MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(There was discussion on Discord and it was decided to archive this cancelled proposal.)
Tag: Mobile edit
No edit summary
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 394: Line 394:


====Comments====
====Comments====
===Decide how to handle conjectural sections about ''Super Mario Galaxy'' planets/areas===
{{Proposal check|5|1|5}}
{{Proposal outcome|passed|1-0-5-0|<nowiki>Use {{conjecture}} and {{dev data}} on appropriate sections</nowiki>}}
Yesterday, I've been trying to tag sections about unofficially named areas in ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]'' with <code>{{tem|conjecture|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code> and sections about areas whose names come from development data such as internal filenames in those games with <code>{{tem|dev data|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code>, until someone undid my edits regarding the article [[Gateway Galaxy]], so I had to undo my edits regarding the articles [[Good Egg Galaxy]] and [[Honeyhive Galaxy]]. Now to me, it makes no sense for the beginning text for the Layout and Planets/Areas sections to read as follows:
<pre>
'''NOTE''': Unless otherwise noted, all names are unofficial.
</pre>
<blockquote>
'''NOTE''': Unless otherwise noted, all names are unofficial.
</blockquote>
As such, I offer the following options:
;Option 1: Add the <code>allnames</code> to the <code>{{tem|conjecture}}</code> template and tag layout and planets/areas sections with <code>{{tem|conjecture|allnames<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code> AND sections about areas whose names come from development data with <code>{{tem|dev data|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code>.
;Option 2: Add the <code>allnames</code> to the <code>{{tem|conjecture}}</code> template and tag ONLY the layout and planets/areas sections with <code>{{tem|conjecture|allnames<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code>.
;Option 3: ONLY tag sections regarding the unofficially named planet(s)/area with <code>{{tem|conjecture|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code> and sections about areas whose names come from development data with <code>{{tem|dev data|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code>.
;Option 4: Do NOTHING.
Take a look at the following samples for the first three options:
{{hide
|show=Show sample for Option 1
|hide=Hide sample for Option 1
|content=
<pre>
====Layout====
{{conjecture|allnames=yes|section=yes}}
=====Starting Planet=====
[[File:Gatewayplanet.png|200px|thumb|left|The Starting Planet]]
This is the first planet that Mario explores in the game. It is where Mario first wakes up after being blasted off [[Peach's Castle]] by [[Kamek]] in the opening cutscene. Here, he meets two yellow [[Luma]]s as well as an apricot Luma who transform into [[Star Bunny|Star Bunnies]] and asks him to play hide and seek with them. When they are all found, a large light beam goes down from the sky, and the gateway appears, and it is where Mario meets [[Rosalina]] for the first time. The planet itself has three holes in its surface (two of which connect to each other directly through the center of the planet), many small patches of flowers, two connecting [[Warp Pipe]]s, several [[rubbery bulb]]s, two small pools of water, two small cottages, a ring of vertically-positioned rock columns, and a castle-like monument on the top. The planet is also surrounded by a light blue atmosphere. Later in the game, Mario must use the power of the [[Red Star]] to collect 100 Purple Coins on this planet, enabling him to use the Red Star onboard the [[Comet Observatory]] as well. Rosalina mentions that this planet is dear to her and she looks forward to visiting it with the Lumas every one hundred years.
{{multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|width=200
|image1=SMG Gateway Garden.png
|caption1=The Starting Planet's garden area
|image2=SMG Gateway Castle.png
|caption2=The castle structure on the Starting Planet
}}
[[Deep Dark Galaxy#Gateway Galaxy Planet|A planet]] found in the [[Deep Dark Galaxy]] resembles the Starting Planet of the Gateway Galaxy. It can be seen from the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Wooden Planet|Wooden Planet]], as well as the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Starting Planet|Starting Planet]]. The planet is accessible via a [[cannon]] on the latter, and is much smaller than the original one. There are three [[Goomba]]s here, and a yellow screw that can be unscrewed by [[Spin|spinning]] it, which will cause the planet to quickly shrink and disappear, at the same time revealing a large ring of [[coin]]s.
After the credits have rolled, when the player has collected 120 [[Power Star]]s and defeated [[Bowser]] for a second time, the ending sequence that plays occurs here. In the sequence, Rosalina thanks the player and says that she will watch over them from beyond the stars. She then walks into the door of the small blue-roofed cottage on the planet and comes out of the door of the Gate, thereby revealing that the two are connected. It is also revealed that the Comet Observatory is most likely hidden somewhere on the planet (although it cannot be seen when the player actively explores it), as it emerges from behind the planet after Rosalina transforms it into a comet once again and pilots it away.
=====[[Black hole|Black Hole]] Planet=====
{{dev data|section=yes}}
[[File:Black Hole Planet.png|200px|thumb|left|[[Mario]] collecting [[Star Chip]]s on the {{conjectural|Black Hole Planet|planet}}.]]
The Black Hole Planet<ref>Name confirmed by files found on noclip. [https://noclip.website/#smg/HeavensDoorGalaxy].</ref> is a planet made of nothing more than dirt, grass and stone. There is a [[black hole]] at its center, and it is also under constant bombardment by a [[meteor]] shower. There are five yellow [[Star Chip]]s on this planet that Mario must collect in order to proceed, as well as a rock with a [[1-Up Mushroom]] on top of it.
{{br}}
=====Metal Planets=====
[[File:SMG Grand Goomba.png|thumb|left|200px|Mario on the planet]]
[[File:Metal Planets.png|200px|thumb|The two {{conjectural|Metal Planets|planet}} in the Gateway Galaxy.]]
These are two metal planets which look very similar to one another. Both planets are brown in color, and have what appears to be metallic green power cables embedded in their surfaces which snake around the planets. In addition, both planets have [[Shock Wave Generator]]s that, when spun, will send vibrations across them, stunning all enemies within range. There are many [[Goomba]]s on both of these planets, as well as several [[Crystal (Super Mario Galaxy)|crystal]]s. Also, on the second of the two is a [[Big Goomba|Grand Goomba]], the only one in the entire game. The Flipswitch Area is located inside the second Metal Planet, and is accessed via a [[Warp Pipe]].
{{br}}
=====Flipswitch Area=====
[[File:Flipswitch Area.png|200px|thumb|left|The {{conjectural|Flipswitch Area|area}}, located inside the second of the two Metal Planets.]]
[[File:SMG Gateway Metal Planet Interior.png|200px|thumb|The draining device]]
When the player enters the Warp Pipe on the bottom of the second Metal Planet, he will be taken to an inverted, spherical metal chamber with many [[Goomba]]s and [[Flipswitch Panel]]s inside. The goal is to shut down the machine and save the first of seven [[Grand Star]]s in the game by activating every Flipswitch Panel found on the inside of the planet to change all of them from yellow to blue, while simultaneously avoiding the many Goombas and electric platforms. There are several coins floating in the air as well.
{{br}}
</pre>
}}
{{hide
|show=Show sample for Option 2
|hide=Hide sample for Option 2
|content=
<pre>
====Layout====
{{conjecture|allnames=yes|section=yes}}
=====Starting Planet=====
[[File:Gatewayplanet.png|200px|thumb|left|The Starting Planet]]
This is the first planet that Mario explores in the game. It is where Mario first wakes up after being blasted off [[Peach's Castle]] by [[Kamek]] in the opening cutscene. Here, he meets two yellow [[Luma]]s as well as an apricot Luma who transform into [[Star Bunny|Star Bunnies]] and asks him to play hide and seek with them. When they are all found, a large light beam goes down from the sky, and the gateway appears, and it is where Mario meets [[Rosalina]] for the first time. The planet itself has three holes in its surface (two of which connect to each other directly through the center of the planet), many small patches of flowers, two connecting [[Warp Pipe]]s, several [[rubbery bulb]]s, two small pools of water, two small cottages, a ring of vertically-positioned rock columns, and a castle-like monument on the top. The planet is also surrounded by a light blue atmosphere. Later in the game, Mario must use the power of the [[Red Star]] to collect 100 Purple Coins on this planet, enabling him to use the Red Star onboard the [[Comet Observatory]] as well. Rosalina mentions that this planet is dear to her and she looks forward to visiting it with the Lumas every one hundred years.
{{multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|width=200
|image1=SMG Gateway Garden.png
|caption1=The Starting Planet's garden area
|image2=SMG Gateway Castle.png
|caption2=The castle structure on the Starting Planet
}}
[[Deep Dark Galaxy#Gateway Galaxy Planet|A planet]] found in the [[Deep Dark Galaxy]] resembles the Starting Planet of the Gateway Galaxy. It can be seen from the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Wooden Planet|Wooden Planet]], as well as the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Starting Planet|Starting Planet]]. The planet is accessible via a [[cannon]] on the latter, and is much smaller than the original one. There are three [[Goomba]]s here, and a yellow screw that can be unscrewed by [[Spin|spinning]] it, which will cause the planet to quickly shrink and disappear, at the same time revealing a large ring of [[coin]]s.
After the credits have rolled, when the player has collected 120 [[Power Star]]s and defeated [[Bowser]] for a second time, the ending sequence that plays occurs here. In the sequence, Rosalina thanks the player and says that she will watch over them from beyond the stars. She then walks into the door of the small blue-roofed cottage on the planet and comes out of the door of the Gate, thereby revealing that the two are connected. It is also revealed that the Comet Observatory is most likely hidden somewhere on the planet (although it cannot be seen when the player actively explores it), as it emerges from behind the planet after Rosalina transforms it into a comet once again and pilots it away.
=====[[Black hole|Black Hole]] Planet=====
[[File:Black Hole Planet.png|200px|thumb|left|[[Mario]] collecting [[Star Chip]]s on the {{conjectural|Black Hole Planet|planet}}.]]
The Black Hole Planet<ref>Name confirmed by files found on noclip. [https://noclip.website/#smg/HeavensDoorGalaxy].</ref> is a planet made of nothing more than dirt, grass and stone. There is a [[black hole]] at its center, and it is also under constant bombardment by a [[meteor]] shower. There are five yellow [[Star Chip]]s on this planet that Mario must collect in order to proceed, as well as a rock with a [[1-Up Mushroom]] on top of it.
{{br}}
=====Metal Planets=====
[[File:SMG Grand Goomba.png|thumb|left|200px|Mario on the planet]]
[[File:Metal Planets.png|200px|thumb|The two {{conjectural|Metal Planets|planet}} in the Gateway Galaxy.]]
These are two metal planets which look very similar to one another. Both planets are brown in color, and have what appears to be metallic green power cables embedded in their surfaces which snake around the planets. In addition, both planets have [[Shock Wave Generator]]s that, when spun, will send vibrations across them, stunning all enemies within range. There are many [[Goomba]]s on both of these planets, as well as several [[Crystal (Super Mario Galaxy)|crystal]]s. Also, on the second of the two is a [[Big Goomba|Grand Goomba]], the only one in the entire game. The Flipswitch Area is located inside the second Metal Planet, and is accessed via a [[Warp Pipe]].
{{br}}
=====Flipswitch Area=====
[[File:Flipswitch Area.png|200px|thumb|left|The {{conjectural|Flipswitch Area|area}}, located inside the second of the two Metal Planets.]]
[[File:SMG Gateway Metal Planet Interior.png|200px|thumb|The draining device]]
When the player enters the Warp Pipe on the bottom of the second Metal Planet, he will be taken to an inverted, spherical metal chamber with many [[Goomba]]s and [[Flipswitch Panel]]s inside. The goal is to shut down the machine and save the first of seven [[Grand Star]]s in the game by activating every Flipswitch Panel found on the inside of the planet to change all of them from yellow to blue, while simultaneously avoiding the many Goombas and electric platforms. There are several coins floating in the air as well.
{{br}}
</pre>
}}
{{hide
|show=Show sample for Option 3
|hide=Hide sample for Option 3
|content=
<pre>
====Layout====
=====Starting Planet=====
{{conjecture|section=yes}}
[[File:Gatewayplanet.png|200px|thumb|left|The Starting Planet]]
This is the first planet that Mario explores in the game. It is where Mario first wakes up after being blasted off [[Peach's Castle]] by [[Kamek]] in the opening cutscene. Here, he meets two yellow [[Luma]]s as well as an apricot Luma who transform into [[Star Bunny|Star Bunnies]] and asks him to play hide and seek with them. When they are all found, a large light beam goes down from the sky, and the gateway appears, and it is where Mario meets [[Rosalina]] for the first time. The planet itself has three holes in its surface (two of which connect to each other directly through the center of the planet), many small patches of flowers, two connecting [[Warp Pipe]]s, several [[rubbery bulb]]s, two small pools of water, two small cottages, a ring of vertically-positioned rock columns, and a castle-like monument on the top. The planet is also surrounded by a light blue atmosphere. Later in the game, Mario must use the power of the [[Red Star]] to collect 100 Purple Coins on this planet, enabling him to use the Red Star onboard the [[Comet Observatory]] as well. Rosalina mentions that this planet is dear to her and she looks forward to visiting it with the Lumas every one hundred years.
{{multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|width=200
|image1=SMG Gateway Garden.png
|caption1=The Starting Planet's garden area
|image2=SMG Gateway Castle.png
|caption2=The castle structure on the Starting Planet
}}
[[Deep Dark Galaxy#Gateway Galaxy Planet|A planet]] found in the [[Deep Dark Galaxy]] resembles the Starting Planet of the Gateway Galaxy. It can be seen from the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Wooden Planet|Wooden Planet]], as well as the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Starting Planet|Starting Planet]]. The planet is accessible via a [[cannon]] on the latter, and is much smaller than the original one. There are three [[Goomba]]s here, and a yellow screw that can be unscrewed by [[Spin|spinning]] it, which will cause the planet to quickly shrink and disappear, at the same time revealing a large ring of [[coin]]s.
After the credits have rolled, when the player has collected 120 [[Power Star]]s and defeated [[Bowser]] for a second time, the ending sequence that plays occurs here. In the sequence, Rosalina thanks the player and says that she will watch over them from beyond the stars. She then walks into the door of the small blue-roofed cottage on the planet and comes out of the door of the Gate, thereby revealing that the two are connected. It is also revealed that the Comet Observatory is most likely hidden somewhere on the planet (although it cannot be seen when the player actively explores it), as it emerges from behind the planet after Rosalina transforms it into a comet once again and pilots it away.
=====[[Black hole|Black Hole]] Planet=====
{{dev data|section=yes}}
[[File:Black Hole Planet.png|200px|thumb|left|[[Mario]] collecting [[Star Chip]]s on the {{conjectural|Black Hole Planet|planet}}.]]
The Black Hole Planet<ref>Name confirmed by files found on noclip. [https://noclip.website/#smg/HeavensDoorGalaxy].</ref> is a planet made of nothing more than dirt, grass and stone. There is a [[black hole]] at its center, and it is also under constant bombardment by a [[meteor]] shower. There are five yellow [[Star Chip]]s on this planet that Mario must collect in order to proceed, as well as a rock with a [[1-Up Mushroom]] on top of it.
{{br}}
=====Metal Planets=====
{{conjecture|section=yes}}
[[File:SMG Grand Goomba.png|thumb|left|200px|Mario on the planet]]
[[File:Metal Planets.png|200px|thumb|The two {{conjectural|Metal Planets|planet}} in the Gateway Galaxy.]]
These are two metal planets which look very similar to one another. Both planets are brown in color, and have what appears to be metallic green power cables embedded in their surfaces which snake around the planets. In addition, both planets have [[Shock Wave Generator]]s that, when spun, will send vibrations across them, stunning all enemies within range. There are many [[Goomba]]s on both of these planets, as well as several [[Crystal (Super Mario Galaxy)|crystal]]s. Also, on the second of the two is a [[Big Goomba|Grand Goomba]], the only one in the entire game. The Flipswitch Area is located inside the second Metal Planet, and is accessed via a [[Warp Pipe]].
{{br}}
=====Flipswitch Area=====
{{conjecture|section=yes}}
[[File:Flipswitch Area.png|200px|thumb|left|The {{conjectural|Flipswitch Area|area}}, located inside the second of the two Metal Planets.]]
[[File:SMG Gateway Metal Planet Interior.png|200px|thumb|The draining device]]
When the player enters the Warp Pipe on the bottom of the second Metal Planet, he will be taken to an inverted, spherical metal chamber with many [[Goomba]]s and [[Flipswitch Panel]]s inside. The goal is to shut down the machine and save the first of seven [[Grand Star]]s in the game by activating every Flipswitch Panel found on the inside of the planet to change all of them from yellow to blue, while simultaneously avoiding the many Goombas and electric platforms. There are several coins floating in the air as well.
{{br}}
</pre>
}}
Likewise, the source of the {{tem|conjecture}} template reads as follows:
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#fff7f7;border:1px solid #b77">
The title of this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} is '''''[[MarioWiki:Conjectural names|conjectural]]'''''{{#if:{{{derived|}}}|, but the current name has been '''derived''' from some available official information|<nowiki>;</nowiki> an official name for the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}'s subject has not been found, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors}}. If an official name is found, then the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|}}}|changed|moved}} to its appropriate title.
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with {{#if:{{{derived|}}}|derived|conjectural}} {{#if:{{{section|}}}|sections|titles}}]]}}</includeonly>
</pre>
However, once this proposal passes with either Option 1 or Option 2, the source will read as follows:
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#fff7f7;border:1px solid #b77">
{{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|The titles of all sections within|The title of}} this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} {{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|are|is}} '''''[[MarioWiki:Conjectural names|conjectural]]'''''{{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|, unless otherwise noted}}{{#if:{{{derived|}}}|, but the current name has been '''derived''' from some available official information|<nowiki>;</nowiki> {{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|official names for specific sections' subjects have|an official name for the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}'s subject has}} not been found, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors}}. {{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|If an official name is found for one of its sections, then it should be changed to its appropriate title|If an official name is found, then the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|}}}|changed|moved}} to its appropriate title}}.
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with {{#if:{{{derived|}}}|derived|conjectural}} {{#if:{{{section|}}}{{{allnames|}}}|sections|titles}}]]}}</includeonly>
</pre>
As such, putting <code>{{tem|conjecture|allnames<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code> will result in this:
<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#fff7f7;border:1px solid #b77">
The titles of all sections within this section are '''''[[MarioWiki:Conjectural names|conjectural]]''''', unless otherwise noted; official names for specific sections' subjects have not been found, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors. If an official name is found for one of its sections, then it should be changed to its appropriate title.
</div>
That way, we'll be able to remove "<code><nowiki>'''NOTE''': Unless otherwise noted, all names are unofficial.</nowiki></code>" from the Planets/Areas section on every ''Super Mario Galaxy'' galaxy page in favor of the <code>{{tem|dev data}}</code> and/or <code>{{tem|conjecture}}</code> template(s).
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Option 1====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} My primary choice.
====Option 2====
====Option 3====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} My secondary choice.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I don't see any particular reason we would need an entire feature of these templates just for Galaxy's planet lists. The fact of the matter is: these planets are using conjectural or dev data–derived names. That's what the templates are for. I find the argument that they're only for situations editors will be able to fix wildly unconvincing considering I'd wager '''over two-thirds''' of [[:Category:Articles with conjectural titles]] are things we're never going to see again. The [["Deep Cuts" Toad]] is never gonna show up again. We're never gonna get official names for [[Patty's mother and father]]. You look under a random letter, it's probably something we're never going to see the name of. The template is just blatantly not used for that.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Ahemtoday. The {{[[:Template:conjecture|conjecture]]}} template must be used when we don't have an official name, without needing to assume that an official name exists but is not known to the public. By the way, how can we know whether such a concealed name exists or not? And how can we be sure that an official public name will never given in the future? Who's to say there will never be an official source that gives names to SMG planets?
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Ahemtoday and Jtendo.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
====Option 4====
====Comments====
{{@|Ahemtoday}} I think the difference here and the other conjectural articles is that the planetary bodies in galaxies do not just "lack" publicly accessible names - they are straight up not supposed to have names. The Shogakukan guidebook for ''Mario Galaxy'' does not give planets name. The game does not give planets name. The instruction booklet does not give planets name. The only "source" that applies discrete names for planets are from the developers and we have no reason to think these were intended to be the planets. The These galaxy articles are generally a bit outdated, and I think the mistake in the first place was suggesting that ''some'' of the planets have real names "except where otherwise noted." They largely do not. I think it would would healthier to recognize that they are just different sections of a greater whole, much like areas in courses for the earlier 3D games, and apply titles accordingly. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:44, September 3, 2024 (EDT)
:Hm. I still think them not being supposed to have names is true of much of that category — the ones on particular Toads in modern (well, maybe I have to specify Sticker Star through Origami King these days) Paper Mario come to mind. You raise a point about the article structure not matching the reality of the situation, but as long as the articles are going to have separate subheaders for each planet — and I'm not certain it would be sensible to do otherwise — I think we need to treat their appellations the standard way. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:35, September 3, 2024 (EDT)
===Revise the "four weeks until counter-proposal can be made" rule===
{{Proposal outcome|canceled}}
The "four weeks" threshold causes more harm than good, especially when proposals that intend to make wide-reaching changes are stymied by smaller proposals that only deal with a single section on a single page, which can then happen for a similar section on another page, and so on and so forth. With the month-long threshold especially, this can stretch into actually forever. As such, I propose two solutions:
#. '''Lower the threshold of time to two weeks.''' - Why is it four weeks, anyway? Why that arbitrary amount of time? That's twice as long as it takes a talk page proposal to run its course anyway. There's no benefit to this. I get that the purpose is to avoid a back-and-forth, but it seems unlikely community consensus will have changed within that amount of time unless something new has been brought up or found, in which case sooner is ''better'' - see what happened on [[Ankoopa]]'s talk page for a good example there, when evidence for a third option was only found very late into a proposal and as such, a month had to pass with outright incorrect information being knowingly included on it before it could be reversed. (and for an older example, that time [[Talk:Lava Bubble (blue)|the blue Lava Bubbles]] were called "Ice Podoboos" because several people confused them with [[Li'l Brr]]s).
#. '''Make the rule specific to proposals whose ''sole/majority purpose'' (or at least, the sole/majority purpose of one of the options in case of multi-option proposals, and by "majority" I mean "at least 1/4 of what it will do involves the previous proposal") is to overturn another one, and instead have the large-scale omnibus proposals have to wait 1 week instead of 4 to contradict a previous proposal if the previous proposal is only a small part of it (required to be ''intrinsically related'' to the rest, not some unrelated amendment) and not a major focus of it.''' - This is again an issue that occurs in omnibus proposals on related subjects if multiple proposals are created over a period of time. It pads out the time before it can be allowed unnecessarily, ''especially'' when combined with the previously mentioned issue - it can prevent the proposal from being made indefinitely, which is obviously unfair; waiting patiently for a month only to get "Your Princess is in Another Castle"d by another one being made before they are allowed to make their own is very disheartening, after all, and infinite loops and vicious cycles are never any good if they can't be broken out of. Now it ''will'' still be disallowed to contradict any point of ''currently running'' proposals, but downtime is fair game. And of course, all those minor proposals won't need to happen in the first place if the omnibus one is made.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Support - Both====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
====Support - Just #1====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
====Support - Just #2====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
====Oppose====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I don't see any practical argument behind this proposal besides you disagreeing with a proposal that passed and wanting non-''Super Mario'' coverage on a ''Super Mario'' wiki. 28 days is plenty of time. Your opening statement makes it clear that this proposal is centered around you wanting to instantly overturn a proposal you strongly disagree with. Also, this proposal ends a day before Sept 25, twenty-eight days after Aug 28, the proposal you want to overturn. Also, what if someone used this rule against a proposal that you strongly supported. Would you support it in all cases, then?
#{{User|Technetium}} From looking through the comments, this seems specific to a conflict between two editors, and the proposal has no real basis beyond this one scenario. I don't think making proposals is the way interpersonal conflicts should be resolved.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We feel like a 28-day delay has a dual purpose of both preventing select repeat topics from clogging the proposals, but also allowing proposals that pass to properly sit in place, so that the changes in place have a proper chance to function. Make it too short, and you both run the risk of repeated proposals about the same subjects running over and over again, and to make it so that even if proposals do pass, they are a bit too easy to undo--and if proposals are ''too'' easy to put into place or revert, then they just kind of stop mattering, and the Wiki would just kind of melt into a constant state of flux as the editing standards would keep being changed. It has the very real chance to devolve into edit warring with extra bureaucracy involved, and we feel pretty confident that nobody would want that.
#{{User|Arend}} I have a feeling that this proposal was not ''entirely'' made in good faith... by which I mean that the proposal seems to be made with the proposer's annoyance of them being unable to post their proposal in mind, rather than it actually being beneficial to the wiki itself. Ignoring that feeling, however, I feel that the four-week buffer is there to let the proposed changes get properly "baked" into the wiki's design, i.e. let users and visitors get used to these changes; I feel like the idea is that if the wait time to overturn it were any shorter, that would not be enough time for people to get used to the changes in the first place. When it comes to the second proposed option (aside from it being a bit confusedly-worded), that sounds like the proposer wanted to open a loophole opportunity. I can imagine that there will be several proposals made to overturn a previous proposal only a mere day after it was settled, only for these proposals to be allowed because the overturning part is only a ''minor'' part of these proposals whilst the ''primary'' point of the proposals is, like, something bogus that doesn't really benefit the wiki in a major way – kind of like adding bogus, non-beneficiary multiple options in a proposal just to avoid insufficient consensus due to multi-option proposals working differently, something the same proposer complained about in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Adjust proposal rule 9 to prevent exploitation|a prior proposal]].
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per the first four oppose voters.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all, still not convinced after the edits made to the proposal.
====Comments====
{{@|Super Mario RPG}} - Yes. Yes I would. Because this restriction is arbitrary and annoying no matter what one's opinion on any other proposals is. And note how you are attempting to push my ability to make my proposal by another ''month'' with the separate obstacle and cameo proposals you just made. "Making a proposal to fix a flaw in the rules one is a victim to" isn't about some sort of personal vendetta, it's about fixing a flaw in the rules. And again, if you actually read the proposal made here, it's not about instant overturns, it's about dealing with incidental pieces - and please note the part about "community consensus probably will not have changed unless something major comes up" that I mentioned. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:43, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:There could be endless arguing within short time frames if this rule is changed. This isn't about a "flaw in the rules" so much as you trying to change the system to suit your liking, at least in this circumstance, since it would benefit you directly. But then if there's 50/50 division on proposals on the wiki, this could go badly very quickly. I don't see a single other person filled with nearly this much zeal to keep ''SSB'' content. Yes, there is support, but this is going overboard. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:50, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::No it won't. Again, the specifics still keep that from happening. A month is annoyingly long either way, and from what I can tell you are making some amount of effort (consciously or subconsciously) to attempt to put off my ability to make a proposal indefinitely, considering after three weeks of not much happening, you implemented your proposal, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros.&diff=prev&oldid=4368007 I told you my proposal would be next week] and then not 20 minutes later [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros.&diff=4368013&oldid=4368011 you created two piecemeal 2-week talk page proposals right under that statement] that would ensure mine would be put off for double the original amount of time, which is an unfair result of the current policy - [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YankTheDogsChain hell there's a TVTropes page for it]. A month is too long, end of story. (Also, I have never seen anyone with as much zeal for removing ''Smash'' things as you, so that goes both ways.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:56, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::I'd call myself logical (''Super Mario'' is ''Super Mario'', ''Zelda'' is ''Zelda'', ''Kirby'' is ''Kirby''), but that may sound condescending. I was more focused on the first sentence of you saying that you vehemently opposed the proposal due to an inconsistency, and that was why I created two proposals to try and resolve it, since a number did support the Pokemon proposal. This proposal will disrupt the democratic process of two "piecemeal" proposals that are already ongoing, so then somehow if they pass, Pokemon will be reinstated but the other removed? It makes no sense. The wiki's not about any single person and what they want. I had failed proposals before. I've moved on. I don't keep hammering on those failed proposals, including those that failed unanimously. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:03, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::Considering you knew what I was planning, you seem to have deliberately timed it so I can't make my proposal without "disrupting the democratic process" on yours, which wouldn't have been an issue if the wait weren't so long. In doing so, you have (deliberately or otherwise) indirectly taunted me and my helplessness from these rules, which I find to be rather rude. Either way, you keep making this be about ''your'' proposal rather than the obvious flaw in the rules here. Which only makes it seem further like you are deliberately taking advantage of said flaw at my expense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:13, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::::I don't appreciate the assumptions being made about me. You quoted "disrupting the democratic process," admitting there's some footing in that argument to a degree. I didn't taunt you, nor do I appreciate you attempting to play the victim in this circumstance. The two clashing ideals cancel each other out: you made this centered mostly around your strong passion to overturn a proposal you're trying everything to do to overturn, and my argument against this is because it concerns a proposal that I made and that less counterproductivity and edit warring could result if someone tries to overturn proposals within such a short timeframe. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:18, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I quoted that because that's what you ''said'', the quotes were the equivalent to putting air quotes around something sarcastically. While yes, your proposals ''catalyzed'' this, I have more important matters at stake here than what it is you do. Also, "two weeks" is not a "short timeframe," "four weeks" is just an "overly long timeframe." (Honestly, this rule has ''always'' annoyed me even when it doesn't affect me, but what better time to do something about it than when it does?) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:21, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::But did this rule always bother you this much? Why didn't you make this proposal earlier then? What's the perceivable benefit to waiting two fewer weeks? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:28, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::If I made proposals the ''moment'' an idea came to me, I'd have made a billion by now. I make whatever affects me most at the time, and usually do so en masse for whatever I can remember (I don't like having to look up the ending date over and over again, so that's why I usually make a bunch of unrelated proposals at once). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:32, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
If the proposal passes, what would the new minimal time required before overturning be? [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 16:17, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:I thought I put that in the proposal, guess I forgot. 2 weeks, like a TPP. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:21, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Technetium}} - It's not an interpersonal conflict, it's a rule flaw. Super Mario RPG's just trying to make it one. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:23, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:Except the opening sentence in your proposal reads to others that this stems from an interpersonal conflict. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:25, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::It reads that I have had to deal with the negative part of this rule and that spurred me into finally doing something about it. I didn't bring you up, I said that people kept making proposals. I honestly can't say if you're the only one who was doing so or not (again, I have more important things to keep track of), but when I typed that I didn't think you were. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:27, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::I'd personally want more evidence of this being a widespread issue to consider a proposal like this. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 16:29, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::[[Talk:Ankoopa|Here]] [[Talk:Lava Bubble (blue)|you go]]. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:47, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Arend}} - What? I deliberately worded that to ''avoid'' loopholes being able to be made (the whole "3/4 margin" thing). Deliberately forcing omnibus proposals that have been announced well in advance is not a good-faith thing to do, but either way, I deliberately noted that community consensus would be unlikely to change. The [[Ankoopa]] thing was another thing I had in mind. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:37, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Super Mario RPG}} - I checked, and I was right, it wasn't only you I was referring to; Mushzoom made that proposal on the music, and while that ended up not affecting my own planned proposal since that wasn't covered in it, it was still an interim ''Smash'' proposal I was remembering having happened. When I said "people," I indeed meant "people." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:37, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
I actually support the intent behind this proposal, but there are a few issues I have with these implementations:
* Option 1 does not prevent indefinite blocking of a proposal. Since the proposal lockout time is shorter not ''just'' for the omnibus proposal, it would still be possible to delay it indefinitely by alternating between at least two proposals concerned with elements that are also part of the larger-scale proposal.
* Technically speaking, Option 2 doesn't prevent that either. ''Three'' smaller proposals would be necessary to lock down the big one, but a deliberate effort to prevent a proposal from being made is still possible.
* In another sense, and also maybe most pertinently since the other two would require deliberate malicious action — I'm wary of the 1/4 relevancy distinction because I don't think it's possible to objectively measure that. Is it measured in articles affected? In bullet-point goals for the proposal? I feel like we need to keep that sort of fuzziness out of the proposal rules.
Again, I do think this is an issue worth solving — I don't see "this is currently happening to you now so therefore the proposal is dubious" as a convincing argument — but I'm just not sure about these implementations of it. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:18, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Revision as of 17:20, September 17, 2024

All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
Previous proposals

Determine a minimum number of glitches in a game to warrant a separate list article

5 is the mininum number of glitches 0-0-9-0
I've noticed some strange discrepancies regarding how glitches are handled when a game has only 3 or 4 of them documented here. Wario Land 4 has a separate article for its 3 glitches (List of Wario Land 4 glitches), but every other game with 3 glitches simply has those glitches merged with the game's page. Specifically, Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Strikers, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), and, most glaringly, Wario Land 3 have sections for glitches rather than separate lists.

More complicated is figuring out how to deal with games with 4 glitches. Of the 6 games with 4 documented glitches:

I put forward this proposal to determine a minimum number of glitches for the creation of "List of glitches" articles. That way, there is consistency between games with the same number of documented glitches. Additionally, if new glitches are documented later that brings the total number over this minimum, a new page can easily be created without the need for a proposal, as the editor can cite this proposal.

Option 1
The minimum number of glitches should be 3. "List of glitches" pages would be created for Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), and Wario Land 3 to match that of Wario Land 4.
Option 2
The minimum number of glitches should be 4. List of Wario Land 4 glitches would be deleted and its glitches merged into the main game's article. "List of glitches" pages would be created for Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Donkey Kong Land, and Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle.
Option 3
The minimum number of glitches should be 5. List of Wario Land 4 glitches, List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches, and List of Super Mario Advance glitches would be deleted, with the glitches merged into each game's main article.
Do nothing
There should be no concrete minimum, and whether glitches should be split or not should be discussed on a game-by-game basis.

I could continue with 6, 7, etc., but I feel once this point is reached there is enough to warrant separate "List of glitches" articles, especially since game articles are typically long and images are usually needed to showcase glitches, taking up more space.

Proposer: Technetium (talk)
Deadline: August 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

  1. Technetium (talk) I am a bit torn between Options 2 and 3, but I prefer this one as I feel 4 glitches can easily fit on a game's page, as seen with the examples above.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't particularly mind what the minimum number of glitches is, but I agree that there should be a minimum in order to have some more consistency, and a smaller minimum may cause unnecessary splits of small glitch lists, so I'll go for this option.
  3. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  5. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. (I really love glitches, so I'm glad this is being settled.)
  6. Jazama (talk) Per all
  7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all; it's good for consistency to have a standard for this.
  8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  9. Nintendo101 (talk) Good idea!

Do nothing

Comments

From what I can tell, articles on this wiki are usually split based on size, not the number of headings. It's why List of Fortune Street quotes is split into Dragon Quest characters (A-J / K-Z) and Super Mario characters (A-M / N-Z) and why the number of headings in these articles is inconsistent. I think it'd be weird to split lists of glitches based strictly on the number of sections rather than the amount of text since that could lead to very short articles that only list a few very minor glitches that can be described in just a few sentences. I need more wrenches... Dive Rocket Launcher 22:50, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. It just feels different here because glitch descriptions tend to be around the same length. If you look at the examples I discussed in the proposal, you'll find there really isn't a noticeable size difference between the pages that have their glitches merged vs separate. Truth be told, I was originally going to just make a talk page proposal to merge List of Wario Land 4 glitches, but the discrepancies with the pages with 4 glitches led to me coming up with this. I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas on how to make things more consistent, because the way things are currently is frankly bugging me. --Technetium (talk) 23:02, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

Adjust proposal rule 9 to prevent exploitation

canceled by proposer
Put into effect in an alternate solution by proprietor
So I realized an issue with Proposal Rule 9 while I was whinily bitching about a proposal I didn't like passing like the selfish little megalomaniac I am (long story there... at least a good realization came out of it) and that is that, by the current setup, the "difference of three votes" only applies for two-option proposal. If a proposal has more than that many options, it is solely decided by being over 50%... regardless of how many options actually have votes in them. This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement. As such, I propose that the rule be amended so that unless there are three options with at least one vote that isn't the proposer's own, it be treated the same as a two-option proposal.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Arend (talk) Doc's points in the comments have enlightened me more to understand the necessity of this amendment. Also it makes multi-option proposals where there's really only two options being voted for more consistent with our regular two-option proposals.
  3. Shoey (talk) Per Doc it's silly that a proposal like https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Coin_bag#Split_the_Mario_Party_Coin_Bag_from_the_Super_Princess_Peach_Coin_Bag can pass because of options that have almost no support.
  4. Mario (talk) Given the confusion time and time again this rule has inflicted on the wiki historically,[1][2] due to going against basic intuition (and relying too much on head spinning percentages) I rather just kill this particular clause of that rule with fire and simply have multioption proposals follow a similar rule to two-option proposals: one option with majority of votes over a 3 vote margin passes, which this proposal is going. If not, extend it. A 6-5-1-0 is NOT a consensus; neither is 9-8. Both of these should've been extended.
  5. SeanWheeler (talk) Changing my vote because if Super Mario Wiki doesn't allow for an ex post facto law to extend already closed proposals, then there's really nothing to worry about. Doc's right, it's not fair to get arrested for a law change without warning, and the idea of this proposal being used to cheat the previous proposal goes against what this proposal is about. And besides it's better to have more consistent rules on voting.

Oppose

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) This has never been an issue for all these years we've had proposals, otherwise the amendment would've been proposed and/or added long ago. There's also the margin-of-three-votes rule for proposals with ten or more votes. Also, keep in mind the user proposing this was vehemently opposed to a proposal that I made that passed with a 9-1-1-8 vote and is trying any means possible to undo it, including the drafting of another proposal in late September that is sneaking in a provision to undo the one that passed yesterday, which is another way of saying "we want Pokemon content back on the wiki despite the Poke Ball lists being removed for the reason of lacking any further connection to Super Mario than any other franchises in the Super Smash Bros. series.

#SeanWheeler (talk) If you want to reverse a recent proposal, you have to wait a month to do so.

Reverse the rule order, change none of the text

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This is an exaggerated example of what I'm trying to prevent, don't take it seriously.

Comments

I'm kinda half-on-half on this. On the one hand, amendments like these to prevent exploiting loopholes like those is always fine, but on the other hand, I wonder if it's even necessary? Proposers can only change and edit their proposals in the first three days since launch (or first six days if it's a TPP). This is just under halfway through the proposal length, which gives other users ample time to consider voting for a new third option if it's being added at the latest time possible. Even when an option has been added in bad faith, users can bring notice to it in the comments or report it to admins. So while I'm not opposed to this amendment, I think I'm more favoring it for the sake of consistency, rather than to combat exploits, since the 3-6-day limit thing already does that as well.
The rules section might need a bit of an overhaul regardless: There's been talks already how Rule 9 sounds a bit confusing due to its wording regarding the required amount of voters, and it's also been stated that the entire section is an unsorted mess with little to no examples for clarity. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 18:07, August 29, 2024 (EDT)

It's not about retroactively adding an option. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:25, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
...did you misinterpret my whole message or something?
You literally said "This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement." That is LITERALLY "retroactively adding an option", isn't it? And this proposal is about preventing such an exploit, right? As in, what I literally have been talking about as well? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 19:12, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
You seem to have missed the point. This is about putting in a dummy option in general, not about doing so at a specific time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:56, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
So you HAVE misinterpreted my message (at least somewhat), because I AM well aware that this is about putting a dummy option in general. The thing is, as I stated before, proposers can only edit their proposals within the first three days since launch, which is to say, they cannot add a third option like 5 minutes before the deadline to cheat the system. After those three days, they're locked from editing the proposal, and other users have four days to consider voting for that third option (which is more than the 3 days the proposer was allowed to edit their proposal.
All this stuff I said about specific time limits is to say that we already have a method to combat exploits like this, making this extra stipulation for combatting the same exploit kind of redundant, as the most this does is treating multi-option proposals where really only two sides are being voted on, the same as a regular two-option proposal (which admittedly is at least consistent).
If you're worried about people using these exploits within the 3-day limit, that's technically also addressed, as I already stated "Even when an option has been added in bad faith, users can bring notice to it in the comments or report it to admins."
If you're still worried that this doesn't solve your problem, then I think it's better to add a rule to not add (bad-faith) dummy options (or editing proposals in bad faith in general) for the sake of exploiting the rules. I'll admit that your proposed changes will help bring consistency across proposals, and also will help with preventing third-option exploits from being passed so easily, but I don't think it'll prevent proposers from attempting them within those first three days anyway (hoping in the off-chance that someone will vote for that dummy option), so it'd be wise to remind them that editing a proposal in bad faith is against the rules. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 21:16, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
Where are you getting the "after the proposal is created" part from? This is including if it's made with three options, one of which is valid-but-undesirable-to-anyone-involved. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:22, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
The statement of yours I quoted before: "This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement.". I interpreted that as someone adding it in later, as opposed to it being already there from the beginning. Thank you for clarifying that you meant both of those instead of only the former, though. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 21:30, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
...yes, "add in" as in a synonym to "include." Sorry for the confusion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:38, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
It's OK man. Perhaps I was being too pigheaded myself to realize other interpretations.
Anyway, with that in mind, I understand the necessity to add this stipulation a bit more now, because the 3-day edit limit obviously cannot prevent what's there from the beginning, and now there's a 3-day limit to convince the proposer to remove the dummy option instead. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 21:48, August 29, 2024 (EDT)

@Super Mario RPG - You're ignoring that our rules for proposal passing and failing have changed several times over the past few years thanks to various proposals. This is just something that was overlooked (the fact a sysop thanked me for bringing this up initially helps me think this was a good idea). Also, I'm not trying to "undo" your proposal by a retroactive rule change, that's not how amendments work. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:19, August 29, 2024 (EDT)

If this proposal passes and gets enforced, wouldn't that proposal be affected? Probably should wait four weeks to do make this proposal. Like how I decided to wait after the proposal to move Shadow (character) back to Shadow the Hedgehog to fail before I could start the proposal to move the crossover characters back to their proper names. I could have started that proposal yesterday, but I need to find instances of the Mario & Sonic games referring to the Sonic characters by their full names before I could start that proposal. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:51, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
No? You can't (and shouldn't) retroactively enforce a rule that did not exist yet, that's not fair (also that would probably affect a lot of other proposals, and I'm not interested in going down that rabbit trail even if it was ethical). That's why when prohibition was passed everyone who had drank alcohol before wasn't arrested. It's the same deal here. While I want to repeal that proposal, I want to do so the fair-and-square way in a month, not through some dirty underhanded trick. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:13, August 30, 2024 (EDT)

I feel like this proposal has actually nothing to do with Rule 9: a margin of votes has nothing to do with majority support. I think we should amend Rule 10 instead to remove the reference to "proposals with only voting options" and extend it to multioption proposals. For example: "Rule 10: If the two most voted options of a proposal gather more than ten votes between them and the vote count difference of those two options is less than three, then the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all." That way, Rule 10 would still work the same as it does now for proposals with only two options, and multioption proposals would need to satisfy both Rule 9 (majority support is needed to ensure that most voters have voted for the winning option) and Rule 10. Jdtendo(T|C) 01:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT)

I agree with Doc and the issue at hand, but I want to update the rule in a slightly more comprehensive way than suggested. I've done that and this is canceled! --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 04:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT)

Do not use t-posing models as infobox images

Do not use t-posing models as infobox images 16-0
Self-explainatory aim for this proposal with the title, I'm proposing because I personally don't think t-posing models look good as introductory images. One case in point is on the Mega Baby Bowser article which used a t-posing model as its infobox image but was changed to a screenshot. Angler Poplin is an article that currently uses a t-posing model. Should this proposal pass, in-game screenshots will be used instead of t-posing images, or if possible a model which is not in a t-pose.

Proposer: Nightwicked Bowser (talk)
Deadline: September 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) T-poses are clearly not how the characters are meant to be portrayed.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us! Per proposal.
  8. Ray Trace (talk) This should also include non-t-posed bind models (a-posed models, nonbipedal characters) as well but that's a matter of jargon really.
  9. SeanWheeler (talk) Considering I went through the effort of posing the characters of my game Speed Prix before I uploaded them to the Speed Prix Wiki, I know T-poses are not good infobox images. And in the context of Mario games that you're not developing yourself, if artwork is not available, just use screenshots. That is much easier to get. The Models Resource is incomplete. And with other media, we have to.
  10. Axii (talk) Per proposal.
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
  12. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Yeah, it looks strange and creepy with the t-poses. Per proposal.
  13. PaperSplash (talk) Per proposal. I especially agree that screenshots would be better.
  14. Arend (talk) Pose accuracy should take priority over asserting dominance.
  15. Mario (talk) Only if T-posing/A-posing/bind posing with a blank expression is part of the character's personality or something. However in the case something that's never used in a game but represented by a 3d model surfaces (Walpeach for instance; let's pretend there's never a sketch for her either), and there's an article and an infobox for it, we probably naturally need to use it but I assume the proposal isn't ridiculously strict in that matter.
  16. Jazama (talk) Per all

Oppose

Comments

There's an issue in that many models in earlier 3D games do not have an easily decipherable rigging or animation system. For instance, on The Models Resource, the Luigi's Mansion model uploads lack proper pose data, so they're just automatically T-posed. I do think non T-posed ones should be prioritized, but prohibiting them fully is not the way to go because that's sometimes the only clear option. EDIT: Never mind, I didn't see the "infobox" part of the proposal. I mistook this for a blanket ban. My apologies. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:53, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

Screenshots of the subjects in the game are strongly preferred regardless. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 21:58, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
I agree with Ray Trace. If one did not have an organic looking model, couldn't one just use a screenshot? - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:01, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
That's still assuming you either have an emulator available or can find a high enough quality video at the proper dimensions. In several cases, the preview image on The Models Resource is the most available option (such as for the Mario Party games on N64). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:04, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
There is no shame in taking a screenshot of a YouTube let's play. Not ideal, but I think it is more serviceable than a t-posed model. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:08, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
Well I mean that's still assuming you can find one at all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:09, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
Editors should take all their screenshots with emulation regardless. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 23:27, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
With how rabid Nintendo can be about ROMs and such, that's sometimes easier said than done. (Plus plenty games have outright never been dumped or officially ported, particularly the more obscure ones; there's a reason there's no maps or screenshots for "Champions' Course" in Golf: Japan Course.) That also assumes one's device has the ability to actually run said emulators or the space for them; even with high-dollar gaming laptops I've had trouble with more advanced game system emulation in that regard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:49, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
With the right tools and resources, ROMs aren't difficult to find at all. And, by the way, those are rare cases and have little to do with the proposal which deals with models. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 21:59, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games

create sections for unused/pre-release/prototype graphics on gallery pages 13-1
This has been bouncing around in my head ever since the so-called "gigaleak" happened. This would do exactly as the header says: sprites and models and such that do not appear in gameplay of the finalized game they represent would be moved to a separate gallery, similar to what we do with non-game artwork relative to game artwork. This would allow more easy coverage on them without bloating the "main" gallery with them, particularly in cases where the subject does appear in the final game with different sprites (or with different colors), and would also help encourage more unused sprites to be uploaded in the first place. The other gallery section would be placed underneath the main one.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. DrippingYellow (talk) Nothing wrong I can see with this. Per proposal, and Doc in the comments.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Seems like a straightforwardly good idea to me.
  4. Axii (talk) Per proposal
  5. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick in the comments (and per proposal as well).
  6. Arend (talk) Per all
  7. PaperSplash (talk) Per comments.
  8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  9. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all, and per the discussion in the comments.
  10. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
  11. Windy (talk) Per all.
  12. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  13. Jazama (talk) Per all

Oppose

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) - Opposing because this was done with the gigaleak in mind. The gigaleak consists of unlawfully stolen assets, and one could propose to remove those instead, out of courtesy towards Nintendo.

Comments

@SMRPG They haven't gone after TCRF so far despite them documenting everything from it. I get there's some "fruit of the poisoned tree" moral concern, but as it is, our role is to document known facts. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:02, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

In addition, the current wording of the proposal implies a section for all unused/prototype/pre-release content, not just those that came from the gigaleak (e.g. various prototype/prerelease things from Mario Kart DS came from the kiosk demo, which was distributed to toy stores and game stores by Nintendo themselves). If SMRPG was concerned that hypothetically, those assets would have to be removed as well for Nintendo's concern (in a "one bad apple spoils the bunch" kind of way), then not separating them at all might actually be worse, because hypothetically speaking, Nintendo might request to remove the entire gallery purely because assets from the gigaleak were being included; this of course helps no one. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:52, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
Indeed, I think it would be a good idea even without the gigaleak occurring, though the fact that the hyper-litigious Nintendo hasn't gone after anyone as far as I can tell (most notably TCRF, who documents that sort of thing as the entire purpose of their existence) for reposting them, it doesn't seem to bother them. And while it makes sense for The Spriters Resource to have a blanket ban on what was uncovered there (they're based on assets that actually do appear and are only barely able to keep the site up monetarily), it makes little sense for us to resort solely to using descriptions and offsite links. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:14, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
Being a TCRF user myself, I agree with Doc von Schmeltwick. -- Artwork of Rosalina used for her amiibo. Also seen in Mario Party: The Top 100, Mario Kart Tour and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. FanOfRosalina2007Artwork of Princess Peach for Mario Party: The Top 100 (talk · edits) 16:10, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
Right indeed. I personally think the whole fearmongering aspect of SMRPG's oppose vote is generally... well, not quite in bad faith, but at the very least somewhat misleading or misunderstanding of the situation. As you said, Nintendo hasn't been witchhunting sites like TCRF for detailing things from the gigaleak even four years after the fact, so we should be safe (and again, these sections would include prototypes that weren't part of the gigaleak, too). Though I simply don't think that oppose vote makes a lot of sense even if Nintendo did send their ninjas to anyone detailing the gigaleak, so we might as well make separate sections for any unused/prototype content regardless. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 16:54, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

Shorten disambiguation identifiers "(Super) Nintendo Entertainment System" to "(S)NES"

Do not shorten 7-11
The console names "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" are way too long and clunky, so much so that the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles throughout the wiki, even though we usually don't use abbreviations. And yet, we still use the full console names in the disambiguation identifiers of article names:

The identifiers are so long that they take up more than half of the article name and are less immediately legible than their respective abbreviations. This is particularly jarring on the Mario is Missing! disambiguation page because the abbreviations are used on the page (e.g., "Mario is Missing!, the NES game") but it links to articles with names containing the full console names ("Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System)").

That's why I propose to shorten "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" to "NES" and "SNES" respectively in disambiguation identifiers of article names:

  • Mario is Missing! (NES)
  • Mario is Missing! (SNES)
  • Wario's Woods (NES)
  • Wario's Woods (SNES)

Please note that there is already an article which uses an abbreviated identifier: "Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)", although if we decide to keep the full identifiers, maybe we should rename it to "Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for Super Nintendo Entertainment System)" for consistency?

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: August 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to September 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support (SNES)

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal and similarly passed earlier proposal on shortening identifiers of the second and third Donkey Kong Country games.
  3. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  4. Mario shroom (talk) too long, agree.
  5. SeanWheeler (talk) Let's simplify the names.
  6. PaperSplash (talk) Per proposal and the earlier Donkey Kong Country proposal that Super Mario RPG mentioned, as well as Technetium and Jdtendo in the comments.
  7. Paper Plumm (talk) Per all. It is way too tedious a title, especially when the acronym alternative is just as iconic as the original title.

#Pseudo (talk) Per all.

Oppose (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)

  1. Hewer (talk) I don't see much of a problem with long names, and I'd rather go without the inconsistency created by these being the only shortened console names. And yes, I suppose we should move the Building World page too, like how "Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for 3DS)" got moved to "Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS)".
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. While these shortened versions do make for fine redirects (and honestly, I kinda hope these do get made for other games in the form of redirects, but that's neither here nor there), we probably shouldn't be enforcing these as being the default name unless it's a part of a global move to abbreviate the console names for the articles of every game--not just one random edutainment game.
  3. JanMisali (talk) Per all.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per Hewer and Camwoodstock.
  5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all.
  7. Jazama (talk) Per all
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  9. Axii (talk) Per all.
  10. Metalex123 (talk) Per all.
  11. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.

Comments (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)

now there's a bit of a grey area here, what about consoles like Nintendo 64, Nintendo Switch and so on? It'd feel somewhat weird to abbreviate one but not the others, there'd be an inconsistency. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 09:33, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

The thing with those is that the "Nintendo" part is needed or else it could just be confused as a random number (64) or word (switch). They also just aren't as long. Technetium (talk) 09:57, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
Besides, as I said in the proposal, the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles, but other console names are not abbreviated as frequently. For example, here is an extract of the LodgeNet article: "for the SNES, Nintendo 64, and Nintendo GameCube"; note how only the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's name is abbreviated whereas the other console names are written in full. Jdtendo(T|C) 10:09, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
I think the shortening of N64, GCN, GBA, etc. could use another propasal. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:30, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer Okay, The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens' name is ridiculous. I want to propose a shortening of the title, but I don't know enough about the character. But that just shows why page names shouldn't be too long. SeanWheeler (talk) 20:27, August 14, 2024 (EDT)
...Not to burst your bubble, but we actually had a proposal to move it to its current name last month. Prior to that, the article was merely titled "The Old Psychic Lady", which from what I can tell was actually never actually used like that in the episode. She introduced herself by the full title of "The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens" (whether it used capital letters or not is unknown), and the Marios simply refer her to as the "crazy lady" or "that psycho lady" since they can't properly remember such a long name. Since "The Old Psychic Lady" never was used as one of the official names, and the wiki refers to her by her full name anyway, it was proposed to move the article to the lady's full title (I mean, at least "NES" and "SNES" are officially used abbreviations by Nintendo themselves and their full names were not created for comedic purposes). ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:50, August 14, 2024 (EDT)
Arguments about the name being "ridiculous" or "too long" were used in the proposal linked to by Arend, and much like with those arguments, you haven't substantiated the claim very well. Why is a long page name "ridiculous" when it's just accurately referring to the subject? Why should we sacrifice accuracy in favour of a shorter page name? What about long page names is in any way disadvantageous? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:37, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

Tbh, I'd merge the two Building Worlds together if it were up to me, they're still both represented by the same icon in the map screen and differences can easily be mentioned in the article, it'd also be consistent with the rest of the Mario's Early Years Worlds. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:09, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

Same. Not to mention that the first two (out of three!) paragraphs on both articles are 100% identical outside of the console mentioned (which is really weird and almost BJAODN-worthy regarding the whole "this is a world exclusive to [SYSTEM]" part when the name and icon are identical. Both articles even state that the worlds take place in "an area of pipes and a background of puzzle pieces" (which seems to just be copied blindly from the SNES one and unedited, given that the image for the PC version suggests it takes place in a park with a baseball diamond; but that discrepancy aside, I don't think it's worth splitting when both articles are quite short, and no other world in Mario's Early Years is split based on console version). ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 15:13, September 3, 2024 (EDT)
I did some more research on the two Building Worlds:
  1. So first of all, the two articles even incorrectly described their icons. Both articles state that they're represented by a pair of building blocks. However, that's actually the icon for both versions of Last Letter World. SNES Building World is represented by a jigsaw puzzle with a crayon and the word "red", while PC Building World is represented by a baseball bat and the word "Hit".
  2. Second, the SNES version of Building World is actually still present in the PC version of the game, complete with the jigsaw puzzle icon and the exact same kind of gameplay; however, it's now named Blending World, and as far as I can tell, that name is nowhere mentioned on the wiki pages.
So I suppose it's correct to have these articles split, but they might need to be renamed (if we choose to prioritize the PC version at least), and they certainly need to be rewritten. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 16:38, September 3, 2024 (EDT)

Remove non-Mario music from Super Smash Bros. sound test pages

Remove non-Mario music 16-8
I'm proposing to remove music tracks not related to the Mario series and its sub-series from these pages:

This is mainly because the tracks aren't related to Mario and they take up the most space in the pages...to the point where they're really bloated. If this passes, both Ultimate sound pages listed can be deleted and have their content merged into Super Smash Bros. Ultimate sound test if space allows.

Edit: To clarify, tracks with Mario elements like the Famicom Medley (which has the Dr. Mario theme in it) won't be affected by the removals.

Proposer: Mushzoom (talk)
Deadline: September 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Mushzoom (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Sparks (talk) Recently there have been proposals to get rid of non-Mario content in the Super Smash Bros. series. The articles for Taunt and List of Snake's codec conversations only have the Mario related ones for them. This one aims to accomplish a similar goal, so I support.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer and Sparks.
  4. SeanWheeler (talk) With crossovers as big as Smash, it would be good to clean up the stuff not related to Mario. For years, our coverage policy about crossovers had us cover as much Smash as Smash Wiki. Now, we've got proposals reducing Smash coverage to focus on this wiki's franchise just like how the other wikis would handle Smash. Bulbapedia focuses on the Pokémon in Smash. Funny enough, before Smash Wiki came to NIWA, Bulbapedia linked to Super Mario Wiki for the other Smash characters. It's good to not be a rival to Smash Wiki, and reducing the sound tests to just the Mario songs is another step forward. Now to reduce the list of Spirits.
  5. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. While we personally probably wouldn't have touched this until later (we have a very "just say when" approach to our Smash proposals, if you haven't noticed... ;P), we figure it's best to clear this up now if it's fine with everyone else. Anyone looking for a full list of songs is probably checking SSBWiki by this point, and so we should probably narrow it down to only songs relevant to Mario (as well as Donkey Kong/Yoshi/Wario/Mario Kart/other such stuff, of course) by now.
  7. Koopa con Carne (talk) Ah, yes, "One-Winged Angel" and "Awake", my favorite musical pieces from the Mario series. Per proposal and Sparks.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) These tables are nearly direct copies of the "Music" list articles on SmashWiki. Just use the {{NIWA}} template in the References section of each article to provide easy access to the complete song list for each game.
  9. Jdtendo (talk) Per all. Maybe we should start considering Smash Bros. as a "guest appearance" series?
  10. Axii (talk) Per proposer. As always, I support trimming Smash coverage.
  11. Mario (talk) Information isn't really relevant to the goals of MarioWiki. I do think Smash Bros. is still a thorough crossover series and Mario plays a significant role in coverage, so not really Mario's guest appearance, but coverage on MarioWiki should be conditional. We need to remain focused.
  12. Jazama (talk) Per all
  13. EvieMaybe (talk) we don't need to eat smashwiki's lunch.
  14. Yook Bab-imba (talk) Anything that reduces the amount of Smash content gets a yes from me, there's a proper wiki for that.
  15. YoYo (talk) per all
  16. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.

Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick - I don't really see this being an issue - especially since some of the non-Mario music we otherwise do have representation of, like Mute City and Big Blue in MK8. (Also I would appreciate not having my upcoming omnibus proposal pushed back because people won't stop making other Smash proposals piece-by-piece when it's already been stated by a patroller that it'd be better to do things all at once - and that these "piecemeal" ones shouldn't be done.)
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Doc, plus this would create an inconsistency: the stage list pages list the music tracks for each stage, except for Ultimate because in that game every stage's music is just all the music from that stage's franchise. The Ultimate sound test page we have now doubles as the listing for stage music for Ultimate's stages, so removing it creates a hole in our coverage where Ultimate is the only game in the series that we don't provide that information for. Coverage inconsistencies like this keep arising as people keep making one-at-a-time proposals removing individual elements of Smash coverage, so I agree with Doc that at this point, handling all of it in one would be a much better idea.
  3. Tails777 (talk) I remain pretty steadfast in my general opposing stance on removing Smash content. I have come to terms with some merges (fighters, stages etc), but I still remain against the idea of removing this stuff. Smash is a crossover in the same way that Mario & Sonic and Fortune Street are and the size of the crossover does not change my stance on that. I'm not saying cover everything with an article, but I remain on the side of covering this stuff in some capacity regardless. Per all.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Doc. Plus, I'm not really a fan of having pages dedicated to incomplete lists — I feel this way about trophies and spirits, too, if I'm honest. I think a page titled "List of X" should have all Xes on it; though I don't entirely know if that all-or-nothing philosophy holds up in practical circumstances.
  5. Metalex123 (talk) Per Doc. I'm not a huge fan of Smash full coverage on MarioWiki personally, but it was moreso because in the past, fully non-Mario elements received articles, like say, Mementos, Sephiroth, and the Killer Eye. It makes sense to keep the info of these pages somewhere on the wiki, in stuff like list pages, while making it obvious the wiki does not focus on that content. I don't like the recent proposals asking to delete everything Smash-related that isn't Mario, when they're clearly on either lists pages, or merged into the game page themselves, both cases making it obvious the wiki does not focus on that series.
  6. Arend (talk) Per all.
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
  8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments

Just to be sure, music like Wrecking Crew Medley, Famicom Medley (which has the Dr. Mario theme as part of it), Title Theme - 3D Hot Rally, and maybe more won't be affected right. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 17:42, August 30, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah this proposals needs exceptions for like the Famicom Medley (I think there are two of these now) that has Mario elements to it. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT)
Yes, they won't be affected. Mushzoom (talk) 17:46, August 30, 2024 (EDT)
That creates the obvious issue of making it look like those are the only songs available for the stages they are listed under, when in fact they mix with other "generic" Nintendo songs. To say nothing on how some Mario stages have "miscellaneous" themes available in-game - one example that comes to mind is the Tetris theme available in the Luigi's Mansion stage. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:59, August 31, 2024 (EDT)
I guess we could put some kind of disclaimer on the music list pages to explain that (along the lines of "there are multiple songs in this category, here's only the Mario-related ones"). Also, I don't think this proposal affects the stage pages/lists (as I talked about in my vote), so the individual stage articles for Mario stages will be able to keep their music lists at least. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:20, August 31, 2024 (EDT)
I suppose, but it's still nice to have them all in one place (I'll admit, I'm nowhere near as invested in this one as I was with the Pokemon one. If the pages included actual music files, I probably would be, due to my general fear of files being deleted). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:00, August 31, 2024 (EDT)
It's not like those stage list pages like List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros. are particularly great to begin with. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:46, September 1, 2024 (EDT)
Smash list articles in general are just plain bad. They're slightly trimmed down dumps of text from merged articles, and it's very clear that nobody wants to work on them, and for a good reason. Smash isn't Mario, even before merge these pages just sat there collecting dust, and I still don't understand why Smash is being treated like a sacred cow by some editors. Axii (talk) 15:13, September 1, 2024 (EDT)

@Koopa con Carne - Well I mean, technically, no one's gonna persuade me that Skowl's battle theme isn't just One-Winged Angel :P Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:00, August 31, 2024 (EDT)

It's David Wise's homage, "Winged Angel". -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:07, August 31, 2024 (EDT)

Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) has started a discussion right here somewhat related to this proposal and other ones that had passed concerning Super Smash Bros. coverage on the wiki. I encourage other folks to check it out. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:09, August 31, 2024 (EDT)

I saw it. It's more or less the same as what we have now, but with the list pages merged into the game pages, as well as non-Super Mario elements being added. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:12, August 31, 2024 (EDT)

Characters with multiple galleries should have them divided by decade, not medium

With a margin of 4 votes, over 50% approval is required. 69.2% approve the first place option. CONSENSUS REACHED

divide galleries by decade, but keep one for miscellaneous pieces 5-9-1

This proposal concerns the galleries for Mario, Luigi, Peach, Toad, Bowser, Daisy, Yoshi, Wario, Waluigi, and Donkey Kong. In years past, all of these characters originally had single gallery pages for all of the visual material we had, like most subjects with galleries. Overtime, as editors uploaded more material and new games were published, this became unsustainable for them. Their galleries became too big, had difficulty to load for some users, and - for me at least - became difficult to navigate visually. The decision to divide their galleries into smaller ones was wise and substantive. However, the decision to divide them up by the type of media (i.e. artwork, scans, sprites and models, screenshots, etc.) was not. It simply mitigated the problem, and only for the short-term.

Games have continued to come out, editors continue to upload visual treasures, and unless something truly catastrophic happens at Nintendo or the global video game industry, they will continue to produce video games, movies, merchandise, etc. for decades to come. We will inevitably find ourselves with the same problem we had before: galleries too large to navigate efficiently, and even to edit. I personally feel we are already at that point with some of these galleries, especially for Mario.

I would like us to change how we divide these gallery pages for a more permeant solution, where we divide them by decade, not the media. Using our main man as an example, Gallery:Mario artwork (media), Gallery:Mario artwork (miscellaneous), Gallery:Mario scans, Gallery:Mario sprites and models, and Gallery:Mario screenshots will be replaced by Gallery:Mario (1981-1989), Gallery:Mario (1990-1999), Gallery:Mario (2000-2009), Gallery:Mario (2010-2019), and Gallery:Mario (2020-present). Each gallery with be subdivided the same we we typically subdivide galleries (artwork, sprites and models, screenshots, with variance in between as needed for things like scans), but it will only be media released during those respective time periods. At the end of a decade, the Gallery:Mario (2020-present) would be renamed Gallery:Mario (2020-2029), and a new one would be established titled Gallery:Mario (2030-present). For characters that debuted at the very end of a decade, like Daisy, a special amendment would be made where the first gallery would be "Gallery:Princess Daisy (1989-1999)", but all subsequent ones would be the same.

Here is an illustrative example of what one of these galleries would look like, more or less.

The reasons why I think this would work are as follows:

  1. This is sustainable, whereas the current setup is not. Sans time travel, Nintendo will not be publishing any more games during past decades, so there likely would not be any instances where we would need to consider further trimming or splitting galleries for these characters.
  2. This will make the galleries for these characters smaller, ensuring they are more digestible for readers to browse and easier for editors to curate. I really do think some of these galleries have become quite the beasts, and the seer sizes of them make them a little less enjoyable to skim. And ultimately, I would really like visitors to enjoy what we do here and appreciate the visual material in the galleries. Editing some of these galleries as is strains my laptop, and I suspect I am not the only one.
  3. We already organize the material within galleries by release date, so it would be easy enough to divide be decade.
  4. I strongly suspect the user who wants to see screenshots of, say, Bowser in the first Super Mario Bros. is the same type of user who would want to see artwork and sprites of him from that game, so it makes more sense for them to be accessible in the same gallery.
  5. It will be easier for editors to incorporate the new material they come across. Rather than worry they are putting a piece of artwork for a character in the wrong place, they can simply work on the latest gallery for the character.

"But Nintendo101," I hear you type. "This is all fine and dandy, but why would we use the Gregorian calendar instead of console generations or even the consoles themselves?" You ask such good questions. I really respect that about that you. Not all of the material in these galleries come from video games, and it is inherently more intuitive for viewers not very versed in gaming culture to use the same dates they use in their everyday lives. There are also some disagreements on which consoles belong to which generations. So while there are certainly other ways this material can be subdivided, the Gregorian calendar is the simplest.

I offer three options:

  1. Support: Reorganize the affected galleries by decades, not medium, including material currently listed under "miscellaneous." Even miscellaneous pieces were released at some point, and often reflect the style of the games released around the same time, so it would make sense to cluster them together.
  2. Support: Reorganize the affected galleries by decades, but keep the ones for miscellaneous artwork separate. For those who feel like general promotional material makes sense in a gallery of its own. Using the earlier example, there would still be a Gallery:Mario (miscellaneous) alongside those decade articles.
  3. Oppose: Keep galleries separated by medium, not decade. This would also be the "do nothing" option.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: September 8th, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: Reorganize these galleries by decade, including material currently listed under "miscellaneous"

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) It would be nice to have every image applying to certain games, be it artwork, sprites, screenshots, and so forth, on the same page.
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) This would have the added benefit of reducing the main gallery page for each character to be solely a disambiguation, instead of confusingly containing links to sub-galleries while also housing miscellaneous images on the same page.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) after talking with N101 on discord, i understood the proposal better. i'm still not sure what we'll do for artwork we don't know the date of, but this is a good idea.
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.

Support: Reorganize these galleries by decade, but keep the ones for miscellaneous artwork separate

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Secondary option, per Mario's comments.
  2. PaperSplash (talk) I do think it makes more sense to keep miscellaneous artwork separate.
  3. Mario (talk) If this works out, I'll consider the first option too. Anyway, this isn't sustainable in the future. We're going to need to split Mario's gallery even more whenever we like it or not. Split by decade is going to future proof it but if the resulting pages are too small then we can consider merges in the future.
  4. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  5. DryBonesBandit (talk) I only vote this over Option 1 because it's difficult to name a source in the captions for misc. artwork when the uploaders may not include one.
  6. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
  8. Super Mario RPG (talk) Second choice.
  9. Paper Plumm (talk) Per all.

Oppose: Keep these galleries organized by medium

#Paper Plumm (talk) I think this is just a better way of organising it. Having it split by its current category provides a more cohesive showcase.

  1. PnnyCrygr (talk) Per all. Sorting them by decade just makes the sprites, models, promo art, and scans harder to find in a jumbled clutter of knick-knacks. Sorting by medium is more convenient and uses less space. And as Evie said, sorting by medium helps to specifically look up an image of one medium among those of same medium.

#EvieMaybe (talk) as both a pixel and traditional artist, being able to specifically look up all of mario's sprites or all of mario's artwork for reference material is massively helpful. i'm willing to change my vote if an option that doesn't impact this is proposed, but for now i'm opposing

Comments

Some art in Mario's gallery, we don't know a definite year they're from. File:Marioart8.png, for instance, is uploaded on 2013 but this may originate earlier due the rendering style being reminiscent of the later 2000s. In case we get promo art of Mario between, say, 2009 and 2010 where we can't 100% verify the date (for instance, this is uploaded in 2010, but again this may be years earlier), is there a way we can determine where they'll be placed? Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:26, September 1, 2024 (EDT)

I think the first support option would necessitate some detective work, but if one is wary that we do not have the adequate tools or insight necessary to confidently track that information down, I think the second support option would be adequate, where a miscellaneous gallery would still be maintained for neutral promotional material of unclear release date. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:30, September 1, 2024 (EDT)
That's also an issue that I've been meaning to bring up: "miscellaneous art" sections are ordered with no rhyme or reason whatsoever and never have any dates on anything. Both of those need to be fixed; the origins and times should all be found whenever possible. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:27, September 1, 2024 (EDT)
I do actually try to organize misc art whenever I come across that page and decide to do this. In Mario's case, at one point, I did put all the solo art in one spot, first, and then clumped by age of art. Then the group art is next, and I tried ordering it on like how much Mario is there or how clean the art is. Of course, the page has been drastically changed since, but you may have seen remnants of how I organized it. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:38, September 1, 2024 (EDT)

@Paper Plumm these galleries were split into pieces in the first place because they were too large to load efficiently or even edit. The current set-up only ensures we will have to do this again because Nintendo will not stop publishing games and assets. What would you suggest we do to ensure this does not happen? - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:33, September 2, 2024 (EDT)

Hypothetically speaking, what if we split the galleries by decade AND medium? (e.g. Gallery:Mario artwork (media, 1981-1989) or Gallery:Bowser sprites (1991-1999)? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 15:00, September 3, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend I personally would not be interested in a character having so many small galleries dedicated to themselves that could otherwise be consolidated into a focused few. Additionally, your suggestion would not address @EvieMaybe's desire to have all assets on one page - something that I maintain is unsustainable and would have to be split anyways due to the sheer volume of material. From my perspective, we have already reached that point. The current galleries for Mario and Luigi are straight-up unusable, or at least they are on my end and I suspect I am not the alone in that. My laptop struggles loading these galleries (therefore, the point of splitting them in the first place is no longer working) and this is particularly exasperated when I try to correct a mistake and triply so if I want to preview a revision. When these galleries do load, I have difficulty finding what I want. I have been puzzled by some of the opposition and lack of support for this proposal. No sustainable alternatives have been introduced that would address the points I outlined above, and I principally do not think it is wise for us to maintain systemic policies that are unsustainable. While this proposal may not satiate everything people want in galleries, I encourage the opposition to consider that perfect is the enemy of the good. - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:33, September 3, 2024 (EDT)
i'm okay with having to load two pages, personally. the issue isn't having everything you want in exactly one gallery, is not having all the stuff you DON'T want mixed in with itEvieMaybe (talk) 18:26, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

I think it would be better to distinguish by console generation. (e.g. Gallery:Mario artwork (media, 1981-1998) (Until to SNES/Game Boy (GB/SGB only); 17 years), Gallery:Mario artwork (media, 1996-2012) (Nintendo 64 to Nintendo DS/Wii; 16 years) and Mario (media, 2011-present) (Nintendo 3DS to present; 13 years). Windy (talk) 10:23, September 8, 2024 (EDT)


@Nintendo101 Fair point. - User:Paper Plumm

Prioritize Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) names for all recurring Paper Mario items that appear in that game

Prioritize Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door (Nintendo Switch) item names 9-0
As opposed to their more "recent" names from Super Paper Mario. For all intents and purposes, I believe The Thousand-Year Door's remake should be treated as the more "recent" game as while it is simply a remake of an older game, The Thousand-Year Door's remake also just came out this year on Nintendo's most recently released system to date, while Super Paper Mario released over 17 years ago and is currently only officially playable on now-discontinued systems.

To reiterate from a more practical standpoint, prioritizing the most recent original game with those items that came out 17 years ago as opposed to the very recent remake only causes unneeded confusion among users who are more likely to be looking them up in relation to the latter. I can attest to this myself: during my own playthrough of The Thousand-Year Door's remake, I consulted this wiki's pages for items multiple times and was confused as to why we were still using the now not-so-recent Super Paper Mario names for them as opposed to the ones I was seeing in-game in this very recent remake.

Moreover, there are some names for items in The Thousand-Year Door's remake that have been altered from both their appearances in original game and Super Paper Mario when applicable: namely all uses of "Shroom" have been changed to "Mushroom", and we do reflect those changes now in our article titles and leads, treating The Thousand-Year Door's remake as the most recent game in those instances. Now, I can understand the likely argument for using both those and the Super Paper Mario names where applicable: most of the item names in The Thousand-Year Door's remake apart from the "Shroom" stuff are unchanged from their appearances in the less recent original game, but we can reflect names unique to the more recent remake, I suppose. But that still seems somewhat arbitrary and needlessly inconsistent to me, especially in cases where the names used in the original The Thousand-Year Door, Super Paper Mario and the former game's remake all differ (see Mushroom Fry and Mushroom Roast).

Proposer: PaperSplash (talk)
Deadline: September 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. PaperSplash (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) We did this for Super Mario RPG, right? This change should be unprecedented. Per proposal.
  4. Hewer (talk) Sure, thought we were already doing this.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  6. RHG1951 (talk) Per all.
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  9. Super Mario RPG (talk) Most recent game, so that makes sense.

Oppose

Comments

Delete the page "List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses"

canceled by proposer
Before I get started, this is not what I would consider a "piecemeal" proposal, since it concerns bosses, which do not hold the same level of prominence to the Super Smash Bros. series like items, characters, and stages. I'd argue that music is more integral to Super Smash Bros. (or games in general, for that matter), because they can be heard throughout a game, and a proposal of trimming those to Super Mario passed recently by a margin of exactly twice the number of votes.

Part of the reasoning behind this proposal is the fact that most of the bosses are not from the Super Mario franchise, except for Giant Donkey Kong, Giga Bowser, Metal Mario, and Petey Piranha, none of whom will be affected by the scope of this proposal.

If this proposal passes, the List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses page will be deleted, and the existing redirects will point either to the game pages if the boss makes only one Smash Bros. appearance (for example, Tabuu to Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Bosses) or become disambiguation pages if the boss has two or more appearances in the series (e.g. Master Hand, who appears in every Super Smash Bros. game). The list page is collecting dust on the wiki, it's hardly accessible to readers, and I believe this is more feasible option if we want to highlight their relation to Super Mario.

The game pages already mention the bosses. In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, for example, the bosses are already summarized in their own section, and same goes for Ultimate. If there's any interaction with Super Mario content, that can be highlighted in the respective games' Bosses section. The in-depth content's already on SmashWiki, so duplicating the content of the non-Super Mario material contradicts our MarioWiki:Once and only once policy when taking the wider network of NIWA into account (a point originally raised by @ThePowerPlayer on a different proposal).

Lastly, I notice both Dracula and Ganon have sections for their appearances in Captain N, something that is obviously not part of the Super Smash Bros. series. Therefore, this adds to another reason why it would be better to delete the list page, since the page title implies having content involving only the Super Smash Bros. series. The respective boss's Captain N sections can be integrated with the Captain N: The Game Master page. Ganon's Nintendo Land section can be deleted entirely, having no relation to Super Mario. Ganon has a Zelda TV series section, which at least has previews in SMB Super Show! going for it. Basically, for the reasons mentioned in this paragraph, both Ganon's and Dracula's redirects will also become disambiguation pages in addition to the recurring Super Smash Bros. bosses with two or more appearances (ex. Master Hand).

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: September 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per above.

Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - No. Just no. "Once and only once" has nothing to do with what other wikis do. And when describing a crossover where any element can interact, including the Mario-based ones (unlike, say, Nintendo Land or Supercade, where everything was very segregated), it is our prerogative to describe what crosses over, not outright ignore things. Also, unlike the Pokemon thing, there are Mario based bosses with Metal Mario, Giant DK, Giga Bowser, and Petey Piranha (as you brought up), so the arguments from that proposal don't really apply - it's fine to have them all in one place. I'll again link my proposal idea for people to read; if that proposal passes and gets enacted, I will be happy to revisit this subject (and might even support it), but I think that should be done first. Also, this should be a Talk Page Proposal, not a normal Proposal.
  2. Tails777 (talk) I feel this poses no real issue in keeping, especially the bosses present in the Subspace Emissary, an adventure that A. is an crossover adventure that contains Mario series characters interacting with these bosses and B. contains a Mario series boss to begin with. I'll reiterate, I don't mind a lot of these list articles for Smash content and I feel that's far better than just outright removing this stuff. A list of bosses is fine, as it's covering what appears in modes that Mario series characters participate in without going out of the way to create individual articles on. And to put my two cents into this whole "We have other wikis for this content" (as I probably already have), you could make the same arguments towards Sonic, Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy as we do towards Smash; wikis exist for those too, yet we still give coverage to characters there. Smash is as much of a crossover as any of those franchises. Bigger, sure, but it's still a crossover.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) While we're probably the biggest opponents of the various Smash pages, our problem isn't the fact they exist. The list articles themselves are fine enough, and the list of bosses is no exception; given the mere existence of Giga Bowser, the idea of deleting it is a big no-no. We would personally defer to how we handle the various List of fighters articles; non-Mario bosses get their overviews in the article, while splitting the more Mario-relevant bosses or just covering them in their corresponding articles if they already gave one. Outright wiping all the bosses is tremendous overkill.
  4. BMfan08 (talk) Per all. Even as a supporter of truncating Smash info, this is pretty harsh.
  5. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  6. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.

Comments

Decide how to handle conjectural sections about Super Mario Galaxy planets/areas

With a margin of 4 votes, over 50% approval is required. 100% approve the first place option. CONSENSUS REACHED

Use {{conjecture}} and {{dev data}} on appropriate sections 1-0-5-0
Yesterday, I've been trying to tag sections about unofficially named areas in Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 with {{conjecture|section=yes}} and sections about areas whose names come from development data such as internal filenames in those games with {{dev data|section=yes}}, until someone undid my edits regarding the article Gateway Galaxy, so I had to undo my edits regarding the articles Good Egg Galaxy and Honeyhive Galaxy. Now to me, it makes no sense for the beginning text for the Layout and Planets/Areas sections to read as follows: 

'''NOTE''': Unless otherwise noted, all names are unofficial.

NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, all names are unofficial.

As such, I offer the following options:

Option 1
Add the allnames to the {{conjecture}} template and tag layout and planets/areas sections with {{conjecture|allnames=yes|section=yes}} AND sections about areas whose names come from development data with {{dev data|section=yes}}.
Option 2
Add the allnames to the {{conjecture}} template and tag ONLY the layout and planets/areas sections with {{conjecture|allnames=yes|section=yes}}.
Option 3
ONLY tag sections regarding the unofficially named planet(s)/area with {{conjecture|section=yes}} and sections about areas whose names come from development data with {{dev data|section=yes}}.
Option 4
Do NOTHING.

Take a look at the following samples for the first three options: 

====Layout====
{{conjecture|allnames=yes|section=yes}}
=====Starting Planet=====
[[File:Gatewayplanet.png|200px|thumb|left|The Starting Planet]]
This is the first planet that Mario explores in the game. It is where Mario first wakes up after being blasted off [[Peach's Castle]] by [[Kamek]] in the opening cutscene. Here, he meets two yellow [[Luma]]s as well as an apricot Luma who transform into [[Star Bunny|Star Bunnies]] and asks him to play hide and seek with them. When they are all found, a large light beam goes down from the sky, and the gateway appears, and it is where Mario meets [[Rosalina]] for the first time. The planet itself has three holes in its surface (two of which connect to each other directly through the center of the planet), many small patches of flowers, two connecting [[Warp Pipe]]s, several [[rubbery bulb]]s, two small pools of water, two small cottages, a ring of vertically-positioned rock columns, and a castle-like monument on the top. The planet is also surrounded by a light blue atmosphere. Later in the game, Mario must use the power of the [[Red Star]] to collect 100 Purple Coins on this planet, enabling him to use the Red Star onboard the [[Comet Observatory]] as well. Rosalina mentions that this planet is dear to her and she looks forward to visiting it with the Lumas every one hundred years.
{{multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|width=200
|image1=SMG Gateway Garden.png
|caption1=The Starting Planet's garden area
|image2=SMG Gateway Castle.png
|caption2=The castle structure on the Starting Planet
}}
[[Deep Dark Galaxy#Gateway Galaxy Planet|A planet]] found in the [[Deep Dark Galaxy]] resembles the Starting Planet of the Gateway Galaxy. It can be seen from the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Wooden Planet|Wooden Planet]], as well as the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Starting Planet|Starting Planet]]. The planet is accessible via a [[cannon]] on the latter, and is much smaller than the original one. There are three [[Goomba]]s here, and a yellow screw that can be unscrewed by [[Spin|spinning]] it, which will cause the planet to quickly shrink and disappear, at the same time revealing a large ring of [[coin]]s.

After the credits have rolled, when the player has collected 120 [[Power Star]]s and defeated [[Bowser]] for a second time, the ending sequence that plays occurs here. In the sequence, Rosalina thanks the player and says that she will watch over them from beyond the stars. She then walks into the door of the small blue-roofed cottage on the planet and comes out of the door of the Gate, thereby revealing that the two are connected. It is also revealed that the Comet Observatory is most likely hidden somewhere on the planet (although it cannot be seen when the player actively explores it), as it emerges from behind the planet after Rosalina transforms it into a comet once again and pilots it away.

=====[[Black hole|Black Hole]] Planet=====
{{dev data|section=yes}}
[[File:Black Hole Planet.png|200px|thumb|left|[[Mario]] collecting [[Star Chip]]s on the {{conjectural|Black Hole Planet|planet}}.]]
The Black Hole Planet<ref>Name confirmed by files found on noclip. [https://noclip.website/#smg/HeavensDoorGalaxy].</ref> is a planet made of nothing more than dirt, grass and stone. There is a [[black hole]] at its center, and it is also under constant bombardment by a [[meteor]] shower. There are five yellow [[Star Chip]]s on this planet that Mario must collect in order to proceed, as well as a rock with a [[1-Up Mushroom]] on top of it.
{{br}}

=====Metal Planets=====
[[File:SMG Grand Goomba.png|thumb|left|200px|Mario on the planet]]
[[File:Metal Planets.png|200px|thumb|The two {{conjectural|Metal Planets|planet}} in the Gateway Galaxy.]]
These are two metal planets which look very similar to one another. Both planets are brown in color, and have what appears to be metallic green power cables embedded in their surfaces which snake around the planets. In addition, both planets have [[Shock Wave Generator]]s that, when spun, will send vibrations across them, stunning all enemies within range. There are many [[Goomba]]s on both of these planets, as well as several [[Crystal (Super Mario Galaxy)|crystal]]s. Also, on the second of the two is a [[Big Goomba|Grand Goomba]], the only one in the entire game. The Flipswitch Area is located inside the second Metal Planet, and is accessed via a [[Warp Pipe]].
{{br}}

=====Flipswitch Area=====
[[File:Flipswitch Area.png|200px|thumb|left|The {{conjectural|Flipswitch Area|area}}, located inside the second of the two Metal Planets.]]
[[File:SMG Gateway Metal Planet Interior.png|200px|thumb|The draining device]]
When the player enters the Warp Pipe on the bottom of the second Metal Planet, he will be taken to an inverted, spherical metal chamber with many [[Goomba]]s and [[Flipswitch Panel]]s inside. The goal is to shut down the machine and save the first of seven [[Grand Star]]s in the game by activating every Flipswitch Panel found on the inside of the planet to change all of them from yellow to blue, while simultaneously avoiding the many Goombas and electric platforms. There are several coins floating in the air as well.
{{br}}

====Layout====
{{conjecture|allnames=yes|section=yes}}
=====Starting Planet=====
[[File:Gatewayplanet.png|200px|thumb|left|The Starting Planet]]
This is the first planet that Mario explores in the game. It is where Mario first wakes up after being blasted off [[Peach's Castle]] by [[Kamek]] in the opening cutscene. Here, he meets two yellow [[Luma]]s as well as an apricot Luma who transform into [[Star Bunny|Star Bunnies]] and asks him to play hide and seek with them. When they are all found, a large light beam goes down from the sky, and the gateway appears, and it is where Mario meets [[Rosalina]] for the first time. The planet itself has three holes in its surface (two of which connect to each other directly through the center of the planet), many small patches of flowers, two connecting [[Warp Pipe]]s, several [[rubbery bulb]]s, two small pools of water, two small cottages, a ring of vertically-positioned rock columns, and a castle-like monument on the top. The planet is also surrounded by a light blue atmosphere. Later in the game, Mario must use the power of the [[Red Star]] to collect 100 Purple Coins on this planet, enabling him to use the Red Star onboard the [[Comet Observatory]] as well. Rosalina mentions that this planet is dear to her and she looks forward to visiting it with the Lumas every one hundred years.
{{multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|width=200
|image1=SMG Gateway Garden.png
|caption1=The Starting Planet's garden area
|image2=SMG Gateway Castle.png
|caption2=The castle structure on the Starting Planet
}}
[[Deep Dark Galaxy#Gateway Galaxy Planet|A planet]] found in the [[Deep Dark Galaxy]] resembles the Starting Planet of the Gateway Galaxy. It can be seen from the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Wooden Planet|Wooden Planet]], as well as the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Starting Planet|Starting Planet]]. The planet is accessible via a [[cannon]] on the latter, and is much smaller than the original one. There are three [[Goomba]]s here, and a yellow screw that can be unscrewed by [[Spin|spinning]] it, which will cause the planet to quickly shrink and disappear, at the same time revealing a large ring of [[coin]]s.

After the credits have rolled, when the player has collected 120 [[Power Star]]s and defeated [[Bowser]] for a second time, the ending sequence that plays occurs here. In the sequence, Rosalina thanks the player and says that she will watch over them from beyond the stars. She then walks into the door of the small blue-roofed cottage on the planet and comes out of the door of the Gate, thereby revealing that the two are connected. It is also revealed that the Comet Observatory is most likely hidden somewhere on the planet (although it cannot be seen when the player actively explores it), as it emerges from behind the planet after Rosalina transforms it into a comet once again and pilots it away.

=====[[Black hole|Black Hole]] Planet=====
[[File:Black Hole Planet.png|200px|thumb|left|[[Mario]] collecting [[Star Chip]]s on the {{conjectural|Black Hole Planet|planet}}.]]
The Black Hole Planet<ref>Name confirmed by files found on noclip. [https://noclip.website/#smg/HeavensDoorGalaxy].</ref> is a planet made of nothing more than dirt, grass and stone. There is a [[black hole]] at its center, and it is also under constant bombardment by a [[meteor]] shower. There are five yellow [[Star Chip]]s on this planet that Mario must collect in order to proceed, as well as a rock with a [[1-Up Mushroom]] on top of it.
{{br}}

=====Metal Planets=====
[[File:SMG Grand Goomba.png|thumb|left|200px|Mario on the planet]]
[[File:Metal Planets.png|200px|thumb|The two {{conjectural|Metal Planets|planet}} in the Gateway Galaxy.]]
These are two metal planets which look very similar to one another. Both planets are brown in color, and have what appears to be metallic green power cables embedded in their surfaces which snake around the planets. In addition, both planets have [[Shock Wave Generator]]s that, when spun, will send vibrations across them, stunning all enemies within range. There are many [[Goomba]]s on both of these planets, as well as several [[Crystal (Super Mario Galaxy)|crystal]]s. Also, on the second of the two is a [[Big Goomba|Grand Goomba]], the only one in the entire game. The Flipswitch Area is located inside the second Metal Planet, and is accessed via a [[Warp Pipe]].
{{br}}

=====Flipswitch Area=====
[[File:Flipswitch Area.png|200px|thumb|left|The {{conjectural|Flipswitch Area|area}}, located inside the second of the two Metal Planets.]]
[[File:SMG Gateway Metal Planet Interior.png|200px|thumb|The draining device]]
When the player enters the Warp Pipe on the bottom of the second Metal Planet, he will be taken to an inverted, spherical metal chamber with many [[Goomba]]s and [[Flipswitch Panel]]s inside. The goal is to shut down the machine and save the first of seven [[Grand Star]]s in the game by activating every Flipswitch Panel found on the inside of the planet to change all of them from yellow to blue, while simultaneously avoiding the many Goombas and electric platforms. There are several coins floating in the air as well.
{{br}}

====Layout====
=====Starting Planet=====
{{conjecture|section=yes}}
[[File:Gatewayplanet.png|200px|thumb|left|The Starting Planet]]
This is the first planet that Mario explores in the game. It is where Mario first wakes up after being blasted off [[Peach's Castle]] by [[Kamek]] in the opening cutscene. Here, he meets two yellow [[Luma]]s as well as an apricot Luma who transform into [[Star Bunny|Star Bunnies]] and asks him to play hide and seek with them. When they are all found, a large light beam goes down from the sky, and the gateway appears, and it is where Mario meets [[Rosalina]] for the first time. The planet itself has three holes in its surface (two of which connect to each other directly through the center of the planet), many small patches of flowers, two connecting [[Warp Pipe]]s, several [[rubbery bulb]]s, two small pools of water, two small cottages, a ring of vertically-positioned rock columns, and a castle-like monument on the top. The planet is also surrounded by a light blue atmosphere. Later in the game, Mario must use the power of the [[Red Star]] to collect 100 Purple Coins on this planet, enabling him to use the Red Star onboard the [[Comet Observatory]] as well. Rosalina mentions that this planet is dear to her and she looks forward to visiting it with the Lumas every one hundred years.
{{multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|width=200
|image1=SMG Gateway Garden.png
|caption1=The Starting Planet's garden area
|image2=SMG Gateway Castle.png
|caption2=The castle structure on the Starting Planet
}}
[[Deep Dark Galaxy#Gateway Galaxy Planet|A planet]] found in the [[Deep Dark Galaxy]] resembles the Starting Planet of the Gateway Galaxy. It can be seen from the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Wooden Planet|Wooden Planet]], as well as the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Starting Planet|Starting Planet]]. The planet is accessible via a [[cannon]] on the latter, and is much smaller than the original one. There are three [[Goomba]]s here, and a yellow screw that can be unscrewed by [[Spin|spinning]] it, which will cause the planet to quickly shrink and disappear, at the same time revealing a large ring of [[coin]]s.

After the credits have rolled, when the player has collected 120 [[Power Star]]s and defeated [[Bowser]] for a second time, the ending sequence that plays occurs here. In the sequence, Rosalina thanks the player and says that she will watch over them from beyond the stars. She then walks into the door of the small blue-roofed cottage on the planet and comes out of the door of the Gate, thereby revealing that the two are connected. It is also revealed that the Comet Observatory is most likely hidden somewhere on the planet (although it cannot be seen when the player actively explores it), as it emerges from behind the planet after Rosalina transforms it into a comet once again and pilots it away.

=====[[Black hole|Black Hole]] Planet=====
{{dev data|section=yes}}
[[File:Black Hole Planet.png|200px|thumb|left|[[Mario]] collecting [[Star Chip]]s on the {{conjectural|Black Hole Planet|planet}}.]]
The Black Hole Planet<ref>Name confirmed by files found on noclip. [https://noclip.website/#smg/HeavensDoorGalaxy].</ref> is a planet made of nothing more than dirt, grass and stone. There is a [[black hole]] at its center, and it is also under constant bombardment by a [[meteor]] shower. There are five yellow [[Star Chip]]s on this planet that Mario must collect in order to proceed, as well as a rock with a [[1-Up Mushroom]] on top of it.
{{br}}

=====Metal Planets=====
{{conjecture|section=yes}}
[[File:SMG Grand Goomba.png|thumb|left|200px|Mario on the planet]]
[[File:Metal Planets.png|200px|thumb|The two {{conjectural|Metal Planets|planet}} in the Gateway Galaxy.]]
These are two metal planets which look very similar to one another. Both planets are brown in color, and have what appears to be metallic green power cables embedded in their surfaces which snake around the planets. In addition, both planets have [[Shock Wave Generator]]s that, when spun, will send vibrations across them, stunning all enemies within range. There are many [[Goomba]]s on both of these planets, as well as several [[Crystal (Super Mario Galaxy)|crystal]]s. Also, on the second of the two is a [[Big Goomba|Grand Goomba]], the only one in the entire game. The Flipswitch Area is located inside the second Metal Planet, and is accessed via a [[Warp Pipe]].
{{br}}

=====Flipswitch Area=====
{{conjecture|section=yes}}
[[File:Flipswitch Area.png|200px|thumb|left|The {{conjectural|Flipswitch Area|area}}, located inside the second of the two Metal Planets.]]
[[File:SMG Gateway Metal Planet Interior.png|200px|thumb|The draining device]]
When the player enters the Warp Pipe on the bottom of the second Metal Planet, he will be taken to an inverted, spherical metal chamber with many [[Goomba]]s and [[Flipswitch Panel]]s inside. The goal is to shut down the machine and save the first of seven [[Grand Star]]s in the game by activating every Flipswitch Panel found on the inside of the planet to change all of them from yellow to blue, while simultaneously avoiding the many Goombas and electric platforms. There are several coins floating in the air as well.
{{br}}

Likewise, the source of the {{conjecture}} template reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#fff7f7;border:1px solid #b77">
The title of this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} is '''''[[MarioWiki:Conjectural names|conjectural]]'''''{{#if:{{{derived|}}}|, but the current name has been '''derived''' from some available official information|; an official name for the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}'s subject has not been found, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors}}. If an official name is found, then the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|}}}|changed|moved}} to its appropriate title.
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with {{#if:{{{derived|}}}|derived|conjectural}} {{#if:{{{section|}}}|sections|titles}}]]}}</includeonly>

However, once this proposal passes with either Option 1 or Option 2, the source will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#fff7f7;border:1px solid #b77">
{{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|The titles of all sections within|The title of}} this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} {{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|are|is}} '''''[[MarioWiki:Conjectural names|conjectural]]'''''{{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|, unless otherwise noted}}{{#if:{{{derived|}}}|, but the current name has been '''derived''' from some available official information|; {{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|official names for specific sections' subjects have|an official name for the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}'s subject has}} not been found, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors}}. {{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|If an official name is found for one of its sections, then it should be changed to its appropriate title|If an official name is found, then the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|}}}|changed|moved}} to its appropriate title}}.
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with {{#if:{{{derived|}}}|derived|conjectural}} {{#if:{{{section|}}}{{{allnames|}}}|sections|titles}}]]}}</includeonly>

As such, putting {{conjecture|allnames=yes|section=yes}} will result in this:

The titles of all sections within this section are conjectural, unless otherwise noted; official names for specific sections' subjects have not been found, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors. If an official name is found for one of its sections, then it should be changed to its appropriate title.

That way, we'll be able to remove "'''NOTE''': Unless otherwise noted, all names are unofficial." from the Planets/Areas section on every Super Mario Galaxy galaxy page in favor of the {{dev data}} and/or {{conjecture}} template(s).

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: September 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My primary choice.

Option 2

Option 3

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My secondary choice.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) I don't see any particular reason we would need an entire feature of these templates just for Galaxy's planet lists. The fact of the matter is: these planets are using conjectural or dev data–derived names. That's what the templates are for. I find the argument that they're only for situations editors will be able to fix wildly unconvincing considering I'd wager over two-thirds of Category:Articles with conjectural titles are things we're never going to see again. The "Deep Cuts" Toad is never gonna show up again. We're never gonna get official names for Patty's mother and father. You look under a random letter, it's probably something we're never going to see the name of. The template is just blatantly not used for that.
  3. Jdtendo (talk) Per Ahemtoday. The {{conjecture}} template must be used when we don't have an official name, without needing to assume that an official name exists but is not known to the public. By the way, how can we know whether such a concealed name exists or not? And how can we be sure that an official public name will never given in the future? Who's to say there will never be an official source that gives names to SMG planets?
  4. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Ahemtoday and Jtendo.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Option 4

Comments

@Ahemtoday I think the difference here and the other conjectural articles is that the planetary bodies in galaxies do not just "lack" publicly accessible names - they are straight up not supposed to have names. The Shogakukan guidebook for Mario Galaxy does not give planets name. The game does not give planets name. The instruction booklet does not give planets name. The only "source" that applies discrete names for planets are from the developers and we have no reason to think these were intended to be the planets. The These galaxy articles are generally a bit outdated, and I think the mistake in the first place was suggesting that some of the planets have real names "except where otherwise noted." They largely do not. I think it would would healthier to recognize that they are just different sections of a greater whole, much like areas in courses for the earlier 3D games, and apply titles accordingly. - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:44, September 3, 2024 (EDT)

Hm. I still think them not being supposed to have names is true of much of that category — the ones on particular Toads in modern (well, maybe I have to specify Sticker Star through Origami King these days) Paper Mario come to mind. You raise a point about the article structure not matching the reality of the situation, but as long as the articles are going to have separate subheaders for each planet — and I'm not certain it would be sensible to do otherwise — I think we need to treat their appellations the standard way. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:35, September 3, 2024 (EDT)

Revise the "four weeks until counter-proposal can be made" rule

canceled by proposer
The "four weeks" threshold causes more harm than good, especially when proposals that intend to make wide-reaching changes are stymied by smaller proposals that only deal with a single section on a single page, which can then happen for a similar section on another page, and so on and so forth. With the month-long threshold especially, this can stretch into actually forever. As such, I propose two solutions:

  1. . Lower the threshold of time to two weeks. - Why is it four weeks, anyway? Why that arbitrary amount of time? That's twice as long as it takes a talk page proposal to run its course anyway. There's no benefit to this. I get that the purpose is to avoid a back-and-forth, but it seems unlikely community consensus will have changed within that amount of time unless something new has been brought up or found, in which case sooner is better - see what happened on Ankoopa's talk page for a good example there, when evidence for a third option was only found very late into a proposal and as such, a month had to pass with outright incorrect information being knowingly included on it before it could be reversed. (and for an older example, that time the blue Lava Bubbles were called "Ice Podoboos" because several people confused them with Li'l Brrs).
  2. . Make the rule specific to proposals whose sole/majority purpose (or at least, the sole/majority purpose of one of the options in case of multi-option proposals, and by "majority" I mean "at least 1/4 of what it will do involves the previous proposal") is to overturn another one, and instead have the large-scale omnibus proposals have to wait 1 week instead of 4 to contradict a previous proposal if the previous proposal is only a small part of it (required to be intrinsically related to the rest, not some unrelated amendment) and not a major focus of it. - This is again an issue that occurs in omnibus proposals on related subjects if multiple proposals are created over a period of time. It pads out the time before it can be allowed unnecessarily, especially when combined with the previously mentioned issue - it can prevent the proposal from being made indefinitely, which is obviously unfair; waiting patiently for a month only to get "Your Princess is in Another Castle"d by another one being made before they are allowed to make their own is very disheartening, after all, and infinite loops and vicious cycles are never any good if they can't be broken out of. Now it will still be disallowed to contradict any point of currently running proposals, but downtime is fair game. And of course, all those minor proposals won't need to happen in the first place if the omnibus one is made.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support - Both

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

Support - Just #1

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

Support - Just #2

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

Oppose

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't see any practical argument behind this proposal besides you disagreeing with a proposal that passed and wanting non-Super Mario coverage on a Super Mario wiki. 28 days is plenty of time. Your opening statement makes it clear that this proposal is centered around you wanting to instantly overturn a proposal you strongly disagree with. Also, this proposal ends a day before Sept 25, twenty-eight days after Aug 28, the proposal you want to overturn. Also, what if someone used this rule against a proposal that you strongly supported. Would you support it in all cases, then?
  2. Technetium (talk) From looking through the comments, this seems specific to a conflict between two editors, and the proposal has no real basis beyond this one scenario. I don't think making proposals is the way interpersonal conflicts should be resolved.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We feel like a 28-day delay has a dual purpose of both preventing select repeat topics from clogging the proposals, but also allowing proposals that pass to properly sit in place, so that the changes in place have a proper chance to function. Make it too short, and you both run the risk of repeated proposals about the same subjects running over and over again, and to make it so that even if proposals do pass, they are a bit too easy to undo--and if proposals are too easy to put into place or revert, then they just kind of stop mattering, and the Wiki would just kind of melt into a constant state of flux as the editing standards would keep being changed. It has the very real chance to devolve into edit warring with extra bureaucracy involved, and we feel pretty confident that nobody would want that.
  4. Arend (talk) I have a feeling that this proposal was not entirely made in good faith... by which I mean that the proposal seems to be made with the proposer's annoyance of them being unable to post their proposal in mind, rather than it actually being beneficial to the wiki itself. Ignoring that feeling, however, I feel that the four-week buffer is there to let the proposed changes get properly "baked" into the wiki's design, i.e. let users and visitors get used to these changes; I feel like the idea is that if the wait time to overturn it were any shorter, that would not be enough time for people to get used to the changes in the first place. When it comes to the second proposed option (aside from it being a bit confusedly-worded), that sounds like the proposer wanted to open a loophole opportunity. I can imagine that there will be several proposals made to overturn a previous proposal only a mere day after it was settled, only for these proposals to be allowed because the overturning part is only a minor part of these proposals whilst the primary point of the proposals is, like, something bogus that doesn't really benefit the wiki in a major way – kind of like adding bogus, non-beneficiary multiple options in a proposal just to avoid insufficient consensus due to multi-option proposals working differently, something the same proposer complained about in a prior proposal.
  5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  6. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per the first four oppose voters.
  7. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  8. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per all, still not convinced after the edits made to the proposal.

Comments

@Super Mario RPG - Yes. Yes I would. Because this restriction is arbitrary and annoying no matter what one's opinion on any other proposals is. And note how you are attempting to push my ability to make my proposal by another month with the separate obstacle and cameo proposals you just made. "Making a proposal to fix a flaw in the rules one is a victim to" isn't about some sort of personal vendetta, it's about fixing a flaw in the rules. And again, if you actually read the proposal made here, it's not about instant overturns, it's about dealing with incidental pieces - and please note the part about "community consensus probably will not have changed unless something major comes up" that I mentioned. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:43, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

There could be endless arguing within short time frames if this rule is changed. This isn't about a "flaw in the rules" so much as you trying to change the system to suit your liking, at least in this circumstance, since it would benefit you directly. But then if there's 50/50 division on proposals on the wiki, this could go badly very quickly. I don't see a single other person filled with nearly this much zeal to keep SSB content. Yes, there is support, but this is going overboard. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:50, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
No it won't. Again, the specifics still keep that from happening. A month is annoyingly long either way, and from what I can tell you are making some amount of effort (consciously or subconsciously) to attempt to put off my ability to make a proposal indefinitely, considering after three weeks of not much happening, you implemented your proposal, I told you my proposal would be next week and then not 20 minutes later you created two piecemeal 2-week talk page proposals right under that statement that would ensure mine would be put off for double the original amount of time, which is an unfair result of the current policy - hell there's a TVTropes page for it. A month is too long, end of story. (Also, I have never seen anyone with as much zeal for removing Smash things as you, so that goes both ways.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:56, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
I'd call myself logical (Super Mario is Super Mario, Zelda is Zelda, Kirby is Kirby), but that may sound condescending. I was more focused on the first sentence of you saying that you vehemently opposed the proposal due to an inconsistency, and that was why I created two proposals to try and resolve it, since a number did support the Pokemon proposal. This proposal will disrupt the democratic process of two "piecemeal" proposals that are already ongoing, so then somehow if they pass, Pokemon will be reinstated but the other removed? It makes no sense. The wiki's not about any single person and what they want. I had failed proposals before. I've moved on. I don't keep hammering on those failed proposals, including those that failed unanimously. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:03, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
Considering you knew what I was planning, you seem to have deliberately timed it so I can't make my proposal without "disrupting the democratic process" on yours, which wouldn't have been an issue if the wait weren't so long. In doing so, you have (deliberately or otherwise) indirectly taunted me and my helplessness from these rules, which I find to be rather rude. Either way, you keep making this be about your proposal rather than the obvious flaw in the rules here. Which only makes it seem further like you are deliberately taking advantage of said flaw at my expense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:13, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
I don't appreciate the assumptions being made about me. You quoted "disrupting the democratic process," admitting there's some footing in that argument to a degree. I didn't taunt you, nor do I appreciate you attempting to play the victim in this circumstance. The two clashing ideals cancel each other out: you made this centered mostly around your strong passion to overturn a proposal you're trying everything to do to overturn, and my argument against this is because it concerns a proposal that I made and that less counterproductivity and edit warring could result if someone tries to overturn proposals within such a short timeframe. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:18, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
I quoted that because that's what you said, the quotes were the equivalent to putting air quotes around something sarcastically. While yes, your proposals catalyzed this, I have more important matters at stake here than what it is you do. Also, "two weeks" is not a "short timeframe," "four weeks" is just an "overly long timeframe." (Honestly, this rule has always annoyed me even when it doesn't affect me, but what better time to do something about it than when it does?) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:21, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
But did this rule always bother you this much? Why didn't you make this proposal earlier then? What's the perceivable benefit to waiting two fewer weeks? Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:28, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
If I made proposals the moment an idea came to me, I'd have made a billion by now. I make whatever affects me most at the time, and usually do so en masse for whatever I can remember (I don't like having to look up the ending date over and over again, so that's why I usually make a bunch of unrelated proposals at once). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:32, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

If the proposal passes, what would the new minimal time required before overturning be? Axii (talk) 16:17, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I thought I put that in the proposal, guess I forgot. 2 weeks, like a TPP. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:21, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Technetium - It's not an interpersonal conflict, it's a rule flaw. Super Mario RPG's just trying to make it one. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:23, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Except the opening sentence in your proposal reads to others that this stems from an interpersonal conflict. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:25, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
It reads that I have had to deal with the negative part of this rule and that spurred me into finally doing something about it. I didn't bring you up, I said that people kept making proposals. I honestly can't say if you're the only one who was doing so or not (again, I have more important things to keep track of), but when I typed that I didn't think you were. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:27, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
I'd personally want more evidence of this being a widespread issue to consider a proposal like this. Technetium (talk) 16:29, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
Here you go. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:47, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend - What? I deliberately worded that to avoid loopholes being able to be made (the whole "3/4 margin" thing). Deliberately forcing omnibus proposals that have been announced well in advance is not a good-faith thing to do, but either way, I deliberately noted that community consensus would be unlikely to change. The Ankoopa thing was another thing I had in mind. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:37, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Super Mario RPG - I checked, and I was right, it wasn't only you I was referring to; Mushzoom made that proposal on the music, and while that ended up not affecting my own planned proposal since that wasn't covered in it, it was still an interim Smash proposal I was remembering having happened. When I said "people," I indeed meant "people." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:37, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I actually support the intent behind this proposal, but there are a few issues I have with these implementations:

  • Option 1 does not prevent indefinite blocking of a proposal. Since the proposal lockout time is shorter not just for the omnibus proposal, it would still be possible to delay it indefinitely by alternating between at least two proposals concerned with elements that are also part of the larger-scale proposal.
  • Technically speaking, Option 2 doesn't prevent that either. Three smaller proposals would be necessary to lock down the big one, but a deliberate effort to prevent a proposal from being made is still possible.
  • In another sense, and also maybe most pertinently since the other two would require deliberate malicious action — I'm wary of the 1/4 relevancy distinction because I don't think it's possible to objectively measure that. Is it measured in articles affected? In bullet-point goals for the proposal? I feel like we need to keep that sort of fuzziness out of the proposal rules.

Again, I do think this is an issue worth solving — I don't see "this is currently happening to you now so therefore the proposal is dubious" as a convincing argument — but I'm just not sure about these implementations of it. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:18, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69&oldid=4368218"