Editing MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/73

{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Header}}

===Decide how to handle [[Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development|Nintendo's]] [[Nintendo Software Planning & Development|development]] [[Nintendo Entertainment Planning and Development|teams]]===
{{Proposal outcome|cancelled}}
Okay, this might be a bit controversial.

Most of the companies (at least the ones shown in {{tem|Companies}}) have the parent company and development team in a single page, and they also contain histories that include games made by companies before their consolidation via a merger ([[Square Enix]] is a great example of what I'm talking about, they made Mario games as both Square and Square Enix), yet their predecessor companies aren't split from the main page. There are obviously exceptions, like [[Hudson Soft]], but the difference is that every Mario game made by Hudson (and Hudson's parent company [[Konami]]) were made before Konami fully acquired Hudson, so the development teams of both at the time of said Mario games are different, and Hudson's name had been deprecated by 2015, unlike Square Enix, in which the Square name continues to be used. Nintendo also owns other game studios, like [[Retro Studios]] and [[Next Level Games]], but they do have a history of being independent from Nintendo prior to their acquisitions, and they remain separate studios from Nintendo.

The argument can be made that games made by ''any'' development studio owned by Nintendo simply credits Nintendo's name in the title screen, only showing the name of the development team in the credits (which might extend to EAD/SPD/EPD, I guess), but what separates EAD/SPD/EPD from the rest is that Nintendo had full involvement in their creations, and are treated as divisions, not subsidiaries. Even if my last point about the type of daughter company doesn't make sense, many companies (like Konami) make their development teams subsidiaries, and they are still a part of their parent company's page. Plus, EAD and SPD are the legal predecessors of EPD and therefore, EPD continues the same operations as their predecessors.

My biggest point is that development teams in this wiki are often placed in the same page as their parent company, with some of the game pages not even listing the full name of the development team. At the very least, seeing how this wiki treats merged entities as the same companies before and after merge, I would like to see a merge between EAD and EPD if possible. Here are my options:
*'''Merge EAD, SPD, and EPD into Nintendo''': All of Nintendo's development ''divisions'' get merged with Nintendo.
*'''Merge EAD and EPD into Nintendo''': Nintendo's game development teams will merge with Nintendo, SPD, as a support team, stays separate.
*'''Merge EAD and SPD into EPD''': Merges EPD's predecessors into EPD; will remain a separate page from Nintendo.
*'''Merge EAD into EPD''': Merges the predecessor development team of Nintendo into its current form.
*'''Do nothing''': Pages remain how they were.

Option 1 will consolidate all of Nintendo's development divisions into the Nintendo page. Option 2 will leave SPD separate. Option 3 merges EPD's predecessors with EPD. Option 4 will only merge EAD into EPD, again leaving SPD separate. Option 5 will leave the pages as is.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Altendo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>February 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Cancelled on January 21, 2025

====Merge EAD, SPD, and EPD into Nintendo====
#{{User|Altendo}} Secondary choice. The Nintendo page already seems big enough, but if this is to make it consistent with other companies that have their development teams in the same page as their parent company, then this seems fine. Also, it feels weird to leave a single division of Nintendo out of the page if everything else merges in.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I doubt there's much different to say about the different departments of Nintendo involving the ''Super Mario'' franchise other than the games they have developed.

====Merge EAD, and EPD into Nintendo====
====Merge EAD and SPD into EPD====
====Merge EAD into EPD====
#{{User|Altendo}} Primary choice. While it makes sense to merge EAD into EPD due to their history of being Nintendo's flagship division, I also feel like SPD should stay separate due to their history of helping with development from third-party companies.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary choice. If we had to merge any of these, merging the two teams that were directly predecessor and successor at least makes ''some'' sense, though we do wonder about the precedent this sets.

====Do nothing====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary choice. Admittedly, we don't feel particularly strongly about merging any of these companies in particular. SPD is one of many side-teams dedicated to a few series in particular, and while EPD is the successor to EAD, we can't think of any time we've merged two development studios just because of one being the direct replacement for another.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} These are different studios that happen to have the title of their publisher, the parent company in their names. They are composed of different individual creators, overseen by different publishers and directors, are sometimes in completely different buildings, and are informed by different creative philosophies. If we are to have separate articles for [[Next Level Games]], [[Retro Studios]], we should have different articles for Nintendo EAD, Nintendo SPD, their successor Nintendo EPD, and their other studios. While not the aim of this proposal, I worry lumping studios in this manner would mitigate the fact that video games are made by different groups of people, and not a faceless publishing entity.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} It's better to emphasize that Nintendo is made up of different teams that work on different games and not one monolithic company. I know that this isn't how we treat other companies, but it makes sense to give Nintendo a broader coverage considering they (unsurprisingly) made a lot of Mario games unlike, say, Squaresoft that only made one Mario game before it merged with Enix, or Konami that made a grand total of 5 Mario games. Besides, lumping all of the info about Nintendo teams into a single article would be indigestible.

====Comments====

===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
{{proposal outcome|no consensus|19-18}}
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?

Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.

This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Blank support====
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
#{{User|PopitTart}} <small>(This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)</small>
#{{User|Altendo}} <small>(Look at the code for my reasoning)</small><!---It might not seem annoying, but over time, or answering multiple proposals at once, it can start putting stress. Copy-pasting can be done, but it is just much easier to not type anything at all.---->
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}}
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really ''are'' just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at ''all.'' <small>(Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)</small> <!---Silent per all.---->
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
#{{user|TheDarkStar}} - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
#{{user|Ninja Squid}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}}
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all. The idea that you can't infer what a blank vote means is absolute pedantic nonsense. The idea that per all has this grand meaning or that if we allow blank votes people could abuse voting is ridiculous. News flash if people wanna abuse votes they can just put per all. Do you people hear yourselves? The idea that a blank vote can lead to an anarchy of votes nobody can understand or will lead to this great rush of bad faith votes but the 7 characters that spell out per all will protect us from the anarchy is a goddamn preposterous argument.
#{{User|MCD}} - If we allow per all votes then there's no reason not to allow a blank vote that clearly infers the same thing. If someone makes a blank vote and you don't understand why then you can always ask them to expand in the comments. Outside of that the only real argument against this is personal preference which shouldn't dictate whether we allow this or not.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all/proposal votes are already rarely, if ever, scrutinized. Allowing blank votes won't change that, and I don't think most voters necessarily put as much thought into them as some of the opposition seems to think. I know I've cast per all votes in proposals where I agree with the premise but my thoughts don't align 100% with everyone who has voted already. You can just as easily cast a bad faith vote disguised under per all as you could a blank vote anyway, but we really shouldn't be assuming anyone is participating in proposals in bad faith without a good reason. (Also, having to write "per proposal" on your own proposal is silly.)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>per Shoey.</s> per Mario's comments below. I found them contextualizing. I don't think this really the big deal folks think it would be - we should assume good faith of fellow users regardless. And if this doesn't workout as expected, there is nothing preventing folks from trying to overturn this in a couple months if they so choose.
#[[User:Winstein|Winstein]] ([[User talk:Winstein|talk]]) I wouldn't mind blank votes to indicate a vote for support like "per all". Felt to me that both are of equal weight.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Although I don’t really understand the idea of blank votes as a time-saving measure in the context of the meaning specified in this proposal, i.e., “per all,” that would be ascribed to them, doing so would eliminate the ambiguity that has always bothered me about the idea of their use.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.

====Blank Oppose====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
#{{User|Technetium}} I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone ''does'' provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} {{color|white|Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type ''two words''.}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all <small>(is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)</small>
#{{User|Axii}} Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
#{{user|DesaMatt}} Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu
#{{User|Scrooge200}} A blank vote would be hard to interpret, and you should at least give ''some'' reasoning rather than none at all. A "per all" sends the message that the voter has read the proposal and all its votes and is siding with them. For more heated proposals, a blank vote is basically arbitrary because it doesn't tell you anything about why they chose the side they did.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per opposition. "Per [someone]" implies that you took the time to peruse someone's arguments, is an explicit and articulate enough way to show support for those, and it's typically only around a dozen characters long including the space. A blank vote is ambiguous--it could be what I just described, or it can be a vessel for drive-by voting, bandwagoning, or even a simple bias towards the fictional thing so discussed. Sure, the weight of your vote would the same regardless, but if I'm not able to tell which user's case you express your support for, be it the proposer themself or one of the voters, I can just as easily infer that you're not engaging with the proposal in good faith. Give your vote a meaning.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} 2 things: Putting a blank vote doesn’t automatically mean you agree with previous voters. It may mean you’re voting because you like voting, or you may have accidentally saved changes before typing a reason. And… It’s not really a big deal to type 6 letters, 1 blank and 1 full stop. If you are too lazy to type 1 a, 1 e, 2 l, 1 p, 1 r, 1 blank, and 1 full stop, it implies you are too lazy to vote properly.
#{{User|Hewer}} I see the arguments for both sides but I'm slightly leaning towards this one. Even if blank votes are supposed to be interpreted as "per all" votes, that wouldn't be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with this policy, and it shouldn't be that big a deal to have to write two three-letter words to clarify the reasoning for a vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. The reason you're expected to provide an explanation with your vote is to drive discussion and to help people interpret the final result of the proposal. "Why did this proposal succeed?" "Why did this proposal fail?" While "per all" isn't the ''most'' useful reasoning to provide, at least it's ''something''. I understand the concept of treating blank votes as equivalent to "per all", but there's no guarantee that future wiki editors would understand it.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick, Technetium, Camwoodstock, Ahemtoday, Jdtendo, Axii, Pseudo, Mister Wu, DesaMatt, Blinker, Killer Moth, Scrooge200, Koopa con Carne, Mushroom Head, Hewer, and JanMisali. No one needs to type all that out, though, when all you need to do is say "per all" to indicate that you have interacted with and understand the proposal on at least a basic level.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} per all <small><small><small>(this may be the only time I've typed this without putting a silly spin on it, I've got nothing else to add that hasn't already been said)</small></small></small>
<s>#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides ''some'' insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.</s>

====Blank Comments====
I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:::My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::::My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the  odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:{{@|Mario}} I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:In my opinion, saying "per OP" or "per (insert user here) is just as much effort as saying "per all" and at least demonstrates a modicum of original thought. I think that a blank vote is essentially the same as just voicing that you agree with the OP, so I did vote for that option in this case - but I think per all does an equally poor job to a blank vote at explaining what you think. At least requiring specific users to be hit with the "per" when voting would give far more of a baseline than "per all". That's not really what this proposal is about though, so I won't dwell on it. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 00:22, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring ''a'' written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

{{@|Fun With Despair}} And a blank oppose vote would mean what, exactly? At least with "per" votes, it's obvious that there must first be someone to agree with, in this case, the other opposers. A blank oppose vote on the other hand is little better than a vote just saying "No". <small>Which, imo, also should not be allowed.</small> [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 09:27, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Blinker}} If you can't pick at least one user to specifically reference in a "Per _____", then I don't think the vote has much merit to begin with. "Per All" is just as much a "No" vote as a blank would be. It's lazy and barely tells anything about your opinion whatsoever or even if you bothered to read the other votes. If we are allowing them at all, a blank and a Per All should be equivalent. I would prefer we ban both, but oh well.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 22:55, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::I disagree. A "per all" vote tells you that the voter agrees with all the previous votes, and sees the reasoning given by them as good justification for voting the same way. I don't see how that's less valid than only agreeing with a specific user. Of course, if someone is writing only "per all" just because it's an easy way to not have to give an actual reason, that isn't right, but that doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with "per all" votes. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 11:55, January 11, 2025 (EST)
:This is a bit of an extreme-case scenario here, but imagine a proposal which is a landslide failure, only 1 support from the author and 20 opposes. Consider how the creator of that proposal would feel in the scenario where the opposition is 1 proper vote and 19 "per" votes, versus an opposition of 20 votes that are all completely blank. How would they handle the former? The latter?<br>To take it a bit more extreme, say you were tasked to make a follow-up proposal. How exactly would you go about it in the former case? Could you do the same thing in the latter case? Does the question ''even make sense at all'' in the latter case?<br>In no uncertain terms: how exactly should one be expected to set up a proper proposal if they're only met with silent disapproval? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 03:35, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::What the hell are you talking about? What's the difference between 20 per all votes against you or 20 blank votes against you? An ass kicking is an ass kicking. I'd feel the exact same way either way "wow people really hated my idea." Again the idea that there's this huge difference between 20 people saying per Shoey and 20 people not saying that, especially if the rules say that blank votes should be considered the equivalent of a per all or a proposal. What is a person supposed to do in any scenario where they lose in a landslide? They accept that there idea is unpopular and move on (or they throw a huge fit and get told to fuck off) {{User|Shoey}}
:::This is about wiki maintenance, not social dynamics you'd find in middle school. If you're going to have a landslide loss, the least everyone in the room could be bothered to do is at least ''say why.'' Because otherwise, well, as far as the proposal creator is concerned, ''any'' blank vote could be telling them to fuck off. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::This proposal passing wouldn't even allow this scenario to happen. The point is to classify all blank votes as "per all", and if you have 20 blank votes with not actual reasoning, then none of them would actually count because there's no reasoning for them to per by. The first vote would have to have a reason, and in that case both situations you've come up with here are exactly the same. {{User:Shy Guy on Wheels/sig}} 11:12, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I don't understand the majority of the oppositions. The idea that blank votes could encourage drive by voting or bandwagon voting like what are talking about? Do you think people can't bandwagon vote with a per all or a per proposal? There's already nothing stopping somebody from voting and then never checking the proposal again in the current system. If people wanna make bad faith votes they already can! They just say per all, or per proposal, or per so and so. There's no eliminating least of all with some arbitrary per proposal requirements. {{User|Shoey}}
:That's assuming bad faith in written "per" votes. I already said that a blank vote can be equated to ''anything'', constructive or frivolous, it ultimately depends on how you personally imagine it to be. It can have the exact same exact rhetoric value as fandom-driven voting, as in "I vote to make a page for X game/character because it is my favorite game/character!" and you wouldn't be able to tell. Unless you ask that user for clarification, at which point you might as well cut the middleman and enforce users to state something in their vote like currently. An explicit "per" is not only more on-point, but takes only a few keyboard presses to type out. I'd be more open to a proposal that seeks to allow blank votes as an express "I agree with the proposer in particular but not necessarily the voters", because as it stands, a blank vote can be worth jack-all. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 08:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:The problem is that a blank vote, even if we ''say'' it equals "per", there is no way to tell if that's how someone is actually using it unless they're otherwise asked; and if they get asked, well, they'll more likely than not just say "oh yeah, it was totally a per all!". And when you open the gates to "using a blank vote as anything"... well, you open the proverbial floodgates. Does the person have something thoughtful to say that they just don't feel like they can phrase correctly? Does the person feel like everything else has been said, an ''actual'' per vote? Do they think "'''YOU SHOULD EAT A BOWL OF NAILS AS RECOMPENSE FOR YOUR FOOLISHNESS AND YOU MUST WALLOW IN THE MISERY AND HUMILIATION YOU DESERVE AND OR GO AWAY FROM THE LIFE OF THE WIKI FOREVER PLEASE'''" and hold nothing but contempt for the fact you would put something up to proposal, if not more than that? Or do they just. Literally not care. And they didn't even read the proposal for 2 seconds before picking the option that sounded kinda neat. And if you asked them, they would say "wait, ''that'' is what we're voting on?" What are they actually thinking? All you see is literally no text at all. For all you know, it could be all of the above, or none of those at all. If you ask them to clarify, and they don't, what exactly do you do in that case? What's different from ''their'' blank vote aside from the fact they were questioned for it? It's utter nonsense.<br>tl;dr; even if we ''say'' "a blank is per all", a blank vote tells you absolutely nothing about what the voter actually thinks, up to and including that you can't actually tell if they're ''using it properly as a per vote''. And in trying to fix that issue, well, there's a solution we can think of to fairly easily denote when a vote is a per vote; it's just 3 key presses, a space bar press, 3 more key presses, and the period key. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:28, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Read from here:








Do you know what I mean if this was my vote? {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:37, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, depending on whether the vote is placed in "Support" or "Oppose", I would know that your opinion is that you either agree with my proposal or you don't. I don't really see the problem with this personally. All that matters is whether you agree or disagree. As it stands, someone could vote against a proposal by just saying "No.", which is just as productive if not less.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 10:56, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::That's only your read of a blank vote. A blank vote can also just mean that the user agrees or disagrees with the proposal out of sheer sympathy for the fictional thing described in the proposal, for example. It doesn't just matter if you agree or disagree, because that can be purely subjective towards the subject at hand. If a "per" vote is already difficult to derive intent from, then a blank vote provides even fewer clues, with no way of knowing until the user clarifies their choice ''somehow''. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::If somebody wants to place a vote on a proposal because they're I dunno, in love with Luigi and doesn't want his article changed and not anything actually expressed in the proposal, they can already just write "per all" or even make a fake BS argument as it is. Writing "per all" has absolutely never discouraged anyone. Every single argument made regarding disingenuous voting can be applied to "Per all" or "Per proposal" or even just writing "No, just no." with no argument as I have literally seen people do with valid votes that get counted.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 13:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::We, respectfully, disagree with the notion that you can apply the same concerns with disingenuous votes to "per all"s, because the fundamental point of saying "per all" is to literally say, "per all the other voters." There is a fairly rigid definition for what "per all" means. It's the definition for the word "per", and the definition for the word "all". How do you define silence? Even if we say "blank means per all", how exactly do you plan to police that? How can you tell what they ''actually meant'' when you're given absolutely nothing to go off of? If someone places a "per all" vote, sure, it's hard to tell what their overall thoughts are, but there is at least something there to go off of--there is ''something that can be said about it''. What does this give you?: <!-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK --> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:41, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::: Respectfully, have you never heard of a liar? Anyone who would be abusing blank votes to push their agenda is likely already just lying and writing "per all" when in actuality they just don't like the proposer or some of the people voting against the proposal and don't want that side to win. If you GENUINELY believe that writing "per all" is some monumental feat of brave honesty that verified the voter's integrity beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I have a bridge or twenty to sell you. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 14:03, January 17, 2025 (EST) 
:::::: Okay, genuine question here; what do you think we're thinking if we choose to respond like this: <!-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK --> <br> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::Well cam considering the fact that this proposal specifically pertains to blank votes being treated the same as per all votes. I'd say your blank comment is a fake bullshit straw argument trying to equate a blank comment to a blank vote. {{User|Shoey}}
:::::::I don't think anything because unlike a vote with two defined options (a big fat AGREE or DISAGREE) that indicates the opinion of a voter, your post is lacking that context. It is a strawman using a completely different scenario. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 15:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::The answer was that we were thinking "this entire ordeal is just begging for someone to misinterpret someone else that blows up in some stupid TikTok fandom drama-tier nonsense where nobody says anything of value and/or actively refuses to listen to what is said, a situation that we firmly do not want to be a part of, yet we're worried we're already careening towards it already if we're having people gladly chime in with 'i have a bridge to sell you's or 'or they just throw a fit and get told to fuck off's"... And then we got up because we had to run a few errands and get a drink, so we pre-wrote this before that. If you want to doubt this, be our guest, but we have a picture of this in our Notepad++, pre-written and all, with a timestamp from our computer clock--not a screenshot, as that would be easily edited, unlike a photograph of an LCD.<br>...So, like, see what we mean? You can't gleam ''anything'' from total silence. Is it just a silent agreement with the consensus? Is it apathy? Is it an irrational meltdown? (As of writing this, we ''cannot'' blame you if that's what you assumed if you didn't see us in the Discord, being fairly casual... Sorry. We really wanted to commit to this stupid point, and we promise we won't do it again.) Is it some secret test of character? Unless someone tells you and they can back it up, ''you don't know.''<br>Our ultimate point, we guess, is that you gain a bare minimum something from a "per all", but nothing is... well, nothing. And while it is extremely, and at this point, ''extraordinarily'' petty of us, we would rather have that bare minimum something, than nothing at all. Which, admittedly... is kinda just what we said in our own vote almost a month ago, huh. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::I feel that if a known liar and bad faith poster that is inexplicably not banned and voting in proposals tries to justify a bad faith position with a bad vote... vote against them.... If I'm inputting my vote with simply <code><nowiki>#{{User|Mario}}</nowiki></code> after a series of 5 votes making a case against a proposal, or me being the second support in a proposal that has already outlined its points, what motives are you expecting from me (I assume you trust me to make fair and respectful judgement)? Can you assume good faith? Why can't you extend this courtesy to most other users? Is it really necessary I type something out beyond this? Should I be forced to end my votes in periods? {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)

[[File:LM ending 13.png|thumb|Somehow one of my most contentious proposals I've ever made - {{User|Mario}} 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)]]
Can I just ask why it is that the primary concern of this proposal's discussion so far has been the concern of "bad-faith voting"? Is there any kind of basis in recent events to justify this kind of concern over "drive-bys"? I don't really have a strong opinion either direction, but I'm not sure why we're so nervous about the potential of blank votes suddenly being moves towards people like, completely overrunning the proposals page or something? Feels like a slippery slope argument to me. [[User:Roserade|Roserade]] ([[User talk:Roserade|talk]]) 13:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:I'm not sure why the concern relies solely on bad-faith assumption of people casting votes. We're not supposed to be assuming bad faith or ulterior motives from blank votes. I can't understand how "per proposal" or "per all" alleviate those. People also say "just write it out anyway" but this is like forcing people to end their votes in full sentences with a full period. It's ''only'' one more keystroke? All I want to do is make it slightly easier to vote for people who probably like the idea of just reading the arguments, deciding with support or oppose, typing their name for the decision, and not being required to write anything else. {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::As I've stated before, I agree that you can never extract the true intent behind a "per proposer/per all" vote as it stands, and that it does not inherently alleviate assumptions of bad-faith and bandwagoning. Where I disagree is that blank votes would be somehow better. They'd be worse; until they're integrated in a sub-voting system under someone's vote as an expression of support, they'd afford no clue over which user's idea you'd even be rallying behind. Here, Pseudo makes a clear reference in <s>his</s> her vote to Cam's, Technetium's, and Axii's reasonings, as Nintendo101 does with yours, so someone engaging with a proposal's discussion can have some idea of which talking points are more prevalent and worth stressing or combatting. Votes shouldn't just tie back to the proposal itself, they should also inform and be informed by other votes. Had the aforementioned users opted for blank votes instead, that principle is lost, and... well, we ''know'' these users have only demonstrated good faith so far, but for the sake of the argument, a blank vote in this case would not particularly help someone's presumption that they voted out of sympathy/out of spite/out of whatever subjective. What's to lose from a modicum of articulateness, other than a trivial amount of text memory? "Per" votes offer a small, but significant advantage over the alternative.<br>I strongly opine that assuming good faith in users by default has a limit somewhere--not towards established and contributive users, but towards new users who are less versed with the rules, who may be inclined to vote out of personal preference and where some suspicion from others would only be natural. Blank votes, and a change of rule that I assume they would entail, would only encourage such a practice. It's less about the compulsive liars, which you hypothesized above, and more about the candid newbies. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:12, January 17, 2025 (EST), edited 16:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:::I see. However we can't force people to add more to their votes, just as how it's not feasible to force ALL voters to write in unique opinions the comment sections. They simply have nothing else to add beyond indicating they decided which side best reflected their stance. If they want to reference a particular user to reinforce that point, I trust them that they will. If they really want to veil spite or bad intent that factored in their vote, they're not going to communicate it, even if it's required to write out a reason. People already likely do this. It doesn't really happen, or if it does, it's already in a multitude of other votes that actually have reasons. I'm not sure if there is a realistic scenario where multiple people conspire to undermine the process against a disliked user, but even in the case that happens, I don't think requiring a reason for a vote will stop them. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::Perhaps we could allow blank votes only as an alternative to "per proposer in particular". If you attribute a strict meaning to these votes, you diminish their ambiguity whilst encouraging users to actually state who they align with in the discussion if it's someone other than the proposer. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:45, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::That would still have the problem of requiring that you already know how the rule works beforehand to understand the votes, and I feel like it would probably not be very intuitive for new users. It makes more sense to me to just keep it so that reading the vote clearly tells you its reasoning. (That said, I could see the argument for allowing the initial support vote by the proposer to be blank, since they just explicitly outlined their reasoning in the proposal itself.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::I am a she, not a he, and I would strongly recommend against using "he" as a default. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 15:33, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::::What I initially invoked as an example was [[Special:Diff/4599038|Hooded Pitohui rethinking his stance on the proposal after MCD gave their reasoning]], but I realized he fully retracted his vote afterwards, so I switched to an example that made sense within my point. Technically I was not using "he" as a default, given that I know [https://www.marioboards.com/threads/43855/#post-2272458 how he identifies himself] <small>(marioboards.com)</small>--I simply forgot to change the pronoun at almost 2 AM (CET). I was tired. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)

===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
{{Proposal outcome|no consensus|4-4}}
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.

Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.

For example, let's say for [[Luigi]] in his appearance in ''[[Mario Sports Superstars]]'', there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:

:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''

The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} This is a good idea, and all it does is make it easier for readers to find information that's otherwise scattered across various pages. It's a centralizing effort that I think could be fairly helpful.

====Oppose====
#{{User|Mario}} Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I worry this would make history sections messy and repetitive when the focus should be on the written text.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per Lefty and N101.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.

====Comments====
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)

If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)
:I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)

@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)

How much are you envisioning this is going to be used? Is it just going to be for linking to character stats or is it for any game that has a section on the profiles and statistics page? If it's just stats, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed (that information used to be in history sections anyway before profiles and statistics sections were created and later split off from their pages), but I don't think [[List_of_Mario_profiles_and_statistics#Super_Mario_Galaxy_2|something like this]] warrants a template directing readers off the page. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 13:34, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:When I voted this, I was envisioning just stats pages with significant information such as stats or other notable traits a character might have inherent to a specific game. If it's a link for EVERY category, I would honestly swap to oppose. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 18:31, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:This is a good point, I also support only doing this for stats. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 21:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)

===Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects===
{{proposal outcome|passed|10-4-0|Delete}}
The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called [[Mario Party 13]] (as of proposal, this leads to ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'', which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as [[MP11]], [[MP12]], and [[MP13]].

Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for ''[[Super Mario Party]]'', ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]''. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "[[Fury Bowser|God Slayer Bowser]]" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Delete (party's over!)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Does anyone actually call those games ''Mario Party 11'', ''12'' or ''13''? Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all.
#{{User|Drago}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of ''"Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100"'' and re-redirected the MP12 ones from ''Superstars'' to ''Jamboree'', already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Honestly, I’m already on edge on Mario Parties 6-10 because of the non-mainline Mario Parties, but unlike those 5 games, the three concerned don’t even use those as their own game, not to mention ''Jamboree'' is basically a sequel to ''Super Mario Party''.
#[[User:Winstein|Winstein]] ([[User talk:Winstein|talk]]) I think that it's not useful to assume the games have a numeral, even when ''Super Mario Party'' dubbed itself the "11th Party" by Birdo. This isn't like ''Super Mario World'' where ''Super Mario Bros. 4'' at least got mentioned in full in Japan. Maybe unless there is a future ''Mario Party'' game that reinstate a numeral that acknowledges anything in between.

====Delete MP12/MP13, keep MP11 (...except you, you stay.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we personally feel like a clean sweep makes the most sense, but we understand the merit of keeping MP11 given that at least ''Super Mario Party'' has ''a'' piece of dialogue calling it the 11th party.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|the proposal that added the Mario Party 11 redirect]].
#{{User|Arend}} Secondary choice; I guess it makes sense to still call ''Super Mario Party'' the 11th one, and my vote for deleting them all stems from the confusion whether Superstars or Jamboree is the 12th one, a discussion from which ''Super'' is exempt.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Secondary option. I’m sure there is like 6% of users who would search ‘MP11’, but ''Jamboree'' is basically SMP2 anyways, and whether MPS or Jamboree is MP12 is so confusing we might as well delete MP12 and 13.

====Keep (party on!)====
<s>#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|this proposal]].</s>

====Comments (idle party chat)====
I do think fan nicknames [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53#Recreate the numbered Mario Kart redirects|can be allowed as redirects]], so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)

This is up for debate, because there's redirects for [[Mario Kart 1]] through [[Mario Kart 6]], so if these are to be affected, then they'd need to go too, but I see no reason to remove those as they may come in handy if someone wants to search for the [[Mario Kart 5|5th Mario Kart]] for example. Simply ask "what's the [[Mario Party 11|eleventh Mario Party]]?" and there it is. Another proposal with tons of grey area unaccounted for it seems. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 13:28, January 12, 2025 (EST)
:I'm not fond of "MK6"-style redirects, but at least there's no confusion about the 6th ''Mario Kart'' game was and you can be pretty sure that there will never be a game titled ''Mario Kart 6''. However, you wouldn't create a "MK9" redirect to ''Mario Kart Tour'', would you? It is debatable whether this game would count as the 9th ''Mario Kart'', and Nintendo could still release a game titled ''Mario Kart 9'' in the future. I admit that it is less likely that Nintendo would release an actual ''Mario Party 11'', but it could still happen – they did release ''New Super Mario Bros. 2'' when there was already [[New Super Mario Bros. Wii|a second ''NSMB'']] after all. As for people who would know what is the 11th ''Mario Party'' released on a home console (which is not the 11th ''Mario Party'' game overall if you include the handheld games), they will probably want to find the 12th as well, which, since there's no consensus on what ''Mario Party 12'' should even be (''Superstars'' or ''Jamboree''?), would probably only lead to frustration no matter what we choose "MP12" to redirect to. Frankly, unless Nintendo suddenly announces a game titled ''Mario Party 14'' which would retroactively confirm that the current Switch games are ''MP11'', ''MP12'' and ''MP13'', I would rather not keep these redirects. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 06:07, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::This is why I'm in support of only keeping the Mario Party 11 redirect, as Birdo states in dialogue in the game that it's the "eleventh party", so it's not ambiguous whether it counts. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:04, January 13, 2025 (EST)
:::Question! Would it be too late to add a "keep MP11, delete MP12/MP13" option to this proposal? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:08, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::::You can add options within the first four days of a proposal's creation, so yes, I think today is the last day you can add an option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:15, January 13, 2025 (EST)
:::::Nintendo is probably not going to release Mario Party 14 (too lazy to do italics), because they’ll probably make Super Mario Party Superstars Jamboree or Super Mario Party Jamboree 2 or whatever. {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:25, January 17, 2025 (EST)

[[Mario Party 12]] leads to SMPJ... {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 08:50, January 18, 2025 (EST)

=== Allow co-authorship of proposals ===
{{proposal outcome|passed|11-0|Allow co-authorship on proposals}}

The passing of this proposal would allow duel authorship of proposals (including talk page proposals), where both authors shape the same proposal, the written text, and have equal responsibility for its implementation. It would not allow more than two authors on any proposal for reasons I will explain below.

[[File:Princess Peach and Princess Daisy - Mario Party 7.png|right|200px|buds]]
I have sometimes come up with changes I thought would be nice for the site and have wanted to make proposals for, but stopped myself because the sheer scope of seeing them implemented have kept me from doing it. While maintaining and editing a wiki is a communal craft, passed proposals - regardless of whether they require simply changing the name of an article or creating hundreds of new ones based on the splitting of a list article - are often largely the burden of the person who proposed it. These can be very big time commitments and ultimately feel monotonous and - even when one supports the ideas behind a proposal and do not regret passing it - the weighing monotony can lead to poor editing decisions with rolling it out. It can also lead to big proposals with lots of support not being realized for a long time, sometimes multiple years, as a cursory view of the [[#Unimplemented proposals|unimplemented proposals]] list would seem to support. Additionally, as prefaced, it can lead to some good ideas not being proposed because the idea of carrying out the changes is discouraging. I don't think that's a good thing.

I wish there was more collaborative involvement in larger proposals, maybe with aide from the supporters, instead of the expectation being almost entirely on the person who passed it. I think it further fosters collaboration and passive comradery among the userbase, encourage users who largely only participate in proposals to get involved with revising articles directly, and come with a more equitable expenditure of time and effort on larger projects. The aims of this specific proposal will not enable all of those things, but I think it will be a step in the right direction for greater collaboration among users and ease the burden of seeing large proposals realized by a single individual person. Sometimes a good idea comes up in passive conversation anyways, and there are sometimes users one appreciates that they would like the opportunity to work with more directly on a shared project (or at least that is the case for me). Direct collaboration can result in stronger proposals as well, as both authors could spot one another's blind spots and oversights.

I originally thought having more than two authors on a proposal would be fine, but I think it would be undemocratic and awful if - say - someone raised a proposal with ten "authors" who all immediately voted to support. I view that as manufactured consent, and would make it difficult to oppose even if the ideas behind it are poor. I think having two authors should be sufficient. If this proposal passes, users would be permitted to ask one another{{footnote|main|*}} if they would like to create a proposal together and shape the ideas behind it, to which the other user can accept or decline as they so choose. If accepted, they would write something together, or at least mutually support the written text before it is published, and if there is a supplemental article draft used for the proposal, they would both have to be supportive of how that is laid out and written as well. No user can be attached to a proposal unless they were legitimately involved in its creation and support the published text. If neither is the case, they are to alert [[MarioWiki:Administrators|site staff]] who will issue a [[MarioWiki:Warning policy#Level two offenses|warning]] to the offender and the proposal is to be cancelled. If the alleged offender has proof to the contrary, they are to present it to staff. (I only clarify these details not to intimidate anyone or make them uneasy, but to layout what I think are sufficient guardrails.)

{{footnote|note|*|At baseline level, I think reaching out should be permitted on the user talk pages of the wiki, but I also think it would be fine to reach out to a fellow user on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord Server. In my view, this just facilitates ease of communication and allow options. <u>'''If anyone has concerns about collaborations occurring on these other two platforms, please raise them below.'''</u>}}

I offer two options:
#'''Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!''': This would amend the rules above on the proposal page, give space for two users to be cited in the "list of ongoing proposals" and "archiver" list, add nonconsensual attribution as a level two offense, and allow two users to co-author proposals (including talk page proposals).
#'''Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.'''

'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 31st, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Closed early on January 24th, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As someone whose proposals have been hit or miss, the ability to co-author proposals will increase the likelihood of them passing. This will resolve an issue where the proposer may not necessarily see the flaws of what they are proposing.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this makes sense!
#{{User|Technetium}} Hell yeah!
#{{User|Sparks}} Friendship Is Magic!
#{{User|Tails777}} Teamwork makes the dream work! Per proposal!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} <s>wow the plural system is a fan of co-operation???</s> Per proposal, we're a little surprised there hasn't been a formal system for co-authored proposals before honestly, given a few proposals in particular have already happened precisely because of talk page discussions. Though, in fairness, those talks usually involve a lot more than 2 people, and only one of them mediates the proposal itself. Still, hey, if multiple users want to work on the same proposal, why not, right?
#{{User|Mario}} I never thought it was disallowed, but sure. I do think this was practiced before, but not necessarily full-on co-authorship, such as this proposal[https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Redesign_RPG_infoboxes_and_bestiaries] by Walkazo that cited me (Bazooka Mario) and Megadardery and others who helped make this proposal. In archival process, it might help to make a list of users similar to a citation that lists multiple authors (such as Mario, M.; Mario, L.; Toad, T; Koopa, B.).
#{{User|Pseudo}} This seems quite healthy for the wiki!
#{{User|BMfan08}} The law firm of Dewey, Lykit and Howe will be pleased to hear this. Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Good idea, I think this will be very useful.

====Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.====

====Comments on co-authorship proposal====
Our only real question is, what do we do for archiving these co-authored proposals? We might need to update the author parameter to account for the possibility of a second author. If that was addressed, we'd support this in a heartbeat. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:I specify above that space would need to be allocated for two users to be cited rather than just one when applicable in the archives and other comparable lists. I do not offhand know the the technical steps needed for this to occur, but I assume it is not technically difficult. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:pick a character that can't be part of a username and make the template detect that as a divider in the username field {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 19:06, January 18, 2025 (EST)

===Disallow the inclusion of red links in navboxes===
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
The [[Special:WantedPages]] has the potential to be an incredibly useful tool if not for the inclusion of links to yet-to-be-made article in navboxes. It makes it needlessly difficult to assess what articles are most pressingly needed for the actual text on our site, as well as make it difficult to judge how well a newly created one is integrated on the wiki if it was already linked to in navboxes before its creation. This is because the "What Links Here" feature on the left-hand side articles includes every page where the navboxes that link to the article have been integrated, just like Special:WantedPages. For example, the [[ghost-coaster]] article is apparently linked to in [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Ghost-coaster|403 articles]] at the time of this proposal, despite appearing only in three levels across two games. I know from correspondence with porplemontage that this is just how MediaWiki works, which is fine. But it also means there is no backend fix that excludes links to navboxes on the WantedPages and WhatLinksHere pages. I would like them to be useful for us.

Reiterating the point made in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates|this passed proposal]] from October of last year, navboxes are primarily tools for navigating between articles. If a subject needs an article but does not have one yet, it should not integrated into navboxes. Please save that for the actual creation.

I offer two options:

#'''Disallow the inclusion of red links in navboxes.'''
#'''Do not change anything.'''

'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 11th, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Support: Disallow the inclusion of red links in navboxes====
#{{Color link|red|User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101}} ({{color link|red|User talk:Nintendo101|talk}}): Per proposal.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} The WhatLinksHere issue aside, a navigation template is for... well, navigation. We don't need to be clogging them up with articles that don't exist yet.

====Oppose: Change nothing.====
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} I'm definitely sympathetic to the issue this proposal is trying to solve, but I think red links in navboxes are useful for seeing at a glance what articles related to a certain subject are necessary to create. All of [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:MIM&diff=3746752&oldid=3744806 these] links were red when I added them, and I can't imagine doing them one at a time given that I... didn't manage to do all of them myself. For a more contemporary (and less biased) example, see {{tem|Themes}}. As unfortunate as this property of the What Links Here function is, I think trying to get rid of these links to get around it would be axing the aforementioned benefit for... really just a band-aid solution. Not to imply there's a better one — it sounds like there isn't.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} While we definitely can relate with the problems proposed here (as it stands, WantedPages is clogged by basically ''any'' red link on the Humans navbox), this would render some navboxes, like {{tem|SMBS levels}}, far, ''far'' worse off than they already are. While annoying, yes, there's unfortunately not really a better solution for this available unless MediaWiki itself updates to allow you to see what links to a given article sans templates.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per Ahemtoday, having to add them one - at - a - time or only at the end of a potentially large project (when you're liable to have forgotten at least some of them) adds no benefit compared to being able to do so at the beginning of said project, and the "wanted pages" thing that was brought up is a tad esoteric in its ''existence'', let alone usage.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} I agree that having these red links visible is useful for users interested in creating articles for new games, because it shows what has yet to be created for that game. This is also likely to lead to awkward formatting in some cases.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, the drawbacks of this outweigh the problem with the wanted pages list that it would solve.
#{{User|Sparks}} Having the red links makes it easier to know which articles need to be created.
#{{User|Mario}} This is more of an issue of contents of navigation templates being included in WhatLinksHere (which nav templates neuter their use in other ways), which I think requires a change to how WhatLinksHere is sorted, which is optimal but not possible it seems. I have issues also of trying update links for moved pages, and WhatLinksHere is often useless for hunting these links down until you change the links in the navigation template first. That being said, as other users point out, there are major benefits to including red links in the nav templates, which primarily aid in page creation and provide an easy way for even casual editors to see which pages still need to be created. The main page is floated as a place to find red links but it just doesn't have the compact and organized view of a navigation template, and you can see this navigation template while browsing the multiple pages related to a subject. I understand this is the alternative to a situation that requires the software itself to work (and it doesn't), but we will need to further brainstorm a way to keep the benefits of these navboxes while making sure WhatLinksHere remains useful.
#{{User|BMfan08}} Honestly, my biggest concern is the possibility that a red link article ''only'' exists in navboxes, and removing them will cause them to be forgotten to time. But even if it's not a problem, I agree with everyone else's sentiment that what we have now is the best solution, problematic as may be.

====Comments on this red link and navbox proposal====
I like red links. They tell people if there are articles that should exist and then lets them easily create the article. A red link in a navigation box says that this is a thing identified in the game that should have an article. (While you might think every subject in a game would be linked to somewhere on the game's article, for some games this isn't the case. ''[[Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games (Wii)]]'' says hi from the corner everyone forgets its in. But this isn't only true of the games with no coverage. ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' has no place on its article listing every move you can perform in it. (In part because a Controls section would be awkward, and then where else do they go?) Where are you going to find the list of moves? The navigation template. I would know, the reason I set out to make those articles was because there are red links in the navigation template. If I had to guess, what's happening is that it's easier to make a navigation template and put a bunch of names in it than make a table and fill it with descriptions. (It's really really hard to keep track of everything in a table of topics in a game, especially as it gets longer, the typos start piling up, people have to correct incorrect data that was put in the tables when they were made... I don't begrudge people for not having bothered with the tables for every game yet.) Unless a solution is implemented to allow for an easy to create list of wanted articles for a specific game, and said list is visible in a publicly accessible place removing red links from infoboxes would make Super Mario Wiki more insular. I can't support such a decision. (Note the middle clause. [[User:Nintendo101#Subjects in the mainline Super Mario series that still need articles|This list from Nintendo101]], while useful in the same way a navigation template is, is fundamentally not publicly accessible to the average reader because the average reader is not trawling across userspace pages to find it.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:35, January 28, 2025 (EST)

I don't think I follow. What is it one would have to add "one at a time" that we don't already do with the current system? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:18, January 28, 2025 (EST)

===Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style===
{{proposal outcome|passed|9-6|Include missions as subjects to put quotation marks around in the Manual of Style}}
The passing of this proposal would include the in-game [[mission]]s and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from ''Super Mario Sunshine'', objectives from ''Super Mario Odyssey'', etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Italicizing titles|Manual of Style]].

In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html well-established practice]. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Do not surround song titles with quotes|proposal]] that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:
<blockquote>The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''The Color of Water''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''Resident Alien''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
</blockquote>
I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.

I would like us to explicitly include [[mission]]s as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that [[Here Come the Hoppos]] is a level, whereas "[[Footrace with Koopa the Quick]]" is a scenario ''within'' a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.

As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.

For clarification, <u>this proposal does not impact the names of actual ''levels''</u>, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.

I offer two options:

#'''Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.'''
#'''Don't do that.'''

'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "[[Mama Luigi]]", quotation marks in places like the [[Super Mario World (television series)#Episodes|list of episodes]], to even the infobox of its own article, we can see ''a'' reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are ''useful''. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D ''Mario'' platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is ''Super Mario Odyssey'', regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Per proposal. In my opinion, this only serves to bring further clarity to the title of a mission within the level vs. the level itself. With the established notion of a mission being inherent to 3D Mario as a sub-category within levels themselves, I don't see this causing any confusion whatsoever.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal. I do see that there are some tricky gray areas to this mentioned by the opposition, but I do think it's fair to consider ''Mario 64'' style missions the equivalent of something like a chapter or TV episode — they were even called episodes in ''Sunshine'', after all!
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal and per Hooded Pitohui especially. Having an established separator between a location and the "scenario" within said location is not just a nice little feature but can even bring clarity with active or new readers of the Wiki. I see this causing quite the opposite of confusion.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.

====Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the [["Deep, Deep Vibes"|errant times they are official]] from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an ''average'' and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like [[Bowser Jr. Showdown]], and missions can lack those, like with [[Smart Bombing]]. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard [[Power Moon]] names count, if ''SM64'' stars do? what about ''Brothership'' [[List of Mario & Luigi: Brothership side quests|side quests]]? ''TTYD'' [[Trouble Center|troubles]]? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like <i>Master of Disguise</i>'s [[Whose Show Is This Anyway?!!|first]] and [[The Purple Wind Stinks Up the Ship!|second]] levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.

<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.</s>

====Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal====
{{@|Ahemtoday}} I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks ''around'' the name of a subject and assume it is literally part ''of'' the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.

Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title ''Super Mario Galaxy'' on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the [[:File:SMG Title Screen.png|title screen]] is capitalized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]] but are not part of the title of "[[Happy & Sappy]]". Similar cases are "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario Bros.|"Hurry Up!" Ground BGM]]" and "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario 64|"It's-a Me, Mario!"]]", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many [[List of albums|album pages]] (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::Then why do we italicize game titles? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
::::::::I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from [[Super Mario Galaxy#Notes and references|the articles I contribute to the most]] that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like ''Final Fantasy'' where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the ''Super Mario'' series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:It is not that readers, necessarily, will '''believe''' that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they ''weren't'' equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Hewer}} I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D ''Super Mario'' games and missions in 3D ''Super Mario'' games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of [[Meringue Clouds]] but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like [[Cosmic block]]'s first sentence in it's ''Super Mario Galaxy'' section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't [[Spine Coaster]]s get this treatment when they appear in [[Thrilling Spine Coaster]] and in [[Rock-Candy Mines]]? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
:The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in ''Super Mario 64'' is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are ''Super Mario Sunshine'' and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. The other three do: ''Super Mario 64'' has its levels broken up into floors; ''Super Mario Galaxy'' has [[dome]]s; and ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' has what are literally called [[World#Super Mario Galaxy 2|World]]s. So if the the equivalency of the [[Terrace (Super Mario Galaxy)|Terrace]] in ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' is [[Acorn Plains]], and the equivalency of [[Good Egg Galaxy]] is [[Acorn Plains Way]], than what is the equivalency of "[[A Snack of Cosmic Proportions]]?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
::And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an [[:File:3D Mario Infograph.jpg|image]] that ''Odyssey'' is actually the sequel to ''Sunshine'' and the ''Galaxy'' games float off with ''3D Land'' and ''3D World'', then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an [[mission|article for them]]. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a [[Spine Coaster]] is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D ''Mario'' games - named scenarios. The missions in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::::My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things). 
::::Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_in_the_Honeyhive_Kingdom&diff=4484131&oldid=4482705 this edit summary] and [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_on_the_Roof&diff=4470879&oldid=4448218 this edit summary] the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star ''and'' the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a [[Bob-omb Buddy]] to unlock the [[cannon]]s, an extra [[metal ball|iron ball]], and neither [[King Bob-omb|Big Bob-omb]] nor a [[Koopa Shell]]. (This explanation on {{iw|Ukikipedia|Bob-omb Battlefield}} brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier ''Odyssey'' joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D ''Super Mario'' game.
::::For completion's sake, I should also mention that [[Dire, Dire Docks]] throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of [[Bowser in the Fire Sea]] and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. ([[Tick Tock Clock]] presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)
{{@|EvieMaybe}}, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D ''Super Mario'' platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to ''Wario: Master of Disguise'' or ''Mario & Luigi: Brothership''. I am only interested in ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Sunshine'', ''Super Mario Galaxy'', ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'', and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal ''inherently'' extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the [[mission]] page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)

On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)

===Remove staff ghost times from the driver's list of profiles and statistics===
{{proposal outcome|passed|8-0|remove}}
Currently, our lists of profiles and statistics list all of the details for every ''Mario Kart'' staff ghost where that driver is used. See [[List_of_Mario_profiles_and_statistics#Mario_Kart_8_Deluxe|Mario's from ''8 Deluxe'']] as an example. That seems odd to me, so I'm proposing their removal for two main reasons.
#'''I don't view staff ghosts as being intrinsic to the character.''' Unlike the unique stats a driver has, a staff ghost is not really part of what the character was built to do in the game. Instead, it's the other way around - the character is being used in service of the staff ghost mechanic, and that's about it. Even if you do take the perspective that these are intrinsic to the character, there's arguably superfluous information here. Is the fact that Laura from NoA decided to play as Mario on Mute City that important to Mario the character in ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe''?<br>Not everything that a character does in the game is necessarily a statistic - for example, it's generally agreed on the wiki that the levels in a platforming game where an enemy appears are not a statistic to be counted in this section, and I see this as basically equivalent for a racing game. (Yes, I'm aware that there are several examples of this currently being done. I do not think this is appropriate.) IMO, it would be more appropriate to use the character's history section to list the course(s) they appear as a staff ghost on in prose.
#'''It's inconsistently applied.''' To my knowledge, this is only done with drivers - not karts, tires, or gliders. Mechanically, the vehicle that a character drives is just as important as the character driving it, so if we really wanted to be consistent here, we'd have to add staff ghost times to all of those other pages too. I think you can guess by the rest of the proposal that I don't support this.
You could also make some argument that this is stretching [[MarioWiki:Once and only once|once and only once]] a bit too far, since we have staff ghost times already listed on the game page and individual course pages. I'm admittedly not as much of a stickler for once and only once as some users and I think it's sometimes applied too rigidly, but character profiles are a third (and if we want to apply this consistently to karts as well, potentially fourth, fifth, and sixth) page where stats are repeated. That's quite a few pages that could have to be fixed up if we ever discovered a mistake, and those aren't places an editor is likely to check if they aren't already aware of them.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Closed early on January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Support: They're out of time====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Ghost 'em.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer. Now that I think of it, most would be looking for them on a Staff Ghost page in any case. With these characters, they just so happen to be selected by the Staff Ghost, practically never due to any clear theme involving that character.
#{{User|Tails777}} Staff Ghosts are tied more to the tracks than the characters. The tracks themselves all cover the Staff Ghost information perfectly fine, as do the actual game articles. I don't see them as a harm being on the statistic pages of the characters, but I also don't think they ''need'' to be there. Plus, the point of not doing the same with karts, tires and gliders also provides a fair point towards axing this info. In short: RIP, per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. Why are these attributed to the characters and not the tracks themselves, anyways?
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} Time's up!
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per all.

====Oppose: Keep time====

====Comments on staff ghost proposal====

===Make categories for families===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-9|Do not create}}
I've made a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Families|similar proposal]] a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin[https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case 「¹」] (unrelated, but meh).

'''Proposer''': {{User|Weegie baby}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 30, 2025,  23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} Per me.

====Oppose====
#{{User|Mario}} So, have any idea what this category will exactly comprise of? Seeing the organization this user is proposing (putting Daisy into Peach's family for instance) isn't making me really want to support.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Going from the names described in the comments, I disagree with the addition of characters like Daisy and Toadette, whose familial connections hinge on single instances from prima guides. Having them in those categories is borderline misleading. <s>I also disagree with adding implied characters, since they literally do not have their own page, and we just cannot simply add categories to the whole list articles.</s> There might be some merit to categories for Bowser's Peach's and Toad's families (if there's enough of them) because they are legitimate characters (even if from fringe media) but overall, I am not convinced. I've been corrected on list article categories, but I still feel implied characters should not be counted.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per Mario and LadySophie17
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all. 
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per all. And I don’t really like the idea of grouping the Koopalings as “Bowser’s Family.”
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.

====Comments====
{{@|Weegie baby}} You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:Yeah, I forgot, thanks. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Each of these new categories should have at least '''five entries'''; see [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]]. I'm not sure Donkey Kong, Toad, or Peach meets the minimum number of entries. Would the Koopalings still count as Bowser's family?--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 23:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:Donkey Kong certainly has enough, though there might be a bit of overlap with [[:Category:Kongs]]. Peach and Toad probably have enough if you count [[List of implied characters|implied characters]] (which can be included in the categories as redirects). More examples were mentioned in the previous proposal's comments. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:23, January 18, 2025 (EST)

:Here are 5 people in each family:
:Peach’s family: [[Princess Peach]]; [[Princess Daisy]]; [[Mushroom King]]; [[Gramma Toadstool]]; [[Obā-chan]]; etc.<br>Bowser’ family: [[Koopalings]] (even more than 5); etc.<br>Donkey Kong’s family: [[Donkey Kong]]; [[Donkey Kong Jr.]]; [[Cranky Kong]]; [[Wrinkly Kong]]; [[Uncle Julius]]; etc.<br>Toad’s family: [[Toad]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Mushroom Marauder]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Jake the Crusher Fungus]]; [[Gramps]]; [[Toadette]] (Toad’s sister sometimes); etc (in this case, [[Moldy]] and [[Toad's cousin|Toad’s cousin]]).
:I actually thought there should be an article for Dixie’s family, but there are only 4 known members (unless we count [[Baby Kong]]), so her family should be in the category for Donkey Kong’s. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 15:25, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::It's not about number of people but '''entries'''. [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus]] is a single entry. It really looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Daisy and Toadette because of single throwaway lines in the Prima guides? Implied characters? Baby versions? As [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]] says: "a minimum of '''five entries''' (including any subcategories' entries), however they ''should'' have many more than that, since small lists can simply be placed on an article that's central to the subject at hand (for example, the six [[Dixie Kong's Photo Album#Aquatic Attackers|Aquatic Attackers]] are listed on that very page, which they all link back to)." Mario and Luigi's family got their own category because there were so many entries. They have their own page because putting it all on Mario's page is cumbersome. Right now, Toad and Peach's families can fit into single paragraphs in their respective articles. Donkey Kong's only has Cranky due to his ambiguous identity. I can get behind Bowser since his family has its own template, even if there are lots of retconned and implied characters in it.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 20:26, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:::Look, Platform, I stopped reading after the fourth sentence. I just wanna say: even though that, there are still enough characters to make the categories. If Mushroom Marauder and Jake are in the same page, add [[Toad's cousin]]. He's someone else. And if you don't wanna add Toadette and Daisy, fine. There are still enough people. So, ☝️🤓, okay? And, btw, if you don't like the idea of my wonderful proposal, then oppose. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 12:56, January 21, 2025 (EST)
::::That is incredibly rude of you. And also an IGN journalist is not a valid source of information. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 19:34, January 21, 2025 (EST)

@LadySophie17: Implied subjects can be added to categories in the form of redirects, this is an established practice. For example, see [[:Category:Organizations]], which includes several implied organizations. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:40, January 21, 2025 (EST)
:Fair enough. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 20:21, January 21, 2025 (EST)

What about times where families get..screwy (e.g. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0uXcTF3mA&t=281s that one time Mario and Peach were married and became parents to baby Luigi])? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 12:09, January 22, 2025 (EST)
:Oh my god, that is so disgusting. But, anyway, [[:Category:Mario and Luigi's family|there already is a category for Mario and Luigi’s family]] with baby Luigi in it, so no worries. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 14:50, January 23, 2025 (EST)

For the record, I don't think an old 2007 IGN article written by a columnist working for them instead of Nintendo on the brink of ''Brawl'' speculation (such as [https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case the article provided]) is anything close to official confirmation that Stanley and Mario are cousins, and so not a very verifiable source. Especially when this "confirmation" in the first sentence reads like a colloquialism or a baseless comparison. {{User:Arend/sig}} 04:21, January 25, 2025 (EST)

===Split Mario & Luigi Badges & Remaining Accessories===
{{proposal outcome|passed|9-0|split badges and accessories}}
We realize this is a bit presumptuous given the proposal to split the clothing is, as of writing this, [[Talk:Clothing#Split everything here|the oldest unimplemented Talk Page Proposal]], and it isn't even ''close'' (it's the only proposal on that list from 2021!). However, we're a little surprised the badges and accessories weren't included in that proposal! Like clothing, there are multiple badges that appear across multiple games (such as remakes, but also the various Bangles from Dream Team/Brothership, Scarves and Statues in Dream Team/Paper Jam) and things different between them (did you know the base Mush Badge isn't in the Super Star remake? Only Mush Badges A and AA. you'd only know this comparing the two lists.)

In addition, a few of the accessories are already split; namely, the special items from the Starbeans Cafe, like the [[Greed Wallet]] or [[Great Force]]. We don't know what exactly to do if this split doesn't happen, so we've added an extra option to retain those articles but keep things to their lists, and one that just merges everything back to the lists.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Closed early on February 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Split 'em all (fire up that button pin maker!)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal, of course. There's ''enough'' recurrence and differences here that we feel like this has ample reason to exist beyond just consistency's sake.
#{{User|Arend}} Might as well do it. Heck, maybe it will incentivize someone to actually do something about that clothes proposal.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Huh, this wasn't included in the clothing proposal?
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} If this is just a confirmation of the scope of an already passed proposal, then why not <small>(provided it actually gets implemented)</small>.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.

====Keep badges and remaining accessories merged, but keep Starbeans items split (the status quo option!)====

====Merge 'em all (those are SO out of style!)====

====Comments (splittin' badges/accessories)====
I almost want to oppose this proposal until the clothing articles gets actually split. I tried cancelling that one [[Talk:Clothing#Keep the Mario & Luigi Clothing pages as list articles|six month ago]] (to no avail) and I'd really rather not want to have another proposal like it just waiting for someone to implement. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 14:43, January 25, 2025 (EST)

The original proposal was "split everything here." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:06, January 26, 2025 (EST)
:The wording is a bit vague, admittedly. The way the proposal was archived says only clothing, but the actual article suggests all gear. Which, hey, it'd be nice to at least confirm it. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 01:10, January 26, 2025 (EST)

===Rename Trivia section to "Notes" and allow broader coverage in their contents===
{{proposal outcome|passed|16-0|Rename}}

Trivia sections are a contentious part of the wiki. Lengthy trivia sections with wrong/stupid/pointless content were an issue in the early years of the site and while there’s been a successful effort to clean them up, they’ve retained a stigma as a dumping ground for low-effort writing. As part of it, there’s been a drive to gently discourage such sections and instead steer people toward “incorporating” trivia content in other parts of the article. It’s not a bad notiom, but I do think it’s had some unhappy results (more on that later) even if it would be absurd to suggest it is an equivalent problem 

Somewhat counter to common wisdom, I think the problem with Trivia sections is that not that they’re not narrow and curated enough, but rather than they’re not ''broad'' enough. 

What I’ve noticed is that many wikis out there don’t have Trivia sections. They however, have ''Notes'' section. So say, the Transformers Wiki, might have a Notes section on their comic pages and besides the obvious Trivia fodder like “This is the only issue of the Marvel comic Optimus Prime doesn’t appear in”, they also list other information about the production or substance of the subject. Things like 

*Cultural references (in case where they’re not prevalent enough to sustain a whole section 

*Stylistic elements (characters being drawn differently or an episode having a different  animation style) 

*Mentioning things that don't fit neatly in List of appearances (Stuff like "In a cereal commercial, Mario mentions having a pet chicken)

*Narrative elements (a character behaving differently for a single installment or having some speech quirk they only have in that specific installment. Pointing out that a comic issue was the introduction of some plot element that would become prominent in further installments of the franchise, etc etc. ''That kind of thing'') 

 
If you need a clearer idea, https://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Transformers_(issue)#Notes is an example of what Notes sections are used for. It's not a perfect comparison because TFWiki is a different wiki that does things differently, and some of the thing they put in their notes we would put in more specialized sections like Appearances, Personality, Development etc on here. Still, I think it gives an idea of where I'm going at. There are noteworthy things that can’t be smoothly inserted into plot and content descriptions. I think covering such content is an area the wiki is currently weak in. I also feel it would lead to better flow. 

A few years ago, I tested the waters and put Notes sections on a bunch of a pages I created. Most editors didn’t get what I was going for and either renamed them to Trivia or tried to incorporate them somewhere in the rest of the article. I’ll bring up  [[La nuit des vivants-morts]] as an example: it’s a skit from the funny French Donkey Kong variety show, and since that show loves its hack comedy, there’s a running gag where the zombie characters draw out the “aaaaaaa”s in their speech.  It's a noteworthy element of the skit’s humour, but it’s not relevant to the “plot” of it. I made a notes section to describe it, but another editor removed the section and instead  stuck the bit at the end of the lead, which just looks awkward as hell: it’s worth a mention, but is not something so vital and unique that  it warrants being on there. 

So yeah, I propose to blanket rename all Trivia sections to “Notes” and tolerate a wider variety of content on them. Another potential benefit I see is that it could potentially reduce the amount of stereotypical bad Trivia content: it just seems to me that in some people, the word “Trivia” activates the monke brain of us that wants to just Say Stuff no matter how overspecific and uninteresting, where “Notes” is more boring and stuffy and might not encourage such urges. 

'''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>February 9, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Closed early on February 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Support (change trivia to notes)====
#{{User|Glowsquid}} I think this "Glowsquid" guy has the right idea!
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I think this is a good idea that will give us a healthier relationship with these sections.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} A thousand times yes! A trivia rework has been ''long'' overdue, and we think a shift in scope is just what we need to keep the article's flow intact, while providing a proper space for information that doesn't fit snugly into other parts of the articles.
#{{User|Sparks}} Definitely the right idea!
#{{User|Mario}} I do like to see a solid guidelines for what should entail in these notes sections. I do think they're great places for information that isn't handled in existing spots in our articles. I'd like to see more examples being done, but I can try to help here. For recurring characters, section such a section can deal with trivia found in promotional events or merchandise, such as a hypothetical commercial that reveals Mario being a cockatiel owner. The [[Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō|Lily Franky stuff]] that I'm not going to go into detail, for instance, describes a shocking depiction Mario and friends (reenacted with plushies it seems) that cannot be covered in Mario's history page due to not being a game installment nor can it be in his personality section due to it clearly being off-color and one-note (not even a bullet point; this sort of thing is so minor it's so much better off as, well, a trivia point. For smaller articles like the La nuit des vivants-morts, this is definitely where such a section should be useful without taking undue prominence in the lead summary of the page. I'm hoping this doesn't lead to these just being souped up trivia sections like in some wikias (god forbid we have a bullet point that's like "''Dark Samus is the only character in Smash Bros who is an evil echo of an existing character who has a pink alt and floats during an idle animation.''") but we should at least try this first.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all, especially Mario. '''''Note:''' SolemnStormcloud is the first user in this proposal to use the phrase "Per all" as their reasoning.''
#[[User:Winstein|Winstein]] ([[User talk:Winstein|talk]]) Looks like a good idea, and I am for it.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I still worry about drive-by edits - there are legitimate pieces of information that work better within the body paragrpahs. But this seems like an improvement and more critically well-defined.
#{{User|Tails777}} I personally have always seen the Trivia section as a "fun facts" kind of section where the information there doesn't fit into any other sections. And I feel this could also help prevent drawing out sections with random details that just end up starting their own paragraphs, especially opening sections. I'm willing to give this idea a solid shot.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per everyone. Never liked the "trivia" title.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this is the kind of forward-thinking, wide-reaching proposals i like to see. per all!
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} As long as it doesn't become a dumping ground of a barely-coherent string of consciousness like some fandom wikis treat their trivia sections, I like this idea. <small>And might I say, it's good to see a familiar purple-name glowing again.</small>
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Nice to see a proposal that singlehandedly fixes my two biggest gripes with the Trivia section. This would keep users from feeling obligated to move every point from there to other places where they don't belong, ''and'' the new name stops readers from dismissing the points that remain as minutia.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Rehabilitating trivia sections genuinely sounds like a great idea, since there's often information that doesn't cleanly fit into any section. I'm all for this!
#{{User|Ray Trace}} I've made a Marioboards topic about this all the way back if [https://www.marioboards.com/threads/42301/ you want my choice thoughts on this.]
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} I agree that Trivia needs reworking, particularly the part about encouraging that information be incorporated into parts of articles where it doesn't properly fit, and I think this proposal offers a good solution.

====Oppose (leave Trivia as it currently is)====

====Comments====
A concern of mine is that in several places on this wiki — particularly the [[Mario Kart (series)]] article, since I used to edit those tables frequently back in the day — the "notes" header is used for footnotes put on a table. I'm a little concerned about the shared terminology there. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 15:28, January 26, 2025 (EST)
:Renaming those sections "footnotes" should solve that. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:51, January 26, 2025 (EST)
::I'm also concerned about it. Why rename it "notes" when pretty much all game wikis have a trivia section? What strikes me as odd- as OP has also pointed out- is that the Mario Wiki seems to have a negative bias towards the word "trivia" and the very use of the section (lots of characters who would have a lot of trivia points because of their particular characteristics that distinguish them from others have the section practically unused. I am also an Inkipedia user, and while I do feel that sometimes trivia can be a bit too crowded, at least the section is used for the purpose I (and everyone else in the wiki) think is right. In my opinion, calling trivia "notes" and notes "footnotes" is confusing since the sections have been called "trivia" and "notes" in this wiki since more than a decade. The only thing we should do is to avoid associating the word "trivia" with a negative connotation, especially since the phenomenon of overly crowded trivia sections is way long gone.--[[User:Wallowigi|Wallowigi]] ([[User talk:Wallowigi|talk]]) 09:25, January 31, 2025 (EST)
:::1: The perception of wiki Trivia sections as being a dumping place of inane stream-of-consciousness is ''far'' from being exclusive to this place, I assure you. 2: Only a small number of pages as is have "Notes" section as it is and renaming them "Footnotes" as suggested above is as straightforward as can be. It's not going to cause any confusion. 3: The notion is also to allow a wider variety of information that's currently not being mentioned because it's information about the production/stylistic elements of the thing being described. "Zombies says ahhhhhhhhh in this specific DKTV skit" is a thing worth noting, but it's not a real trivia (as in, "this probably wouldn't be accepted as a question on trivia nights"). --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 22:39, February 1, 2025 (EST)
 
@Mario: "that cannot be covered in Mario's history page due to not being a game installment" - huh? Plenty of non-game content is covered in history sections, from cartoons to movies to manga. Why should this be an exception? Is it for being obscure? If so, why should that matter? I disagree with the idea that we should be deeming appearances "major" or "minor" and giving the "minor" information less prominence, that's just asking for subjectivity and bias to come into play. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:39, January 26, 2025 (EST)
:What I mean is that the Lily Franky thing isn't a game, movie, or a cartoon. It's supplementary promotional material, a virtual magazine akin to Nintendo Power. We don't really cover it in Mario's history page due to information from a magazine simply not being appropriate for history that focuses on narrative works (we don't have merchandise in the history section); the same goes for, say, a guidebook 4-koma where Luigi "size" shames Mario. I provided additional context for my argument using the "pet cockatiel from a commercial" sort of example, which wouldn't really fit anywhere in Mario's page except in a trivia section. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:57, January 26, 2025 (EST)
::It is a narrative work though, crude as that narrative may be, and it's not tied to a particular game like a guidebook would be (so we can't just cover it in another game's section). If it can have its own page on the wiki, I don't see why it can't get a section in a history page. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:37, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:::Agreed with Hewer that Lily Franky giving Mario an "off-color" depiction and being "too obscure to be noted" are not proper reasons to omit coverage on Mario's article. Those broadcasts have some narrative qualities to them and are part of the character's history in media licensed by Nintendo, so I'd rather the wiki abstain from relegating those into a <s>Trivia</s> Notes section. Besides, there's some precedent of covering things related to neither gameplay nor story as part of a character's history: the "History of Wario" page [[History of Wario#Nintendo Kids Space|runs over a host of appearances of Wario in promotional web content]], which were explicitly brought up (and unchallenged) at the parent article's [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Wario|feature nomination]]. Make of that what you will. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:54, January 28, 2025 (EST)

I wouldn't oppose broader coverage of trivia (look at Shedinja's [[bulbapedia:Shedinja#1 HP trivia|dedicated trivia section]], which is already very long), but I am a bit wary of changing the title to "notes" as the name "trivia" indicates fun, unimportant facts that wouldn't fit into the page proper, while "notes" feel more like formal stuff that could be added into pages proper.

I would also be fine adding a secondary "notes" or "development" (games)/"behind the scenes" (films) section to pages, on top of keeping the Trivia section. This could be added separately, or in the Trivia section, like the origin/name origin in the Pokémon pages in Bulbapedia. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 20:40, January 26, 2025 (EST)
:Lots of games already have "development" sections. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:37, January 27, 2025 (EST)

All my joking aside, I remember when [[Cackletta]]'s article was a Spotlight focus in Issue 203 of ''The 'Shroom'' for having an overly long trivia section. A trivia point on the final battle with Cackletta's soul bearing similarities to the final boss from [[AlphaDream]]'s first game, ''Koto Battle: Tengai no Moribito'', was integrated into [[Cackletta#Bowser's Castle|the boss section proper]], but it feels very inelegant to suddenly start describing a boss from a different, non-''Super Mario'' game in the middle of the article. Is it fine to move that point back once this proposal passes? {{User:SolemnStormcloud/sig}} 12:08, January 28, 2025 (EST)
:Oh yeah. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm pushing for. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 18:54, January 28, 2025 (EST)

How about game-specific details that don't go into prose well? Like the fact that in ''Paper Mario'', Goomba (and Spiked Goomba?) is the only enemy with a specific "electrocuted" sprite? Would that call for a different "notes" subsection under the ''Paper Mario'' section? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:35, January 30, 2025 (EST)
:Yeah, that,s legit <s>trivia</s>note material. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 22:39, February 1, 2025 (EST)

===Merge the Tortes===
{{proposal outcome|passed|5-8-0|only merge Chef Torte and Apprentice}}
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
* [[Chef Torte]]
* [[Torte]]

The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the [[Jellyfish Sisters]], or [[Cork and Cask]]--and given they are the ''only'' Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct articles.

In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move [[Apprentice (Snifit)]] over to [[Apprentice]], and give it the <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of ''Superstar Saga''.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
#{{User|Sparks}} Merge!
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.</s>
====Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least ''have'' unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with [[Talk:Iron_Cleft#Merge_with_The_Iron_Adonis_Twins|last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins]].
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Waluigi Time.

====Do nothing (It's gourmet!)====

====Comments (It's... Alive???)====
This can easily be ''four'' birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki>. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)
:Good observation, actually! Went and added this. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)

@Doc: On that note, because of [[MarioWiki:once and only once|once and only once]], that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)
:I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)

By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs]]? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:Not any more than [[Cork and Cask]] does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, {{@|Camwoodstock}}, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
::We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:::Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of [[Snifster]]s are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)
::::Well they don't really have names, they have numbers. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:51, February 2, 2025 (EST)
:::::Well, by that logic, the Tortes don't really have names, they have job titles. Point is, they're identical-looking characters with identical in-battle names, but distinct out-of-battle names and personalities. (even if No. 1 and 2 don't seem particularly different in English, I'm trusting the Legends of Localization playthrough) [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]])

===Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3===
{{proposal outcome|failed|3-7|Keep at 4}}
This was spurred by the introduction of the to-do bar. Thanks, to-do bar! Anyways, if you look at [[Special:WantedCategories]], at the moment, it's all entries with 3 or fewer items each; this makes sense, given we have a policy that suggests [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope|categories are kept to only 4 or more items]]. However, for a good portion of the 3-itemers, these are all fairly featured images from sources like various short flash advergames, or more niche subjects like the [[MediaBrowser]] which came in a series of, well, 3 web browsers. In comparison to the 1-or-2 entry, well, entries, these have a bit more substance to them, basically waiting for a fourth image to be taken at some point; and while in some cases, that image can come up, in others... Well, what are the odds a fourth MediaBrowser is releasing when they went bust back in 2001, y'know?

While we don't feel strongly about what happens to the 1 or 2 entry categories, we do think there is ''just enough'' to these 3-entry categories to warrant a closer look our current policies are not providing. Should we lower the cutoff to 3? Or is 4 the magical number for categories?

'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves, of course. We don't see any particular harm in this when, as of submitting this proposal, this would only create, what, 10 categories?
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me, especially because, if an individual is uploading images to the wiki for a source that currently has no images, there's a solid chance that that person will upload three images. {{wp|Rule of three (writing)|It's a popular number}}!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Three is a magic number.

====Keep at 4 (forced to four!)====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple in the comments, image categories don't have this restriction so the proposal seems moot otherwise. I don't see a benefit to reducing this limit across the board, and I'm very hesitant to support without a clearer picture of the implications. (The assertion in the comments that this wouldn't have immediate impact was based on the list on Special:WantedCategories - there weren't any categories there besides image ones because that would require mainspace articles to have redlinked categories that would go against policy if you made them. Obviously, that wouldn't fly.)
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Porplemontage and Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Honestly, five would be a better restriction so that it's a well rounded number.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.

====Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)====
The intent of that restriction is that, for example, if there aren't four articles for [[:Category:Super Paper Mario characters]] then the couple characters would just go in [[:Category:Super Paper Mario]] rather than create the subcategory. Image categories are different since moving up the tree in the same way would be undesirable (there would be a bunch of random images at the bottom of [[:Category:Game images]] rather than those categories being redlinked). We can create image categories with as few as one entry; I updated [[MarioWiki:Categories]]. If you still want to change the number needed for articles, up to you. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 22:38, January 21, 2025 (EST)
:Oh! We didn't know that, good to know! We'd like to proceed with the proposal, even if we don't think it'd have any immediate impact under these rules--all the 3-item categories have to do with images at the moment. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)

===Merge Ukikipedia with this wiki===
{{proposal outcome|vetoed|Not our decision to make; the staff of Ukikipedia have to initiate something like this.}}

This is a near-direct quote of [https://ukikipedia.net/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Merge_with_the_Super_Mario_Wiki something I put into the main page talk on Ukikipedia.] 


I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing I can make a pseudo-proposal for, but here goes... 

Both this wiki and the Ukikipedia cover ''Super Mario''-related content, with the this wiki covering the broader [[Mario]] franchise and Ukikipedia covering exclusively ''[[Super Mario 64]]''-related content. However, Ukikipedia does not appear to be edited frequently anymore (the "Recent Changes" page only lists around thirty changes in the past thirty days), placing it in a similar situation to the [https://web.archive.org/web/20170704051456/https://www.dkwiki.com/ DK Wiki] was [https://web.archive.org/web/20180526160021/http://www.dkwiki.com/Forum:Merge_with_Super_Mario_Wiki before it was merged with this wiki.] Many points made on the DK Wiki merger proposal are also valid here (such as Ukikipedia also having a small amount of frequently active users, as far as I can tell). So, with all this in mind, I believe Ukikipedia should be merged with this wiki, creating a more extensive version of this wiki's current ''Super Mario 64'' coverage. Here's how some of these things would work;

*The Ukikicast could be merged with ''[[The 'Shroom:Main Page|The 'Shroom]]'', creating a new podcast subsection of said paper. 
*''Super Mario 64'''s current coverage (specifically the [[List_of_Super_Mario_64_glitches#Parallel_Universes|list of glitches]]) could be expanded to include the current contents of the [https://ukikipedia.net/wiki/Parallel_Universe Parallel Universe] page.
*''Super Mario 64'''s current coverage could be expanded to include more information on other glitches as well, such as [https://ukikipedia.net/wiki/Bully_battery Bully battery]. 

This would benefit both wikis, as the ''Super Mario 64'' content from Ukikipedia would get more attention, and this wiki would gain more information.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Nelsonic}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT
====Commence the merge====
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.

====Leave separate====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} No. Ukikipedia is very specifically curated by SM64 speedrunners and glitch-hunters, ''for'' SM64 speedrunners and glitch-hunters. The dormancy of Ukikipedia isn't a matter of it being "unfit" for independence a-la the DK Wiki, it's a matter of them having an entirely different, more technical perspective on the games. Unless we were planning on going fully in-depth with our coverage for the technical aspects of these games, akin to what Pikipedia does, we don't see a compelling reason to try to meld Ukikipedia to our site. In addition, we checked the Ukikipedia Discord, the SM64 ABC/TAS Discord, and SM64 Speedrun Discord, and this seems to have been run by none of them, sans one post on the talk page of Ukikipedia itself which has garnered zero response. We do not feel comfortable acting on this unless the members of Ukikipedia themselves can show they are behind it, let alone that they're aware of this proposal at all.

====Comments====

===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
{{proposal outcome|failed|12-16|Do not allow}}
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.

If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.

This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."

'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.

====Oppose====
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Green Star.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} per Green Star.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per Mario and MCD.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>

====Comments====
{{@|Nintendo101}} Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Nintendo101}} The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, '''not''' others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::::I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::::My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a '''lot'''. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you ''are'' allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, ''you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings''. So why is it so much more locked-down here? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::"''I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?''"
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from ''removing'' it if they should so choose. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is ''still there'', even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)

:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)

{{@|Technetium}} That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by {{@|Mario}}) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)

{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed?  [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)

===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
{{proposal outcome|passed|1-5-0-0|Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone}}
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
*[[List of implied species]]
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
*[[Soybean civilization]]
*[[Hooroglyphs]]

Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue [[Hoohooros]], but also [[Hooroglyphs]] and [[Beanstone]]s. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in ''March 2007'', actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].

====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can ''see'' the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all.

====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====

====Merge none (do nothing)====

====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====

===Introduce a new type of proposal===
{{proposal outcome|passed|11-0|introduce poll proposals}}
While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|this proposal]], which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 this old proposal attempt] for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?

My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named '''poll proposals'''. 
*Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote. 
*Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
**Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
*Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
*Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
*Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.

This allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B". 

I've written down a [[User:EvieMaybe/Poll proposal|mockup poll proposal]] for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".

'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Closed early on February 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Neat idea, per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Waluigi Time and Ahtemtoday's suggestion; as long as tallying is made easier than the original example, we see no reason to not add these.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Good idea for larger projects. Per proposal.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}}{{hide|show=For|hide=Per all.|shown=1}}

====Oppose====

====Comments on proposal proposal====
Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a ''lot'' more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of <nowiki>{{For}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Against}}</nowiki> templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use <nowiki>{{User}}</nowiki> to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need ''something'' to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)

I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into [[Category_talk:Music#Proposal:_Reorganize_this_category|three]] [[Category_talk:Musical_groups#Change_into_a_category_for_musical_groups|separate]] [[Category_talk:Sound_tests#Rename_to_.22Sound_tests.22|ones]] myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave], but I can't really envision what [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|your other example]] would look like as a poll proposal. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for [[List of references in the Super Mario franchise]], and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for [[Dotted-Line Block]], options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from ''SMBW''", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)

{{@|EvieMaybe}} How would you prevent two opposing options from both passing with this type of proposal? How would you prevent the scenario that both Waruiji and Waluigi had enough support to succeed? Would users be expected to vote "for" on one option and "against" on its opposing option? I'm just not understanding how this is helpful, honestly. --{{User:Pizza Master/sig}} 17:01, February 13, 2025 (EST)
:I do not want to put words in eviemaybe's mouth, but I assume if you had a proposal with only two or three types of outcome, you would not use this type of proposal structure. It would be here if you need it for larger proposals that aim to resolve several related issues all at once, rather than make individual proposals for each one. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:09, February 13, 2025 (EST)
:i feel like you misunderstand how i proposed it. Why put Waruiji and Waluigi in two options, when you can just make an option where if it passes, you use Waruiji, and if it doesn't, you use Waluigi? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:21, February 13, 2025 (EST)

===Make Dark Mode available to everyone===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|9-1|Let there be Dark!}}
Dark Mode is available to users with an account under preferences but it should be a toggle-able option for all users, even if they're not an editor. Wikipedia allows everyone regardless of role to toggle Dark Mode, so I don't see why [[Super Mario Wiki|this wiki]] shouldn't follow suit.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Pizza Master}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s>Closed early on February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Pizza Master}} per.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} nice idea, <s>though I would prefer if Light Mode was called "Ground Mode" and Dark Mode was called "Underground Mode" for our site.</s>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, theme changes are unavailable to users not logged in? Just, at all? It's not just dark mode, it's ''any'' theme, since it's all on Preferences. This feels like something that, if it's possible, it shouldn't even be a proposal, it should just be added outright without vote. This is a very obvious quality-of-life change for users that don't happen to be logged in.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}}Why do we still need to create an account just to not torture your eyes when we use this wiki at night? It literally has zero effect to the users who are always logged in anyways.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} The fact that this wiki has a Dark Mode and it ''still'' isn't available to everyone who uses the site is a crime.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Wikipedia does it and it serves as an accessibility feature for some people.
#{{User|Arend}} Sounds like a good idea, and it seems feasible to implement...
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.

====Oppose====
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I think people deserve to be bullied for using dark mode.

====Comments====
My question is: is it possible to enable this feature for non-logged-in visitors? I'm asking this because Dark Mode is considered a "[[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets|Gadget]]", and not a regular MediaWiki feature. They work with JavaScript though, so I suppose it ''could'' work in some way (given we have [[MediaWiki:Common.js]] and all), but I would still ask {{user|Porplemontage}} if a toggleable, easily accessible Dark Mode for everyone (including non-users) is possible, if I were you. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:33, February 13, 2025 (EST)

:I've asked [[User:Porplemontage|Porple]] on his talk page, so we'll see when he answers. [[User:Pizza Master|Pizza Master]] ([[User talk:Pizza Master|talk]]) 17:40, February 13, 2025 (EST)

::Porple's response on his talk page seems to imply that it might be possible. [[User:Pizza Master|Pizza Master]] ([[User talk:Pizza Master|talk]])
@@ Line 817: / Line 817: @@
 :I do not want to put words in eviemaybe's mouth, but I assume if you had a proposal with only two or three types of outcome, you would not use this type of proposal structure. It would be here if you need it for larger proposals that aim to resolve several related issues all at once, rather than make individual proposals for each one. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:09, February 13, 2025 (EST)
 :i feel like you misunderstand how i proposed it. Why put Waruiji and Waluigi in two options, when you can just make an option where if it passes, you use Waruiji, and if it doesn't, you use Waluigi? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:21, February 13, 2025 (EST)
-===Split the image quality category===
-{{proposal outcome|passed|10-0-0-0|Split both}}
-'''Issue 1:''' [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]] is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. '''Issue 2:''' All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:
-*'''Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
-*'''Assets to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as [[:File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png]].
-Additionally, [[Template:Image-quality]] will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.
-'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
-'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
-====Split both====
-#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
-#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
-#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
-#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
-#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
-#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
-#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense
-#{{User|Mister Wu}} A first step as the comments noted, but a very useful one.
-#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
-#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
-====Only split screenshots====
-====Only split assets====
-====Leave image quality alone====
-====Comments on image quality proposal====
-Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
-<gallery>
-File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
-File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
-File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
-File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
-</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
-:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
-::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
-:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)
 ===Make Dark Mode available to everyone===