MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Removed my vote from Support on the Proposals proposal. I'm neutral now.)
 
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]].
 
<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
#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]].
#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.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#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.
#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.
#Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
#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.
#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. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
#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.
#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]].
#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>
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]".
-----
<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>
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>


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


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


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


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
I've written down a [[User:EvieMaybe/Poll proposal|mockup poll proposal]] for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".


 
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
 
'''Deadline''': February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
<br>
-->
 
<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
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]].''
 
<h3 style="color:black">How To</h3>
#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.
#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:
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. ('''All times GMT.''')
#*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.
#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.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
 
===List of Talk Page Proposals===
*Merge [[Turtley Leaf]] with [[Koopa Leaf]] ([[Talk:Turtley Leaf|Discuss]])  '''Passed'''
*Split Yoshi's [[Super Star]] from Mario Party's Super Star ([[Talk:Super Star|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Move [[List of Mario bosses]] to {{fakelink|Bosses}} ([[Talk:List of Mario bosses|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Split [[Mole Train]] from [[Mole Miner Max]] ([[Talk:Mole Train|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Split [[Giant Banana]] from [[Banana]] ([[Talk:Banana|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': <s>July 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> July 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split Flying Question Block from [[Question Block]] ([[Talk:Question Block|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': July 15, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Move [[Waluigi Pinball]] to {{fakelink|Waluigi Pinball (Course)}} ([[Talk:Waluigi Pinball|Discuss]])  '''Deadline''': July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Dry Dry Desert (course)]] with [[Dry Dry Desert]] ([[Talk:Dry Dry Desert|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': July 18, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split the Spike Pillar section of [[Pillar]] from it. ([[Talk:Pillar|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': July 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Mention unofficial [[SMA4]] level names in articles to help minimise confusion ([[Talk:Super_Mario_Advance_4_e-Cards|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': 22 July 2011, 23:59 GMT
 
==Writing Guidelines==
===MLA Format===
All articles should be written with the most updated version of MLA Format. This will help in the eternal preservation of ''always citing your sources.''
 
'''Proposer:'''{{User|Plumber}} <br>
'''Deadline:''' July 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Plumber}}For clarity
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; From the sounds of this, what Plumber is doing is suggesting we change our quotations and citations to a well-known, credible standard. I don't know why we shouldn't upgrade to a more credible standard, so I'll offer my support to this proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Neat idea, per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Waluigi Time.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
''None shall pass''
====Debate====
What is MLA? {{User|Xzelion}}


:Modern Language Association. {{User|Phoenix}}
====Comments on proposal proposal====
::See [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/ here], Xzelion. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a ''lot'' more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of <nowiki>{{For}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Against}}</nowiki> templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use <nowiki>{{User}}</nowiki> to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need ''something'' to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)


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


Won't this be a massive overhaul of practically every single article on the wiki? {{User|Dr Javelin}}
==Removals==
::::<s>I CAN READ YOUR MIND, PHOENIX!</s> I've never found a better source on MLA, so I figured that if I didn't link to it, someone inevitably would. @Dr Javelin: That depends on what exactly needs changing. On that note, Plumber, would you mind clarifying exactly what you propose to do? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
''None at the moment.''


:@Mario4Ever - Yeah, my last two college English teachers practically forced us to use that when typing our assignments, so, needless to say, that was the first thing that popped into my head... {{User|Phoenix}}
==Changes==
 
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
It won't be a massive overhaul of the article on the wiki besides making source clarifications more useful. Wikis adhere to a rough version of MLA anyhow. The effects of this proposal are to be minor. {{User|Plumber}}
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
:How minor? {{User|Xzelion}}
::Basically this only changes citations and ''maybe'' quotations (like where the periods go and stuff, not the actual templates). Also standardizes the English to American English, but that's already done on the wiki as a whole. {{User|Plumber}} 01:29, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Standardizing the English doesn't make sense if the article is already written in British English (or vice-versa). As this is an international wiki, both variations are allowed, and changing one to the other is actually a warnable offense. It sort of operates on a first-come, first-served basis. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
 
I agree with Mario4Ever. We made a proposal to stablish that British English can be used here. {{user|Coincollector}}
 
Well MLA includes Canada, so I suppose we could grandfather Britain into it. But that's distracting from the main point, which is primarily that of quotation and citation, which so desperately need essential reforms. {{User|Plumber}}
 
May you please elaborate on that, because I'm still not sure what you trying to do. {{User|Zero777}}
 
::I don't really understand what is going to happen. Could you show us some examples? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
 
==New Features==
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.
===Reform MarioWiki:Proposals===
As two old users, we jointly feel that the decision-making system pre-MarioWiki:Proposals was superior to the current system. The current system of MarioWiki:Proposals is based upon popularity contests. The previous system involved discussion on the Community Portal and Talk:Main page. This new proposal would restore any potential problems to be discussed on Talk:Main page, not with "support" and "oppose" columns, but genuine ”bona fide” arguments and discussion. When consensus has been reached, the fate of the "proposal" will be decided. This was the way the system worked before the infamous and perfidious troll {{User|A Link to the Past}} tricked {{User|Porplemontage}} and {{User|Wayoshi}} into creating the proposals (only after his disastrous MarioWiki:Peer Review scheme had failed; Proposals were made largely as a concession to his whining). If this measure passes, it shall go into force July 17, 2011, although any Proposals that still need to expire will be left to expire at their natural time.


EDIT: MarioWiki:Proposals will still serve as the main place for talk page proposals. Many thanks to {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} for bringing that up.
This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."


'''Proposers:''' {{User|Xzelion}}, {{User|Plumber}}, and {{User|Master Crash}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT  
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Xzelion}} &mdash; Per Plumber.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Plumber}} &mdash; Per Xzelion ;) See how that's all one needs to get a vote? I think this case is justified since we wrote the proposal, but you know what I mean.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
#{{User|Master Crash}} &mdash; Per all
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Let me resume this please: do you mean to use arguments in the proposals instead of agree/oppose votes, right? That would make perfect sense and professionalism. Per XPMG.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{user|SWFlash}} I have to agree with this proposal. Supporting the proposal without describing why does one thinks it should be so is just bumps it and, sometimes, the wiki may end up to be in even worser situation than it was before the proposal. The good proposals may be unresolved just because one have said the good option to sage the proposal and everyone're just agreeing with him/her. But, of course, some users may be not creative enough to think about their options and they just want the proposal to be settled, but, I think, it's their problems.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} I love this proposal! This is my favorite time to per all for this one! Seriously, that is my favorite kind! So... PER EVERYONE!!!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Per all does seem to be used a lot. Mostly it's used for friendship. I was actually goanna make this proposal myself, but I didn't think people would approve of my idea. Per all
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|ThirdMarioBro}} Per DKPetey99. I am getting tired of people just "going with the flow" and labeling their vote as "per all".
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Per all, especially Dr Javelin & SWFlash. :)
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; Making decisions through intelligent discussion, rather by a simple vote count restricted by time limits, seems much more understandable. Per the proposers.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} This makes sense. I think some people put "per all" in their votes, but they don't really understand what they are voting for.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - What worked in the old days doesn't necessarily translate to how things work now: the community and its dynamics have changed a lot over the years. There are a lot more users now, meaning discussions could potentially be dragged on forever: that's the advantage of deadlines (and the Clear Majority rule makes sure things that aren't settled by the deadline don't just pass). Popularity-based voting is bad, but it's not necessarily the driving force between "per"s, and if someone says everything that needs to be said, it is completely fine for others to per them. Even if all the people on the one side have something to add to the argument, ultimately, if more people agree with one person's idea (which they "per"), that idea should be used. To quote ''Star Trek'', the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Besides, debates already happen in proposals, and proposals can be changed and replaced if better courses of action are identified. While free-flowing discussion might make this a ''little'' more natural-feeling, the lack of rules and structure could easily backfire, and will certainly be harder to archive. And who's to say popularity won't still be a factor in discussions: paraphrasing is just as easy as "per"ing.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|Zero777}} Oh the reform proposal is to debate until a decision is reached whenever (not by a deadline). Walkazo is right, that will drag on longer then the Starting Planet Proposal, per.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - I pretty much agree with Walkazo on this one, but I'd like to go into something in conjunction with what she said towards the end of her comment. A lot of the supporters here seem to support solely to get rid of "Per" votes. However, those who do should stop and think about this for a moment. Specifically: How is this proposed system going to do anything about that? Counting arguments instead of heads? Is that going to fix it? Not at all. It is very, ''very'' easy to take an argument and rephrase it in a way that makes it appear like an entirely new argument. This older system will be just as exploitable than the one we are currently using. "Per" votes will not be eliminated by this change; they will just resurface in a different form. And then we will have to deal with those.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - I'm changing my vote. There is nothing wrong with the current system. It's more like a democracy, which it should be when making decisions like this. Also I agree with Zero that if we had to have full consensus then it would take forever to make a decision. Also, per Edofenrir.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|twentytwofiftyseven}} Hahaha. Ironically, one guy like NARCE could filibuster the proposed system forever. Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Supremo78}} - Simply, the argument can still continue in the proposal still having the phrase "Per all". All it is is agreeing, which is what commonly people use. While I realize some people may just put it there just to vote with their friends, is this proposal really going to change that? A continuing argument is like court, which is not what we do here. Making decisions should be simpler than "court". However, some people who want to agree aren't just voting with their friends, may not have something to say, but: I agree (what Per is). People will never know which one the user is trying to do, so just leave it alone all together. Also, like Walkazo said, proposals may go so long, it may be over 2 times of that that the proposal {{User|Phoenix}} did (No Starting Planet Left Behind!) will last over 2 months. That's just not a good way to reach consensus.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} I'm not convinced an argument-only system would be that preferrable. One thing endemic to e-arguments is that they are frequently "won" not by the actual merits of the position presented, but rather by sheer repetition, as one or more participants repeat their stances ad-nauseum up until the other side gets bored or tired (and I was going to use the example of our friend ALinkToThePast/NARCE, but 2257 beat me to it). Of course the matters can be ultimately decided by the administrators - but then that kind of defeat the point of changing the system. I won't deny the current system is sometimes victim of the Popularity Contest/Sheep mentality phenomenom, but strong arguments ''can'' and often ''do'' change the tides of adebate, and I think the proposal as they are now have worked reasonably well. Also, per everything Walkazo said.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Green Star.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} per Green Star.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


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


====Debate====
I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
This proposal include removing the TPP proposal system and if it does are all the TPP proposals that expire after the deadline of this proposal cancelled {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:The Talk Page Proposals are not affected by the system, so they'll still be here. No worries.{{User|Plumber}} 01:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::What about any proposals proposed before this proposal ends but that expire after the dead line are they cancelled to {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Wait what do the peer reviews have to do with proposals i though those were for the FA process {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
 
What happens if it's a huge proposal with plenty of people with good arguments on both sides? So far, it seems to me that this will create stalemates that eventually stop the wiki from making decisions because of red tape. See the "No starting planet left behind" proposal in the Archives. I do agree that many proposals end up as popularity contests, but at least things happen. {{User|Dr Javelin}}
:Well i think what would happen is they would debate until one side wins cause even now a proposal can only be extended so many times until it fails. And i'm sorry if this doesn't answer your question or is wrong cause i wasn't around during the day and age when they used the talk main page {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
 
Huge proposals actually become smaller because less people are willing to actually write a detailed opinion compared to doing "Per X." Back in the day, ''things got done and stayed done.'' If the arguments are good on both sides, generally the sysops step in to referee, which is not the ideal situation, but it's the general solution. They already referee the Proposals enough as it is. {{User|Plumber}}
:It still seems like it might take longer than the current proposal system. And what happens if the sysops have differing opinions? I am in no way supporting the current proposal system, but as far as I can tell, things still happen. Articles get merged, split, edited, and changed, all according to the proposals. I agree that people should be required to give detailed arguments for or against proposals, but people shouldn't have to wait for a consensus. A time limit might still be needed to make sure that things still happen. {{User|Dr Javelin}}
In the past, consensus was always able to occur, moreso today with the Sysop Boards.
CC: Basically, that's how it was done before. However such things would be done at [[Talk:Main Page]] like they were  because we have agreed the Proposals is too formulaic to be conductive. Strict deadlines are often too short or too long to be effective as well. If anyone needs more information, Xzelion will be happy to oblige, although I know you, CC, of all people are familiar with the old system :) {{User|Plumber}}
 
I'm not exactly familiar with the old proposal system, mostly because I never attended many proposals during my earlier wiki days. {{User|M&SG}}
 
'''@DKPetey99 and ThirdMarioBro''': Well, if that is truly the case, then pretty much nothing we can do will be able to stop that because by this system, they could just "agree" with their friend. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
 
I have a question for the proposers: will this effect the proposals box on the Main Page? If so, how do you plan to adapt the Main Page for this change? {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
 
So how will the old system work? You didn't necessarily elaborate on that. {{User|Zero777}}


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


===Remove Logos from Infobox Titles===
{{@|Technetium}} That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by {{@|Mario}}) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Quite a few games have logos instead of plain text for their infobox titles, but seeing as the game boxart also contains the logo and is located directly beneath the title, all this really does is show us the exact same graphic twice. This is redundant, and it looks sloppy, especially when the logos are transparent and the background colour interferes with the words. It's also inconsistent, since most games just use good ol' fashioned text. Compare [[Mario Kart DS]] with [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]] - there's no question as to which one looks more professional, and by extension, which style we should use. Other games using the superfluous title-logos include [[Super Mario Sunshine]], [[Super Mario Galaxy]], all three [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games]] titles, [[Mario Party 8]], [[Mario Kart Wii]] and both [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl|Brawl]], among others. Then you have the occasional ''character'' page with a title-logo, which is completely unnecessary. The only time it makes sense to have logos is for series pages, since a single boxart isn't adequately representative of ''all'' the games involved. Some example of this logo usage are [[Super Smash Bros. (series)]], [[Mario Party (series)]], and [[Mario Kart (series)]] (compare with [[Mario Kart DS]]), but even then, the logos are being used as the infobox ''images'', not the titles. And, while the consoles don't really the logos in their images, the transparency issue is still a problem, and the inconsistency with other types of pages is also undesirable, so it'd be better of the logos were simply used elsewhere.


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


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
'''Deadline:''' July 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
*[[List of implied species]]
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
*[[Soybean civilization]]
*[[Hooroglyphs]]


====Support====
Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue [[Hoohooros]], but also [[Hooroglyphs]] and [[Beanstone]]s. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in ''March 2007'', actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Using text instead of logos is neater, simpler, clearer, more concise and less redundant, and it will make all the game pages consistent.
#{{User|Phoenix}} Couldn't have said it better myself. I support this 100%.
#{{User|Lindsay151}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per Proposal
#{{User|Xzelion}} &ndash; Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Zero777}} I found those incredibly hideous, per Walkazo.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - I always wondered where it came the tendency to put the game logo in the game infoboxes. Per proposer.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} I'm going to agree with Walkazo on this one. We don't need logos on infoboxes, we already have some in the gallery section. Take ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'' for example. The logo is on the article and the gallery for the game. If we lose it, then it can only be seen in the gallery page for that game. So, per Walkazo!
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal.
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all on this case.
#{{User|Supremo78}} That's why I removed the SM64DS logo from its page. Per proposal.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|Baconator}} They looked clunky and unprofessional. Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; Per Walkazo.


====Oppose====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} I don't see anything wrong with keeping the logo.
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per BoygeyDude.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; Per the two above.
#{{User|Plumber}} Why must art be destroyed in the name of conformity?


====Comments====
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
@ Walkazo: Could you include the removal of Logos of the consoles? Just as you said that color interferes with the design of the logos, this problem can also be seen in the [[Wii U]]'s page and the [[Wii]]. The [[GameCube]] takes a step further: How do you read a symbol of a game console in the infobox? {{user|Coincollector}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].
:Well, this proposal is already about removing ''all'' logo-titles, but I agree that adding consoles to the explicit list of what shouldn't have them is a good idea; thanks for pointing it out! - {{User|Walkazo}}
Actually, removing the logos are okay, but maybe they should be moved to the subject's gallery. There may be some chance that we want these plain logos. - {{User|Akfamilyhome}}
:I think you missed a couple lines of the proposal: I ''am'' suggesting that they be moved to the galleries (and they can even be incorporated into the body text, in some cases). They're not being removed from the articles, just from the infoboxes. - {{User|Walkazo}}
@Coincollector: Sorry. {{user|SWFlash}}


If this proposal passes, are we going to remove the logos on games that haven't been released? {{User|Tails777}}
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
:I don't see why we wouldn't. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
::Yes, we'd remove the logos from the infobox titles, but if there's no other artwork available, the logo would be used as the infobox ''image'', like the series pages. So, pages like [[Super Mario 3D]], [[Paper Mario (Nintendo 3DS)]] and [[Luigi's Mansion 2]] would be unaffected, while [[Mario Kart 3D]]'s title-logo would be converted into the image, and [[Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games]]'s logo would be removed from the infobox altogether (it's already on the gallery page). - {{User|Walkazo}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can ''see'' the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.


'''@Plumber:''' We are not getting rid of them, one, the artwork of the title is already in the boxart, and two, they are most likely already located at the gallery. {{User|Zero777}}
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====


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


===Artwork Transparency Issues===
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====
During the past set of months, I've been noticing that a good number of JPEG artworks were being replaced by PNG artworks with transparent backgrounds.  However, a lot of those images look quite ugly when they're viewed in backgrounds that aren't colored white.  I've mentioned this dilemma at the admins boards, and some of the Sysops there do agree with my statement.  I propose that any artworks with ugly-looking transparency has to lose the transparency.  After all, we shouldn't be modifying the artworks by any means; if the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs; if the PNG artworks don't have anything transparent, upload them that way.


Update: To understand what's going on, please look [[User:M&SG/proposal|here]] for examples of good transparency and bad transparency.
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


'''Proposer''': {{User|M&SG}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': <s>June 30, 2011 23:59 GMT</s> <s>July 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> July 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|M&SG}} - Per my proposal.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Supremo78}} - As I hear a lot, we strive to make this wiki better and better, and if images that don't make the wiki look well, it brings down the wiki's quality. Sometimes it's just better to leave small things alone to make bigger things better.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all!
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - I recall some images, such as the Black Mage artwork, looking better without transparency. Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Adding transparency ruins the image. Per proposal.
#{{user|SWFlash}} ''"If the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs."'' PNG. Even if not transparent, always upload PNG.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Per proposer. Actually I don't see the necessity to converse JPEG files into PNG: there is no real difference in a picture when converting a JPEG into PNG, and the transparency thing is more of an excuse to say that the PNG is better than JPEG, never noticing the size of the picture wich is a lot heavier in PNG files. This is one of the various causes that retouching official artworks really bothers me. That and the user's less knowledge about a in-game model and a (very bad) cropped screenshot.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Per all.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per all i don't like the way transparent images look anyways
#{{User|Dr Javelin}} As far as I can tell, transparency doesn't need to be added and makes many images look terrible. Per all.
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} Per UhHuhAlrightDaisy who tried to rid the Black Mage artwork of transparency (sorry Ultramario, but <s>our princess is in another castle</s> transparency isn't always better). Also per everyone else who supports this proposal.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Okay, I get this now. Your saying you want ''bad'' transparency removed, right? I support now. If you didn't see [[User:M&SG/proposal|this]] you should.
#{{User|Gigaremo}} Per all. If transparency makes some images look bad, then it should be removed on those images.
#{{User|Xzelion}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|MarioMaster15}} Per all.
#{{User|Goomblob}} The wiki needs of good and striking images.
#{{User|Boowhoplaysgames}} Per all, and, who the hayfidget thought of making transparency for the Mario Sports Mix anyway? the shadows of them make one '''''know''''' that they shouldn't make transparency. leaving white in for thee shadows to be shown is just goofy, and puts this wiki [to me] to shame.[“why, why must this wiki have good info with bad quality?”]
#{{User|Shadow34}} &ndash; Per all!
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} What we're proposing is that we delete images of bad quality, not remove it all together! Most of the opposers misunderstood this proposal. And I completely agree with this proposal. If it looks crappy, it's better if it's not transparent.
#{{User|Petergriffin555}}Per all.
#{{User|Plumber}} &mdash; The artwork should be uploaded in the way it originally was uploaded.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} &ndash; Gonna say what I can pretty much sum up to be the case here for many opposers. "It is not about making all PNG's into JPG's, but actually have good PNG's!!!!"
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; We should not alter official artwork in any way. Per proposal.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} I disagree with this proposal as PNGs are usually better then JPGs and the conversion from JPG to PNG is rather good because the images that I did in that way always looked more clear quality-wise.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Zero777}} Per UM3000 and comment below. Just let users have the freedom to do whatever they want with the image as long it will look good on and make the article better in quality.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|SKmarioman}} Per UltraMario3000.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|YoshiGo99}} Per all.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Per all. JPGs (JPEGs) are a little crappy compared to PNGs.
#{{User|Mario Bros.!}} Per UltrMario3000,
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Per UM3000.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per UltraMario
#{{User|New Super Mario}} Per UM
#{{User|Hypnotoad}} Per all, and as someone who works with these images, I find PNG images easier to use, and maintain a better quality post-process.
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per all.
#<s>{{User|Arend}} What the heck, you want to get rid of all the transparent PNGs because they ''get a checkered background when you're viewing them in their file page''? That's ridiculous. Per all.</s>
#{{User|Mario Fan 123}} Per all and Arend. This community is sort of annoying sometimes, when they make dumb proposals 'because transparent images look ugly'. Come on, transparent PNGs are way better than plain white background JPGs! And some of the JPG images come with a background, so that's annoying too.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all, especially Arend.
#{{User|Not Bugsy}} Per all, and also, PNGs are good for saving space and keeping quality. You can compress them fine without losing quality, but if you compress JPGs, you get artifacts which lower image clarity.
#{{User|Yoshidude99}} Per all.
#{{User|Kingbowser99}} Per all.
#{{User|Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum}} I'm neutral. JPG is horrendous, while PNG is amazing. JPG does not work with transparency, so... I'm just doing it here to make it tied on votes.
#{{User|Super Luigi! Number one!}} JPEGs are for photographs and realistic images. PNGs are for line art, text-heavy images, and images with few colors.Btw, We can "correct" the bad images, making it completly tranparent.
#{{User|EctoBiologist}} I was joking. and yes I oppose this. >>


====Comments====
====Comments====
Recently I've been working with PNG sprite images with white backgrounds that are unnecessary and removing them and reuploading it. I haven't done anything with JPEGs. That's ok, right? {{User|Bowser's luma}}
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I think the proposal is saying that we should stop making non-transparent images transparent because if you put them behind a background that is a color other than white, you can still see some of the white around the picture. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::I don't understand the difference between a JPEG a PNG or transparency all i ever see are pictures {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::JPEG and PNG are popular image file formats. PNGs are more easily modifiable than JPEGs in a software such as Fireworks or Photoshop. Most images have backgrounds (generally white), and people can use software to remove them (an image without a background is considered transparent). It can be useful at times, but it is not always done perfectly. Usually, the software will remove most of a background using a tool, leaving the user to remove the rest manually, sometimes pixel-by-pixel depending on the quality wanted. The problem is that it can be a tedious process depending on the size of the image and the quantity of background to be removed, so some of it is likely to remain either unnoticed or unattended. On a white background (or one colored identically to the image background), there's no problem, but other backgrounds reveal these unnoticed or unattended portions and make the image, and by extension, the wiki, look unprofessional. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:::::I'm really confused on this still. Can you give a few examples to really clear this up? {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::::::This image [[File:TrSuper mushroom.jpg|100px]] has a background (all of the space surrounding the trophy), while this image [[File:MarioNSMBWii.PNG|100px]] is transparent (all transparent images have that checkered "background" you see when clicking on it). {{User|Mario4Ever}}
UM: No, the proposer is talking about the bad quality transparent images, not all of the transparent images. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}


I can see where some people are going by replacing JPEG artworks with PNG artworks.  However, if the PNG artworks do not have a transparent background, you should upload them just like that.  If a PNG artwork has transparency already when you download it, odds are, it'll probably look good on any kind of background.  If that truly is the case, that kind of artwork image can be uploaded; Ex.: [[File:MASATLOG_Tails.png|100x100px]]; when I found that image, it already had an Alpha Layer, and it looked good on a black background. Basically, by normal standards, quality > transparency, and transparency should only be implemented if it looks good. - {{User|M&SG}}
===Split the image quality category===
:I have noticed that some users don't know how to keep the quality when changing it to a transparent image. When they upload the image it is smaller than the JPEG file was and so some users who know how to keep the quality and have it transparent have to fix the image. Also JPEG files has little dots that are hard to see that surround the image and they blend in with the white. We don't want to see that because it makes the image look like it has bad quality and that is probably why we make images transparent. - {{User|YoshiGo99}}
'''Issue 1:''' [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]] is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. '''Issue 2:''' All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:
::Regardless, if the original artwork doesn't have transparency, do not alter it. At times, adding transparency to artwork will make it look much worse, due to the pixelated edges that can be seen. I learned that the hard way when I modified some ''Mario Super Sluggers'' artworks. - {{User|M&SG}}
*'''Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
*'''Assets to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as [[:File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png]].
Additionally, [[Template:Image-quality]] will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.


'''@UltraMario3000:''' He's not saying that we shouldn't convert from JPG to PNG, but that if someone does that, they shouldn't make it transparent. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''@Yoshiwaker:''' I don't see what's wrong with making it transparent though.:/--{{User|UltraMario3000}}
====Split both====
:Take an image and put it behind a black background. You'll see. {{User|Xzelion}}
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
::I don't get what you're trying to say Xze.--{{User|UltraMario3000}}
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
:::Look [[User:Xzelion/test|here]]. {{User|Xzelion}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense


We should upload all artworks as PNG, because when JPG pictures are rescaled (&#91;[File:Example.jpg|''200px'']]), the they become very artifacted. {{user|SWFlash}}
====Only split screenshots====
:Most artworks that can be found on gaming websites are JPEGs however.  Besides, you shouldn't replace an HQ JPEG image with a low quality PNG image. {{User|M&SG}}


@Goomba's Shoe15: This proposal only applies to bad quality transparency artworks.  Artworks such as the one that Xzelion showed would not be affected, since those artworks already had transparency implemented before being uploaded; artworks that already have transparency usually tend to look good on any background color.  {{User|M&SG}}
====Only split assets====
:I know that {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}


@M&SG Did I say anything about quantity? Also, PNG is lossless, if you didn't notice it. {{user|SWFlash}}
====Leave image quality alone====
:I didn't say quantity.  Also, I didn't say that you shouldn't replace JPEG artworks with PNG artworks.  You can still do that, but if the PNG artworks have no transparency, don't make them transparent. {{User|M&SG}}


Just in case the proposal deadline has to be extended, please refer to [[User:M&SG/proposal|here]] for some examples of acceptable transparency and unacceptable transparency. {{User|M&SG}}
====Comments on image quality proposal====
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
<gallery>
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)


@Arend: You're missing the point. This proposal only applies to artworks that have bad transparency. Please look at my examples, and you'll clearly get the picture. {{User|M&SG}}
===Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'', ''[[Donkey Kong Jr. (game)|Donkey Kong Jr.]]'' and ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]''===
I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games ''Donkey Kong'', ''Donkey Kong Jr.'' and ''Mario Bros''. There's already a [[Donkey Kong (Game & Watch)|Game]] [[Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch)|and]] [[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|Watch]] game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "''Donkey Kong''" is the name of various other games too! There's [[Donkey Kong (tabletop arcade game)|the tabletop game]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|the Game Boy game]], [[Donkey Kong (Nelsonic Game Watch)|the Nelsonic Game Watch game]] and [[Donkey Kong (slot machine)|the slot machine]]. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for ''Donkey Kong''. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Nintendo DS)]].


@Mario Fan 123: Well it's one thing when you have a white background, but when you put the image on a black background, that's when you'll notice how poorly done the transparency is. {{User|M&SG}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT


<s>Okay, basically  you want to remove transparency?</s> Guys, they're saying they want bad transpaprensy removed.
====Support====
{{User|Superfiremario}}
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
'''@Mario Bros.! I'm supporting now.''' {{User|Superfiremario}}


@Zero's vote: Most of these "transparent" images ''don't'' look good on articles{{User|Superfiremario}}
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.


I'd like to point out a png image with awful transparency which should be used as an example for this proposal. Alas, I don't know the file name, but I know the image. It's the Galaxy Airship artwork that was ripped from the boss poster. The image looks fine on a white background, but put against a black background or save it to your computer and open it in MSPaint and it reveals how horrendous the transparency is. {{User|Rise Up Above It}}
====Comments====
Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)


IDK, but I'll show directly some examples from MS&G's page to coroborate the problems. Maybe many of you misunderstood this proposal. This is not to kill PNG as many of you think, it's to get rid '''badly edited or cropped pictures''' that they turned out be of worse quality than their originals (regardless they were JPEG or PNG or whatever). In a few words, pictures, like artworks '''Shouldn't be edited'''.
What about [[Dr. Mario (game)|''Dr. Mario'']]? That game also has a [[Dr. Mario (Gamewatch Boy)|separate release also called ''Dr. Mario'']].--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)
::The reason why the games ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Dr. Mario'' should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from ''Donkey Kong'' on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "''Dr. Mario'' (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)


The chart shows the bad-edited pictures set in a black background, this problem can be seen in any colored bg but white or some white-based color.  
===Standardize what counts as "English", "English (United States)"/"American English" and/or "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" localization(s)===
A proposal like this has been long overdue, in my humble opinion. For a while now, I've especially thought that the way this wiki distinguishes between "English (United States)"/"American English" and "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" localizations has been very arbitrary, to say the least.


{| style="background:#000000;"
Primarily because strictly speaking, the only times Nintendo has ''truly'' done significantly different localizations for the United States and United Kingdom (or "American English" and "British English") are for select DS and Wii titles (mostly the latter system's though, and it didn't become commonplace until around late 2007/early 2008, [[List of controversies#Mario Party 8|coinciding with the fallout over the use of a certain word in the initial American English localization of]] ''[[Mario Party 8]]'' [[List of controversies#Mario Party 8|that caused an issue when it was initially brought over to the UK as-is]]) as well as most 3DS and Wii U titles (with some exceptions mainly late in the Wii U's life, most notably ''[[Paper Mario: Color Splash]]'' which has identical American and "British" English scripts). This practice had largely stopped by the release of the region-free Nintendo Switch, with the exception of a couple late 3DS titles, along with ports of some (but not all) DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U games that already had separate English localizations for the United States (and the rest of the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and the rest of Europe along with Australia and the rest of Oceania).
|[[File:MSMart5.png|260px|center]]
|[[File:BowserKartWii.png|260px|center]]
|[[File:Bowsersmg2.png|260px|center]]
|[[File:BlackMagesportsmix.png|center]]
|}


It's possible to converse JPEGs into PNG but '''never edit them''' unless it needs so and in this case must be '''well-crafted''', not like this. This is becoming in a trend by many user and shouldn't be atually in the Mariowiki, so think twice before taking a decent decision.  
But the main problem I see here is twofold: firstly, simple regional differences in the English text used between American and European releases are ''not'' necessarily related to the above practice and often can't simply be explained by the differences between "American English" and "British English" in the traditional sense; in the past Nintendo of Europe simply took the existing English localization by Nintendo of America for their version and just amended any errors or other perceived shortcomings they found. Sometimes they simply went in a different, often more literal direction localization-wise for some aspects, in particular for names, titles and other terminology; see [[Koopa Kid]] and his European name "Mini Bowser", or ''[[Yoshi Topsy-Turvy]]'' and its European (and Japanese) name ''Yoshi's Universal Gravitation''.


{{User|Coincollector}}
That said, I don't know if it's really accurate to call such differences "British English", at least not in the traditional sense. (Something like "[the English script used in] the European/PAL version" would be more technically accurate, even if it's more wordy.) And even ''those'' practices are largely over now that simultaneous, region-free worldwide releases are the norm. But ''that'' said – and this is where the second part of the problem comes in – for the most part American and European/"British" English localizations are still stored separately in internal data (in folders like "USen" and "EUen" or "en-US" and "en-GB", the one being used depending on the system's region settings) despite being almost if not entirely identical (in many cases the only meaningful difference is which date format is used when applicable); I can confirm this is the case in many recent ''Mario'' games for the Nintendo Switch like ''[[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]'', ''[[Princess Peach: Showtime!]]'', ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'' and ''[[Mario & Luigi: Brothership]]''. So, despite the actual text being virtually identical and everything I've said, if they're classified like that in internal data, arguably it ''does'' make sense to use "English (United States)"/"American English" and "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" accordingly. I see three possible courses of action to address cases like this (well, along with just doing nothing), which is what the actual proposal is about. They are:
#Treat American English localizations that are essentially identical in European and Australian releases with no specifically "British English" differences as a single American English localization, listed as "English (United States)" in infoboxes.
#Treat American English localizations essentially identical in Europe and Australia as simply "English" localizations, listed as such in infoboxes, with "American" only specified when addressing linguistic quirks like spelling if necessary.
#*This would match the in-game language settings in ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'', which stores its identical "USen" and "EUen" localizations separately in internal data, but only lists "English" as a selectable option in-game.
#Same as Option 2, but treat European/Australian or "British" English localizations as separate from their essentially identical (American) English counterparts ''if'' they are classified as such in internal data.
#*This would match the in-game language settings in ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'', which has both "English (US)" and "English (UK/Australia)" as selectable options for each of the games it contains. The respective scripts for each are also stored separately in internal data and contain some minor differences, but such differences are not a matter of "American English" compared to "British English" in the traditional sense (the games are largely written in American English regardless), but simply account for the aforementioned unrelated NoE amendments common at the time.


'''@All Opposers''' What M&SG is trying to say is that we need to remove the transparency from the images that look bad on a different color background than white. Jusy look at the pictures above. The look crappy in a black background.
'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
{{User|Supremo78}}
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:Well, just like Supremo above, I don't think it means ALL jpg to png images are really going to be undone, as I know many of them that are amazing that had that happened. I think that the proposal is just to have some quality better. I really don't understand why a jpg image is just tossed out there like it is trash when many amazing images have been uploaded by jpg. Png's might be really good as well, but if you try to put a jpg into a png and it doesn't work out, then you might as well just leave it as in instead of trying to continue with what you are doing. But...I still am trying to decide which side I should support, because I can see it - through the opposers' eyes - as to why this shouldn't pass as well, and what the outcome of all this change could lead to. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}


@ Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum: You don't get the point. This proposal, again, '''this is not to remove PNG images, nor saying that JPEG is better than PNG nor something''', this proposal is to stop users that believe they can edit or make certain pictures transparent without noticing important details like the chart shown above. Don't think you're becoming experts on this... {{user|Coincollector}}
====Option 1: Treat largely identical American English localizations as "American English", list them only as "English (United States)"====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.


====Option 2: Treat largely identical American English localizations as simply "English" and list them as such====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.


Okay, I see now what the whole purpose is. You want to delete the PNG's with bad quality of transparency. That is kinda okay, but here comes my opinion. You see, it is kinda good when we're talking about the ones that have some effects that have less to no hardness (like shadows of some people, or fur standing upright, or even fire). However, I think it doesn't make sense at all to delete those of bad quality with 100% hardness (so, for example, no shadows & stuff, no fur standing upright, no fire). An experienced converter or transparency maker could easily take the original file and make the file better transparent. If you don't get what I mean, take a look at these blue dots (the upper ones have no hardness, and the lower ones have a hardness of 100%):<br>
====Option 3: List largely identical American English localizations as both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if separated in internal data, otherwise default to Option 2====
{| style="background:#000000;"
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it ''could'' make sense to follow suit...
|http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/4282/examplefd.png
|}<br>
See what I mean? The blue dot with 100% hardness has it's background completely removed, and there's almost no sign of white pixels left around, while there is a whole bunch of white left at the blue dot with no hardness. As with the middle two in the earlier example, it's transparency ''could'' be better. Seeing the Black Mage at the right, that one could also be done better (seriously, there are pixels left behind that ''don't even belong'' to the artwork), but it has a shadow, so we therefor have to wait for an official release of the artwork with no background (though I, unfortunately, think it will never come).<br>So, what I want is that most artwork that has no background nor hardness-less things, such as shadows, should have another re-upload, with original file, with the background removed, making it looking more polished than it first was.<br>{{User|Arend}} - I see, btw, that ''all the examples above'', have at least been upoaded by UltraMario3000 as the latest revision. I suggest for him that he needs a (better) program that removes the background easily, and/or that, if he uses a Magic Wand tool, that he should increase its tolerance, but not too much. Testing the tolerance is always good, too.


:@ Arend: There is no problem to upload high quality transparent images, specially those that are 2D artwork that have plain effects and the tolerance is reliable. The problem comes when you ''try'' to make the artwork transparent. If you find  a picture with no transparency, keep the image unaltered. If you find a transparent image of quality (of tolerable size, not too smaller than the original and the alpha is smooth) keep the image unaltered. If you find or '''make''' a transparent image and has bad quality in transparency and the alpha is not smooth, then undo it. By the way, just a 2D artwork is transparent doesn't mean will be 100% good: [http://www.mariowiki.com/File:Wmage.PNG For example, look at the history here] {{User|Coincollector}}
====Option 4: Do nothing====
::@Coincollector: I actually meant ''all'' art, not just 2D. I thought anyone would get it, then someone thinks I only talked about 2D, though I never said it was about 2D. I only used a simple example.<br>Anyways, people who make things transparent can ''try'' to make things transparent, but should <u>not</u> ''save'' directly. They first need to ''test'' the transparency, by adding, for example, a black background as a new layer, if possible. If the art's transparency's not good (enough), they have to ''undo'' the action of making it transparent, ''change'' the tolerance, ''select'' the unwanted things, and try it again. Then they have to test it again, and, if needed, repeat the whole thing, until it is finally good enough.<br>About the 2D art you showed me, it is because the uploader (who seems to be the same person who uploaded the LQ transparency pics above), did not care about the tolerance. Eventually, he should resize the picture a little to make the black lines smoother. To keep a higher quality, shrinking is suggested.<br>I think you skimmed my whole lecture-thing (or whatever it could be described the best) and thought I talked about that transparent 2D art is always good quality, but I never said that. {{User|Arend}}
:::@ Arend: I see your point and is right. In fact you've expandend one of my statements in bold of the comment with the pictures. I have other things to support this. As you said, making a transparent image requires much more time than somebody can think. You may get a whole day dealing with a single image to make it ransparent, testing how will look and undoing it over 100 times if there is a noticeable mistake. The thing gets more complicated when you're playing with the alpha where the colors blend with the background (if you don't what alpha is, is the opacity's bearing of every pixel in a picture, for example the diffuse blue in black bg). Some of the pics above have alpha that the user overlooked and left them in white patches, which makes these pictures unsettling when you look over a background of another color... even more, the white's presence and that dithering ruin the pictures' aesthetics. As I said, the pictures should remain unaltered if they don't need. Making oneself a picture transparent is not easy actually and, these are the mistakes that one can get if they don't this work in a professional way: if you'll do it, do it well and if you didn't well, undo it. Consider my last comment but one as a consequence of this explanation. Also, there are more tools to use than a "magic wand" {{user|Coincollector}}


@Super Luigi! Number One!: Do you know how in the simplest way? It's not an easy task as you think. Requires trial and error to get the best quality.
====Comments====
For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===Merge all Donkey Kong lists with Mario lists===
''None at the moment.''
This proposal started off as a TPP, which I said the list of Donkey Kong bosses with the Mario bosses list. Goomba's Shoe15 than told me in the comments that we need to merge all other Donkey Kong lists to prevent inconsistency. I liked the idea, and then created this proposal.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Supremo78}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 11, 2011, 23:59
 
====Support====
#{{User|Supremo78}} - Per my proposal
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} the reason we should do this is because it is inconstant to have the Donkey Kong related thing on there own list while not giving the wario or yoshi series things there own list so i think we should merge them all into one list for consistency so per my idea
#{{User|Zero777}} Yoshi and Wario don't have a list of their own bosses, so I don't get what makes DK so different; categories are fine, but articles, read the first part of my support.
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Per Zero777.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all! I'm seeing fireworks in this proposal! BOOM!
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all especially Zero777. Despite having his own series, Donkey Kong is a part of the Mario series.
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per all
#{{User|Superfiremario}} The  DK series is not as important as the Mario series, it's a series kind of like a child to the mario series.
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Plumber}}: These categories serve as a historical record to the old DKWiki, and as a lover of history, I would like them preserved as such. We can easily create Wario series categories, etc. for the secondary and tertiary realms (though these terms have fallen into disuse, I dare say). In any case, I expect my opposition to indeed fail, and dreadfully, so, but this opposition will put in the history of the ill-conceived Wikipedia-driven (or A Link to the Past-manipulated, dare I say) drivelish proposals the remembrance that '''there was indeed a DKWiki that closed shortly when I joined, and this fact should be preserved to history.''' Thank you kindly.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; I honestly agree with Plumber, and I also feel that ''Wario'' and ''Yoshi'' categories should be made to further classify and categorize each page for those series. For both historical and organizational purposes.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per above.
 
====Comments====
Is it like an article list or a category? {{User|Zero777}}
:the big lists on the main page the categories are fine since all the other series have them {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:Remember, one week for normal proposals, two weeks for TPPs! [[User:Reddragon19k|Reddragon19k]] 08:27, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
'''@Superfiremario''' your wrong if any thing the Mario Series is a spin off of the Donkey Kong series seeing as how Donkey Kong got top billing of the game Donkey Kong which started the Mario series in general {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:'''@Plumber''' You keep saying categories nobodies talking about categories just the sidebar lists {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
'''@Plumber''' The point of this proposal was not to merge categories of DK and Mario, and even if they were, I still don't understand your reasoning. Anyway, this proposal was made to merge '''lists''' not categories. {{User|Supremo78}}
 
===Merge the non-game lists on the side bar with the video game lists===
I find it very weird that this wiki considers the non-game elements canon but still keeps them separate on the side bar so i think we should merge the two lists together because if everything is official/canon than they should be on the same list. Because right now the two lists separates the game and non-game elements on these lists and i don't think we should do that. Plus we already merged all of the non-game categories so i think it only makes sense to merge the lists two
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 14, 2011, 23:59
 
====Support====
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} per my proposal and consistency also i am sorry if you can't understand what i'm proposing due to my grammar.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per GS15!
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per GS15
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Per all.
#{{User|Supremo78}} Ah now I understand. Per proposal.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} I get it.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; Yes. Our wiki establishes games and other media as being equal in how we should cover it and not being in separate canons. So it would make sense for us to merge these lists. Per proposal.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
Sorry, but I don't get what you are saying. {{User|Zero777}}
 
:Yeah I don't either. {{User|Supremo78}}
::You see those lists on the side bar well currently there separated into game and non-game i'm proposing we merge them together like we did with the categories {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:::By "non-game" do you mean beta? Can you please clarify what the non-game stuff is? I don't know what it is. {{User|Supremo78}}
::::Non-game stuff is things from the cartoons and the comics and according to the mario wiki canon policy they are supposed to be on considered on the same level of canon as the games. However, for some reason they are split on the big lists on the side bar and i'm proposing that they be merged together like how the non-game categories and game categories were merged together {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}

Latest revision as of 22:19, February 8, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, February 9th, 07:17 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."

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)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
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)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)
Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork, Scrooge200 (ended January 5, 2025)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 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)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 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)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Introduce a new type of proposal

While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as this proposal, which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see this old proposal attempt for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?

My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named poll proposals.

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

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

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

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
  3. PopitTart (talk) For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
  4. Rykitu (talk) Neat idea, per all.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Waluigi Time.

Oppose

Comments on proposal proposal

Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a lot more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of {{For}} and {{Against}} templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use {{User}} to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)

That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --PopitTart (talk) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need something to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)

I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into three separate ones myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave, but I can't really envision what your other example would look like as a poll proposal. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)

well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for List of references in the Super Mario franchise, and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for Dotted-Line Block, options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from SMBW", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --PopitTart (talk) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the Super Mario franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what happened here. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, like here, and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.

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

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

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

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

Oppose

  1. Ray Trace (talk) This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
  3. Sparks (talk) Friend requests are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
  5. Technetium (talk) No one even does friend requests nowadays.
  6. Mario (talk) Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it must be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
  7. Tails777 (talk) I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
  8. Mushroom Head (talk) It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
  9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
  10. Arend (talk) On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
  11. MCD (talk) This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you really don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
  12. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  13. Green Star (talk) Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
  14. Rykitu (talk) Per Green Star.
  15. Cadrega86 (talk) per Green Star.

Nintendo101 (talk) It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.

Comments

@Nintendo101 Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)

I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — Nintendo101 (talk) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
@Nintendo101 The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, not others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. Technetium (talk) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Technetium (talk) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)

Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you are allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings. So why is it so much more locked-down here? Shadow2 (talk) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
"I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?"
It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from removing it if they should so choose. Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is still there, even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." Shadow2 (talk) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I want to make something clear: under the current policy for user talk pages, "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? Jdtendo(T|C) 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)

No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Super Mario RPG receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." Shadow2 (talk) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I believe users should have some fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Shadow2 What are some specific examples? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Examples of what? Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they don't want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. Shadow2 (talk) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)

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

@Mario So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)

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

This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ MHA Super Mushroom:) at 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)

Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:

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

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, Squirpina XIV or the Flora Kingdom royalty, at most serving as the origin for Hoohooros.

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The glyphs are actually seen, though.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can see the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it

Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled Category:Donkey Kong 64 should be Category:Donkey Kong 64.

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think slightly slanted text is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that is there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
  4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  5. Salmancer (talk) It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)

Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using {{Italic title}}, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)

Split the image quality category

Issue 1: Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. Issue 2: All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:

  • Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
  • Assets to be uploaded with higher quality - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png.

Additionally, Template:Image-quality will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split both

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) makes perfect sense

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:

  • Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

  • Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)

Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality. Something similar should also be done for the Articles with unsourced foreign names category. Apikachu68 (talk) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)

Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros.

I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros. There's already a Game and Watch game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "Donkey Kong" is the name of various other games too! There's the tabletop game, the Game Boy game, the Nelsonic Game Watch game and the slot machine. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for Donkey Kong. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii) and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS).

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.

Comments

Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? PaperSplash (talk) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)

What about Dr. Mario? That game also has a separate release also called Dr. Mario.--PopitTart (talk) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)

The reason why the games Donkey Kong and Dr. Mario should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from Donkey Kong on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "Dr. Mario (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)

Standardize what counts as "English", "English (United States)"/"American English" and/or "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" localization(s)

A proposal like this has been long overdue, in my humble opinion. For a while now, I've especially thought that the way this wiki distinguishes between "English (United States)"/"American English" and "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" localizations has been very arbitrary, to say the least.

Primarily because strictly speaking, the only times Nintendo has truly done significantly different localizations for the United States and United Kingdom (or "American English" and "British English") are for select DS and Wii titles (mostly the latter system's though, and it didn't become commonplace until around late 2007/early 2008, coinciding with the fallout over the use of a certain word in the initial American English localization of Mario Party 8 that caused an issue when it was initially brought over to the UK as-is) as well as most 3DS and Wii U titles (with some exceptions mainly late in the Wii U's life, most notably Paper Mario: Color Splash which has identical American and "British" English scripts). This practice had largely stopped by the release of the region-free Nintendo Switch, with the exception of a couple late 3DS titles, along with ports of some (but not all) DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U games that already had separate English localizations for the United States (and the rest of the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and the rest of Europe along with Australia and the rest of Oceania).

But the main problem I see here is twofold: firstly, simple regional differences in the English text used between American and European releases are not necessarily related to the above practice and often can't simply be explained by the differences between "American English" and "British English" in the traditional sense; in the past Nintendo of Europe simply took the existing English localization by Nintendo of America for their version and just amended any errors or other perceived shortcomings they found. Sometimes they simply went in a different, often more literal direction localization-wise for some aspects, in particular for names, titles and other terminology; see Koopa Kid and his European name "Mini Bowser", or Yoshi Topsy-Turvy and its European (and Japanese) name Yoshi's Universal Gravitation.

That said, I don't know if it's really accurate to call such differences "British English", at least not in the traditional sense. (Something like "[the English script used in] the European/PAL version" would be more technically accurate, even if it's more wordy.) And even those practices are largely over now that simultaneous, region-free worldwide releases are the norm. But that said – and this is where the second part of the problem comes in – for the most part American and European/"British" English localizations are still stored separately in internal data (in folders like "USen" and "EUen" or "en-US" and "en-GB", the one being used depending on the system's region settings) despite being almost if not entirely identical (in many cases the only meaningful difference is which date format is used when applicable); I can confirm this is the case in many recent Mario games for the Nintendo Switch like Super Mario RPG, Princess Peach: Showtime!, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and Mario & Luigi: Brothership. So, despite the actual text being virtually identical and everything I've said, if they're classified like that in internal data, arguably it does make sense to use "English (United States)"/"American English" and "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" accordingly. I see three possible courses of action to address cases like this (well, along with just doing nothing), which is what the actual proposal is about. They are:

  1. Treat American English localizations that are essentially identical in European and Australian releases with no specifically "British English" differences as a single American English localization, listed as "English (United States)" in infoboxes.
  2. Treat American English localizations essentially identical in Europe and Australia as simply "English" localizations, listed as such in infoboxes, with "American" only specified when addressing linguistic quirks like spelling if necessary.
    • This would match the in-game language settings in Super Mario Odyssey, which stores its identical "USen" and "EUen" localizations separately in internal data, but only lists "English" as a selectable option in-game.
  3. Same as Option 2, but treat European/Australian or "British" English localizations as separate from their essentially identical (American) English counterparts if they are classified as such in internal data.
    • This would match the in-game language settings in Super Mario 3D All-Stars, which has both "English (US)" and "English (UK/Australia)" as selectable options for each of the games it contains. The respective scripts for each are also stored separately in internal data and contain some minor differences, but such differences are not a matter of "American English" compared to "British English" in the traditional sense (the games are largely written in American English regardless), but simply account for the aforementioned unrelated NoE amendments common at the time.

Proposer: PaperSplash (talk)
Deadline: February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Treat largely identical American English localizations as "American English", list them only as "English (United States)"

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.

Option 2: Treat largely identical American English localizations as simply "English" and list them as such

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.

Option 3: List largely identical American English localizations as both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if separated in internal data, otherwise default to Option 2

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it could make sense to follow suit...

Option 4: Do nothing

Comments

For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4726047"