first instance of the subject in an article? Why italicize game names at all? Why even encourage italics for practically all major works (quotations for smaller works) and stop at ship names (as well as names for things not mentioned in our Manual of Style including web publications and artwork; what if a famous pop artist creates a titled work about Mario? should we not italicize even if it's not explicitly spelled out in the Manual of Style?) even if ship names are usually included? Why put dates in citations in parentheses? Why forbid the use of 2nd person? Why discourage contractions? In the end, this might just boil down to fundamental disagreement on how to format prose, but I feel the reasons for stopping at ship titles are reliant on nonencyclopedic styling from other sources, that we aren't adopting MLA (which is technically true it appears but I do not see the harm in using its suggestions especially when other encyclopedias do this) and the argument that we aren't Wikipedia (this needs to be backed up to why we should deviate here; only example given was the formatting on a video game article name regarding NiGHTS into Dreams which I do not think is a strong case against italicizing ship names and fictional works), which I do not agree. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:00, December 13, 2020 (EST)
The change from NiGHTS into Dream... to Nights into Dreams is one I can only charitably describe as braindead idiocy, but if you want more examples of Mario Wiki articles that would be butchered under Wikipedia standards, a lot of titles should probably be considered generic within their context - meaning that we would uncapitalize the names of ape, bear, bees, chicken, cobra, cook, drill bit, ghost, hog, hot dog stand, unagi, poison mushroom, poltergeist, raccoon, sea turtle, shadow, small spider, snake, twister, urchin, among dozens of others. Then what? Do those names become unusable, or are we merely "fixing" Nintendo's "mistake"? Is that not going to put off readers expecting something more out of this wiki and have for years seen this corner of the Internet as being next to official to their interests? Frankly, becoming more like other wikis means going down a rabbit hole that I'll refuse to part of, so let's try to keep the discussion about "MLA style and its merits" instead of "MLA style because of Wikipedia". Now, our Manual of Style certainly does use a few elements of MLA*, but previous attempts to adopt MLA wholesale have been shot down (the main argument against this, by the way, isn't that we shouldn't properly source citations, but rather that such templates are too restrictive to one arbitrarily "right" style, promote unnecessary elitism, would be too cumbersome to enact, etc.). As for a reason for not italicizing ship names that doesn't boil down to "this is my personal preference"? Well, aside from the idea that it is not our place to "fix" Nintendo's fiction (interpretations are one thing, but corrections are another), keep in mind that said fiction is a fantastical video game franchise with outlandish things such as fanciful airships, barrel aircrafts, vehicle transformations, and advanced spaceships - are we really going to italicize all of these too despite how silly we will look? And if not, "why stop there" if it's MLA? If so, what about cases like the multipurpose Dribble Taxi, where there's no clear idea on if it should be unitalicized like most other automobiles or italicized like most other vessels? I just think this is much more trouble than it's worth. LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:25, December 14, 2020 (EST)
You are misinterpreting the goal of that citation proposal. The template would have been used in the same vein as {{ref quote}} in that it would have been an option for editors who opt for some formatting consistency. Also, promoting "elitism"? I see that as adhering to more academic conventions. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 07:37, December 14, 2020 (EST)
There are many other reasons it lost as sorting through all those comments is outside the scope of this discussion and, frankly, irrelevant (anyone is urged to read through and decide for themselves if those reasons are justified in their free time, hence "etc.", but I'm not the only one who disagrees with the notion that it must mean we do not encourage proper citations) - it serves as an example of MLA being brought up and rejected by other users in the past. I will address the "academic / looking to Wikipedia" angle as I feel it is relevant here: the simple fact is that we are not an academic resource, and neither is Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia has a motto called verifiability, not truth. How about no original research? That would mean many things like Dayvv Brooks and NOA emails are out the window. Primary sources? Our stance is basically backwards from theirs. Among a myriad of reasons, modeling ourselves after Wikipedia (or most other wikis for that matter) does not suit the goals and needs of the Super Mario Wiki, which is to accurately represent all things Mario. It does no one any favors to get wrapped up in the trivialities of the formatting originating from more general wikis. Let's not use this as an excuse to sidestep active issues though. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:23, December 14, 2020 (EST)
I will not disagree that this wiki has certain fundamentals that differentiate us from Wikipedia, such as our focus on original research--which I attempted to address in some capacity several years ago. However, us having a much lighter verification system (nonetheless dictated by the scope of our wiki) does not mean we should ignore certain conventions that are telling of a, dare I say, professional and believable medium. While wikis are generally unacceptable in academic sources, let's not forget that they in and of themselves are collections of research made by a community of users, which asks for certain conventions to be put in place. The bottom line is that this wiki is made of constants and variables; we are compatible with Wikipedia in some areas and in others we are not, and if something they do wouldn't harm our wiki or contradict its manual of style, I personally see no reason not to borrow from them. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 09:10, December 14, 2020 (EST)
The thing about the video clip proposal is that I believe it falls under in-game/media references, which are generally removed or considered unneeded (I do personally think we can change it a bit, but that's neither here nor there). That brings us full circle, however: why the need to borrow this aspect from MLA? I've been asking this since almost the start but I still don't have a satisfactory answer ("I'm not 100% sure" didn't exactly inspire confidence). If there are "some Wikipedia guidelines not strictly followed in our wiki" then why the push to be more like Wikipedia? It shouldn't mainly be because it's popular on other wikis, since it's been demonstrated how being much more like Wikipedia would only cause upheavals. Why does that style make this wiki more "professional" over other styles? I think a far more valuable trait on a wiki like this is internal consistency; a regular reader should not flip through game worlds and have to wonder why one level is suddenly the odd one out or find inconsistent italicization between a similar-themed nickname and real name. What about quotations? Those are already in italics, so we are losing detail when we are adding italics to things that don't already have them outside of quotes (this is already a minor annoyance of mine with about templates, but I digress). I realize this is anecdotal, but I've seen the Super Mario Wiki referred to as the "gold standard" in casual conversation within the past year or so. Let's keep it that way. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:15, December 14, 2020 (EST)
From what I understand, the subject we refer to as "The Princess Peach" on the wiki is the overarching area around the actual ship, not the ship itself. If so, this would make it a similar case to levels and WarioWare microgames named directly after certain games, such as Super Mario Kart (microgame), which we do not italicize on grounds of it not being the game Super Mario Kart. So too we wouldn't italicize The Princess Peach (and any other gameplay area names based on ships, such as Gangplank Galleon (world)) as it is not the ship itself. This eliminates the possibility you mentioned of leaving readers confused as to why one level stands out among the rest; any mentions of the actual ship will, however, be italicized if the proposal passes, and that applies to S.S. Caviar, Daisy Cruiser and Gangplank Galleon as well, along with all the other ships in the Mario universe. Also, can you provide examples in print or digital media where Nintendo italicized game titles? The Wario Land manual you offered above does not format the game's title in any distinctive way, so the point that the S.S. Teacup should remain unitalicized according to that falls asunder. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:45, December 16, 2020 (EST)

@Glowsquid: How is following some of Wikipedia's guidelines "fundamentally offensive" to you? This proposal doesn't automatically call for a sudden following of Wikipedia standards to the letter. Toadette icon from Captain Toad: Treasure TrackerFont of Archivist Toadette's signature(T|C) 14:09, December 16, 2020 (EST)

The last bullet point in the main proposal textstates "If MLA is not relevant, then we should be following styling standards from other wikis. Wikipedia is a major wiki and it italicizes ship names, so I believe it makes sense to try to follow Wikipedia in that regard." The main thrust of the proposal may not be "We should do it because Wikipedia does it" but the quoted is an implication that Wikipedia's adoption of the standard, in some way, legitimizes it or makes it preferable. I am stating my disagreement with that idea. --Glowsquid (talk) 16:48, December 16, 2020 (EST)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Delete “List of [TV show title] episodes featuring [Character]”

While I was browsing the page for Candy Kong, I happened upon the article “List of Donkey Kong Country episodes featuring Candy Kong”. I clicked on the article (which had been flagged for needing to be rewritten), and realized that the article is unneeded. All of its information could be put on the Candy Kong page in a condensed format. There are other pages like this for Mario and Donkey Kong, and a deleted one for Mouser. Personally, I think we should merge the content in the articles into the character’s article and deleting the pages.

Proposer: MightyMario (talk)
Deadline: December 27, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Delete the articles and merge their content

  1. MightyMario (talk): A paragraph per episode isn’t needed, just a couple of sentences saying what they do in the episode and how they contribute to the plot.
  2. AwdryFan1997 (talk): I can see why we have them, but I honestly don't see any reason we can't just merge the info into the main articles. I know this sounds a little hypocritical with my philosophy of shorter, more concise articles, but I think we can include the info elsewhere. There really isn't a need to have these to begin with, honestly. They just feel unnecessary.

Keep the articles

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) I don't think a blanket deletion of these is a good idea. Some characters don't need them, but other characters like Mario and Bowser, who play major roles in nearly every episode of the cartoons they appear in, would have very long sections in their already massive pages. I'd prefer this to be handled on a case-by-case basis. That can be said, I'm open to re-merging in the future if it can be demonstrated that characters with lots of appearances could have sections of reasonable length.
  2. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Waluigi Time, I do not feel that a complete blanket deletion is the best way to go about it. I have explained more of my reasoning in the comments below.
  3. KPH2293 (talk) Per Waluigi Time. I think case-by-case is the way to go.

Comments

While I can see the case for minor characters such as Mouser getting merged, the reason those pages were created was to keep plot summaries off the page, with major recurring characters in mind. Perhaps there can be a case made for summarizing a role these characters get followed by a simple bullet list of episodes characters appear in however, in a similar vein to how Skewer has a bullet list for all official Super Mario Maker courses it appears in. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:39, December 20, 2020 (EST)

That could also work. MightyMario (talk)Mario's icon from Mario Kart Tour.

I feel like articles for major such as List of The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 episodes featuring Mario are acceptable due to the length of their original articles, though a major issue I see with the pages currently is that the sections seem to describe the full plot of the episode, rather than just the character’s role. I feel it would make sense to keep major character pages and rewrite them to focus on the character, though one page that I’ve always been unsure of its necessity is List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa, since none of the other Koopalings have an article like it, and there is not much information on it. --A sprite of a Flame Chomp from New Super Mario Bros. Wii.TheFlameChomp (talk) 18:12, December 20, 2020 (EST)

I think that's because the Mario, a starring character, has his role is tied strongly to the plot. I think the way to go might be like how Wendy does it, at least for recurring characters. In Mario's case, might as well say he appears in all but one episode and then point out which episodes he doesn't have much of a role in. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:26, December 20, 2020 (EST)
Yeah, I think the Koopalings don't necessarily need separate pages, though I don't like the current presentation on Wendy's. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 18:28, December 20, 2020 (EST)
I can definitely see your points there, and I agree that would probably be a better way to go about it. I do feel that the way Wendy’s page deals with it could use some rewriting, though. --A sprite of a Flame Chomp from New Super Mario Bros. Wii.TheFlameChomp (talk) 18:36, December 20, 2020 (EST)

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=3090172"