MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Power Flotzo (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: Disambiguation links |
||
Line 437: | Line 437: | ||
:::These are official names, erroneous or not. The wiki still refers to [[Gooble]]s as Swoopin' Stus in regard of their ''Super Mario Sunshine'' appearance, even if them being given the name "Swoopin' Stu" in the Player's Guide is most likely in error as well <s>and might've been for [[Winged Strollin' Stu]] instead, as "Swoopin' Stu" fits that enemy much better than it does to Gooble</s>.<br>Besides, most of the names listed aren't even translation errors. Things like [[Spike Top|Mecha-Spike Top]], [[Volcano Lotus|Volcano Plant]] and [[Petey Piranha|Boss P. Plant]] certainly are, but [[G. R. P-Troopa]] is not given in error, but as I said before, due to ''character limitations''. Do you honestly think that officially given acronyms and shortenings because the full name could not fit in the given space, is an honest-to-god ''translation error''? {{User:Arend/sig}} 14:05, July 6, 2024 (EDT) | :::These are official names, erroneous or not. The wiki still refers to [[Gooble]]s as Swoopin' Stus in regard of their ''Super Mario Sunshine'' appearance, even if them being given the name "Swoopin' Stu" in the Player's Guide is most likely in error as well <s>and might've been for [[Winged Strollin' Stu]] instead, as "Swoopin' Stu" fits that enemy much better than it does to Gooble</s>.<br>Besides, most of the names listed aren't even translation errors. Things like [[Spike Top|Mecha-Spike Top]], [[Volcano Lotus|Volcano Plant]] and [[Petey Piranha|Boss P. Plant]] certainly are, but [[G. R. P-Troopa]] is not given in error, but as I said before, due to ''character limitations''. Do you honestly think that officially given acronyms and shortenings because the full name could not fit in the given space, is an honest-to-god ''translation error''? {{User:Arend/sig}} 14:05, July 6, 2024 (EDT) | ||
::::I concede that calling it an "error" implies a degree of judgement that I don't really intend to direct toward the localizers here. I'm pretty much just using that term because it's what the naming policy uses, but I think terms like "alias" or "nickname" are more accurate to my feelings. The central point to me is that the truncation was completely forced, which makes me chafe at the idea that it should be considered "official". I understand that that's the string of text that's in the game, but I truly believe that presenting it in lists and links and so forth as an abbreviated name without the context of those space limitations is sacrificing accuracy in the name of precision. [[User:Exiled.Serenity|Exiled.Serenity]] ([[User talk:Exiled.Serenity|talk]]) 20:06, July 8, 2024 (EDT) | ::::I concede that calling it an "error" implies a degree of judgement that I don't really intend to direct toward the localizers here. I'm pretty much just using that term because it's what the naming policy uses, but I think terms like "alias" or "nickname" are more accurate to my feelings. The central point to me is that the truncation was completely forced, which makes me chafe at the idea that it should be considered "official". I understand that that's the string of text that's in the game, but I truly believe that presenting it in lists and links and so forth as an abbreviated name without the context of those space limitations is sacrificing accuracy in the name of precision. [[User:Exiled.Serenity|Exiled.Serenity]] ([[User talk:Exiled.Serenity|talk]]) 20:06, July 8, 2024 (EDT) | ||
===Decide how to handle identifiers for non-Mario characters=== | |||
{{Proposal outcome|passed|0-8-3-0|Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one}} | |||
Some subjects that pertain to the Mario series share names with characters from outside franchises that have articles here. The wiki's had a bit of an inconsistency in how these characters are identified in article titles, [[Talk:Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf)#Identifier|signalled as far back as when Steve Minecraft was added to Smash Ultimate]]: on the one hand, the character [[Big (character)|Big]] from the ''Sonic'' series uses the "character" identifier, whereas the obstacle from ''Wario Land'' named "[[Big]]" lacks any identifier whatsoever, reason being that the latter pertains to the Mario series (specifically, the Wario branch) and should consequently be prioritized on a wiki titled after Mario; on the other hand, you have the case of [[Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf)|Steve]] from ''[[NES Open Tournament Golf]]'' (a game billed as part of the Mario franchise) using an identifier to separate himself from [[Steve (Minecraft)|Steve]] the Minecraft avatar, who punches Mario in ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate''. Let's make up our mind on one universal course for all such instances. | |||
This proposal concerns two parties: | |||
*one subject that is considered a part of Super Mario or any other franchise that receives full coverage according to the [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] policy; hereafter called "Mario-adjacent"; | |||
*any subjects considered a part of franchises outside of the wiki's scope, who share the same name as the aforementioned Mario-adjacent subject and, for one reason or another, have an article or redirect on this wiki. | |||
I chose to consider only one subject on the Mario side because, given two or more Mario-adjacent subjects of the same name, these would already require identifiers as dictated by current policy and thus shouldn't be affected by this proposal's outcome. | |||
With these parties so delineated, I propose three options: | |||
*'''Option 1''': Both parties, including the Mario-adjacent party, use an identifier. | |||
**Example: Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf) and Steve (Minecraft) retain this naming scheme. | |||
*'''Option 2''': Identifiers are added or omitted depending on how prominent a subject is deemed to be. Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one.{{footnote|main|*}} | |||
**Example: [[Knuckles (Saturday Supercade)]] is an obscure character from one episode in a very early Donkey Kong show that is currently in large part considered what kids today call "lost media". Contrarily, [[Knuckles (Sonic the Hedgehog)]] is a significant character from one of the biggest video game franchises on the planet for the past 3 decades. It doesn't matter who is Mario-adjacent or not; the Sonic character is more prominent and would be prioritized by dropping his identifier, while the Saturday Supercade character retains his. The Sonic character will contain an {{tem|about}} tag linking to the Mario-adjacent Knuckles, and if an additional three or more non-prominent things named "Knuckles" surface on the wiki, that "about" tag is superseded by a "Knuckles (disambiguation)" page.{{footnote|main|**}} | |||
*'''Option 3''': Do not use an identifier for the Mario-adjacent party, but use identifier(s) for the outside parties, without respect to how prominent one is over the other. | |||
**Example: [[Ike (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!)]] drops the identifier and takes over the current [[Ike]] disambiguation page because the character comes from a Mario cartoon, while [[Ike (Fire Emblem)]] retains his identifier due to pertaining to the ''Fire Emblem'' games. The Mario-adjacent Ike will contain an "about" tag linking to the Fire Emblem character, and if an additional three or more non-Mario things named "Ike" surface on the wiki, that "about" tag is superseded by an "Ike (disambiguation)" page.{{footnote|main|**}} | |||
In any case, the nature of the identifier(s) and the disambiguations that may result from these changes are subject to current [[MarioWiki:Naming#Shared titles|naming policy]]. | |||
{{footnote|note|*|Whether one subject is more prominent over another may be up to editors to decide on case-by-case basis, though the majority of the cases I've seen are pretty cut and dry, like the one related to the two Knuckles. Use common sense.}} | |||
{{footnote|note|**|Per MarioWiki:Naming: "If there are five or more pages sharing the same name, a disambiguation page must be used, although it may be given a "(disambiguation)" qualifier if one of the articles has the plain title."}} | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT | |||
====Option 1: Both Mario-adjacent and crossover subjects use identifiers==== | |||
====Option 2: Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one==== | |||
#{{User|Hewer}} Per naming policy, "if there is one subject that is clearly more popular than the others, the popular subject will keep the original title while the others use identifiers". I don't see much of a reason to make an exception for crossover characters. Sure, they're not from Mario originally, but they are related to Mario, otherwise they wouldn't be covered here. People who search "Knuckles" are extraordinarily more likely to be looking for the echidna, and they have every reason to be since we give full coverage to the Mario & Sonic series of six games (more if you count the paired releases individually) where he is a fully playable character in every installment, compared to a one-off supporting character in an ancient and highly obscure show that we only cover the DK and DK Jr. segments of. I don't really see why being a non-Mario character by origin is a reason to be excluded from the usual identifier rules, since it doesn't really correlate to the likelihood of them being searched for (which is what identifier rules are based on). | |||
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Hewer. | |||
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per Hewer. If we were to make a ruling for which subject with a shared title has priority as the primary subject, prioritizing subjects based on how often they appear in ''Super Mario''-related media makes more sense than prioritizing subjects based on how closely connected to the greater ''Super Mario'' franchise their origins are. | |||
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Hewer and JanMisali. | |||
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all. | |||
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per Hewer and JanMisali. | |||
#{{user|Mario jc}} Per Hewer and my comment [[Talk:Knuckles#Identifier|here]]. | |||
#{{User|Arend}} Personally, I think which subject gets prioritized should be based on in how many (relevant) ''Mario'' titles it has appeared (e.g. Knuckles the Echidna has appeared as a main playable character in a ton of ''Mario & Sonic'' titles, while Knuckles the gangster only appeared in a single ''Saturday Supercade'' episode), but this is close enough. | |||
====Option 3: Use identifiers only for the crossover subjects, prioritize the Mario-adjacent subject==== | |||
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per [[Talk:Knuckles (Sonic the Hedgehog)#Identifier|what I said here]]. | |||
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm with Koopa con Carne. It makes sense to give priority to core-franchise characters over off-franchise ones, and I don't see this as anything that well-placed "about" templates can't solve. | |||
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} I think [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Change_full_names_of_crossover_characters_to_the_more_often_used_shortened_versions_in_article_titles|this proposal]] that had use removing the crossover character's surnames was the reason that we're having this problem. And I would like that overturned, especially with other proposals shortening character names failing. And even for crossover characters with just one name that weren't shortened by that proposal, it would be good to have an identifier to distinguish them from Mario subjects. Popularity is subjective. People would come here for information about the Mario games, so Mario subjects should get the simplified names while the crossover subjects should have more specific titles. That way, people looking up obscure Mario characters won't be taken to a Sonic or Smash article. | |||
====It doesn't matter==== | |||
====Comments==== | |||
For the record, if the "most prominent subject" option passes I'd be interested in generalizing that into a formal policy, replacing the "clearly more popular" clause in [[MarioWiki:NAME]]. "Popularity" is difficult to define and cases where it's "clear" which subject is more popular are somewhat rare, but ''prominence'' is a somewhat more straightforward concept. Neither [[Red (Super Paper Mario)|the ''Super Paper Mario'' character named Red]] nor [[Red (WarioWare series)|the ''WarioWare'' character named Red]] are "clearly more popular" than Red from ''Pokémon'' (who doesn't have a dedicated article, and when he ''did'' it wasn't at "[[Red]]"), but the ''WarioWare'' character ''is'' clearly the most "prominent" in ''Super Mario''-related media of the subjects named "Red" that have dedicated articles. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:12, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:Seems sensible to me. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 12:19, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:The proposal mentions the concept of prominence in a cultural sense, less so in reference to gameplay or story. Let's say Pokemon Trainer is renamed "Red" in future Smash Bros games and the wiki uses that name on [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]; under option 2 of this proposal, the page [[Red]] (no identifier) would redirect to that character, because he is decidedly so much more culturally significant than anything else on the current disambig for Red (he was the playable avatar in the games that kicked off the biggest media franchise on the planet). {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:22, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::To be clear, I do think relevance and significance to the Mario franchise should be considered, I just don't think that's as simple as everything that wasn't originally Mario automatically being less significant. Despite Supercade Knuckles being originally Mario, he's ended up less prominent in the franchise than the echidna. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:31, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::Yeah, I suppose that isn't ''exactly'' what I would want, but I do think that's preferable to the alternatives given here at least. Prioritizing ''Super Mario''-ness could run into a different hypothetical future where a ''Mario'' RPG has some key item called a "link" (as in part of a chain), which would mean moving [[Link]] to "Link (character)". Or, in a contrived more extreme example, if a new character named "Wart" is introduced in a ''Mario''-branded game, that would take priority over [[Wart]], a character from ''[[Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic|Doki Doki Panic]]'' (which the wiki covers but does not give complete coverage, as the proposal suggests). {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:36, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:I've been interpreting "most prominent" here to be used with the same meaning as "most popular" in the naming policy. Regardless of what the literal definitions of the words may be, the point is that the subject without the identifier should be the one people who search the name are most likely to be looking for, hence the policy advises considering which page is more "likely to be linked to or searched for". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:25, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
@Everyone: Would you consider it relevant if I split option 2 into an option that includes redirects (e.g. [[Ike (Fire Emblem)]]) and one that excludes them? I personally think this action would be more thorough, but I'd like to know your opinions first. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:39, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:I don't think we need to vote on making redirects, they feel like they should generally be a given. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:01, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::I guess my question was poorly formulated. Should redirects to a non-Mario subject be prioritized if the corresponding subject is the most prominent, or not? For instance, the page "Ike", currently a disambig page, would be repurposed to redirect to the Fire Emblem fighter. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:05, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::Generally a subject not even significant enough to have its own page is unlikely to be the one without the identifier, but sure, I say we should continue handling that case-by-case in the same way as with articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:15, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
::::What would be the point of a disambiguation page between two pages, one being a redirect to section on a list page? The [[Ike (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!)|dog]] would be better off as just [[Ike]] with a {{Tem|Distinguish}} template linking to [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Ike]]. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 18:42, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
:::::I guess the point would be if we really can't decide which subject should get the identifier, e.g. if they were roughly equal in likelihood of being searched for (but I'm not sure that applies to Ike). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:48, July 7, 2024 (EDT) | |||
@SeanWheeler: Popularity is how we determine what gets identifiers across the whole wiki, and that won't be changed by this proposal - option 2 passing would just make that consistent for crossover subjects as well. The idea that people are automatically less likely to be looking for something on this wiki because it didn't originate from Mario is simply incorrect - we're only covering crossover subjects because of their relevance to the Mario franchise, and I feel like barely anyone searching "Knuckles" is really looking for the Saturday Supercade character rather than the Sonic character. I also disagree that the proposal you link to is relevant to this one, especially since I specifically made it so that no crossover characters would take priority over Mario characters after being told to in the comments and not really thinking to question it at the time. Also, as an aside, I'm unsure what "other proposals shortening character names failing" you're referring to - I can only think of the Koopalings one from a couple years ago, which has since been outnumbered by successful shortenings like [[Professor E. Gadd]], [[Baby DK]], etc. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:48, July 7, 2024 (EDT) |
Revision as of 18:07, July 16, 2024
Remove Zelda-Exclusive Pagescanceled by proposer We have the List of references in Nintendo video games to cover topics such as these. I fail to see why they need their own pages. Even some of the links for these articles on the references page link to their equivalent articles on Zelda Wiki, our NIWA affiliate, because editors on our own wiki likely assume we don't have pages for Zelda-exclusive content. For example, why is Stone Elevator covered as a separate page but we don’t have a page for Gulliver, who references Toad Town and the Overthere in Animal Crossing, giving Gulliver, who has apparently visited places in the Mario series, a more direct connection than Stone Elevator, which just shares visual similarities to Thwomps? To be clear, I don’t think we should have a page for Gulliver for the reason that he does not appear in a Mario series game. Perhaps a more potent example is Togezo from Kirby’s Adventure, which is clearly a Kirbified version of a Spiny and even shares the same Japanese name. Why is there a page for Manhandla from Zelda, a variant of Piranha Plant, but not Togezo? There just doesn’t seem to be consistency. For some reason, these pages seem to be disproportionally related to The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening compared to other Zelda games. Perhaps that is because there’s more profound references in Link’s Awakening, but as someone not familiar with the Zelda series, it strikes me as very odd that there’s favoritism for references in that game but there aren't independent pages any other Zelda-exclusive references on the page. This proposal from 2022 permits the creation of non-Mario series pages, but they seem out of place on Mario Wiki, so I think we should explore undoing the consequences of this proposal. Furthermore, pages like Keese only cover the enemies’ appearance in Mario games, whereas Manhandla covers the extensive history of Mandhala throughout the Zelda series. Again, notably, Manhandla doesn’t have any appearances in Mario games, so I suppose it has to cover everything it does in Zelda since otherwise the page would be blank. If Yoshi doll exists as an independent page, then shouldn’t every Animal Crossing furniture series and clothing from the Animal Crossing series like the Big Bro's Hat that references the Mario series also be given its own page? I just fail to see the difference. It’s more of the disproportionate coverage of Link’s Awakening. Perhaps the worst offender is Bombite, which has no confirmed connection to the Mario series whatsoever. Per the page, “They appear to be based on Bob-ombs.” That alone is sufficient to be given a page on the wiki? To be fair, there is developer commentary about some of the Mario-inspired features in Zelda games affirming they were, indeed, inspired by Mario equivalents (not including Bombite), but is our threshold going to become developer confirmation for significance enough to the Mario series to have an independent page? I'm sure that similar commentary could be found for much listed on List of references in Nintendo video games. If that's our threshold, then shouldn't we create pages for everything confirmed to be inspired by anything to do with the Mario series? That would be a tidal wave of new pages. If not, why is Link's Awakening being treated differently from everything else? Something of a middle-ground solution is to create a page on our wiki for Link's Awakening. Though I do not favor this idea, there is precedence for the creation of pages for games that pay significant homage to the Mario series but aren't in the series themselves, including but not limited to Captain Rainbow, Fortune Street, and, of course, the entire Super Smash Bros. (series). I don't favor this option given the roles of Mario characters in Link's Awakening are much more minor compared to something like Birdo having a mildly significant role in Captain Rainbow, but there seems to be a lot of love for Link's Awakening on this wiki, so maybe this could be a middle ground solution. This page would house the information for Bombite, Mega Thowmp, Spiked Thowmp, Stone Elevator, and Yoshi doll, but it would remove the independent pages for Manhandla (The Legend of Zelda) and Head Thwomp (Oracle of Ages) and just confine them to the references page. Pages that would be deleted:
Options breakdown I’ve drafted nine options to address the inconsistencies or excess coverage.
Proposer: DrBaskerville (talk) Option 1: Remove the highlighted pages as independent pages, add information about them to Trivia on other pages where applicable, and ensure they are referenced on List of references in Nintendo video games
Option 2: Keep all pages and add exhaustive information from the Zelda series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, e.g. Keese, Deku Baba, Master Sword, etc.Option 3: Keep all pages, add exhaustive information from the Zeldra series to any Zelda pages on the wiki, and create pages for Mario-inspired content, like Togezo and Animal Crossing references
Option 6: Keep all other pages, but remove Bombite
Option 7: Create page for Link's Awakening and remove highlighted independent pages
Option 8: Create page for Link's Awakening and keep Manhandla and Head Thwomp pagesOption 9: Do nothing
CommentsI apologize for the length of this proposal and the number of options, but I wanted to ensure as many approaches as possible were offered. It's possible that there are other pages exclusively related to other series on the wiki as well outside of the Zelda pages that I've highlighted. Their exclusion from this proposal is not due to me believing they should remain but instead being ignorant of their existence. If similar pages exist from other franchises, please feel free to note them in reply to this comment and, if this proposal passes, I'll explore deletion proposals for them as well depending on the strength of their relationship to the Mario series. Uh, there is a Link's Awakening page. It was classified as a guest appearance (i.e. page-worthy) by that 2022 proposal you linked to, and MarioWiki:Coverage tells us that "if a subject is unique to [a guest appearance] while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise, they can receive individual articles", so all the Link's Awakening Mario-inspired enemies are therefore eligible to get articles. Admittedly though, I'm not sure about pages for the Mario-inspired enemies from other games that we don't consider guest appearances, as while it was technically decided by that 2022 proposal, it was only clarified in a comment that it would extend to all Zelda games rather than just Link's Awakening, and it's less supported by policy. And yeah, some of them (like Bombite) do kinda seem to be stretches, but that's probably better handled on its own rather than in a giant proposal like this. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:19, July 1, 2024 (EDT) Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessaryDo not include 3-6 I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.) My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page. I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like. This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable. Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsThis is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution.
I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in Super Mario 3D All-Stars would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for three games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT) In my eyes, the change list for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. DandelionSprout (talk) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT) Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in Mario Sports Superstars article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). Just for reference, the current size of the TTYD remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). Scrooge200 (talk) Split Wario Land: Shake It! bosses into boss levelssplit 5-1 According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split:
Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels. Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk) (banned) Support
Oppose
CommentsWouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles?
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articlesstandardize 11-0-2-0 At present, some Super Mario game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins to New Super Mario Bros. U and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents. The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is: Characters: living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm
Enemies and obstacles: subjects that damage or inhibit the player character
Items and objects: beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic
This sectioning arrangement has been integrated on the Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, Super Mario Land, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario 3D Land, Super Mario 3D World, and Super Mario Odyssey articles. Because of the tactile nature of platformers, I like organizing subjects based on their mechanical relationship to the player character, so I keep bosses organized with enemies and obstacles because they all hurt the player. It is also thematically appropriate, because at least some bosses are usually rulers of an enemy species in the same section. I do not like using terms that have strong connotations outside of gaming like "cast" or "antagonist". (I particularly do not like using "antagonist" here because these platformers are not chiefly driven by narrative, so the fact that some bosses also serve antagonistic narrative roles is of lesser importance to their tactile roles as bosses.) "Characters" is more neutral, I think. I also do not separate "returning enemies" from "new ones". I'd rather delineate that information in one shared table, like so. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new. I don't envision this sectioning being applied rigidly, and this is apparent in some of the articles I linked to above. There aren't really enough items in Super Mario Land for them to be severed from power-ups, so I lumped them together in one table there. Both Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy 2 include a "rideable characters" section, and there is a "clothing" section between "Items" and "objects" in Super Mario Odyssey. Rather, I would like this sectioning to be a jumping off point, from which users can manipulate and change things as needed. No two games are exactly the same, after all. I offer four options.
Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk) Support: I like this! Let's do it
Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differentlyOppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy
Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changedComments on standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articlesThese sound like good ideas, but do they need a proposal? Proposal rule 15: "Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:39, June 26, 2024 (EDT)
Allow colorful tables againallow 16-0 Take Rock-Candy Mines, a world from New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U. Here are two versions of the level lists:
The only concern I can see is that black-on-blue text might be a bit hard to read, but we can change the text color to white, like some articles already do. It's a lot easier to tell with the colored header. If someone is just scrolling through the article to find the levels, the blue and green will catch their eye and they can easily know which game is which. The specific blue and green are distinctly featured on the games' logos and boxes: The standardization of the templates also really harms articles like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island: compare the colored navbox revision to the current, and it looks more inconsistent because the levels section is still using a unique format and color. Also compare Pi'illo, an item list: colored revision vs. standardized revision. I don't mind that the colors aren't official wiki standard because they're not arbitrary: they clearly correspond to the area, and lists for this game use the same colors for the same areas. Even so, it's still useful to have different colors because you can scroll through the article and easily know when one list ends and another begins. Some lists are also heavily dependent on color to distinguish areas with colors specifically used in-game, such as List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: The Origami King or List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: Color Splash. Standardizing these would make them much less usable. I don't care if we need to make the colors specifically approved or consistent on a per-game basis, I just want them back. Scrooge200 (talk) Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk) Support: Allow colors
Oppose: Prioritize gray
Comments@Super Mario RPG: Chestnut Valley, List_of_hidden_Toads_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, Not-Bottomless_Hole#Blue_Streamer, List_of_Collectible_Treasures_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, List_of_?_Blocks_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer all use the exact same colors. And it's because this is a blue streamer area in game, so it makes logical sense; I will usually color pick directly from sprites to get the right color codes. I don't really see where the "arbitrary" part is coming from. Scrooge200 (talk) To be fair, even the older revisions didn't acknowledge the color styling of the former table format, so that part wasn't erased to begin with. It's just the design, and colors work with the wikitable class as well (see here, for example). Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:50, July 1, 2024 (EDT) I think I'd like a little standardization, just so we don't end up with complete chaos. Maybe standardize alternating-color cells of the same color as the header? And as for the colors themselves — outside of when they're used to separate levels, which is by necessity a case-by-case basis — maybe we could do something similar to or based on the standardized navbox color schemes?
Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full namesdon't move 3-8
We have a few reasons for wanting this, and a few justifications, but for the sake of putting everything out on the table, I'll start with our immediate emotional feelings. In Super Princess Peach, a lot of returning enemies with existing official names are given "emotional" variants. When English names are said in full, these are exclusively referred to as "Glad", "Mad", "Sad", or "Calm" versions of the original enemies. Additionally, to my understanding, the Japanese version of the game universally modifies names for emotional variants by appending 喜(Ki), 怒(Do), 哀(Ai), and 楽(Raku) respectively to preexisting official names for all enemies which have them. With this in mind, we feel it is, if nothing else, a bit silly to present these enemies as if we don't know what their names are supposed to be abbreviating. That being said, of course, we're aware of the reasons why. Despite this feeling, we would have begrudgingly respected the former name of friend of the wiki Bombshell Bill Blaster had she not decided to change it, and we were certainly in support of keeping The O. P. L. W. T. E. E. W. R. F. A. K. E. B. I. Happens faithful to the source material. There are many cases like this, where something awkward needs to be the name of a page because, well, that's just what it's called. But this bothers us anyway, and I think that hinges on the contention that these names are definitive official names for unique enemies. Super Princess Peach presents these names in exactly one context, which is the in-game glossary section. In Japanese, none of the names are abbreviated, and all names of returning enemies are shared with previous official names for those enemies, with the variants having the relevant emotion appended. Meanwhile, in English, a number of emotional variant enemy names (and A. F. H. Bro, but we'll get to him later) are abbreviated when the addition of the extra words would make them excessively long. While the names are able to scroll to display more, the display column for their names in-game is quite small, and none of the abbreviated names are longer than 15 characters. This implies that, regardless of how the localizers may have wanted to change these names, they had a hard character limit. The Naming policy actually has something that I think expresses our feelings here. It's for name changes, but given that these are all variants of preexisting enemies, I think it applies. Quote: "...the newer name will replace the older one with certain exceptions. Exceptions include naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames ... It is up to the users to find and determine what the naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames are. When mentioning subjects whose names have changed overtime, the newest name generally takes greater priority, except in the context of older media where they went by previous names, in which case those are used instead." So, if we're in a situation where an enemy is agreed to be a variant of a preexisting enemy (the pages of these enemies will generally confidently state this, because it's obviously the case), and that enemy uses a variant of the same name as that preexisting enemy in Japanese, but then is shortened in English in a manner that would have been impossible to not do... Isn't that just a forced translation error? Or at the very least, some kind of alias? Can we really consider these to be official English names for these enemies if it was physically impossible to translate them in accordance with the Japanese naming scheme? And furthermore, when we can see that literally every name in the game that wouldn't have been over 15 characters was translated that way? Personally, I think this is a pretty compelling explanation of why we feel this should be an exception to the usual rules, so I wanted to raise it. With all this in mind, it feels sort of disingenuously literal to take an alias that the localizers had no choice but to use and which doesn't reflect the Japanese name at all as more official than a name which actually describes all of the properties of the enemy as depicted in the game. But it's up to you guys. Though, I will say, if we're going to take the stance that the literal in-game name is all that matters... Why are A. F. H. Bros still using their old name from 1991? Super Princess Peach was their last in-game appearance, and therefore has the most modern official English name. Proposer: Exiled.Serenity (talk) Support
Oppose
CommentsTo clarify the end of my vote regarding Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother, it was brought up a while ago on Talk:Volcano Lotus that the English version of the Mario Portal’s Super Mario World page surprisingly refers to this enemy as an A. F. H. Bro despite the original game using the full name in the end credits. While there has been understandable concern about citogenesis on the Mario Portal, this still can be taken to suggest that A. F. H. Bro became the main official name starting with Super Princess Peach, especially since this enemy’s article wasn’t moved on this wiki at the time for the Mario Portal localizers to cross-reference. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) Abstaining for now, but the very reason why we haven't moved these Super Princess Peach enemies to the full name is also the exact same reason why hadn't moved B. Bill Blaster to Bombshell Bill Blaster for so long until the Nintendo Switch remake of TTYD. There simply hasn't been an official record of these enemies' full names. This is due to character limitations, of course, but it should be noted that the original GCN version of TTYD still never even referred to the B. Bill Blaster by its full name in the Tattle, which should be exempt from character limitations, as can be seen with H. S. Goomba; it was only until the Nintendo Switch remake when the full name of Bombshell Bill Blaster has finally been used, hence we finally moved that article then. But the full names for all these Super Princess Peach enemies have still never been in use before in an official sense (at least Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother's full name had been implemented in its debut game's cast roll).
Wanted to add a couple comments since it's been a day:
Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:59, July 3, 2024 (EDT)
Decide how to handle identifiers for non-Mario charactersUse identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one 0-8-3-0 This proposal concerns two parties:
I chose to consider only one subject on the Mario side because, given two or more Mario-adjacent subjects of the same name, these would already require identifiers as dictated by current policy and thus shouldn't be affected by this proposal's outcome. With these parties so delineated, I propose three options:
In any case, the nature of the identifier(s) and the disambiguations that may result from these changes are subject to current naming policy. * - Whether one subject is more prominent over another may be up to editors to decide on case-by-case basis, though the majority of the cases I've seen are pretty cut and dry, like the one related to the two Knuckles. Use common sense. Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk) Option 1: Both Mario-adjacent and crossover subjects use identifiersOption 2: Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one
Option 3: Use identifiers only for the crossover subjects, prioritize the Mario-adjacent subject
It doesn't matterCommentsFor the record, if the "most prominent subject" option passes I'd be interested in generalizing that into a formal policy, replacing the "clearly more popular" clause in MarioWiki:NAME. "Popularity" is difficult to define and cases where it's "clear" which subject is more popular are somewhat rare, but prominence is a somewhat more straightforward concept. Neither the Super Paper Mario character named Red nor the WarioWare character named Red are "clearly more popular" than Red from Pokémon (who doesn't have a dedicated article, and when he did it wasn't at "Red"), but the WarioWare character is clearly the most "prominent" in Super Mario-related media of the subjects named "Red" that have dedicated articles. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:12, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
@Everyone: Would you consider it relevant if I split option 2 into an option that includes redirects (e.g. Ike (Fire Emblem)) and one that excludes them? I personally think this action would be more thorough, but I'd like to know your opinions first. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:39, July 7, 2024 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler: Popularity is how we determine what gets identifiers across the whole wiki, and that won't be changed by this proposal - option 2 passing would just make that consistent for crossover subjects as well. The idea that people are automatically less likely to be looking for something on this wiki because it didn't originate from Mario is simply incorrect - we're only covering crossover subjects because of their relevance to the Mario franchise, and I feel like barely anyone searching "Knuckles" is really looking for the Saturday Supercade character rather than the Sonic character. I also disagree that the proposal you link to is relevant to this one, especially since I specifically made it so that no crossover characters would take priority over Mario characters after being told to in the comments and not really thinking to question it at the time. Also, as an aside, I'm unsure what "other proposals shortening character names failing" you're referring to - I can only think of the Koopalings one from a couple years ago, which has since been outnumbered by successful shortenings like Professor E. Gadd, Baby DK, etc. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:48, July 7, 2024 (EDT) |