|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.
This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==New features==
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?
<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
I have several pitches for you.
#If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used.
#The voting period begins 24 hours after the proposal is posted (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed). Proposers are allowed to support their proposal immediately, but all other users may only edit the Comments section during that initial 24 hours. Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. ('''All times GMT.''')
#*For example, if a proposal is added on Monday, August 1, 2011, at 22:22 GMT, the voting starts at 22:22, 22:00 or 23:00 on Tuesday, August 2, and the deadline is one week later on Tuesday, August 9, at 23:59 GMT.
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
#Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may '''not''' remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an [[MarioWiki:Administrators|admin]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administration]].
#If the admins deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
<h3 style="color:black">Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format</h3>
<big>'''''OPTION ZERO'''''</big><br>
This is an example of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to <u>replace the whole variable including the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. <s>It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.</s>
-----
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]</nowiki>
<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''
<nowiki>'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br></nowiki><br>
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>
<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)
<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later
<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.
-----
Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.
To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.
__TOC__<!--
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.
''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''
<br>
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
-->
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.
<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.
:''For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see [[:Category:Settled Talk Page Proposals|here]].''
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
<h3 style="color:black">How To</h3>
====Option Zero====
#All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the ''brief'' description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "({{fakelink|Discuss}})". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{tem|fakelink}} to communicate its title. The '''Deadline''' must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{tem|TPP}} under the heading.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting, so no "Voting Start" line is needed. ('''All times GMT.''')
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#*For example, if a proposal is added any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, voting starts immediately and ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
#Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#{{User|Arend}} Per Porple.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per porplemontage.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.
===List of Talk Page Proposals===
====Option One====
*Merge [[Parabuzzy]] with [[Para-Beetle]] ([[Talk:Parabuzzy|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 21, 2011, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
*<s>Split [[Ashley and Red]] ([[Talk:Ashley and Red|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''</s> '''Contested:'''
#{{User|Salmancer}} There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.
**Leave [[Ashley and Red]] merged. ([[Talk:Ashley and Red#Leave Merged|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 22, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Koopa Troopa Beach (court)]] to [[Koopa Beach (court)]] ([[Talk:Koopa Troopa Beach (court)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 23, 2011 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Dry Eye (WarioWare: D.I.Y.)]] with [[Dry Eye]] ([[Talk:Dry Eye (WarioWare: D.I.Y.)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split all enemies from [[Gnat Attack]] ([[Talk:Gnat Attack|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Nintendo DSi]] with [[Nintendo DS]] ([[Talk:Nintendo DSi|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Adventure Tours]] with [[Mario %26 Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games]] ([[Talk:Adventure Tours|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Co-Star Mode]] to [[Super Mario Galaxy]] and [[Super Mario Galaxy 2]] ([[Talk:Co-Star Mode|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Multi-Man Brawl]] to [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]] ([[Talk:Multi-Man Brawl|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary]] with [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]] ([[Talk:Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Lemon Drop]] with [[Salvo the Slime]] ([[Talk:Lemon Drop|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Red Spike Buzzy]] with [[Spike Top]]. ([[Talk:Spike Top|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Double Dash!!]] to [[Rocket Start]] ([[Talk:Double Dash!!|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Spike Top]] with [[Spiny]] ([[Talk:Spiny|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Spike Blop]] with [[Spiny]] ([[Talk:Spike Blop|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split then Merge Voice Cast and Music Staff, from [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], into the staff sub-article ([[Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Merge|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': May 1, 2011, 23:59 GMT
==New Features==
====Option Two====
==Removals==
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
===Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete [[Banjo (series)]] and [[Conker (series)]]===
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.
Before I start, I'll point out that [http://forum.mariowiki.com/index.php?topic=10846.0 a few others have already made comments on this situation], all of them wanting to get rid of the articles with some good reasons attached, so go look at their reasons. With that said, let me continue.
The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to [[Banjo]]'s and [[Conker]]'s appearance in [[Diddy Kong Racing]]. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br>
====Option Three====
'''Voting start''': April 20, 2011, 00:40 GMT<br>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
'''Deadline''': April 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.
====Support====
<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.</s>
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per my proposal and the comments made by Edo, Fawful, and others.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per my comment and Reversinator!!
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Look at my post in the MarioWiki forum [http://forum.mariowiki.com/index.php?topic=10846.0 here]. My username is Scrub Jay.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per what I said [http://forum.mariowiki.com/index.php?topic=10846.msg329644#msg329644 here]. Listen to our reasoning before you oppose casually.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - For those that are opposing, I want to tell you guys, it is completely off topic with Mario! They have only appeared in one game, and barely any detail on their pages has to do with that game! They are not a side-series you guys, they are just two random characters that were put in the game because their games were delayed! Most of their article is about their other games, which has absolutely nothing to do with Mario, DK, Yoshi, or Wario! All it is really is a very minor character that has 1% of actually related info and 99% of their mario-less games and then a series to act as a storage home for the extra stuff of random junk that is cluttering the wiki!
#{{User|Castle Toad}} Per Edofenrir
#{{User|Tails777}} I was just thinking the same thing today. This is MARIO Wiki. In other words per Baby Mario Bloops.
#{{User|Zero777}} Per all
#{{User|Turboo}} per edofenrir
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per all.
#{{User|SWFlash}} We don't have Sonic games on our wiki so why do we have Banjo with Conker? Per proposal.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per Edofenrir and Reversinator.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} I remember when I first came across these articles, I said to myself "Why are these here?" Per all.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} My reaction to those articles: WTH they're huge and unecessary and unprofessional. Per all.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per all. Or move them to [http://www.therwp.com/wiki/Main_Page The Rare Witch Project Wiki].
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per the forum comments by Edo and LGM.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Ok.-.-. I guess I'm changing my vote. However, how will we clear all those articles with Banjo and Conker information?
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per all.
#{{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}} Per all.
#{{User|Phoenix}} Per all.
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Per all. We could add their apearances to some sort of DK article
====Oppose====
====Option Four====
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} here's how i see it Donkey kong is the parent series to Mario and Conker and Banjo are spin offs of it which would make them nephews or as some might put it very...very distant cousins to the Mario Series
====Comments====
====Comments====
Finally! That is a removal proposal! Since I'm not going to vote until Wednesday, I'll just make a comment. This is the MarioWiki not the BanjoWiki so, lose it!{{User|Reddragon19k}}
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Phoenix: This isn't proposed simply to remove bad articles. It's the relevance to the Mario series that mostly matters (in my perspective anyway). We do not need to cover Banjo and Conker as a series, but we can cover them as a character since they DID appear in Diddy Kong Racing. But that's about it. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Phoenix, I think you're gravely underestimating and over-simplifying the situation. The reason these articles are so unnavigable is because they are a pile of information pasted together. It is impossible to improve them in any way because, due to the bizarre stalemate situation, the rules of this wiki '''requires them to stay like that'''. There is no legal way for us to make these articles not horrible, and therefore, your argument becomes invalid. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)
:@Edofenrir - Okay...would you mind if I politely asked you what you mean by "bizarre stalemate situation"...? {{User|Phoenix}} 21:58, 19 April 2011 (EDT)
On a vaguely related note, why do "tie" and "failed to reach consensus" have two separate colours in the proposal archive when the former is essentially a type of the latter? I don't really see the difference between them besides the fact that the wiki used to call them "ties". I also counted no more than four "tied" proposals in the entire archive, the last one having been in 2011, so it seems strange and confusing to still be using a separate colour for it. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:38, March 18, 2025 (EDT)
:This is something I noticed as well while making the proposal — I kind of considered addressing it, but the proposal was already a bit sprawling, so bundling in a change to that seemed like a poor decision. If someone were to make a separate proposal to axe the "tie" color, I'd back it. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 14:10, March 18, 2025 (EDT)
::I'll try. This conflict is actually really old and horribly complicated. Basically, for years, there have been two general sides: One that wants full coverage of those series, and one that wants to get rid of them. There have been countless proposals to settle the conflict between both sides, but we could never reach a definite decision. Both sides are locked in a stalemate, so to say. Because there could be no decision, a compromise was developed. This compromise allowed Banjo-Kazooie/Conker content to be on this wiki, but they all had to be on one giant, cluttered article per series. There is basically nothing we can do with these articles, except maybe shift its individual sections around, but none of that will improve the general situation. The way we have to treat these series is really awful. Please look at those articles.
==Removals==
::I would much rather prefer having none of those monstrosities, or having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles. But if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles, probably forever. Please read what we have to say. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
''None at the moment.''
also whats the legal situation got to do with this {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:I meant legal in relation to the rules on this wiki. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
not to add fuel to the fire but conker is related to mario since they were both characters in the club nintendo comic Freeze Frame. oh that makes sense also i remeber this issue back when i first started in 07
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:Conker may be related to Mario somehow, and if he appeared in a Club Nintendo comic, he will certainly keep an article on this wiki even if this proposal passes. What you need to think about, however, is this: Is Greg the Grim Reaper related to Mario? Are The Tediz? Random enemy number five? Is The cow that gives you a Jiggy in the first world of Banjo Tooie related to the Mario series? Those are the questions you should ask yourself. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::You guys, I read the title wrong, as many also probably did as well. It is not deleting their pages also, but just removing all the mess that has no relation to Mario or DK. It is not getting rid of the small tidbit of information on their pages that is actually reasonable! Everyone that is opposing, read this message: It is to remove all the stuff that has nothing to do with Mario or DK, and ''keep'' the stuff that does! Even if I am still wrong, well...all or nearly all of their information is already in DKR, so it will suffice to remove their articles. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
What I'm saying is to keep the Banjo and Conker articles, but delete the series articles. Banjo and Conker appear in Diddy Kong Racing so they should have thier own articles. It's just like the Super Smash Bros series characters. {{User|Tails777}}
:Yes, that is exactly what this proposal is about. - {{user|Edofenrir}}
::@Baby Mario Bloops and Tails777 - Well, in that case, perhaps the title of the proposal should be altered slightly, as it is a tad misleading... {{User|Phoenix}} 15:01, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:::@Edofinrir - Okay, after carefully reviewing your arguments both here and on the forums, I can see what you’re talking about now. However, the main question that came to mind when reading your argument was (and please don’t think I’m insulting anyone when I say this), why did no one foresee this problem when the compromise was created in the first place? I'm honestly not trying to patronize you, but I just find it interesting that you're supporting this proposal if you think it would be more worthwhile to expand our coverage of the games with multiple articles instead of having only two articles. I mean, why not simply make a proposal to do one of those two things instead (i.e. – "having none of those monstrosities" or "having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles"), even if you just partly prefer that the articles be expanded or split into multiple better articles? This proposal is in-between, and as you said, "if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles...forever," so why not make a completely different proposal that ''does'' do one of those two things?
:::Also, you mentioned that these two articles are "a giant slap in the face" to fans of the games, which I can understand, given that I fall into that category with one of the games myself, but won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed (because in the case of the latter, it can always be made better, with the former, it's gone for good)? Personally, I had previously wondered about the excessive length of the articles somewhat, but I guess I had rationalized it by viewing the pages as synonymous with the format of the page for any ''[[Mario (series)|Mario]]'' series game on this wiki; really long (but because it needs to be to encompass all the necessary information, not because it was forced to be so) and displaying every facet of the game on the page, including general information on the game, the plot, the gameplay, the characters (to a certain extent), power-ups, extra lives, etc. Overall, I just feel that these articles do not necessarily pose any immediate problems for those who would not even think to search for either of these games on this wiki in the first place. It's not as if we've gotten piles of hate mail from guests because we refuse to delete these articles. {{User|Phoenix}} 15:56. 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::@Phoenix: I think the entire point is to get rid of the junk of the articles. Yes, fans will be upset that we are doing it, but give me one real reason why we should keep this junk and expand it? Deleting it is the best option, and I'll give you a comparison to help you out. [[Sonic]] as someone mentioned before has appeared along with Mario in a few things. Now, take that and view the the fact that we have no coverage of his series. Banjo and Conker have only appeared in one game with anyone with Mario, and even if it was their first appearance, they have NEVER made another appearance in the DK series, and vise versa with DK and Banjo/Conker. If we keep this proposal, it would be sort of unfair for the Zelda Series, Sonic Series, Metal Gear Series, just because they appeared in a spin-off. Deleting Banjo/Conker, who I disagree with the people that it is a sub-series with DK even though they haven't appeared in any of their games, is better than expanding and adding series for all the people that have appeared in a Mario game that isn't from Mario. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::::::Just as a sidenote, this proposal will not delete [[Banjo]], [[Bottles]], [[Conker]], and [[Tiptup]]. This is only to delete them from our coverage and delete the cluttred series articles. {{User|Reversinator}}
:::::::@Phoenix: First of all I have to admit that "Why did nobody foresee these complications" is certainly a justified question. A question I cannot answer at that. I was not here back then when this decision was made, so I hardly could have taken any action. If I had been here already when this was still in the debate, I would have utilized every possible means to stop this "solution" from being made.
:::::::Also, you seem to confuse something there. As I said on the forums, amending our policies to allow full coverage of this material on separate articles is only my '''second''' choice. My '''primary''' concern is to remove the material from our coverage.
:::::::Over the years I have been a part of this encyclopedia, I believe I have grown somewhat accustomed to our policies. One virtue we hold high here is creator intent. A significant deal of decisions here are made by carefully analyzing what the creators of a piece of work had in mind, and acting in accordance to that. And I furthermore believe that this problem can also be solved by acting in accordance with creator intent. Let's take the Banjo-Kazooie series for example. Rare created the base concept of the series back then during the SNES era as an independent project: ''Project Dream''. ''Project Dream'' has a rich history. At no point of this history was ''Project Dream'' ever developed as a spin-off of anything. It was Rare's own project. The project went through a lot of changes, but its independence always remained above. Now look at the finished product. Nothing in this game suggests that it is to be directly tied to the Mario series. Sure, there are a few references here and there, but they are all the kind of reference you find in every other game this wiki doesn't cover. Now look at the other series we cover. Series like ''Wario Land'', or the ''Yoshi'' series. All of these series are much closer to the Mario series, and they show it. Characters from these series appear in spin-offs like ''Mario Kart'' or ''Mario Party'' together, repeatedly, all the time. Banjo and Conker on the other hand... they do neither of those things. The series keep to themselves. Whenever they engage in crossovers, it is exclusively among themselves and other Rare projects, like ''Jet Force Geminy'', or ''It's Mr. Pants''. For me, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that Rare never intended their series to be part of the Mario franchise. They make it very clear that these series belong to themselves and themselves alone. I want to pay respect to Rare's intention. Therefore I believe it is wrong to chalk these up as mere spin-offs of the overall Mario franchise. I believe it is wrong to keep these series on our coverage against all reasoning. And because I believe this, I am supporting this proposal, thoroughly and entirely.
:::::::"Won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed?" This question addresses the feelings of the fans. I can say: I am a fan, and I support the proposal. Those games are a part of my childhood, and I hold them very dear. And I can give you my word: The treatment these series receive on this wiki are genuinely appalling to me. It is not just about the content of the articles themselves, but also the policies regulating them. This situation cannot be improved by merely giving the article contents a cosmetic makeover. So, to finally answer your question: I, as a fan of Rare's work, consider the circumstances surrounding this situation hideous, and it is my sincere belief that "no coverage" is a better option than the current solution. I have talked to several of my acquaintances, all of whom I know to be Rare fans as well, and they do share my concerns and agree with me. That is all I need to know to realize there is a problem, and that action has to be taken.
:::::::I apologize, Phoenix, but this is all I can tell you. I would be very happy if you could take a look at all of this and find it in you to reconsider your standing. You are, however, entitled to your own opinion, and if you choose to discard my points as irrelevant, I will respect your decision, as I hope you respect mine. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I appreciate it. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::::::::@Edofenrir - Well, first of all, allow me to assure you that I would '''''never ever''''' discard anyone's points or arguments as irrelevant, as I, personally, believe that everyone, no matter what side of any particular issue they may be on, has substantial viewpoints to contribute to the matter at hand. I would never attempt to detract from someone else's personal feelings or beliefs about an issue by turning the other cheek (as long as the argument is relatively within reason and isn't completely "out there"), even if I do happen to be on the opposing side, because this is just disrespectful and counterproductive to both the user and the wiki. That being said, I most definitely respect your decision, even though I may not necessarily agree with it. After all, this is a free world, and it's not my responsibility to dictate what everyone else decides (not that I would want to anyway).
::::::::Secondly, please just let me ask this last question: So if Banjo and Conker (and possibly their respective co-characters) had at some point been in a ''[[Super Smash Bros.]]'' game, or any other legitimate crossover game, they would be eligible to remain here? Well, no, actually, I guess I just answered my own question, because even if that were the case, we would still only have information about the ''characters'' from the other series that appeared in the game (and perhaps items, as necessary), and not about the characters' entire series, right? In that case, I now understand what this proposal is truly trying to do, and have therefore had a change of heart of sorts; from this point on I will be voting in favor of this proposal's intentions.
::::::::Thirdly, if this proposal was going to pass (and it doesn't take a team of mathematicians to tell me that, at this point, it probably will), I just want to ensure that the [[Bottles]] article will still remain unscathed, because taking [http://www.mariowiki.com/File:Mariocomicbn7-1-.png this] into account, I'm pretty sure it should be apparent that he is at least somewhat related directly to the ''[[Mario (series)|Mario]]'' series, apart from the whole ''[[Diddy Kong Racing]]'' cameo (or appearance, or spin-off, or whatever) thing.
::::::::Finally, I have seen fit to reconsider my position in this matter (as I've previously established above). I think, in the back of my mind, I immediately disliked this proposal right from the get-go. I believe I subconsciously opposed it simply because of my extreme affinity for the ''Banjo-Kazooie'' series, using that as the basis of my original argument, and then used my arguments about expanding articles to mask the true reasons for my opposition (I'm not trying to say that I lied, I do believe that deleting should always be used as a last resort over expanding, I think I just finally realized that I was opposing for all the wrong reasons, if you know what I mean). However, having thought about this for a great deal of time, I have subsequently come to this conclusion, and I now realize that that was wrong of me to do. Though it will pain me to see a great deal of this information go, feel that I must disregard my personal opinions for the time being, and do what is best for the wiki. :) {{User|Phoenix}} 23:05, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
Dude the difference is that Banjo and Conker are spin offs of DK not cross overs like Sonic or Link thats the difference {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:They're not DK spin-offs; they had cameos in Diddy Kong Racing. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
A cameo really a cameo is when a character makes a brief appearence in a game Banjo and Conker were stars/ playable characters in there debut appearence which makes them spin offs {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:No, a cameo is when a character makes an appearance in a game that is from a different series from that in which the character is generally located. Neither Banjo nor Conker are part of the DK series, while Diddy Kong Racing is. A spin-off is a game related to a series but is not a continuation of that series. An example of a spin-off would be ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'', which is part of but not a continuation of the ''Mario'' series. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:Read the second paragraph of my proposal. Basically, Banjo-Kazooie was delayed, so Banjo and Conker were put in Diddy Kong Racing as a bonus. In other words, they are not sub-series, they are crossover series. Thus, they deserve the same treatment as other cross-over series; articles of the characters who appeared in DKR, and nothing more. {{User|Reversinator}}
So there the first ever cross over game to feature characters from franchises that didnt exist yet cause developent and release are 2 different things {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
a cameo as defined is a brief appearance of a known person in a work of the performing arts, such as plays, films, video games[1] and television. These roles are generally small, many of them non-speaking ones, and are commonly either appearances in a work in which they hold some special significance (such as actors from an original movie appearing in its remake), or renowned people making uncredited appearances. Oh and the Conker Series was no delayed considering that in order for it to be delayed it would have had to be in development for at least 3 years for a game boy game that was as simple as that no.
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:Their appearance in DKR can be considered brief, as they have not been in any other non-Banjo/Conker games on any Nintendo console since. Anyway, for a game to be delayed simply means that it is not released on the original date announced. It doesn't have to be in development for a certain period of time. If memory serves, Brawl was delayed two or three times, and development time was relatively short (Sakurai at first did not want to make it), but this is off-topic. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
no it can not be considered brief if you star in your first game also no conker game was in development untill after Diddy Kong Racing and your thinking of a cross over
::Goomba's Shoe15: The fact is that it doens't include any DK characters! If it was a sub-series of the DK series, they would need to have characters from DK appearance maybe once in their games! The fact of matter is that they don't, and that is why I made the comparison to Sonic! It doesn't matter if this is their debut, or if they were already planning the games before, to be a sub-series should be if it actually has elements from their parent series!!!! {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
im going to do something i hate to do but the show Maude is a spin off of all and the family but no characters from all in the family appear. Good times was a spin off from maude but no characters from maude other than Florida ever appeared. the facts of life was a spin off of different strokes no characters from that appear. Buddies was a spin off from Home Improvement no characters from Home improvement appeared on buddies {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:@Reversinator (above) - Okay, but it would really help my brain if you would please use different terminology, because when you say "delete them from our coverage," I perceive that as being exactly the same as "delete every single article on this entire wiki that even ''relates'' to either of these games"... {{User|Phoenix}} 20:21, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
::@Baby Mario Bloops (above) - I was never really a big fan of expanding the articles or creating more articles with additional expanded information either; in the huge chunk of text above, I was merely asking Edofenrir why he was supporting this particular proposal instead of making different proposal to expand the articles, because he had said that he was partially in favor of doing something like that before... {{User|Phoenix}} 20:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:::@Phoenix: When I say "delete them from our coverage", I mean "delete them from [[MarioWiki:Coverage]]". {{User|Reversinator}}
===Remove Voting Start Rule===
This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what.
All this rule, I think it does, is to make voting more complicated, and it pretty much accomplished that, since so many people break it.
While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided".
Besides, no other proposal gets this rule; not the featured articles and not the Talk Page Proposals, so I see no reason we need this.
I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals.
'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br>
'''Voting start''': April 21, 18:22 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': April 28 23:59 GMT.
====Support====
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Let's delete this useless, unnecessary, and somewhat complicated rule that doesn't even apply to all proposals! I hope you guys agree on me on this.
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} YES YES YES! Esptaily since I don't go by GMT, I never know when to start. IT STUPID
====Oppose====
====Comments====
It's somewhat amusing how I want to support this proposal right now. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
LGM, I had this exact idea to start this proposal too. Now I'm going to support it. The idea of it at first sounds great, but in reality, it does not help anything at all but create a nuisance. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
I'm really pulled on both sides of this proposal. I want to oppose because it gives time for some users to accept the fact this is for good and let it sink in to their minds. It will also give time to the proposer to make any error corrections and alterations to the proposal. Also, yes it is true people aren't online every day, but they'll be online eventually, if they don't, then they miss to vote on a proposal..... oh well. But I am questioned on why isn't this applied to FA or TPP; well I guess because the proposal for that was meant only for the proposals and nobody bothered to extend the rule to FA and TPP's. BUT here's my thought on supporting this: the proposal lasts for a week, there will be enough time for anybody to counter anybody's vote and for users to change their minds. It was made to give time to the proposer to check for errors, but the rules say that the proposer has three days to make alterations and error checks on the proposal, so I guess it is unnecessary, I'm going to support. {{User|Zero777}}
:@Zero777 - But if you think it's unnecessary, why would you oppose...? {{User|Phoenix}} 17:45, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
::Fix'd {{User|Zero777}}
''While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided"''. How does allowing voting to take place immediately after the proposal is posted rectify this problem? What difference does it make whether or not there is a 24-hour delay between the proposal's posting and voting start time if there are people who aren't online constantly and are unable to vote immediately anyway? While I'm thinking of it, what difference does it make when someone votes if the proposal is on the page for a week? Surely, no one is busy to the extent that spending five minutes reading a proposal and typing <nowiki>{{User|Username}}</nowiki> in the appropriate section strains his or her schedule. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
Yes, and also I think the rule of Voting Start should be backfired. Nice job, LeftyGreenMario buddy!
{{User|Superfiremario}}
Hmmm, as for why we don't do this on TPPs and FA nominations, I happened to see an explanation for that. The TPPs and FA nominations are more out of the way and don't usually get jumped on as soon as they are proposed (although this may vary due to how many people are online when the action is proposed). Also, just because removing the vote is an annoyance doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, unless it gets really out of hand sometime in the future. I prefer the voting delay because, even if no one is there to read the comments, I'd rather comment on a proposal when the voting period hasn't started yet, and have that be more likely to influence the debate. Take, for instance, the DK series boss level split, I wasn't there when the proposal was proposed, and yet I was able to comment on the situation before the voting period started. I don't find it inconvenient either, but that may just be me. </long-winded ramble> {{User|Bop1996}}
:I've been here before this rule got initiated and the voting start rule makes no difference whatsoever in opinions first made about the proposal. It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. Besides, I'm not the only one who dislikes this rule and having a voting start only for this, no matter how major it is, seems inconsistent along with other proposal-like stuff. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:Mario4Ever: Look, we're better off without it. It doesn't fix the problem, but the rule is useless for people that are not online every day and it punishes those that are online everyday. It started out with good intentions, but nowadays, I find it more of a hassle than a help. One week is enough for discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion. Besides, the comments people make during the one-day delay is sometimes just, "Good idea! I will support this proposal!" or something like that. Really, we're better off without it. Besides, it complicates the process. By allowing users to vote after a proposal is created means that we do not have to check if they are within voting start. Voting start period is annoying for me, and no matter how much we remind them, users STILL break the rule. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
::I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it. I think the one-day discussion is useful for allowing users to wrap their heads around the proposal, so to speak, enabling their votes to be based upon their reasoning and not on what the majority thinks. Users who come to these proposals and see a large number of support votes or oppose votes may be discouraged from voting because their opinions may do nothing to affect the results (though this is not always the case, as I was the sole opposer of {{User|Booderdash}}'s TPP to merge Ashley and Red), or they may pick whichever side has more votes, giving no thought to the proposal's potential benefit/harm to the wiki. The rule would be easier to follow if it were implemented on TPPs and FAs, but I realize that it is more difficult to get that approved than to get this removed.
::'''BabyLuigiOnFire''': ''It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. '' Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::: The delay is unnecessary, though. I don't see why we ''need'' this. It already proved to be more of a hassle than a help. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
Besides, when I am ready to vote, 20 people already voted after voting start. This rule doesn't help me or the wiki greatly in my opinion. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:I understand that, but removing the rule doesn't really do anything to fix that. Most people aren't ready to vote immediately after a proposal is posted, and regardless of whether the rule is in place or not, people are going to swarm the support and oppose sections once allowed, though I feel as if removing the rule would only decrease the amount of time in which this happens. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::Again, I'm not intending to fix this problem. The voting start, I believe, creates more problems than remedies them. I'm not in the wiki every day, and when I log in, I see a proposal that is already voted. This rule assumes that ''every'' user is logged in every day, but for a big deal of us, this is not the case. The rule wants to encourage discussion (I saw the proposal for this), but it doesn't really help the problem. I have not seen a major change after this rule was initiated, and ever since, I am getting more and more irritated by the problems it creates instead of fixes. I am now cracking from frustration this rule gives me (and possibly other users), and this is how I proposed this.{{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
"''Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?''" No, but I am not in the wiki everyday. There might be days where I revolve around the wiki the entire day, and some days where I am not there at all. There is no way of knowing when someone is going to propose something new. And I'm the impatient type and I like to vote to get things over with. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:I'm not here on a daily basis, either, but (and not to be rude) I usually just check the recent changes (depending on how long I've been gone, I'll check the last 50 or the last 500) to see if there is a new proposal. The only time the voting start thing is an issue for me is when a proposal is posted in which I have a great deal of interest, though this is rare. I understand where you're coming from, though. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
I made the mistake of voting too early twice now, once on a proposal I made and once now on this proposal. I think its really annoying so I'm supporting this proposal.{{User|Tails777}}
:Oh, but you can vote in your own proposal whenever you want. The rule stated that. Anyway, feel my frustration :( {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:''I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it.'' Of course that's not reason enough, Mario4Ever! I have other reasons to delete this rule too! Sort of late reply, but please read my proposal more carefully! {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
==Changes==
==Changes==
===Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets===
===Give ''Taiko no Tatsujin'' an article===
I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the [[galaxy]] articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the [[Melty Molten Galaxy]] article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that ''should'' happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes.
''Taiko no Tatsujin'' has had numerous crossovers with the ''Mario'' franchise throughout its history. This extends to not only the songs being playable, but actual ''Mario'' characters showing up and being animated in the accompanying videos in the earlier games.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Phoenix}}<br>
'''Voting start''': April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT.<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>April 14, 2011</s> April 21, 2011, 23:59 GMT.
====Support====
#{{User|Phoenix}} Per myself.
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per Phoenix.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Zero777}} Per all
#{{User|Ultrahammer5365}} Per Phoenix.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} <s>I like this</s> Per all.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} - Per Phoenix!
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per <s>Fenix</s> Phoenix.
#{{User|JayRed2486}} Per Phoenix. I am willing to help modify the articles.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per all.
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Per all
====Oppose====
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Per me in the comments section. This proposal will help a grand total of '''two''' galaxy articles; while it will hinder '''all''' the rest of them. I think that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.
#{{User|Iggykoopa}} I don't see the need for this change
#{{User|Bop1996}} After watching the back and forth in the comments section, I decided on which side was right. Per Marioguy. Whenever I read a galaxy article, as soon as I see the name "Starting Planet" I know exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared. Starting Planet is a perfectly good name, except in the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Imagine, if this proposal passes, the starting planet for the [[Tall Trunk Galaxy]] could be named "Giant Tree Planet {Starting Planet}," and this name does a much worse job than just "Starting Planet." To summarize, the name change is unnecessary, and would only help two articles, whereas we have a perfectly good name for the starting planet on 95% of the galaxy articles.
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} Per Bop. His speech deserves [[Yoshi Cookie|this]].
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per Marioguy1.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} I have to say, even though I do not lurk in the Galaxy level articles too much, if this proposal only helps a meager ''2'' articles while giving us more work overall, then the proposal should apply to the two articles, not all of them.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Even though I see this proposal has good intentions, I just don't see it working out. Per all.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all the ranting of MG1 in the comments. ;)
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. However, truth be told, I'd rather just see all the planet sections ''removed'', and their info folded into the missions. I think the articles would look better without 'em: no conjectural headers at all, less repetition, less clutter in the TOC, etc. Besides, we don't bother making sections for every little bit of the ''SMS'' Isle Delfino levels or ''SM65'' painting worlds: unnamed chunks of space rock vs. unnamed geographical features - what's the difference?
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Per all, it is just too much of an hassle to do it for like two articles.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all.
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} - Per Marioguy1.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - Per all.
====Comments====
This will create conjectural titles for the planets, no? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:Well yes, but we've already got conjectural names for all the other planets in every galaxy (which collectively greatly outnumber the total of Starting Planets for each galaxy), why should this be any different? That's what we've got <nowiki>{{conjecturaltext|____}}</nowiki> for. Also, calling them "Starting Planet" is still technically giving them a conjectural name anyway. So, since all the planet names are already conjectural, we can do whatever we want with them, u know? It's not like the names of the planets in question have all been confirmed as "Starting Planet" and we're changing them just to change them... {{User|Phoenix}} 18:59, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
:Does it matter? Almost every planet mentioned in the articles on the various galaxies has a conjectural name. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::The comment wasn't directed toward you or to the proposal. It's a reply to LGM's question, essentially stating that whether or not renaming the Starting Planets makes their names conjectural doesn't matter, since almost every other planet has a conjectural name. I've got no problems with this proposal. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:::No no no, you misunderstood me: I wasn't talking to you, I was replying to his comment as well, I actually started typing it in before ur comment was there, but that's just how it appeared when I saved the page... :) {{User|Phoenix}} 19:24, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
::::Conjectural titles are...well, just that! Conjectural. Conjecture means that the title is not officially confirmed and is what we are using to help people identify the object/place/character/whatever. Which means that, naturally, we need to be as accurate as possible. What seems like a "cool name" or what is "consistent" doesn't really apply in this scenario as we are trying to be as descriptive as possible in as few words as possible. Naturally this applies to the term "Starting Planet" - it contains two words and if anyone could please show me ''one'' instance where it could ''possibly'' apply to more than one planet (AKA not be specific), then I would love to see it (aside from comets; which bend reality to make it more convenient for the challenge at hand). But since there is only one planet that you start on, I'd say that the term "starting planet" pretty much narrows it down perfectly... {{User|Marioguy1}}
@Phoenix I see. Sorry about the confusion. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:@Marioguy1 - Well, actually, that happens in the second mission of the [[Honeyhop Galaxy]] ("[[Honeyhop Galaxy#The Chimp's Score Challenge|The Chimp's Score Challenge]]"), in which the player begins the mission on the "Queen Bee Planet" as opposed to the so-called "Starting Planet." Although this level does involve [[The Chimp]] challenging the player, it is not a [[Prankster Comet]] mission. This is also true in the [[Space Junk Galaxy]]: the player starts the first mission on the "Starting Planet," and starts the next two missions on a yellow [[Starshroom]]. None of these missions involve Prankster Comets either. Lastly, there's the [[Dreadnought Galaxy]], where the player actually starts on three different planets, one for each of the galaxy's three main missions. Only one planet in the article is marked as the starting planet, and it's none of these three...
:Anyway, I'm not making this proposal just so that every planet will have a cool name just for the sake of having a cool name; I just think that we've become too wrapped up in our own policies and classifications. I mean, what about galaxies like the [[Flipswitch Galaxy]], the [[Drip Drop Galaxy]], the [[Bigmouth Galaxy]], and the [[Stone Cyclone Galaxy]], all of which only consist of one accessible planet? The accessible planets in these galaxies are all called the "Starting Planet," which is all well and good, until one considers the fact that it's the only planet in the entire galaxy, so though one starts there in the mission(s), there are no other planets to go to after it, so where does it lead? For all intents and purposes, one may now call it the "Ending Planet" instead.
:Then there are galaxies like the [[Throwback Galaxy]], that use "Starting Planet" to describe the first planet, when a perfectly acceptable name has already been given to it previously ([[Whomp's Fortress]]). In this case, we've actually got a conjectural name where a confirmed name could easily be implemented instead. If this proposal did pass, we could now get rid of at least one conjectural name in favor of one that we know for a fact is correct.
:Then we've got galaxies like the [[Beat Block Galaxy]] and the [[Rolling Coaster Galaxy]]. The former deals with more of a starting path than a starting planet, and the latter is just one big long track leading to a very small separate planet at the end. Are we really going to classify something that comprises 99% of the entire galaxy as the "Starting Planet" just because the whole thing is connected? Normally, when [[Mario]] leaves the "Starting Planet" of a galaxy, he is at least relatively close to the ''beginning'' of a mission. When the player leaves the "Starting Planet" in this galaxy, they are essentially already at the end of the mission! Anyone else see a problem here?
:This is why the amount of space in a galaxy that is implied by the term "Starting Planet" is far too narrow, and can be extremely misleading; the first planet or area encountered in a galaxy could be anything from the smallest possible planet you could think of to something that takes up almost the entire galaxy. It would therefore be inappropriate to describe the first planet or area encountered in ''every'' galaxy as the "Starting Planet" or "Starting Area." Normal planet names do not imply anything about the amount of space taken up in the area in which they are positioned, they simply state what is there. The passing of this proposal will prevent problems such as long paths or other areas with long expanses in certain galaxies being incorrectly labeled as the "Starting Planet." {{User|Phoenix}} 02:34, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
Replying to ''his'' comment? Are you talking about me? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
...uh...yes...you're not a boy, are you? {{User|Phoenix}} 20:09, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
:First off, I see what you mean in the cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies (however in the Honeyhop one, the Chimp's mission would fall under what I was implying by "prankster comet") and I think possible exceptions could be made for those galaxies. However what this proposal will do is (a) legitimize and (b) encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which. Having a consistent, accurate, precedent will allow all people surfing the galaxy articles to identify the planets labeled "starting planet" with much less difficulty than if we were to use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of; an action that this proposal will inevitably cause.
:Second, in the case of the Galaxies with only one planet, we could choose one of either two things. The common, aforementioned, precedent of "starting planet" would be most convenient due to the aforementioned points of consistency, accuracy, etc.. However if you really wish to press forward with the point that the only planet in the galaxy does not require any form of identification as it is one of a kind (which really only eliminates the point of accuracy, consistency and ease of location still remain), then I would consider supporting a proposal which is worded so that it achieves that purpose. However this proposal is generalizing ''all'' galaxies, not just the ones with one planet or multiple starting planets (of which, only the cases where there are multiple starting planets require a different name for planets where Mario begins).
:Third, the meaning of "starting planet" is irrelevant to the percentage of the galaxy/mission that it comprises. If people wish to have a stereotypical mindset that the starting planet must be near the beginning of the level, then so be it. However that does not make it true; the starting planet could refer to any amount of space in a level - up to the end of the level in fact!
:In conclusion, there are very few cases in which the term "starting planet" would actually fail to achieve the goals that a conjectural title should wish to achieve (accuracy in identification of the character, location or object). So far you have only presented two galaxies where this proposal would improve the quality of the articles, [[Space Junk Galaxy]]/[[Dreadnought Galaxy]], and on the contrary, this proposal will ''decrease'' the quality of all other galaxy articles. If you can prove that there is any trouble identifying a "starting planet" in a majority of galaxies then I would support this proposal. As is, I will only support if this proposal is reworded to only refer to those galaxies where there are multiple starting planets OR, possibly, the galaxies where there is only one planet total.
:'''tl;dr:''' You have only shown two examples of where this proposal will help us more accurately define a planet (the Dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies) and if you read the long post above, you will see the reasons why I say that it does the opposite to all other planets. So if you reword the proposal to only affect those two planets, I will support. I am also willing to negotiate the galaxies with only one planet in them. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:Assuming that's not directed at me... {{User|Marioguy1}}
::It isn't. Phoenix thought LGM was a boy. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::@Marioguy1 (again) - Okay, I'll admit that you make a lot of valid points, but you also say that "this proposal will inevitably cause" people to "...use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of..." While this may partly be true, I'm also proposing that we leave (Starting Planet) next to the new names of the planets in addition to the name change. Also, I don't really think that anyone will have to go through too much trouble to "identify the planets labeled 'starting planet' with much less difficulty," as these planets are always the first planet that is seen in the list of planets for a galaxy, so it should be pretty easy to spot. This fact, together with the (Starting Planet) that I'm proposing we leave there, should make these planets relatively obvious.
::In addition, you also say that the proposal will "encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which." It seems to me that no greater confusion will arise as a result of the passing of this proposal than has already been caused by the continual name-changing of almost every planet on the majority of the galaxy articles by users. That is to say, users often take it upon themselves to randomly change the names of many of the other planets in galaxy articles without warning regardless. These sporadic decisions are often based, at least from my perspective, solely on the decision that a new name would better describe the planet than the previous one. Though this is seemingly helpful to the article in the long run, when the names of many planets on galaxy articles are constantly changing, it can be extremely confusing to readers. My point is that users are going to be constantly changing the names of planets or areas in galaxies regardless of whether this proposal passes or not, simply because one may invent a better or more-fitting title as time goes on. I'm sure that the passing (or lack thereof) of this proposal will not in any way encourage users to change the names of planets more frequently than they already have in the past, and are currently. {{User|Phoenix}} 21:20, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
:::@Phoenix (encore): Adding the (Starting Planet) in brackets just seems like we are putting the other name of the planet there to make the planet's name sound cool - the "Starting Planet" is the only part that is necessary, and when writing conjectural titles, useless fluff that "sounds cool" is not included. And the list order helps, but sometimes editors to the article may become confused while editing when the planet is not clearly labeled.
:::As to your second point, maybe this proposal should be changed to reflect a solution to that problem. As what you are proposing will definitely not fix that problem - it might even do the opposite (in giving users another planet to enact their constant renaming of planets on). Maybe this proposal should be "lock all conjectural titles until an agreement is reached on the talk page" - I would support that. But as is, all your proposal does, which I repeat from above, is help identify the planets in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxies. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::::How come the other planets have "fluff" names then? Couldn't they just be called "second planet" and "third planet" and so on? [[User:Volatile Dweevil|Volatile Dweevil]]
:::::That's exactly my point! If the other planets all have "actual" names, then why not the "Starting Planets" as well? But to maintain their given position as the first planets in a galaxy, we leave (Starting Planet) next to their new name...simple. {{User|Phoenix}} 15:47, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
I'm wondering, but are there any levels that go in a slightly different sequence of planets? Then, the names for the planets (planet 1, planet 2, etc.) would get messed up. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:@Volatile Dweevil: Because almost no galaxies actually have that linear format. Most galaxies begin on only one planet, there only being ~2/40 exceptions. However if we make it Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, we will have the naming conflict problem with ~30/40 galaxies; which is a significantly greater percentage (5% < 75%). If it were possible to have Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, etc. in a non-confusing way then I'd be all for it! Unfortunately here the con outweighs the pro (the opposite of the scenario with "starting planet").
:@Phoenix: So you want us to go through all the galaxies in the entire two games and rename all of them, taking time and arguing choices for names, causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best (which you have already complained about) just because you want the names to sound cool? Is that really why you are causing such major changes? Because I see no other points to the positive. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::@Marioguy (redux) - Well, no. If you review my prior arguments, I have never once actually used the word "cool." I am not proposing 91 name changes so that every planet will have a cool name as opposed to "Starting Planet." I'm doing this because I feel that we could maintain some semblance of order while simultaneously giving the planets names that will not completely ostracize them from the rest of the planets in the article. I mean, if all we're going to do here is name planets for where they are in the galaxy and what they do for the particular mission they are encountered in, we may as well count the number of planets in each mission, and then give the name "Middle Planet" to whatever planet happens to be in the middle, or give the name "Ending Planet" to the last planet encountered in the galaxies in which missions always end on the same planet.
::Regarding the part about "causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best," what I was trying to say yesterday was that if this was to pass, we would not be creating a whole new set of problems; people are already erratically changing planet names as they see fit and would still be doing so daily even if this proposal had never existed. It would be a very different scenario if I had proposed, for instance, that the conjectural names of all the glitches for several games be immediately changed, which may cause users to flock to those articles and repeatedly change every name to what each one personally desired them to be, thereby creating a whole new cycle of name changes where there had been none before. I highly doubt that changing the name of one planet per each individual galaxy article will draw an overabundance of attention, let alone create a major disturbance across every article. The end justifies the means. {{User|Phoenix}} 21:58, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
:::@Phoenix: OK, so if the "cool name" thing is false, then I see absolutely ''no'' points for enacting this change. And I would not have any problem with "Ending Planet" - however the "Middle Planet" would have to be the middle of the level which could be complicated to find.
:::And regarding the "loop" again, what ''I'' am trying to say is that this will cause a commotion while users are trying to find new names for the previously-named "Starting Planets". I think this will just be a useless change, will give no benefit and will just cause confusion in the one part of the galaxy articles that is actually static. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::::@Marioguy - Wait a minute though, why are you using the fact that I ''don't'' want every Starting Planet to have a "cool" name as the basis for your reasoning that the proposal is now invalid? I thought one of the biggest problems that you had with this proposal in the first place was that I was only renaming the planets to give them "cool" names. If that's the case (the second paragraph about name-changing commotion aside), why are you still saying that you "see absolutely ''no'' points for enacting this change" even after I've said otherwise? {{User|Phoenix}} 23:01, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
@Phoenix: I'm not using that as my basis, my main point here is that this proposal will do absolutely nothing except remove the shred of consistency that remains in these galaxy articles. I have never had a problem with you renaming planets to give them "cool" names; I sure did say that that's horrible reasoning, but I've never said that's why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because this proposal will kill what consistency there is in the articles. And could you please tell me your points? I don't see a place where this proposal would be useful... {{User|Marioguy1}}
:Okay, when you say "...tell me your points...", are you asking that I reiterate the ultimate goal of my proposal or that I tell you which areas of the galaxy articles I think this proposal would be useful in improving? {{User|Phoenix}} 00:29, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
::As long as you mention more than just the dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies, that may be the only way you can convince me. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::@Bop1996 - Okay, but even if this proposal did pass, you'd still see the name "Starting Planet" when you went to a galaxy article, just in parentheses (not brackets) next to its new name. In response to "know[ing] exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared," I, personally, usually use the picture of the planet next to the name to identify it more than the conjectural name of the planet anyway, and in addition, the name "Starting Planet" really does not describe any particular unique features of the planets to which they apply, like ''every other'' planet name does (this is part of the reason why I made this proposal in the first place, because I felt that the "Starting Planets" are as such ''not'' easily identified by comparison), which actually makes it harder for readers to know exactly which planet it is, and giving them another name like the other planets helps to describe where it is and what it does, as such names are 1,000x more specific and descriptive than just "Starting Planet." For this reason, I would actually have no problem with the "Starting Planet" in the [[Tall Trunk Galaxy]] being named "Giant Tree Planet <font color=red>(</font>Starting Planet<font color=red>)</font>," which actually suits it pretty well (unless someone could possibly think of a better name at some point in the future), and ultimately does a much ''better'' job of clarification than just "Starting Planet."
:::Like I was saying in a previous argument of mine (though I'm not really sure I made it that clear), just giving planets names like "Starting Planet," "Middle Planet," or "Ending Planet" does ''absolutely nothing'' but describe where it is encountered in a particular mission or galaxy, and at the end of the day just makes is that much harder for people to identify which planet in a galaxy it actually is. Finally, you say that "just because you have conjectural names for eighty percent of the planets in each galaxy doesn't mean that removing the non-conjectural names is a good idea." Well actually, "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name just like all the other planet names that we currently have; if you check, you'll see that the name of every "Starting Planet" is marked with <nowiki>{{conjecturaltext_____|planet}}</nowiki> just like every other planet name. So, by the passing of this proposal, we won't be removing any "non-conjectural names," because every planet name is conjectural. We also won't be adding any more conjectural names, and for that matter, we will not be subtracting any conjectural names either; ergo, the number of conjectural names will stay right where it is. {{User|Phoenix}} 17:40, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
*The DS version has "Super Mario Bros." as a track, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=870WLPGnnKs using imagery from the games].
*The Wii version includes "New Super Mario Bros. Wii Medley." and "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrnhCfrtw Super Mario Bros.]" Notably, the videos include [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO31iswKX84 actual characters and imagery from the game showing up]. The former has nearly every enemy from the original ''Super Mario Bros.''
*''Taiko no Tatsujin Wii U Version!'' has "[[Fever]]" from ''[[Dr. Mario]]''. There are also Mario and Luigi costumes for Don-chan and Katsu-chan.
*''Nintendo Switch Version!'' has "[[Jump Up, Super Star!]]" from ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]''.
*The 2020 version brings back "Super Mario Bros." and "Jump Up, Super Star!", also including a "Famicom Medley" track using "Fever" from ''Dr. Mario''. These tracks are present in many of the arcade versions. Playing "Super Mario Bros." will have mushrooms and [[Super Star]]s appear [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jxXo0oHzZg when notes are hit].
*''Blue Version'' has [[Cappy]] has an equippable hat.
*''Rhythm Festival'' has a medley of music from ''Super Mario Bros.'', re-used from earlier games.
::::@Phoenix: Let me discriminate for a minute here. The term "Starting Planet" ''is'' a conjectural name. However, it, unlike at least one title of a planet out there, describes its respective planet perfectly, without any confusion, except in the aforementioned cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Relegating it to parentheses and placing a "more descriptive" name in front of it does not help the article in any way that I can see. As for my example, why change the title to "Giant Tree Planet (Starting Planet)," when the planet's section could mention that there is a giant tree on the planet, and the current title describes the planet without any ambiguity whatsoever. Please do not go to the "Well, if mentioning a planet's appearance in the planet's section, not title is fine for Starting Planets, why not do that for all the planets?" argument, as that is easily refuted: Starting Planet ''is the best conjectural title there is for the starting planet,'' but since you proved that adding such a title to the rest of the planets does not work, ''the adjective conjectural names do the best job describing the rest of the planets.'' {{User|Bop1996}}
''Mario'' has paid it back with the serial-numbers-filed-off ''[[Donkey Konga]]'' and [[Don-chan]] being a playable character in ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP DX]]''. Since there's overlap between the franchises, and they've had a decent history together, I think ''Taiko'' is deserving of its own article to cover all this in one place.
@Bop1996 The right name of this planet is "Tall Trunk Planet," thus the name of the galaxy. {{user|SWFlash}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:I don't really want to discuss which name we would use, that's just an example of how I see that sort of title to do a worse job describing the starting planet ''only.'' Not the other planets, just the starting one... {{User|Bop1996}}
====Support (Bring Us One Degree of Separation Closer to Jimmy Neutron)====
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense to us; with how many cross references there are both ways, it seems only fair.
#{{User|Hewer}} This should probably be cancelled given the crossover article proposal but I'll support just in case. I previously wasn't sure whether it would get a page under that proposal because the only crossover I knew about was Don-chan being in Mario Kart (and his tiny Smash representation in one of Pac-Man's taunts), but all of this other stuff seems very comparable to what got [[Just Dance (series)]] a page. Now we just need to figure out whether [[Mametchi|Tamagotchi]] gets one...
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
Not sure if this was answered already, but for galaxies that only consist of one planet, we merely split it up into sections, as shown on the [[Flip-Swap Galaxy]] and [[Beat Block Galaxy]]. {{User|Gamefreak75}}
====Oppose (No More Megalovania, Please)====
:@Gamefreak75 - Right, I understand that...what I was talking about when I said "galaxies with one planet" was like the [[Bigmouth Galaxy]], the [[Drip Drop Galaxy]], the [[Flipswitch Galaxy]]...you know? I had previously brought up galaxies featuring planets or areas that are extremely long and expansive as a completely separate issue... {{User|Phoenix}} 01:34, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
====Comments' Perfect Math Class====
{{@|Scrooge200}}, have you considered waiting until the proposal [[#Introducing the crossover article|immediately above]] is finished? You would not need to raise proposal for ''Taiko no Tatsujin'' at all if it were to be pass. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:23, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
:Oh, I noticed that, but figured it was more for just ''Zelda''. I'm glad to see we're finally making it out of the Stone Age with our crossover coverage, though. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 15:27, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
::''Zelda'' is just the example I worked with. The proposal itself applies to all manner of crossover. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
::{{@|Scrooge200}} By "stone age" I assume you mean it's one of the last steps to becoming a wiki centered completely on ''Super Mario''. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:38, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
:@LeftyGreenMario - Sigh...I rue the day I ever made the argument proving that there are galaxies in which "Starting Planet" would be ineffective. Truthfully, this will help a great deal more than just two articles, but I think, at this point, what's been said has been said, and that ship has sailed in the eyes if the opposers...anyway, the proposal wouldn't be "giving us more work overall," because really, when put in perspective, the amount of the articles that I'm proposing be changed is a relatively small percentage of the entire information of the article, and also, like I said in my original argument, I would be going around to all of the affected articles and making the necessary changes personally (unless of course someone ''wanted'' to help me, which I would never discourage), so I would be taking full responsibility for enacting my proposal, and no one else would even be forced to take part in making changes, unless of course they want to... {{User|Phoenix}} 01:51, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
===Merge moves exclusive to forms with their respective forms, leaving main article links if they are part of another article. Also replace the Fly article with a list.===
Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like [[Cape Mario|swinging a cape]], [[Flying Squirrel Mario|jumping in the air]], or even a slew of [[Link|Link’s moves]]! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding [[Tail whip]])
:@Walkazo - I see where you're coming from, but in regards to your argument, therein lies the problem, so to speak; if we had no planet names, each mission section would be, "To start, Mario begins on the first chunk of space rock. Next, he must make his way to the slightly larger chunk of space rock that looks like a castle..." and no one would know what we're talking about... {{User|Phoenix}} 16:38, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
If you guessed zero, +/- Tail whip, you’re right. This makes sense: If I go to an article on a form, then I want to see all of that form’s nuances. What good is it to have some parts of the benefits conferred by a power-up on a separate page? Imagine if [[Builder Mario]] had an article dedicated to swinging its hammer, a core portion of the abilities Builder Mario grants. Imagine if [[Mole Yoshi]] had an entire article dedicated to its ability to dig, despite that being the sole move it can do with a button press and digging being its entire point of existing. Imagine if operating the [[Super Pickax]] had an entire article separate from the Super Pickax, even though the player doesn’t even have the choice to hold a Super Pickax without using it. (Yes, the act of using a Super Pickax has a name!)
Disclaimer: I am not trying to be rude by butting in to this discussion, but I had an idea that might solve this problem.
But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:
@Phoenix: That argument isn't necessarily true, you gave a worst-case scenario for how we ''could'' do it if we had no planet sections.
@Walkazo: That sparked my curiosity, so I made an edit to [[User:Bop1996/Work|my work page]] seeing how the levels section of the Tall Trunk Galaxy would look without the planets section. I wasn't as descriptive as possible, but that would seem to be the only way to pull it off. I was actually a little confused when I saw your vote, because I remember everyone voting down a proposal to ''change'' the planet names to sequential order, but I never heard of removing the planets section altogether. Maybe a proposal after this one is over would be in order. {{User|Bop1996}}
:@Bop1996: If it was put in the comments section, anybody can comment on it.
:@Phoenix: In relation to your comment on LGM's "work" comment; making the edits is only half the work. There are then the people who are going to have to put up with the arguing on what name is "right", there's the admins who are going to have to patrol every single one of these edits, and if it ever expands into an edit war over names, we're going to have ten times as much work cut out for us. Making the edits is definitely not the hardest part. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::That's good, just thought it was better to ask permission than forgiveness... {{User|Bop1996}}
:::@Bop1996 - Well, respectfully, it's not exactly a worst-case scenario. Granted, I may have exaggarated slightly to make my point, but the basis of the argument is solid. Giving the planets names does more than just describe them and tell where they are and what they look like, it gives us a solid foundation from which to base the rest of the information in the entire article. Otherwise, in what way are readers supposed to continuously reference at what point the player is in a galaxy? Extrapolation? Just imagine, for a second, if every time a user wished to add an article to any various category, they had to insert the category name on the bottom of the page, and it ''wouldn't'' automatically appear in the list of pages for that category, so they would have to manually go to the category page and add it to the list themselves instead. Just imagine how much extra work this would cause as a result. Well, abolishing the planet names leaves us in much the same predicament with every galaxy article.
*[[Shell dash]] ([[Shell Mario]])
*[[Dive]] (Claw dives of [[Cat Mario]])
*[[Drill Spin]] ([[Propeller Mario]])
:::If we have no planet names, there are no planet sections, and so every time a planet is mentioned in the description of a mission / level, the planet must be described all over again (i.e. - continually saying things like "the base of an enormous tree" or "a large log" time and time again instead of just simply saying the "Starting Planet" or the "Log Planet," which are perfectly acceptable planet names that have already been established and need not be eliminated). Not only does this make the descriptions of the missions extremely repetitive, it also makes them needlessly lengthy, especially for missions which involve returning planets or areas from previous missions. Naturally, this entails the galaxies in which every mission starts on the same planet, and since, (as had been repeated many times in the preceding comments) only two galaxies out of the total 91 do not start on the same planet, the other 89 galaxy articles would suffer.
I think this is a flawed line of thinking. For a much as shell dashing and Drill Spinning are moves that can be used by specific forms, they are also benefits conferred by specific forms and power-ups. We should be focusing efforts to improve coverage for such moves on the page for the power-up, as someone who wants to learn everything Shell Mario can do probably shouldn’t have to also check shell dash. Shell Mario should say that shell dashing enemies doesn’t start a point chain. Shell Mario should say if how many hits it takes to defeat a boss with the shell dash. Shell Mario should mention the unique movement opportunities/restrictions of the shell dash compared two base Mario. There shouldn’t be two different articles going into technical detail on a single topic if we can help it, not least because of the potential of a correction to one article not being applied to the other. And if we can only have one super detailed article, then it ought to be the form.
:::If we give each planet a name and a short section describing it, it saves us from having to re-describe each planet every time we mention them in mission descriptions. In this way (I'm just using the red coloring here to keep the words together and make it less confusing), <font color=red>giving planets names</font> is to <font color=red>articles automatically appearing in the list on a category page</font> as <font color=red>referencing planets (and by extention their descriptions at the top of the page as well) in mission descriptions</font> is to <font color=red>putting the category name at the bottom of any page</font> (because if we have planet names and planet descriptions, all we have to do is say the planet name in mission descriptions and everything in the planet's description is automatically implied (and does not need to be explained again), so in effect we are using the planet names in mission descriptions to reference the planet's description, much like one would use the action of putting a category name at the bottom of a page to reference its specific characteristics as being a part of that particular category), which I think we all could agree is considerably easier than having to type out the same information over and over again to achieve exactly the same ends.
Imagine if we extended the current situation to other named moves of forms? Would [[Mega Yoshi]] be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Tail Swipe, on the basis of it having the technical detail of stalling Yoshi’s fall? Would [[Penguin Mario]] be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Belly Slide? If we gave the field form of [[Luiginoid Formation#Ball|Luiginary Ball]] a page, would it be.a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Ball Hammer?
:::But I digress; all that now being said, I feel that we're getting way too off topic here...after all, the proposal is about naming the Starting Planets, not about whether or not the planet names should stay... {{User|Phoenix}} 22:44, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
As such, this proposal aims to just move all the technical details of moves that can only be performed by power-up forms to the form’s page. The section remains, because it’s a part of the move’s conceptual history, using a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> article link to move over to the form for the nitty gritty on how everything about that specific implementation works. For reference look at how [[Dash]] handles the [[Dash (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga)]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dash&diff=4431004&oldid=4421941 Relevant Edit]) and the [[Spin Dash]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dash&diff=4435629&oldid=4431024 Relevant Edit]). Instead of restating the entire move but trying to be a little looser about the mechanics than the main article, it has a note saying “this exists and is a version of the thing this article is about”, and then sends the reader to the main article. It's a more efficient use of bits and our readers' time.
::::@Marioguy1 - I wasn't trying to say that making the changes are the hardest part, in fact, I believe quite the opposite. I was merely trying to convey to LGM that this proposal is not as negative as people are saying it is, and like I said before, I really don't think, given that the proposal ever passes, that people will be so prone to "jump all over" the galaxy articles the second that the planets have new names, I mean, how many people are that unhappy with the way planets are named to begin with? Plus, lately I haven't seen planet names being changed around nearly as much as they used to be...believe me when I say that I have the utmost respect for the hard work that admins, sysops, bureaucrats, and patrollers successfully do on a daily basis, but respectfully, we can't write off a proposal simply because it has the ''potential'' to cause problems, because it also may not cause any problems at all, and how will we know unless we try...? {{User|Phoenix}} 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
This does not affect moves of non-powered up characters that are modified by the power-up. Flying Squirrel Mario’s high Spin Jumps stay on [[Spin Jump]], Frog Mario's and Penguin Mario’s swimming stay on [[Swim]], Tanooki Mario’s Tail Spin stays on [[Roll]], and so on. This is in addition to these modified versions of moves being written about on their form’s pages. (No, shell dash is not a modified dash. It's a new action that dashing happens to trigger, as indicated by the requirement of dashing and alternate method of crouching on a slope) This proposal does not affect projectiles whose existence is broader than their associated power-up, namely [[Fireball]], [[Ice Ball]], [[Hammer]], and [[Bubble]]. Builder Boxes are [[Crate]]s, so they fall into this bucket. (Superball would be included, but it was merged with [[Superball Mario]] years ago and is not included.) This also does not affect character/power-up hybrids. [[Yoshi]]'s [[Swallow]], [[Egg Throw]], et al, [[Baby DK]]'s [[DK Dash Attack]], [[Diddy Kong]]'s [[Diddy Attack]] and [[Barrel Jet]], and [[Rambi]]'s [[Super move|Supercharge]] and [[Charge (Donkey Kong Country series)|Charge]] are examples of these exclusions. This is because in some cases the character can use the move without being a power-up, usually because they are playable in a non-power-up capacity. While this isn’t true in every case, it makes sense to extend this grace to all character/power-up hybrids. [[SMB2 Mario]] is bizarre, but [[Crouching High Jump|charge jump]] is ultimately unaffected. It’s a move of the normal player characters in ''Super Mario Bros. 2'' proper, and the article doesn’t have a ''Super Mario Maker 2'' section to cut down anyway. I’d advocate for adding more charge jump content to the SMB2 Mario article, but that’s not part of the proposal.
I agree that is off topic... I was mostly trying to figure out what she was suggesting we do, and how it possibly could be done without being ambiguous or non-descriptive... As such, unless someone makes a proposal to get rid of the planets section, I'm not really into debating this now, unless there really are a lot of people out there who want the planets section removed... {{User|Bop1996}}
Perceptive readers probably realize that this policy would gut [[Fly]], an article entirely about a recurring skill of certain forms/capability of items. An article consisting entirely of <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> templates would be bad, right? Au contraire, for this is by design. Fly is trapped in a purgatory where it can’t actually say anything meaningful because all of the data for each of the forms, abilities, and items it’s trying to cover should be on the articles for those things. So it’s a listicle of every game you can fly in with cliff notes about how they work. I guess its a directory for all of the flying skills, but having it be a traditional article makes using Fly as a directory inefficient. At this point, we should embrace the list structure and use it for something lists are good for, comparisons between games. I have compiled a list version of Fly on a [[User:Salmancer/List of methods of flight|userpage]], based on the existing [[List of power-ups]]. It’s messy and incomplete but I think it’s better than the Fly article. Should this proposal pass, this list will replace the article.
:I was just pointing out there ''is'' a way to get rid of the ''entire'' "starting planet" vs. "unique names for all" debate. Anyway, I don't see the category analogy at all, and just because we don't have sections for each planet doesn't mean we can't "unofficially" call them descriptive names: I just think having sections for each one is a bit too much. I.e. for the Tall Trunk Galaxy example, it could be said that Mario goes to "a planet shaped like a log" in the first mission, but from then on, it could just be called "the log planet" and people would understand what you're talking about. ''SMS'' and ''SM64'' don't have any problems with missions written in that sorta style. It's just a thought: I'm not up to debating it right now either. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::@Walkazo - Well, regarding the comparison to categories, I was just trying to say that naming and describing planets and then referencing the names and descriptions of the planets later on in the mission descriptions is essentially the equivalent of creating a various category, and then later referencing the name of the category at the bottom of an article which the category applies to. In both situations, a larger body of information is referred to via a much smaller word or phrase (i.e. - a category name or a planet name), thereby reducing the need for repetitive and inconsistent information while simultaneously retaining the same amount of source information efficiently (I probably should have worded it like that in the first place, and it might not have been half as confusing, but hopefully that's a little clearer). {{User|Phoenix}} 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
[[Tail whip]] was created after I planned this proposal but before I proposed it. If this proposal passes, it gets merged into [[Raccoon Mario]] for 2D games and [[Tanooki Mario]] for 3D games. This policy devastates Tail Whip in the same way Fly is. Tail Whip can keep its categories as a redirect. While the move may be used by multiple forms, the most basic forms with the attack are more than capable of storing Tail whip's mechanics for the improved versions of [[White Raccoon Mario]] and [[White Tanooki Mario]] to refer to later. This matches how Penguin Mario defers to Ice Mario and Ice Ball. [[Tail]]s are also on Tail Whip, but Tail handles using Tail and has no need to be listed on another article. Even if we wanted a complete list of games with with tail attacks, Raccoon Mario already mentions Tail. (The situation is also similar to [[Cape]], which used to compile [[Cape Mario]] and [[Superstar Mario]] into a listicle before this [[Talk:Cape#Clean up this article to include only information in the Super Smash Bros. series|proposal]] reduced it to the Smash Bros. attack.
I think that since all planets (apart from the starting planet) in most galaies have conjectural names anyway that the starting planet should have a name as well. {{User|JayRed2486}}
Oh yeah and I guess [[Strike of Intuition]] is caught in the crosshairs of this since it is a move exclusive to [[Detective Peach]]. Given everything else, it gets merged too.
:@Phoenix: I don't believe that you think the edits are the hardest part, I'm pretty sure that you're one of the few people who can actually see how hard an admin's job is; that's exactly why I had to mention it, for all the people who didn't realize that.
:But aside from that, on the topic of your comment, I think that this propose will cause people to start up in a rage. The rage was quieting down because nobody was paying any attention to the galaxy articles; this proposal will cause 80+ changes to be made to those articles (never mind to the names of planets), drawing in mountains of attention and starting up the process again.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Salmancer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:Finally I would like to point out that in normal cases, the potential for good would outweigh the bad. But in this case it seems like a whole lot of work to fix up two articles. {{User|Marioguy1}}
====Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert [[Fly]] into a list====
#{{User|Salmancer}} Per proposal.
I really don't think the amount of work should matter. Our job is to ''improve the wiki as much as possible''. If this proposal will help the wiki (which I personally think it will), then we should pass it, regardless of how much extra work you happen to think it will cause. If this passes, I plan to help with the articles. {{User|Ultrahammer5365}}
====Merge moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is====
:@Ultrahammer5365: The thing is, it won't. It will just cause extra work, possibly create a lot of articles, ruin the consistency sequence of articles and possibly come up with names that make me laugh (that's not a good thing). The only good things that will come out of it will be in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxy articles; two articles which I am planning to fix up as soon as this proposal is over. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::@Marioguy1 - Well, actually, I was thinking about fixing those (seeing that I discovered that in the first place), but if you want to, I won't object... {{User|Phoenix}} 00:58, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
====Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list====
:::@Phoenix: I said that to express a point, I really don't care what happens with them; as long as they're fixed. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::::@Marioguy1 - Gotcha. {{User|Phoenix}} 01:44, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
====Oppose: Status quo====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Many of the moves in question are used by multiple forms, <s>so attempting to merge them to all separately would violate [[Mariowiki:Once and only once]]</s> {{color|purple|EDIT: which makes determining appearances of the move across different games more difficult to find}}. Furthermore, we do not merge ''character''-specific moves to their respective pages (other than non-''Mario'' characters in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series) - for instance, look at [[Scuttle]] and [[Flutter Jump]] - so why should we do so with forms?
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I don't think we cover moves and other actions particularly well, and I would rather see what that looks like before proposing mergers. Moves are not strictly the same as the form itself (i.e. Flying Squirrel Mario, Power Squirrel Mario, and captured Glydon can all "glide"), and it would be nice to see detail on what the moves are in isolation. Sometimes different power-uped forms perform the same move. A quick look through the fly article indicates there are things lumped together there that really aren't the same thing.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all. the current state of the wiki's move coverage just isn't good enough right now to determine whether this proposal would have any benefits. would love to see this proposal again in the future when we have more ground to stand on, but it's not the time right now.
===Split the [[:Category:Implied]] pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.===
====Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)====
I think that the implied pages should be split into sections in-page that allow the viewer to quickly jump to the list in a certain game.
I am sorry this proposal planned for a while is going to merge an article that was just made. It kind of jumped further up my list of priorities given I don't want people to put hard work into adding to Tail whip if I'm about to try to merge it. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|JayRed2486}}<br>
Question; would this merge [[Fireball Punch]], and would this failing result in re-instating [[Talk:Dangan Mario|Dangan Mario]]? These manga "forms" are kind of an edge case. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
'''Voting start''': April 15, 2011, 17:00 GMT<br>
:Oh dear manga questions. From what I understand of things, I think nothing should happen either way. Dangan Mario was an article as a form, so unless it's getting reevaluated to be a named move it stays where it lies. Fireball Punch is tricky. The thing is that this proposal exists because of pressures from the medium of video games. Fireball Punch is from a linear narrative story, there's not really much of a benefit readers gain from merging Fireball Punch because odds are someone looking at Super Mario Wiki to read about Fireball Mario doesn't need to know what a Fireball Punch is soon after. They might not even be reading the fifth chapter of Volume 1, the only place with a Fireball Punch. You can hardly consider the Fireball Punch to be a core part of Fireball Mario like all of the moves involved in the proposal. Fireball Punch is free from this proposal, though someone else might think the lack of length means it should be merged into Fireball Mario given this proposal is merging many longer articles or sections of articles into their home forms. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:56, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': April 22, 2011, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} for your own sake, you should know "once and only once" as a strict policy has been [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Once_and_only_once&diff=4723954&oldid=4372233 retired]. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:18, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|JayRed2486}} I made this propsal so I am supporting it.
:Thanks, wish I'd known that before. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:30, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
====Oppose====
Characters aren't forms, so their moves are unaffected by this proposal, which means Scuttle isn't involved, Character/power-ups are unaffected, so Flutter Jump also isn't affected and you can't loophole abuse your way to merging Scuttle through the [[Luigi Cap]]. Forms that are improved versions of other forms already defer to the base form for unchanged abilities they inherit. Ice Mario has two paragraphs dedicated to using Ice Balls See example text of everything Penguin Mario has to say about Ice Balls..
#{{User|Zero777}} Per my comment
<blockquote>After Mario has become this form, he can throw Ice Balls at enemies and freeze them. Mario can then use the frozen enemies as platforms or pick them up and throw them against the wall or other enemies. </blockquote> - [[Penguin Mario]]
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Zero.
The system works! It's repeated for [[White Raccoon Mario]] in relation to Raccoon Mario, as per the line, "It gives the player Raccoon Mario's abilities, causes the P-Meter to charge more quickly, allows the player to run and stand on water (like Mini Mario), and grants invincibility for the stage". It's also done for [[Power Squirrel Mario]] to [[Flying Squirrel Mario]], with "As Power Squirrel Mario, Mario has all of the abilities of Flying Squirrel Mario, though he never loses the ability to glide and can perform Flying Squirrel Jumps continuously without landing". [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per both!
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per the seven-hundred and seventy seven number zeros.
#{{User|SWFlash}} There's so many people to per…per 0777's comments.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per the Catholic "Code Geass" fan (Zero).
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per all.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} Most game sections would just have one implied anyway.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} I am implying to leave it be.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per all.
====Comments====
"List of methods of flight" as a name for the userpage was designed to be aware that not everything on Fly is the same kind of move. (and also it managed to morph into a list of all ways to get from point A to point B if point B is higher than point A... and then an extra addendum for hovering over hazards.) Would it be better if it were placed in mainspace as "List of methods of flight"? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:47, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Here's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone. {{User|Zero777}}
===Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articles===
Regarding your saying that tail whip's info would be moved to Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games, would that not mean that Tanooki Mario's page would not discuss the tail whip until ''Super Mario 3D Land'', despite it being usable by that form in ''Super Mario Bros. 3''? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:53, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
I think it is a good idea to make articles for levels for example an article named [[World 1-1]].
:Tanooki Mario is already doing exactly that. I don't see anything that makes the article hard to follow, short of it going "there is mandatory reading before reading this article." Which White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario have been doing as well. It's fine. <blockquote>In this form, he can turn into an invulnerable statue by holding +Control Pad down and pressing B Button at the same time, '''in addition to using Raccoon Mario's moves''', making it an improved version of Raccoon Mario. </blockquote> - [[Tanooki Mario]], ''Super Mario Bros. 3'' section.
:<blockquote>However, the form's mechanics are different from ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing {{button|3ds|X}} or {{button|3ds|Y}}) and glide (now done by holding {{button|3ds|A}} or {{button|3ds|B}}, as with [[Cape Mario|Caped Mario]], rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay. </blockquote> - [[Tanooki Mario]], ''Super Mario 3D Land'' section.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Superfiremario}}<br>
:Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the ''3D Land'' text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
'''Voting Start''': April 16, 2011, 20:40 GMT<br>
::But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': April 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
:::Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat ''3D Land'', is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the [[Tanooki Mario]] page on Super Mario Wiki!"
:::In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on [[Tail whip]] to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
====Support====
::::"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Duh, it's my proposal!
:::::I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is ''Mario Kart'' Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in ''Mario Kart Tour'' with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a ''Mario Kart'' series "sentence long section with a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.[[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::::::IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
====Oppose====
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} - Per myself! Bowser's Castle is in World 8 in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series, and the Grandmaster Galaxy is in World S in ''Super Mario Galaxy 2''. Keep it!
#{{User|Nicke8}} That'd make a lot of disambugation pages, like for 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per my comments. If people want information on levels from a specific world in a specific game, they can get all they need from the games' articles. There is no need to make articles on individual levels.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per Nicke8
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per Hooktail (aka red dragon).
#{{User|Zero777}} Leave it as is, and I don't think anybody will dedicate that much time.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per all.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. If we ''were'' going to change anything, I'd actually rather go the other way and merge level articles into the worlds, like how the 3D games are done, since that makes navigation way faster and saves on space. In most cases, the levels can be summarized fairly succinctly anyway (remember, we're not a walkthrough, so big detailed descriptions often ''aren't'' necessary).
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Like what [[User:Superfiremario|you]] said [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Split Each Boss Level From Each Boss|here]], this is useless! :(
#{{User|Phoenix}} - Per all.
====Comments====
The dates were all done wrong: this was proposed on the 15th (at 20:43 ''GMT''), so voting starts on the ''16th'', and ends at ''23:59 GMT'' on the 23rd. I had to remove the opposing votes because voting hasn't actually started yet. Please read the rules before making proposals: Rule 2 explains exactly how to do the dates. - {{User|Walkazo}}
What are you trying to say? This proposal is WAY TOO VAGUE. {{User|Zero777}}
:Vague? The thing's not even coherent. I assume we're supposed to make an article titled World 1-1 and mention every game that has one. I can't see why that would be useful. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::Let me rephrase it the way I see it. "Currently all articles on levels are included in a general world; for example, all levels from [[World 1 (Super Mario Bros.)|World 1]] are in the same article. I propose that these articles be split off to instead create "World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", "World 2-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", etc." {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::When put that way, the phrasing makes more sense, though the action proposed isn't any more useful. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
===Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article===
This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Tails777}}<br>
'''Voting Start''': April 16, 2011, 22:30 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': April 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT<br>
====Support====
#{{User|Tails777}} Per me.
#{{User|SWFlash}} <s>First!</s> Per proposal.
#{{User|Zero777}} They are not stubs, but per my reason in the Super Strike Merge proposal.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all and myself! If the Super Strikes are merged, so does this!
#{{User|Joeypmario}}Per all.
====Oppose====
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Comparing differences between two Power Shots gives a bigger difference than comparing two Super Strikes/Mega Strikes to each other. So for example, [[Koopa Troopa]]'s [[Water Bomb]] is '''always''' a drop shot and it slows the opponent down, while [[Koopa Paratroopa]]'s [[Energy Ball]] is '''always''' a lob shot and it spins the opponent around. Besides, there are 14 characters in [[Mario Power Tennis (Nintendo GameCube)|Mario Power Tennis]], and each character has '''both''' an offensive power shot and a defensive power shot. That would merge 28 shots into one article. The difference between [[Super Strike]]s and [[Mega Strike]]s are just aesthetic, they're no different to each other besides the way they look. This is why they were merged.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per all
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per all.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per the user with the ridiculously long username.
====Comments====
The dates were all wrong. Voting start is a day after the proposal was made, which means it starts on the 16th, not the 15th; you also forgot to convert the time from EST to GMT (or incorrectly converted from some other time zone). And finally, mainspace proposals only go for one week, so this ends on the 23rd, not the 29th. How to format these dates and times is clearly explained in Rule 2: I encourage everyone to read it before making proposals. - {{User|Walkazo}}
I hate when I have to say this, but '''a stub is not a short article'''. A stub is an article that, regardless of length, lacks information. If a short article does have all its information, it is not a stub. Get it right, people. {{User|Reversinator}}
:I seriously have to get a hammer and pound that sentence into people's heads >_>
:A long time ago, we thought that all stubs were bad. We decided to merge all stubs into bigger articles; thinking that it would be great and we'd have no stubs. You know what resulted? Stuff like [[Gnat Attack#Watinga|this]]. Seriously, a boss of a game is merged into the game that it appears in! If the Shadow Queen article was a stub, would we merge that into PM:TTYD? I mean, honestly, sometimes stubs can be tolerated, but if you go overboard and constantly think "stubs = death" then you are bound to make [[Gnat Attack|mistakes]]. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::Well sorry, I just don't understand these things, I didn't know what stub means and I only say it on small articles/short sections of articles so I assumed they were small articles. {{User|Tails777}}
{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} I don't find this to be useful. If this proposal passes, what will happen to [[Fire Breath]]? It appears in Smash Bros. as well.
==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===Split Each Boss Level From Each Boss===
''None at the moment.''
I notice that most of the bosses in the ''[[Donkey Kong (series)|Donkey Kong'' series]] are merged with the levels. The article says how to defeat them in the level, but one of the contents is a boss and the other is a level. To me, those are very different! For example, [[Congazuma's Castle]] and [[Ruined Roost]]. They are redirected to different contents. Even the [[K. Rool Duel]] which is a final boss battle! I was going to do a talk page proposal, but then I realized how many bosses were merged with their levels. It also seems bad because levels in the ''[[Yoshi (series)|Yoshi'' series]], such as [[Gilbert the Gooey's Castle]] are split from their boss, which is [[Gilbert the Gooey]]. I will make a split and a keep section for voting.
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br>
'''Voting start''': April 16, 2011, 4:00 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': April 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
====Split Boss From Level====
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Per proposal
#{{User|Yoshidude99}} We have Galaxy bosses separate so why not split others?
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per Yoshidude99.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per Yoshidude99.
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per proposal.
====Keep Boss and Level Together====
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per FF65 and myself in the comments. This proposal would not help in any way that I can see. Instead, we'd either be repeating information, or creating an article on, at least for the DKCR bosses, a small stretch of land with a single Buddy Barrel. Not necessary, or helpful.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per myself and Bop1996. This will create dozens of two-liners.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per both and myself. Too many articles to create.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - It's like splitting [[Reznor]] and {{fakelink|Reznor Arena}}. Per all
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Bop1996 and FF65.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per FF65 and Bop1996.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per all
#{{User|Zero777}} Your proposal is vague on what bosses and levels as FF65 said.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per all. This is useless.
#{{User|M&SG}} - Not necessary if the level is merely a boss fight.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario304}} Per all.
#{{User|MarioMaster15}} Per all.
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all.
====Comments====
What is the procedure that is taken with all non-boss levels in that game? {{User|Marioguy1}}
:We will make the pages separate. For example, [[Congazuma]] and Congazuma's Castle will be separate.
::I know what you are proposing, I asked what the current procedure for all '''non-boss''' levels was. So what is it? Or does every level in that game have a boss. {{User|Marioguy1}}
The reason why those Yoshi's Island boss levels are separate from the bosses is because those are actual levels that you have to complete before reaching the boss. In the Donkey Kong games, the boss levels are simply you fighting the boss in a small area. If we were to split Congazuma's Castle from Congazuma, the article would be two sentences long. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::@Fawfulfury65, yes but Stu is the boss. Ruined Roost is the name of the level. {{User|DKPetey99}}
:I was about to say that... Stinky slow laptop... The reason Stu has the Ruined Roost info in his article is because the info is only important during the boss fight. It's like making an article for a boss arena from a Yoshi's Island game... {{User|Bop1996}}
We could make a level page for Tiki Tong Terror and have info about him on his page. That is one of the pages that could do with this proposal{{User|Yoshidude99}}
@DKPetey: I would like you to point out which part of the Ruined Roost level has information that isn't only important in the boss fight with Stu. {{User|Bop1996}}
@DKPetey: Yes, Ruined Roost is the level, but it is simply a stretch of land with a few pillars in it. The important part of the level is that you get to fight Stu in it. If we split the bosses and the levels, they would both end up describing how the boss is fought, since fighting Stu, as I said, is the main part of that level. Like Bop1996 said, this proposal would cause short articles with little and unimportant information, or it will cause repeating information. I'm not sure if you've played the ''Donkey Kong'' games, but if you have, you know how empty and bland the boss levels are.
@Yoshidude99: Like the ''Yoshi'' levels, the Galaxy bosses are split because you have to travel through the level they are in to reach them. In the ''Donkey Kong'' games, the levels are simply a small, unimportant area that you fight the boss in.
Everyone, please read these comments carefully before voting.
{{User|Fawfulfury65}}
Latest revision as of 14:10, March 18, 2025
Current time:
Wednesday, March 19th, 04:52 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.
If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
Rules
Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Basic proposal formatting
Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can simply say "Per proposal."
Poll proposal formatting
As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its a two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.
To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}
====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.
Talk page proposals
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.
All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Remove information on Super Mario Maker series big Para-Beetles from Heavy Para-Beetle (discuss) Deadline: March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split Sal Out (WarioWare: Touched!) from Sal Out (discuss) Deadline: March 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Properly define Brown Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: March 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Split Small Cosmic Clone from Cosmic Clone (discuss) Deadline: March 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Create an article for the cat enemies in Bowser's Fury (discuss) Deadline: March 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to thesepages. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?
I have several pitches for you.
OPTION ZERO
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.
EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a current policy — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.
OPTION ONE
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of the Brown Yoshi proposal would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed right now, we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.
OPTION TWO
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they are added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it is introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.
OPTION THREE
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to this proposal, but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.
EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.
OPTION FOUR
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.
Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk) Deadline: March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Option Zero
Jdtendo (talk) Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the worst thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the whole wiki. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
Salmancer (talk) Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.
Option One
Ahemtoday (talk) It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive and that the status of each one is visible on the page.
Salmancer (talk) There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.
Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.
Option Three
Camwoodstock (talk) We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
Ahemtoday (talk) I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.
#Jdtendo (talk) Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
Option Four
Comments
@Camwoodstock — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --PopitTart (talk) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--PopitTart (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I feel like this is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (some change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list several things to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --Steve (talk) 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)
On a vaguely related note, why do "tie" and "failed to reach consensus" have two separate colours in the proposal archive when the former is essentially a type of the latter? I don't really see the difference between them besides the fact that the wiki used to call them "ties". I also counted no more than four "tied" proposals in the entire archive, the last one having been in 2011, so it seems strange and confusing to still be using a separate colour for it. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:38, March 18, 2025 (EDT)
This is something I noticed as well while making the proposal — I kind of considered addressing it, but the proposal was already a bit sprawling, so bundling in a change to that seemed like a poor decision. If someone were to make a separate proposal to axe the "tie" color, I'd back it. Ahemtoday (talk) 14:10, March 18, 2025 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Give Taiko no Tatsujin an article
Taiko no Tatsujin has had numerous crossovers with the Mario franchise throughout its history. This extends to not only the songs being playable, but actual Mario characters showing up and being animated in the accompanying videos in the earlier games.
The 2020 version brings back "Super Mario Bros." and "Jump Up, Super Star!", also including a "Famicom Medley" track using "Fever" from Dr. Mario. These tracks are present in many of the arcade versions. Playing "Super Mario Bros." will have mushrooms and Super Stars appear when notes are hit.
Rhythm Festival has a medley of music from Super Mario Bros., re-used from earlier games.
Mario has paid it back with the serial-numbers-filed-off Donkey Konga and Don-chan being a playable character in Mario Kart Arcade GP DX. Since there's overlap between the franchises, and they've had a decent history together, I think Taiko is deserving of its own article to cover all this in one place.
Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk) Deadline: March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Support (Bring Us One Degree of Separation Closer to Jimmy Neutron)
Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us; with how many cross references there are both ways, it seems only fair.
Hewer (talk) This should probably be cancelled given the crossover article proposal but I'll support just in case. I previously wasn't sure whether it would get a page under that proposal because the only crossover I knew about was Don-chan being in Mario Kart (and his tiny Smash representation in one of Pac-Man's taunts), but all of this other stuff seems very comparable to what got Just Dance (series) a page. Now we just need to figure out whether Tamagotchi gets one...
@Scrooge200, have you considered waiting until the proposal immediately above is finished? You would not need to raise proposal for Taiko no Tatsujin at all if it were to be pass. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:23, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
Oh, I noticed that, but figured it was more for just Zelda. I'm glad to see we're finally making it out of the Stone Age with our crossover coverage, though. Scrooge200 (talk) 15:27, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
Zelda is just the example I worked with. The proposal itself applies to all manner of crossover. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
@Scrooge200 By "stone age" I assume you mean it's one of the last steps to becoming a wiki centered completely on Super Mario. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:38, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
Merge moves exclusive to forms with their respective forms, leaving main article links if they are part of another article. Also replace the Fly article with a list.
Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like swinging a cape, jumping in the air, or even a slew of Link’s moves! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding Tail whip)
If you guessed zero, +/- Tail whip, you’re right. This makes sense: If I go to an article on a form, then I want to see all of that form’s nuances. What good is it to have some parts of the benefits conferred by a power-up on a separate page? Imagine if Builder Mario had an article dedicated to swinging its hammer, a core portion of the abilities Builder Mario grants. Imagine if Mole Yoshi had an entire article dedicated to its ability to dig, despite that being the sole move it can do with a button press and digging being its entire point of existing. Imagine if operating the Super Pickax had an entire article separate from the Super Pickax, even though the player doesn’t even have the choice to hold a Super Pickax without using it. (Yes, the act of using a Super Pickax has a name!)
But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:
I think this is a flawed line of thinking. For a much as shell dashing and Drill Spinning are moves that can be used by specific forms, they are also benefits conferred by specific forms and power-ups. We should be focusing efforts to improve coverage for such moves on the page for the power-up, as someone who wants to learn everything Shell Mario can do probably shouldn’t have to also check shell dash. Shell Mario should say that shell dashing enemies doesn’t start a point chain. Shell Mario should say if how many hits it takes to defeat a boss with the shell dash. Shell Mario should mention the unique movement opportunities/restrictions of the shell dash compared two base Mario. There shouldn’t be two different articles going into technical detail on a single topic if we can help it, not least because of the potential of a correction to one article not being applied to the other. And if we can only have one super detailed article, then it ought to be the form.
Imagine if we extended the current situation to other named moves of forms? Would Mega Yoshi be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Tail Swipe, on the basis of it having the technical detail of stalling Yoshi’s fall? Would Penguin Mario be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Belly Slide? If we gave the field form of Luiginary Ball a page, would it be.a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Ball Hammer?
As such, this proposal aims to just move all the technical details of moves that can only be performed by power-up forms to the form’s page. The section remains, because it’s a part of the move’s conceptual history, using a {{main}} article link to move over to the form for the nitty gritty on how everything about that specific implementation works. For reference look at how Dash handles the Dash (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga) (Relevant Edit) and the Spin Dash (Relevant Edit). Instead of restating the entire move but trying to be a little looser about the mechanics than the main article, it has a note saying “this exists and is a version of the thing this article is about”, and then sends the reader to the main article. It's a more efficient use of bits and our readers' time.
This does not affect moves of non-powered up characters that are modified by the power-up. Flying Squirrel Mario’s high Spin Jumps stay on Spin Jump, Frog Mario's and Penguin Mario’s swimming stay on Swim, Tanooki Mario’s Tail Spin stays on Roll, and so on. This is in addition to these modified versions of moves being written about on their form’s pages. (No, shell dash is not a modified dash. It's a new action that dashing happens to trigger, as indicated by the requirement of dashing and alternate method of crouching on a slope) This proposal does not affect projectiles whose existence is broader than their associated power-up, namely Fireball, Ice Ball, Hammer, and Bubble. Builder Boxes are Crates, so they fall into this bucket. (Superball would be included, but it was merged with Superball Mario years ago and is not included.) This also does not affect character/power-up hybrids. Yoshi's Swallow, Egg Throw, et al, Baby DK's DK Dash Attack, Diddy Kong's Diddy Attack and Barrel Jet, and Rambi's Supercharge and Charge are examples of these exclusions. This is because in some cases the character can use the move without being a power-up, usually because they are playable in a non-power-up capacity. While this isn’t true in every case, it makes sense to extend this grace to all character/power-up hybrids. SMB2 Mario is bizarre, but charge jump is ultimately unaffected. It’s a move of the normal player characters in Super Mario Bros. 2 proper, and the article doesn’t have a Super Mario Maker 2 section to cut down anyway. I’d advocate for adding more charge jump content to the SMB2 Mario article, but that’s not part of the proposal.
Perceptive readers probably realize that this policy would gut Fly, an article entirely about a recurring skill of certain forms/capability of items. An article consisting entirely of {{main}} templates would be bad, right? Au contraire, for this is by design. Fly is trapped in a purgatory where it can’t actually say anything meaningful because all of the data for each of the forms, abilities, and items it’s trying to cover should be on the articles for those things. So it’s a listicle of every game you can fly in with cliff notes about how they work. I guess its a directory for all of the flying skills, but having it be a traditional article makes using Fly as a directory inefficient. At this point, we should embrace the list structure and use it for something lists are good for, comparisons between games. I have compiled a list version of Fly on a userpage, based on the existing List of power-ups. It’s messy and incomplete but I think it’s better than the Fly article. Should this proposal pass, this list will replace the article.
Tail whip was created after I planned this proposal but before I proposed it. If this proposal passes, it gets merged into Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games. This policy devastates Tail Whip in the same way Fly is. Tail Whip can keep its categories as a redirect. While the move may be used by multiple forms, the most basic forms with the attack are more than capable of storing Tail whip's mechanics for the improved versions of White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario to refer to later. This matches how Penguin Mario defers to Ice Mario and Ice Ball. Tails are also on Tail Whip, but Tail handles using Tail and has no need to be listed on another article. Even if we wanted a complete list of games with with tail attacks, Raccoon Mario already mentions Tail. (The situation is also similar to Cape, which used to compile Cape Mario and Superstar Mario into a listicle before this proposal reduced it to the Smash Bros. attack.
Oh yeah and I guess Strike of Intuition is caught in the crosshairs of this since it is a move exclusive to Detective Peach. Given everything else, it gets merged too.
Proposer: Salmancer (talk) Deadline: March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert Fly into a list
Merge moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is
Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list
Oppose: Status quo
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Many of the moves in question are used by multiple forms, so attempting to merge them to all separately would violate Mariowiki:Once and only onceEDIT: which makes determining appearances of the move across different games more difficult to find. Furthermore, we do not merge character-specific moves to their respective pages (other than non-Mario characters in the Super Smash Bros. series) - for instance, look at Scuttle and Flutter Jump - so why should we do so with forms?
Nintendo101 (talk) I don't think we cover moves and other actions particularly well, and I would rather see what that looks like before proposing mergers. Moves are not strictly the same as the form itself (i.e. Flying Squirrel Mario, Power Squirrel Mario, and captured Glydon can all "glide"), and it would be nice to see detail on what the moves are in isolation. Sometimes different power-uped forms perform the same move. A quick look through the fly article indicates there are things lumped together there that really aren't the same thing.
EvieMaybe (talk) per all. the current state of the wiki's move coverage just isn't good enough right now to determine whether this proposal would have any benefits. would love to see this proposal again in the future when we have more ground to stand on, but it's not the time right now.
Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)
I am sorry this proposal planned for a while is going to merge an article that was just made. It kind of jumped further up my list of priorities given I don't want people to put hard work into adding to Tail whip if I'm about to try to merge it. Salmancer (talk) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Question; would this merge Fireball Punch, and would this failing result in re-instating Dangan Mario? These manga "forms" are kind of an edge case. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Oh dear manga questions. From what I understand of things, I think nothing should happen either way. Dangan Mario was an article as a form, so unless it's getting reevaluated to be a named move it stays where it lies. Fireball Punch is tricky. The thing is that this proposal exists because of pressures from the medium of video games. Fireball Punch is from a linear narrative story, there's not really much of a benefit readers gain from merging Fireball Punch because odds are someone looking at Super Mario Wiki to read about Fireball Mario doesn't need to know what a Fireball Punch is soon after. They might not even be reading the fifth chapter of Volume 1, the only place with a Fireball Punch. You can hardly consider the Fireball Punch to be a core part of Fireball Mario like all of the moves involved in the proposal. Fireball Punch is free from this proposal, though someone else might think the lack of length means it should be merged into Fireball Mario given this proposal is merging many longer articles or sections of articles into their home forms. Salmancer (talk) 18:56, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Characters aren't forms, so their moves are unaffected by this proposal, which means Scuttle isn't involved, Character/power-ups are unaffected, so Flutter Jump also isn't affected and you can't loophole abuse your way to merging Scuttle through the Luigi Cap. Forms that are improved versions of other forms already defer to the base form for unchanged abilities they inherit. Ice Mario has two paragraphs dedicated to using Ice Balls See example text of everything Penguin Mario has to say about Ice Balls..
After Mario has become this form, he can throw Ice Balls at enemies and freeze them. Mario can then use the frozen enemies as platforms or pick them up and throw them against the wall or other enemies.
The system works! It's repeated for White Raccoon Mario in relation to Raccoon Mario, as per the line, "It gives the player Raccoon Mario's abilities, causes the P-Meter to charge more quickly, allows the player to run and stand on water (like Mini Mario), and grants invincibility for the stage". It's also done for Power Squirrel Mario to Flying Squirrel Mario, with "As Power Squirrel Mario, Mario has all of the abilities of Flying Squirrel Mario, though he never loses the ability to glide and can perform Flying Squirrel Jumps continuously without landing". Salmancer (talk) 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
"List of methods of flight" as a name for the userpage was designed to be aware that not everything on Fly is the same kind of move. (and also it managed to morph into a list of all ways to get from point A to point B if point B is higher than point A... and then an extra addendum for hovering over hazards.) Would it be better if it were placed in mainspace as "List of methods of flight"? Salmancer (talk) 19:47, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Regarding your saying that tail whip's info would be moved to Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games, would that not mean that Tanooki Mario's page would not discuss the tail whip until Super Mario 3D Land, despite it being usable by that form in Super Mario Bros. 3? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:53, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Tanooki Mario is already doing exactly that. I don't see anything that makes the article hard to follow, short of it going "there is mandatory reading before reading this article." Which White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario have been doing as well. It's fine.
In this form, he can turn into an invulnerable statue by holding +Control Pad down and pressing B Button at the same time, in addition to using Raccoon Mario's moves, making it an improved version of Raccoon Mario.
However, the form's mechanics are different from Super Mario Bros. 3, as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing or ) and glide (now done by holding or , as with Caped Mario, rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay.
Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the 3D Land text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. Salmancer (talk) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat 3D Land, is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the Tanooki Mario page on Super Mario Wiki!"
In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on Tail whip to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. Salmancer (talk) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is Mario Kart Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in Mario Kart Tour with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a Mario Kart series "sentence long section with a {{main}} link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.Salmancer (talk) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)
15:27, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
or 
) and glide (now done by holding 
or 
, as with Caped Mario, rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay. 
