MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Advanced mobile edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>[[File:Proposals.png]]</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear=all>
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
''None at the moment.''
|'''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. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and [[MarioWiki:Writing Guideline|Writing Guideline]] proposals ''must'' include a link to the draft page.
#Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. ('''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 one week later on Monday, August 8, 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|administrator]] 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 administrators 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>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, 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. ('''All times GMT.''')  
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#*For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it 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 [[Floodgate Handle]] with [[Gate Handle]] ([[Talk:Floodgate Handle|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
#{{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.
*Merge [[Round Goomba]] with [[Goomba]] ([[Talk:Round Goomba#Merge Round Goomba with Goomba|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
#{{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.
*Merge [[Goomba (Super Mario World)]] with [[Goomba]] ([[Talk:Goomba (Super Mario World)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''':June 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Delete [[Panel de Pon]] ([[Talk:Panel de Pon|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Fresh Pasta Bunch]] with [[Fresh Pasta]] ([[Talk:Fresh Pasta Bunch|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split Koopasta from [[Koopasta Dish]] ([[Talk:Koopasta Dish|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Shell Dash]] with [[Shell Mario]] ([[Talk:Shell Dash#Merge Shell Dash with Shell Mario|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split both [[Chap]]s from each other ([[Talk:Chap|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 26, 2011, 23:59
*Split [[Banana Bunch]] from [[Banana]] ([[Talk:Banana|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 26, 2011 23:59 GMT
*Split DKC and Mario Kart Bananas ([[Talk:Banana|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''':June 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT


==Writing Guidelines==
====Option Two====
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
#{{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.


==New Features==
====Option Three====
''None at the moment.''
#{{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.)
#{{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.


==Removals==
<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>
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
====Option Four====
===No Starting Planet Left Behind!===
Well, here we are again. It's always such a pleasure. It's been over a month, and my viewpoints in regards to this matter still have not changed. Now, I'll say this yet again: the "Starting Planets" need better names! I don't know how many times I need to say it, but this is not a race; we would not name a planet "Pit Stop Planet" or "Finish Line Planet," so what's the deal with "''Starting'' Planet?" To reiterate what I said a month ago, renaming the "Starting Planets" would prevent a lot of issues, and is overall a much better decision in terms of consistency and accuracy than the way in which they are named currently. Again, I'm proposing that the name of each "Starting Planet" in every galaxy article be changed to "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)." This way, the affected planets are given actual names which coincide with the rest of the planet names in the article as being generally far less confusing and more understandable, though their position as the first planets encountered in a galaxy is simultaneously maintained. As for the galaxies in which there is only one planet to be visited, I'm now proposing that we drop the "Starting Planet" extention altogether, and simply give it a new name in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines (unless people have a drastic problem with that, in which case I could be persuaded to propose otherwise), given that it is, after all, the only planet encountered in the galaxy, and therefore leads absolutely nowhere after Mario lands on it. So, in these situations at least, the name "Starting Planet" is rendered fairly pointless. Because the name "Starting Planet" is already conjectural, nothing will be lost or compromised by renaming them as detailed above. Should anyone wish to view the previous proposal and its respective arguments, etc., please look [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 25#Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets|here]]. And like I said before, I would be more than happy to make the majority of the resulting changes myself. 


'''Proposer''': {{User|Phoenix}}<br>
====Comments====
'''Deadline''': <s>June 5, 2011</s> <s>June 12, 2011</s> June 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT.
{{@|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)


====Support====
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)
#{{User|Phoenix}} I definitely support this.
: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)
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Take 2...per proposal.
::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)
#{{user|SWFlash}} Per proposal
:::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)
#{{user|Nicke8}} Per Phoenix
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per all.
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} Per Phoenix
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all six!
#{{User|Ilovemarioandtoad}} Per Phoenix proposal!
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per Phoenix.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; I don't agree with adding "(Starting Planet)" to each section: rather, it can be mentioned that the planet is the first planet that Mario visits when he goes to the galaxy. Otherwise, I feel that this is an improvement from the current way we do each galaxy article now and I'll support. However, I do feel the need to state that Walkazo's and her supporters' opinions on removing planet sections altogether would probably be the overall ''best'' thing to do (I feel that we simply differ on what we feel is the better option in this proposal specifically).
#{{User|New Super Yoshi}} Per them all!
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Per Super Mario Bros.
#{{User|Paperphailurethemariomonster99}} Per All. I could help name the planets!
#{{User|Boowhoplaysgames}} Per All.
#{{User|Jumbods64}} Per All!
#{{User|MarioMaster15}} Per All.
#{{User|Mario Fan 123}} Per all.
#{{User|ThirdMarioBro}} This will only help two galaxies, you say? Well, for many galaxies between the two games, the Prankster Comet missions have different starting planets. This would actually help about 70 galaxies, maybe 80. Per all.
#{{User|superfiremario}} per proposal
#{{User|YoshiGo99}} Per All.
#{{User|Runeon12}} Yeah, just seeing starting planet there all the time makes it kinda annoying. Some starting planets are big and deserve to be called something else other than starting planet. Say for instance, the starting planet on the [[Supermassive Galaxy]]. It could have some cool, catchy name like 'Mario Bros. Planet' or something like that! Per all
#{{User|PaperFawful}} Per All.


====Oppose====
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)
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per the reasons I opposed the previous proposal. This proposal makes no new arguments to convince me to support it this time.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per Bop1996
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" just looks unprofessional, in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with keeping the name "Starting Planet". Per Bop as well.
#{{User|Walkazo}} Per all, although, to me, this is still the lesser of two evils: I stand by my opinion that removing the planet sections altogether and putting all the info in the missions would be the best course of action (in other words, per what I said on the last proposal).
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - If you want it to work the second time around, provide a new reason. Per me in the first proposal's comments, and the summary of it in this comments section.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all, including all who opposed the last proposal.
#{{User|Turboo}} - per all
#{{User|Young Master Luma}} One of your reasons for changing the names is that "'Starting Planet' is already conjectural". The names you would change "Starting Planet" to would be conjectural, too! Also, labeling a planet as "Starting Planet" is a great way to help people in recognizing which planet it is. Also, per everyone before me.
#{{User|Zero777}} I don't think it's a good idea, per all.
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} I'm back from my abscence. Anyway, we already discussed this. Per all.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - Per all.
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - Per Gamefreak.
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - Per Walkazo. The planets should have never had a section. IIRC, we simply put planets on the pages because, when SMG1 was first announced, all we had to go on was the planets. Not that that's terribly important to my vote, but still. I don't think that we ever ''had'' to have specific descriptions of the planets.
#{{User|Holyromanemperortatan}} - The first planet is called a starting planet because it is the opening to the galaxy. A galaxy would be plain random if it didn't have an introduction planet.
#{{User|Paper Yoshi}} - Per Bloc Partier. While the wiki may be used by some people as kind of  a walkthrough, this isn't our goal. Therefore, as stated by Bloc Partier, we don't need to thoroughly describe each planet from SMG and SMG2.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.
#{{User|YL}} It's obvious that we need to tell readers where's the starting planet. Per all.
#{{User|Count Bonsula}} - Per all.
#{{User|Smasher 101}} - Per all.
#{{User|Castle Toad}} - Per all :)
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per Gamefreak75 and Walkazo.
#{{User|twentytwofiftyseven}} - Per all.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Gamefreak just convinced me to take a side. Per my comment and all these guys.
#{{User|luigi42}} Per Gamefreak.


====Comments====
==Removals==
First off, your argument of the term "starting planet" being just as effective as any other planet is invalid, as having set names for the planets you begin on in every galaxy will set a precedent, which readers browsing our articles will be able to recognize, and use to find the planet where Mario starts. And I agree with Gamefreak when he says that adding (Starting Planet) in brackets looks unprofessional; you still have yet to provide a reason why the creative name is better than "starting planet".
''None at the moment.''


Secondly, adding in random names to articles without the names being fully decided on will cause dispute among users. For example, the galaxy where Megaleg is battled. The first planet (with the bullet bills). What would it be called? User1 might say it should be the Bullet Bill Planet, but then User2 decides that it would be more accurate to describe it as the Cage Planet. Then while those two are arguing, User3 changes it to the Black Hole Planet. What I'm trying to point out is that there is only ''one'' name that perfectly describes the starting planet - "Starting Planet".
==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.


Thirdly, while you may have opted to do most of the work yourself, this definitely does not remove the point of the matter; it is a whole lot of work (for everyone, including you) for absolutely no benefit. In fact, as I stated in the first paragraph, it is a whole lot of work by everyone to ''hinder'' the articles. Which is definitely not the way to go.
*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.


Finally, I expect you to oppose this by bringing forth the examples of the Space Junk Galaxy (and the one other galaxy like it) where there is more than one starting planet. But, as I made a strong point of bringing across the last time this was opposed, there are two galaxies like that and I admit, those two galaxies would benefit. However, there are over a hundred galaxies in total and for those other 100+ galaxies, this change would not benefit them at all, and even go so far as to harm them (see above). In short, this proposal fails to provide any reasons in support of the change. All of the reasoning explains why it is not a bad idea, but none of it explains why it is a good idea. {{user|Marioguy1}}
''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.


:I think removing all the planets' section as Walkazo says is bad idea as it would result impossible to define what places the player will go specially in a mission of the galaxy - You know you don't visit the same places on every mission. On the other hand, I believe that the planets should be called according to a feature that the planet has in special. Well that's my opinion. {{user|Coincollector}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
::Well Coincollector, what could be a more specific thing - and special thing specific to a single planet - than "Starting Planet" in all but two galaxies, only one planet is ever started on. And if Phoenix would just stop proposing this, I would be able to run a TPP through on those galaxies to get them exemption to this rule. So like I said, what is more special than "Starting Planet"? The answer is nothing, Starting Planet is the ultimate description of the planet that is started on. {{User|Marioguy1}}
'''Deadline''': March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT


:::@Marioguy1: <s>You should know better than to think that I would use the same argument twice :)</s>
====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.


:::Well, first of all, what in the world are you talking about? There aren't over 100 [[Galaxy|galaxies]] total, there are only 91 between the [[Super Mario Galaxy|two]] [[Super Mario Galaxy 2|games]]. That aside, it seems to me that you're saying that the rest of the planet names that we have now ''are'' fully decided on, which of course is not the case. As you frequently pointed out last time, many of the planet names that we currently use still have not been decided on 100%, and are often changed accordingly. In my view though, this is fairly irrelevant in the long run. I'm certainly not saying that the constant name changing is a good thing for anyone, but it's going to keep happening regardless of what we may try to do to stop it. For the umpteenth time, the overall effect that this proposal will have on the repeated name changes will likely be a minimal one. As I type this, we currently have 11,480 articles. I highly doubt that 91 of them will dominate the majority of edits in the near future. As for the part about using definite names to set a precedent, perhaps it's time to set a new precedent. People will still be able to locate which planet [[Mario]] starts on both quickly and easily; that's the whole point of leaving (Starting Planet) next to the new name of the planets. So "Starting Planet" is ultimately still going to be kept intact, just in a slightly different format.
====Oppose (No More Megalovania, Please)====


:::And besides, given that every single planet name is conjectural (including the "Starting Planets"), who's to say that naming them one way or the other is the correct way anyway? I mean, who decided on naming them all "Starting Planet" in the first place? I'm simply offering a naming method that will ultimately provide a much clearer picture of the "Starting Planets" in the mind's eye of our readers, and perhaps our contributors as well. Like I've already said countless times, there is a huge difference between planet names that ''are'' descriptive, and planet names that ''seem'' descriptive. Regular planet names ''are'' descriptive, while "Starting Planet" names ''seem'' descriptive, yet in reality embody everything ''but'' description. The name "Starting Planet" does not help anyone do anything besides indicate to readers that a planet is the first in its respective galaxy. If such a system was beneficial, we would have undoubtedly already replaced every planet name with "Second Planet," "Third Planet," etc. Why do we not do this? Because it would be unbelievably foolhardy and incredibly shortsighted of us to do so. No one in their right mind would be able to discern one planet from another if we were to do something like this. Readers may very well be forced to rely on pictures as a result of taking such action, something which no one should ever have to resort to, especially when one considers the fact that not every galaxy article even contains pictures of every planet that it features.
====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)


:::Not only is naming the "Starting Planets" definitely more effective, but it is also much more sensible in the long run. It's not about the new name being creative or cool, it's about it getting the job done correctly and competently, something which "Starting Planet" does not do a very good job of at all. I do see where you're coming from, but I honestly fail to see how the resulting actions of this proposal will cause so-called dispute among users. Like I said, how is it any different from what we have going on now? Names that have not fully been decided on are constantly being changed or reworded, and still I have yet to see a recent dispute between users over a planet name being changed. Why should I believe that this proposal will cause an overabundance of users to act any differently than they have been lately? Also, you say "there is only one name that perfectly describes the starting planet - "Starting Planet"." Well, I definitely agree that there is only one name that perfectly describes each planet (I'm talking about ''every'' planet, not just the "Starting Planets"), but "Starting Planet" is certainly not it. Each planet requires a unique name, because every planet is different in size, shape, color, texture, what have you, so how can one name that is the same for 91 separate planets possibly be the best name to be using? Obviously, not every "Starting Planet" is exactly the same as the one before or after it, so why name them all as such? It just doesn't make any logical sense. {{User|Phoenix}} 04:51, 1 June 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]])


::::@Coincollector: That's the exact same thing that I said the last time, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it would work out very well. It would simply be too difficult to determine what we're talking about and where we're talking about it. Personally, I feel that the planet sections are fine as long as there is some definite semblance of consistency among them. {{User|Phoenix}} 05:04, 1 June 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!)
Sorry, about the 100 galaxies thing, I misread some comments from earlier and basically rounded off; either way, 91 and 100 are both gigantic numbers compared to 2.


Now, first off, I'd like to point out that I have never said anything about the changes to the names dominating the recent changes, or implied in any way that this proposal will affect the rate of change in the other planets in any way. I am saying that if we change the title, that will be one more planet name to change and that will affect the rate of change of the starting planet (prior to this, it would never have been changed, after this, it will be lumped into the same category as all the rest). And about the precedent, I believe I noted that "(Starting Planet)" looks sloppy; it seems like we are going along trying to decide names (which provide no benefit to the overall article) and then, as an afterthought, adding in "(Starting Planet)", "Starting Planet" improves organization and should not be overshadowed by a name that does not properly specify the planet.
But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:


Secondly, "Starting Planet" does not just "seem" descriptive, it is descriptive. There is only one planet started on in each galaxy. This planet is the "starting planet". If one is going to try to get a picture in their mind's eye, they could get confused between "Lava Planet", "Rock Planet", "Volcano Planet" or any number of planets whose names apply to multiple planets. There is always the possibility that, unless we have an explicit symbol of the starting planet (that does not appear on any other planets in the galaxy; which are usually shaped so that they look alike), people will get confused and mix up planets. Nobody will ever mix up "Magma Planet" with "Starting Planet" as "Magma Planet" is not started on. And the reason we do not used "Second Planet", "Third Planet", etc. is that there are multiple second planets, third planets, fourth planets, etc. for the missions in each galaxy. Unlike with starting planets, where 2/91 have similar names, that scenario would apply to ~40/91 which is a slightly higher number.
*[[Shell dash]] ([[Shell Mario]])
*[[Dive]] (Claw dives of [[Cat Mario]])
*[[Drill Spin]] ([[Propeller Mario]])


Finally, when I said this would cause dispute, maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant is that, for the time when we are changing the planet names, the users will see the edit, think the name isn't descriptive and then that will cause a dispute. I realize there are already disputes about the planets, but this would be like throwing another fish into a tank full of sharks. On the matter of whether "starting planet" is a descriptive name or not, it seems we have reached an impasse and it's your word against mine (or rather, your opinion against mine) so I don't think we can go forward there. I believe that "starting planet" is a perfect description for the planet started on, and you believe that to create a better picture, we need to be more descriptive. And your argument about starting planets being unique between the galaxies is an improper comparison; the starting planet in Galaxy A is not the same starting planet as in Galaxy B so the comparison does not work. {{User|Marioguy1}}
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.


<nowiki>*</nowiki>Hrm* Portal 2 reference spotted. {{User|Young Master Luma}}
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?


:@Marioguy1 (sequel) – "I'd like to point out that I have never said anything about the changes to the names dominating the recent changes, or implied in any way that this proposal will affect the rate of change in the other planets in any way." Truthfully, I was never trying to say that either, I was merely trying to express that out of the 11,000+ articles that we currently have here, I'm almost certain that the majority of users have more to do with the time available to them than continually switch the names of the "Starting Planets" back and forth to what each one personally desires them to be called, especially those users who could care less about ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]'', which collectively comprise about 0.02 percent of the total number of ''[[Mario (series)|Mario]]'' games that have been released to date.
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.


:I mean, if I asked ten random users at this moment what they thought about the goals of this proposal, I bet at least half of them would say something to the effect of "I've never even played either of those games, so I could honestly care less." And again, we continue to discuss this as if it is guaranteed that it will happen. Like I said before, there's no proof that every user is going to dislike names which haven't even been created yet. Sure, some may have a problem with them, but for all we know, 99.9% of users could not only really love the new names, but also like them a lot better than what we have now. I'm certainly not trying to put words in the mouth of every user who's ever edited this wiki, but we can't throw this out the window because of the possibility of an unfavorable outcome, which may, in fact, never occur, especially given the fact that there's no hard proof that such an outcome will even happen in the first place.
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.


:And as for the part about having the "Starting Planets" become part of "the same category as all the rest," that's exactly what I want to happen! There is no logical reason whatsoever to have any planet physically separated (whether purposely or otherwise) from the remainder of the planets in any given galaxy article, especially not when said planet is the first planet that we're going to be talking about in an article. Again, I'm not saying this was done intentionally, but you can't just name 91 planets one way, and then name the rest of the planets in every article in a different way. If you truly want to improve organization, then we need to pick either one option or the other, and since I've already proven that one option is extremely inappropriate, this proposal favors the more sensible of the two.
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.  


:Now, I know you keep saying that the name "Starting Planet" is descriptive, but in reality, it only gives the illusion of description. Ignoring the obviously distinct differences among 91 independent "Starting Planets" and naming them all "Starting Planet" simply for the sake of people being able to recognize what planet they start on when they enter a galaxy circumvents talking about the actual visible characteristics of the planet, and seems quite lazy to me. Naming every "Starting Planet" as such does little in the way of recognizing the specific attributes that each planet has, which just isn't right. You can't just name 91 planets the exact same thing and cover up how the planet looks and what it does, even if it does accurately describe where it is in relation to the rest of the planets in a galaxy. That's precisely why I want to give it another name, so that we don't have this problem. But that doesn't mean that I haven't fully taken the opposers into account either. If I hadn't, I would've simply proposed that we just give every "Starting Planet" a new name, instead of giving it a new name ''and'' leaving (Starting Planet) next to the new name. Long story short, people will only start to "get confused and mix up planets" when 91 planets that are obviously different in size, shape, function, etc. are all named the exact same thing, like they are now.
[[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.


:Finally, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say at the end of the third paragraph; the fact that "the starting planet in Galaxy A is not the same starting planet as in Galaxy B" is exactly what I was trying to communicate when I said "Each planet requires a unique name, because every planet is different in size, shape, color, texture..." Let's compare, for example, the "Starting Planet" in the [[Good Egg Galaxy]] and the "Starting Planet" in the [[Honeyhive Galaxy]]. In the former, the "Starting Planet" is fairly small and dual-sided, with a bright garden-like area on the top, and a dark castle-like structure on the bottom. In the latter, the "Starting Planet" is considerably larger, and has trees, water, [[Bee]]s, fountains, rolling [[Boulder]]s, [[Sproutle Vine]]s...the list goes on. And this is just the case for the "Starting Planets" in two galaxies out of a total 91 galaxies! You're telling me that the numerous, obviously incontrovertible differences between '''''every single "Starting Planet" in all 91 galaxies''''' ultimately amount to nothing more than naming all of them the ''exact same thing''? I realize that they're all the first planets encountered in their respective galaxy (with the exception of two), but come on. We cannot, and we should not, sacrifice quality for consistency. It's as simple as that. {{User|Phoenix}} 17:35, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
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.


@'''Usernamer2'''"Go Galaxies!" isn't a valid reason to support.--{{User|UltraMario3000}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Salmancer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Whoah. Stuff is happening while I'm on hiatus. Anyway, this seems to be a big deal, so I should vote. But I won't because I agree and disagree with points on both sides, so neither outcome seems more favourable imo. I know that a lot of users, myself included, have put a lot of effort into improving the quality of each Galaxy article, especially the Planets sections on some articles. Just haphazardly placing all the Planet section info into the Missions section of the article seems like it would reduce the overall quality of the article by creating a massive wall of text that users and guests probably won't want to read in one sitting. As for Phoenix's idea, it doesn't seem too great. You're basically taking a conjectural name and replacing it with a longer conjectural name. Which is highly screwy logic even by my weirdly high standards of screwy logic. Kudos if that made any sense to you, readers. I'd simply prefer to keep the current format of these Galaxy articles, if that's okay with all you good people who actually placed votes here on this proposal. I shall now resume the last few weeks of my hiatus. {{User|Rise Up Above It|Rise Up Above It}} 07:20, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
====Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert [[Fly]] into a list====
#{{User|Salmancer}} Per proposal.


===Revisit [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 25#Blocked Users' Votes|Blocked Users' Votes policy]]===
====Merge moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is====
Originally, when I had read this proposal, I did not know which choice to support. Here is what the choices in the original proposal were, just to make sure we have something to reference on this page:


<blockquote>
====Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list====
#All blocked users' votes are removed; no matter the length of the block.
#All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains.
#All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires <u>two or more days before</u> the end of the proposal, then their vote remains.
</blockquote>


Obviously, if you look at the original proposal, you can see that Option 2 garnered the most support out of the three proposed changes. However, I am asking that we reconsider the first two options:
====Oppose: Status quo====
#'''Option One:''' If a user makes a vote, and they are subsequently blocked, then their vote is removed regardless of whether their block expires before or after the proposal.
#[[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?
#'''Option Two:''' If a user makes a vote, and they are subsequently blocked, then there are two things that can happen. If the user's block ends before the end of the proposal, then their vote stays. If the user's block ends after the end of the proposal, then their vote is removed.
#{{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.


I would like to have everybody consider <u>Option One</u> for several reasons. Think about it, why does a user get blocked? Assuming good faith in our administration, it is because the user clearly shows that they do not understand, or outright choose to ignore, Super Mario Wiki policy. Why do we want somebody that lacks understanding (or just outright breaks) our wiki policies influencing wiki policy?
====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. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


Now, think this even further. Whether a proposal ends before or after a user's block is irrelevant when considering the above point I made. If the user's block ends before the proposal ends, and the user in question decides to return to the wiki, then they will be able to add their vote again. The chances of the formerly blocked user not understanding our policies (or their willingness to purposefully break our policies) after experiencing being blocked is much lower. They served their time for the crime, therefore, they have earned their right to vote on a proposal again. But a vote cast in ignorance of the rules should not be considered acceptable under any circumstances, which is also why an argument based on the user hypothetically not returning is also not really justified: if the user simply doesn't want to participate in this system after being blocked, that is their choice. But their vote was made back at a period of time when they couldn't understand our policies, so it should not be allowed to stay.
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)
: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)


So that is why I feel we should change our policy to Option One. Option Two simply rewards and babies users that have no regard for the rules of this site. Option One promotes personal responsibility and promotes a logic that will, perhaps, convince more users not to get themselves blocked.
{{@|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)
: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)


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}<br>
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..
'''Deadline:''' June 19, 2011 (23:59 GMT)
<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]]
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)


====Option One====
"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)
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; Per my reasons in the proposal.
#{{User|Turboo}} &ndash; per proposal
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} &ndash; Instead of saying what I told SMB, I'm just going to say that this is the more justified option.
#{{User|Hypnotoad}} &ndash; per proposal, mainly the point of blocked users being blocked for a reason
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per everyone! Thanks!
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per all
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} This option is the one I supported in the first place. Per proposal.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per all.
#{{User|Zero777}} They chose to act innapropriate and get themselves blocked so why should we treat them any better?
#{{User|Mariomario64}} Well, in a way, this seems more fair. Per all.
 
====Option Two====
#{{User|superfiremario}} per proposal
 
====Comments====
I'm going to quote what I told SMB (mostly) word for word, so it is going to see a little detached: ''"I just think that if they are blocked, their votes are out. If their block is over before the proposal is over, then they can just revote. What's so hard about that? But yes, they didn't follow the rules, so they shouldn't be treated with caviar. caviar being the current system. Being blocked is like jail. You are sealed in from the world. And you have no rights at all (because you broke the rules). Understood that many blocks that MG1 are talking about are the 3 day ones, which are pretty much time-outs. But still, when they are blocked, they shouldn't have any right, especially in keeping their vote. shows that they are still in involved with the proposal, showing that their decision still matters (giving them rights)."''


That is why I'm supporting changing the current role to be more justified and more reasonable and not so giving as the new one. Also, no offense to you MG1. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
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)
:Huh? I don't believe I was ever for any side in this matter. I'm just against the "Do Nothing" option. {{User|Marioguy1}}
: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.
: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)
::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)
:::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)
::::"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)
:::::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)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
 
''None at the moment.''
===Create an article for Reggie Fils-Aime===
We have articles on many [[Nintendo]] employees, including but not limited to [[Satoru Iwata]], [[Hiroshi Yamauchi]], [[Shigeru Miyamoto]], [[Takashi Tezuka]], and [[Koji Kondo]]. I think it only fitting for Reggie Fils-Aime, president of Nintendo of America, to have an article as well. I realize that he hasn't been as involved in Nintendo software as other employees, but he is one of the primary sources of information concerning the goings-on at Nintendo during every E3 since E3 2004, his public debut. [[User:Xzelion|A user]] informed me that the wiki has had an article on Reggie in the past on three separate occasions, and it was deleted on those occasions. However, I find the risk worth taking. The wiki just seems incomplete without information on him.
 
'''Proposer''':{{User|Mario4Ever}} <br>
'''Deadline''': June 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} He seems pretty notable what with America being the biggest game market its only natural we have an article on it's president
#{{User|Mariomario64}} Why don't we have an article for Reggie? Per proposal.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} First Koji, then Shigeru, now Reggie? Per all!
#{{User|Zero777}} he is rather important for the Nintendo of America.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Goomba's Shoe15, although I don't think we even need a proposal to OK this: as long as the page isn't a stub, it'd totally be allowed.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per all.
#{{User|Paper Yoshi}} - Per Goomba's Shoe15. Although we can't ignore the European and Japanese markets, we can't deny Reggie has been very important in Nintendo of America's conferences (which are the major ones) either.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
'''@Walkazo:''' I figured that a proposal was necessary because I was told that the wiki had an article on Reggie in the past (on three separate occasions), and it was deleted. Besides, it's an important subject, and I want to make sure that anybody who might have issues with this can voice them. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:All we ever had were really crappy stubs - that's the main reason the page was axed repeatedly. It's an important subject, but it's only one page, and we already have articles about some other important RL figures, so it's not like it's breaking significantly new ground. I personally don't care when the page is made, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to point out that not every decision ''needs'' a proposal (and, by extension, changes made without a proposal aren't necessarily less valid). - {{User|Walkazo}}
::I understand. Thanks for your input. I think that it's mainly due to my inexperience at creating articles and proposals, as my only other proposal was crap, and [[Augmented Reality Games]] is thus far the only article I've done more to than simply edit. I suppose this proposal is my way of getting comfortable with features of the wiki I rarely use (I've had an account since July 2010, but it's only since April of this year that I've had a talk page, for example). {{User|Mario4Ever}}

Latest revision as of 02:56, March 18, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, March 18th, 06:55 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

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

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])====

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

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Implement crossover articles, Nintendo101 (ended March 17, 2025)
Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one, Jdtendo (ended March 17, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 7, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Delete Dr. Health'nstein's Body Fun Bundle, Kaptain Skurvy (ended March 17, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

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 these 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?

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

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) perple montage
  4. 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.)
  5. Arend (talk) Per Porple.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per porplemontage.
  7. Salmancer (talk) Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.

Option One

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Option Two

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) See my note about Option One.
  2. 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

  1. 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.)
  2. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  3. 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) Get Firefox 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)

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 DS version has "Super Mario Bros." as a track, using imagery from the games.
  • The Wii version includes "New Super Mario Bros. Wii Medley." and "Super Mario Bros." Notably, the videos include 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 Stars appear 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.

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)

  1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us; with how many cross references there are both ways, it seems only fair.
  3. 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...
  4. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose (No More Megalovania, Please)

Comments' Perfect Math Class

@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) PMCS Mustard Cafe Sign.png 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

  1. Salmancer (talk) Per proposal.

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

  1. 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 once 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?
  2. 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.

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-sigicon.png~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)

@Doc von Schmeltwick for your own sake, you should know "once and only once" as a strict policy has been retired. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:18, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Thanks, wish I'd known that before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:30, 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.

- Penguin Mario

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.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario Bros. 3 section.

However, the form's mechanics are different from Super Mario Bros. 3, as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing X Button or Y Button) and glide (now done by holding A Button or B Button, as with Caped Mario, rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario 3D Land section.
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)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4788350"