MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
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"
|'''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>
-----
Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.
 
To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
 
__TOC__<!--
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
 
 
 
<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===
*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
*Split [[Giant Banana]] from [[Banana]] ([[Talk:Banana|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': <s>July 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>July 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> July 17, 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
*Move [[Expresso II]] to {{fakelink|Expresso the Ostrich (Donkey Kong Country 2)}} ([[Talk:Expresso II|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': July 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Power Gauge]] with [[Health Meter]] ([[Talk:Power Gauge#Merge Power Gauge with Health Meter|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' July 25, 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====
#{{User|Plumber}}For clarity
#{{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|Superfiremario}} Per proposal.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Regulating our reference formatting is a good idea, but I feel like it would be better to go about this by drafting a policy page with our own structure (based on MLA, but tailored to our specific needs) and ''then'' making a proposal. A vague, one-sentence statement (with a one-sentence justification) is far to little to go on, especially when hundreds of pages will be effected by the unspecified changes.
#{{User|Zero777}} Per Walkazo
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; MLA format shouldn't be directly used on a website like this, in my opinion. Also, per Walkazo.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Walkazo has a good idea.
 
====Debate====
What is MLA? {{User|Xzelion}}
 
:Modern Language Association. {{User|Phoenix}}
::See [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/ here], Xzelion. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
 
:::Okay, that is seriously freaky, I was just gonna link to that... :O {{User|Phoenix}}
 
Won't this be a massive overhaul of practically every single article on the wiki? {{User|Dr Javelin}}
::::<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}}
 
:@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}}
 
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}}
: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}}
:::Hello Plumber, are you there? May you please answer our questions? {{User|Zero777}}
Just Google MLA Standards sonny ;) {{User|Plumber}} 01:25, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::::All that does is inform people what MLA is; it does nothing to explain exactly what you plan to do according to its standards (there's quite a lot of info, as you can see when clicking on the above link of mine). {{User|Mario4Ever}}
 
==New Features==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
==New features==
===Reform MarioWiki:Proposals===
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
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.
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?


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.
I have several pitches for you.


'''Proposers:''' {{User|Xzelion}}, {{User|Plumber}}, and {{User|Master Crash}}<br>
<big>'''''OPTION ZERO'''''</big><br>
'''Deadline:''' July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. <s>It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.</s>


====Support====
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''
#{{User|Xzelion}} &mdash; Per Plumber.
#{{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|Master Crash}} &mdash; Per all
#{{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|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|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|ThirdMarioBro}} Per DKPetey99. I am getting tired of people just "going with the flow" and labeling their vote as "per all".
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Per all, especially Dr Javelin & SWFlash. :)
#{{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|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|Mariomario64}} &ndash; Per proposal and everyone else's comments. In my opinion, this is a much better way to decide on proposals.


====Oppose====
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
#{{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.
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)
#{{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. And since were proposals popularity contests?
#{{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|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|twentytwofiftyseven}} Hahaha. Ironically, one guy like NARCE could filibuster the proposed system forever. Per all.
#{{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|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|Phoenix}} There is nothing whatsoever drastically wrong with the system we use currently, and I very highly doubt that the proposed system will make anything any better than it is now, even if it happened to work out well in the past. If I could see it improving the overall decision making process, I would support, but I honestly cannot see it turning into anything less than a travesty. As it is, I seriously doubt that the majority of users are so lazy or shortsighted that they would ignore the important issues at hand and only per the arguments of their friends or per arguments without fully realizing what it is that they are doing. Does that have the potential to happen? Possibly. Does that mean that the entire system is ineffective and detrimental? I don't think so.
#{{User|Hypnotoad}} As much as I'd like to avoid a simple "per" reasoning, pretty much everything I can think about has been said, so per all.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} per Walkazo after reading her comments i find the proposal system to be just as good if not better than the old system.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Even though the "per" reasoning can be annoying at times, it is even more annoying and redundant to restate the exact points that have already been said. So in general, per all.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} I agree with the opposers. Also, there are too many users to settle proposals in the way they used to be settled. The arguments would become extremely long and last forever. The current way makes everything more organized, and it helps you tell who is on what side more easily. Some people may vote on a side just because their friend is voting there, but they are outnumbered by the number of users who vote on the side they are sure is best.
#{{User|Bop1996}} Even though I'm still on hiatus, I think that this is such an important issue that I needed to vote anyway. I don't want to argue about what may or may not have happened in the past with User A or User B. That being said, the current system works quite well as it is imho, and the new system wouldn't work better as per everyone above, so per all.
#{{User|Young Master Luma}} The system currently used is much simpler than the one proposed, which (in my opinion) attracts more people to vote. On a wiki with so many users, it would be mildly chaotic to let all the users argue about something just to often come to a quite ambiguous conclusion.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - The "”bona fide” arguments and discussion" is the "comments" section of the proposals. Support and oppose columns are much more organised and simple than just cluttered argument. It's easier to find out the end result, too. If we reform this page, how will we know when a proposal has passed? Who will check, and when? And would there be debate even after the end result? If most of the supporters are voting to get rid of the "Per" system, it's quite ironic they're doing it themselves. Per all, especially Walkazo and Edofenrir.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} "Per" all (Horrible pun).
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Although I joined in 2007, I assume that that event you mentioned took place before I jooined, for in the two weeks I was active after joining, I voted in some proposals that seem to have the same basic formula as the ones today (One of my main memories of late 2007 MW is Stumpers' tirades on the Proposals page). I have no idea then of the changes you propose, so I shall agree with all these good arguments.
 
====Debate====
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}}
: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)
:::What about any proposals proposed before this proposal ends but that expire after the dead line are they cancelled to {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
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}}
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later


'''@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 would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.


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.}}
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.


So how will the old system work? You didn't necessarily elaborate on that. {{User|Zero777}}
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.


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}}
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.


2257: NARCE could filibuster the proposed system because at that time executive power was concentrated in Wayoshi and (the aloof) Steve. He just needed to wear down one person. Now this is not the case. Also, the "per alls" are not the central issue here, but the voting patterns themselves. Already a few people have defected from my side to the other side. This just proves my point that the Proposals system leads to "vote trends" where the influence of well-known people convinces unsures to go to that side. This proposal was going to pass for sure until Walkazo made things more exciting. If Walkazo had remained silent, then there is a greater likelihood someone such as Zero or Yoshiwaker would not have their votes / voted for my side. The fact that Xzelion and I and Crash (all-well known people, and all in favor of this measure) backed it was to illustrate the flaws of this system as well. Did I already mention how Son of Suns eloquently confused everyone into destroying something they had just backed in a previous Proposal days earlier? Ever since then, I have been at odds with our current system of Proposals; people who liked Son of Suns voted for him because he was popular or because he wrote all fancy-like and whatever it was, it sounded smart or something. I would go on, but I haven't slept in two days, so I'm a bit worn out. The old version in action can be seen in older Talk:Main page archives, where problems were discussed and solved. {{User|Plumber}} 00:02, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.
:The funny part is that Son of Suns got ''just'' as peeved whenever I threw spanners in ''his'' proposals. But on a serious note, demonizing a retired user who did much more good than harm to the wiki isn't a very fair argument, especially when half of his battles were waged in the ''comments'' sections of the proposals anyway: cutting out the voting part wouldn't have stopped him. Straightforward issues are votes, but anything more in-depth already turns into a debate; the voting part is just so we can keep track of who's winning the argument. Fan votes happen, but it's unreasonable to act like every person's change of heart here is because of a reputation showdown - you can't know that for sure, and assumptions do not make for good arguments. The origins of the system is also a moot point: it has worked just fine for four years (during which the community has changed its face multiple times over); since we've added the Clear Majority and emergency Admin Veto rules, I can't recall any cases where I felt a proposal passed that shouldn't have, and before those rules were made, I can think of only one. Even if you can dredge up a few other mistakes, there will still be hundreds more that came to a just outcome. And really, had this been a discussion, it would have become just as "exciting" before long: an idea is <s>proposed</s> suggested, people like it, but then someone points out some flaws and more people join in (maybe because the first person is well-known, maybe because simply having someone else cast the first stone makes it easier to speak up, or maybe because they simply happened to get there after the first person). The only difference is that maybe we would have less people involved in between the major point-makers, but I don't think that's actually a desirable thing at all: the few people who actually get involved with intimidating, time-consuming discussions aren't necessarily representative of the community as a whole. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::Demonizing? Harsh words. That particular proposal was a very lengthy description with little comments at all IIRC. The only people who I think would be less involved would be people who don't care at all and are just voting for their friend or the cool kid or something. Most of the community doesn't care about every little single issue, or else everyone would always vote on every proposal unless they were unable to due to RL concerns. {{User|Plumber}} 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)


I had to dismiss my vote since I rushed in my decision to retrieve the old proposal's way without looking the drawbacks clearly. I'll stay neutral but I'll go with any absolute conclusion. By the way, would Proplemontage agree to change this proposal for another regarding to these decisions if succeeded? I guess he might have the last word. {{user|Coincollector}}
''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''
:What do you mean? That seems unclear. {{User|Plumber}} 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)


'''@Plumber''': The "vote trends" you are talking about could very well occur in the proposed system anyways. Somebody could make a good enough argument to convince somebody to change their mind about something. Also, it doesn't matter ''who'' makes an argument that could convince others to take their side. If I had made the exact same argument as Walkazo before she did, I doubt that any less people would have opposed this. Also, that argument is similar to the one in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Make_a_Rule_for_Changing_Votes|this proposal]], I find the logic flawed in that it is based off of something that cannot be proven. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
:Cannot be proven? Have you looked at the archives of Talk:Main page? There's old evidence there. Reasonable debate unfettered by random votes by people who don't care. {{User|Plumber}} 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.


I wasn't a user back when the old system was going on. In fact, I wasn't even active until March but I joined on Jan 9 2011. So, i'm not voting.
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.
{{User|Superfiremario}}


I would also like to point out that the "per" problems were "solved" by an old Proposal to abolish "per X" as a reason. IIRC, another Proposal brought it back. That's just a good example of the fickleness of the Proposals system. {{User|Plumber}} 01:29, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
:New comments are actually supposed to go on the bottom, not imbedded between other comments, since that can really muddle things up. Specific comments can be addressed using "@X:" or "'''X:'''", or something like that. Anyway, '''in response to your response to my comment''', I stand by my choice of words, and I wasn't actually talking about any of Son of Suns' proposals in particular. (Although, having gone through the archives, I found that six of his proposals were straightforward votes (half of those were straightforward yes/no decisions, however, so there was nothing that ''could'' be debated), whereas two passed proposals involved lengthy discussions and three others failed after lengthy discussions.) Yes, everybody doesn't care about everything, but it's not reasonable to say that everyone who will vote but not discuss something doesn't care ''at all''. Someone could easily care about an issue to some extent, but not want to get involved in a free-for-all debate on behalf of it, or they might feel that all their points have already been added to the discussion and worry that people won't appreciate them cutting in just to say "I agree with X". On the other hand, perhaps people ''would'' do that, en masse, in which case we're back to a vote, only it'll be a lot messier than proposals and their running tallies. Plus, people could always flock to their friends' aid in discussions just as easily as in proposals, in which case, again, we'd have gained nothing from the change. '''In response to your comment to Yoshiwaker''', just because it worked back then doesn't mean it'll work now, when the community has grown and changed so much over the years. Besides, while there ''were'' lots of good discussions back then, users still resorted to votes on three occasions ([[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_5#Locking_the_Move_Feature_OR_Adding_More_Sysops|1]], [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_7#Un-_or_Fan-_MarioWiki|2]], [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_8#Humans|3]]) before the proposal system was brought into existence (first spoken of [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_10#.22Sudden.22_Change_--_Oligarchy.3F_Rash_movement.3F_I_feel_I_am_to_blame.|on Archive 10]], although obviously you can't get the full story from that section alone), which is rather interesting. And finally, '''regarding your last comment''', I checked the archives and all I found was a ''failed'' attempt to remove "per" votes ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_2#Pers.2C_I_agrees...|here]]), and similarly, both times they were were brought up on the talk pages ([[MarioWiki_talk:Proposals#.22Per.22|here]] and [[MarioWiki_talk:Proposals#Per_votes|here]]), they were left alone. - {{User|Walkazo}}
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT


===Remove Logos from Infobox Titles===
====Option Zero====
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.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)


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.
====Option One====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
#{{User|Salmancer}} There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
====Option Two====
'''Deadline:''' July 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.


====Support====
====Option Three====
#{{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|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
#{{User|Phoenix}} Couldn't have said it better myself. I support this 100%.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
#{{User|Lindsay151}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per Proposal
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.
#{{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.
#{{User|Super Luigi! Number one!}} Per.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} The logos are already shown on the boxart. Plus, it's inconsistent on how some infoboxes have logos in their titles, while others don't.


====Oppose====
====Option Four====
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} I don't see anything wrong with keeping the logo.
#{{User|Superfiremario}}  Transparent ones are fine, but I'm afraid to agree for untransparent logos.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; Per the two above.
#{{User|Plumber}} Why must art be destroyed in the name of conformity?


====Comments====
====Comments====
@ 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}}
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)
: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}}
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I don't see why we wouldn't. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::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}}
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)


'''@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}}
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)


Since some articles don't have logo's in the infobox titles and some do, I wouldn't mind if we remove the logo's from the info box titles. It looks more professional that way. However, we should realize a game logo is one important image of the game. Logo's are used for commercials on TV or advertisements in newspaper. Websites of the game also show the logo big. The logo is also on the box and even in the game itself. I think we should find a more efficient place for the game logo on the article. A game logo is MAYBE even more important then the boxart. {{User|Arend}}
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
==Changes==
===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'']].


===Artwork Transparency Issues===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
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.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|M&SG}}<br>
'''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|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{user|SWFlash}} ''"If the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs."'' PNG. Even if not transparent, always upload PNG.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{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|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per all i don't like the way transparent images look anyways
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.
#{{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.
#{{User|Cleanup Guy}} - Per all..


====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|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mario Bros.!}} Per UltrMario3000,
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Per UM3000.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per UltraMario
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Pertendo101.
#{{User|New Super Mario}} Per UM
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{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|wildgoosespeeder}} Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon <nowiki>[[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']]</nowiki>, unless you mean to use <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}</nowiki>, which does work on the category page.
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per all.<br><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}}
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::I'm really confused on this still. Can you give a few examples to really clear this up? {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::::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}}
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
UM: No, the proposer is talking about the bad quality transparent images, not all of the transparent images. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


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}}
===Introducing the crossover article===
: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}}
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:
::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}}
#'''See the publication of the drafted ''Zelda'' article''' discussed in this proposal, titled "{{Fake link|crossovers with ''The Legend of Zelda''}}." (The draft can be viewed [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|here]].)
#'''Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to ''Zelda'' on the wiki to the published ''Zelda'' article''' (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like [[Link]] would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future ''Mario Tennis'' or something like that).
#'''Move details pertaining to ''Zelda'' from list articles on the site to this one''' (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|list of fighters debuting in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'']] article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. ''Zelda'' info on the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published ''Zelda'' one when they reach that section of the list article).
#'''Establish a navbox for crossover articles''' (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
#'''Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the ''Super Mario'' franchise has crossed-over.'''
#'''Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]]''' that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
#'''Note that this framework exists on the the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|crossover section of our coverage policy]]''', and provide a link directing readers to it.


'''@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}}
The ''Super Mario'' franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, ''Super Mario'' as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. ''Duck Hunt'', ''Punch-Out!!'', ''Exictebike'', ''Metroid'', ''F-ZERO'', ''Animal Crossing'', ''Pikmin'', ''Splatoon'', etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s ''EarthBound'', HAL Laboratory's ''Kirby'', Game Freak's ''Pokémon'', etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.


'''@Yoshiwaker:''' I don't see what's wrong with making it transparent though.:/--{{User|UltraMario3000}}
A lot of coverage of ''Super Mario'' references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of [[Super Mario Bros.#Notes|dedicated game articles]], or in ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|are not wholly about ''Super Smash Bros.'' anyways]]. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that ''Super Mario'' has made references and ''is'' referenced in many other franchises outside of ''Smash Bros.'' contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how ''Mario'' has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where ''Splatoon'' and ''Mario'' have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.
:Take an image and put it behind a black background. You'll see. {{User|Xzelion}}
::I don't get what you're trying to say Xze.--{{User|UltraMario3000}}
:::Look [[User:Xzelion/test|here]]. {{User|Xzelion}}


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}}
[[File:LA Wart.gif|right|200px|frog man!]]
: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}}
[[File:SM3DW WS-1 2nd Green Star.jpg|right|200px|green lad!]]
To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, and I have been drafting what I would like to call a "<u>crossover article</u>" using [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise as an example]] (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the {{iw|smashwiki|Mario (universe)|universe articles}} from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the ''Zelda'' draft, consist of the following sections:
*'''Overview''' : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to ''Mario''. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For ''Zelda'', this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because ''Mario'' had a lot of direct influence on ''Zelda'' as a series.
*'''Recurring crossover subjects''': for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside ''Mario''-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with ''Mario'' highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with ''Mario''.
*'''History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise''': a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself.
*'''History in the subject series/franchise''': a history section for the inverse, where ''Super Mario'' is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is ''Zelda''.
*'''Shared history''' (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, ''Tetris'' series, ''NES Remix'' series, or other media.


@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}}
''Zelda'' is uniquely related to ''Mario'' and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with ''Super Mario'' within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to ''Super Mario'' or have elements inspired by it, such as ''Celeste'', ''Gears of War'', or ''Astro Bot''.
: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}}
I offer three options:
: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}}
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''


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}}
I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted ''Zelda'' article! It is in my "<u>community</u> garden" sandbox for a reason.)


@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}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


@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}}
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. death to the smash bros lists
#{{User|Mario}} Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.


<s>Okay, basically  you want to remove transparency?</s> Guys, they're saying they want bad transpaprensy removed.
====Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave ''Smash Bros.'' lists alone====
{{User|Superfiremario}}
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
'''@Mario Bros.! I'm supporting now.''' {{User|Superfiremario}}
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Sophie.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per Soph
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
#{{User|Arend}} Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per Sophie.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Second opinion.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering ''Zelda'' subjects had ''[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|Link's Awakening]]'' failed!
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


@Zero's vote: Most of these "transparent" images ''don't'' look good on articles{{User|Superfiremario}}
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====


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}}
====Crossover comments====
I also happened to start a [[User:PopitTart/Sandbox#Pikmin (franchise)|draft for a Pikmin series article]] the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... '''much''' rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:31, March 3, 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'''.
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} thank you for the kind words! - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)
:[[File:LinkCN.jpg|50px]] {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:32, March 4, 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.  
Question: One of the proposed points is to "''Move'' details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be ''cleared''". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?<br>Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through ''Smash Bros.'', such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within ''Smash Bros.'' have only crossed-over with ''Mario'' within ''Smash Bros.'', and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ''ARMS'' is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, {{@|Arend}}? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in ''Smash'', but it would be strange to do with ''ARMS'' considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ''ARMS'' regardless, considering how most of the ''ARMS'' development team is basically ''Mario Kart 8'' alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with ''Kingdom Hearts''. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.<br>Anyway {{@|Nintendo101}}, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for ''Mario'', one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular ''Smash Bros.'' info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about ''Zelda'' in ''Smash Bros.'' and less about ''Zelda'' with ''Mario'' in ''Smash Bros.'', but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of ''Smash Bros.'', would be retained.) For example, in my ''Zelda'' draft, [[User:Nintendo101/community garden#Ganon|Ganon]] is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Mario Artist: Paint Studio'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant ''Zelda'' info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)
So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my ''Zelda'' draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how ''Zelda'' engages with ''Mario'' in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular ''Smash Bros.'' info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.<br>Another thing I just thought of: we already have [[Pushmo (series)]] and [[Just Dance (series)]] as guest appearances, and [[Talk:List of references in Nintendo video games#Split Animal Crossing|this proposal]] passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe {{@|Kaptain Skurvy}}, {{@|Nelsonic}}, and {{@|Mushzoom}} can provide their two cents. Would you want the ''Pushmo'', ''Just Dance'', and ''Animal Crossing'' articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:<br>Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, {{iw|rhythmheaven|WarioWare (series)|Rhythm Heaven}}, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe [[Balloon Fighter|Balloon Fight]], maybe [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Clu Clu Land]], maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would [[Minecraft|probably be redundant to split]]<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken<br>No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts<br>I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::Forgot about [[Starfy|The Legendary Starfy]], that would qualify. There's also [[I Choose You!]] from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Nintendo101}} Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of ''Super Mario'' content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] or the [[list of references in third-party video games]]. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. ''{{wp|Drill Dozer}}'' or ''{{wp|Borderlands 2}}''), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'']] or ''[[Mobile Golf]]''). [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)


{| style="background:#000000;"
This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
|[[File:MSMart5.png|260px|center]]
:Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)
|[[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.
===Color-code game, series and franchise infoboxes to match their navigation template colors===


{{User|Coincollector}}
The color coding used in navigation templates could be used for more cases outside navigation templates. Since the wiki covers all the distinct branches of the ''Mario'' franchise (which are numerous), using those theme colors more often to sectionalize and identify them may make things easier to navigate through in some cases. While I don't think there are cases where this would have a high impact right now, we could apply them to the game, series and franchise infoboxes, where they are fitting.


'''@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.
As it currently stands, the light red color of the game infobox specifically implies "Mario" to me at least, while the purple color of the series and franchise templates I suppose is arbitrary. This change would make it possibly more intuitive from a glance at the top of the article to which ''Mario'' branch the article belongs. It would also establish a common element to the introduction of articles belonging to the same set, while also establishing a color consistency between the very top and the very bottom of the article.
{{User|Supremo78}}
: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}}
As for the colors themselves, I imagine something like:


*'''infobox background:''' the navigation template's lighter background (e.g. {{color|#000|bg=#FFF5EE|#FFF5EE}} for ''Mario'');
*'''darker cell background:''' the navigation template's darker background color (e.g. {{color|#000|bg=bisque|bisque}} for ''Mario'');
*'''header:''' the navigation template's header color (e.g. {{color|#fff|bg=#CC0000|#CC0000}} for miscellaneous ''Mario'', {{color|#fff|bg=#FF2400|#FF2400}} for ''Super Mario'');
*'''border:''' {{color|#000|bg=#aac|#aac}}, {{color|#000|bg=#aca|#aca}}, {{color|#000|bg=#acc|#acc}}, {{color|#000|bg=#caa|#caa}}, {{color|#000|bg=#cac|#cac}} or {{color|#000|bg=#cca|#cca}}, depending on the most closely matching color.


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>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
{| style="background:#000000;"
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
|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}}
====Support: implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes====
::@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}}
#{{User|Bro Hammer}}: Per my proposal
:::@ 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}}
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}}: Per proposer.


@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.
====Oppose: do not implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes====
 
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I honestly prefer keeping infoboxes color coordinated to what type of the subject the article is about. It is intuitive and helpful. I feel like allowing too many colors for this infobox would only dilute that structure across the board. I would support some sort of quick way to jump between entries in the same series at the bottom of the infobox, similar to our level and world infoboxes, but I'd rather all game articles share the same colored infobox.
==Miscellaneous==
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Nintendo101
===Merge the non-game lists on the side bar with the video game lists===
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Nintendo101.
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
#{{User|Hewer}} Per, and I also already find the navbox colours for most series to be quite random and arbitrary.
 
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101 and Hewer.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}<br>
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Nintendo101. Btw, the salmon pink color of the game infobox does not scream "Mario" to me.
'''Deadline''': July 14, 2011, 23:59
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
 
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
====Support====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; we prefer color-coding on subject, rather than series.
#{{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.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - See my comment on the series proposal above. Having one list is best since you can find everything in one place and it's all equal and whatnot, but I also think we should use symbols to differentiate the various series and the alternate media within that unified list. The more organization, the better.
 
====Oppose====


====Comments====
====Comments====
Sorry, but I don't get what you are saying. {{User|Zero777}}
I'm gonna be completely honest...I don't understand what this proposal is asking for. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 19:08, March 6, 2025 (EST)
:Changing the colors of {{tem|Game infobox}}, {{tem|Series infobox}}, and {{tem|Franchise infobox}} depending on the game series, so that they match the [[MarioWiki:Navigation templates#Chart|color schemes]] currently in use for navigation templates. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 10:53, March 7, 2025 (EST)


:Yeah I don't either. {{User|Supremo78}}
==Miscellaneous==
::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}}
''None at the moment.''
:::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 23:26, March 8, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, March 9th, 08:15 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
  2. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  3. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  5. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  6. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  7. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  8. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  9. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  10. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  13. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  14. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  15. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  16. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  17. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  18. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  19. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  20. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  21. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can simply say "Per proposal."

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its own two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". 

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

In the archive, a poll proposal is listed as a single proposal after all its options have settled. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to these pages. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?

I have several pitches for you.

OPTION ZERO
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.

EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a current policy — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.

OPTION ONE
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of the Brown Yoshi proposal would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)

The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed right now, we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later

I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.

OPTION TWO
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they are added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.

This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it is introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.

OPTION THREE
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.

This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to this proposal, but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.

EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.

OPTION FOUR
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.

The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option Zero

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) perple montage
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the worst thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the whole wiki. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)

Option One

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive and that the status of each one is visible on the page.
  2. Salmancer (talk) There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.

Option Two

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) See my note about Option One.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.

Option Three

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.

Option Four

Comments

@Camwoodstock — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --PopitTart (talk) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--PopitTart (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I feel like this is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (some change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list several things to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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 Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 13, 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.
  6. Hewer (talk) The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put Template:Italic title on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Hewer
  8. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) sure, for consistencies sake
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer, then.
  10. Scrooge200 (talk) Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.

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.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) Pertendo101.
  10. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  11. wildgoosespeeder (talk) Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon [[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']], unless you mean to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}, which does work on the category page.

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)
That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do not serve a utility purpose, such as the various "users that know a given language" categories.
As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be that hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]" instead of just "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "[[Category:" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)

even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use Template:Italic title in the category pages. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)

I thought that was the whole proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)

Introducing the crossover article

The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

  1. See the publication of the drafted Zelda article discussed in this proposal, titled "crossovers with The Legend of Zelda." (The draft can be viewed here.)
  2. Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to Zelda on the wiki to the published Zelda article (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like Link would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future Mario Tennis or something like that).
  3. Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. Zelda info on the list of references in Nintendo video games article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published Zelda one when they reach that section of the list article).
  4. Establish a navbox for crossover articles (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
  5. Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the Super Mario franchise has crossed-over.
  6. Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the MarioWiki:Manual of Style that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
  7. Note that this framework exists on the the crossover section of our coverage policy, and provide a link directing readers to it.

The Super Mario franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, Super Mario as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. Duck Hunt, Punch-Out!!, Exictebike, Metroid, F-ZERO, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Splatoon, etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s EarthBound, HAL Laboratory's Kirby, Game Freak's Pokémon, etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.

A lot of coverage of Super Mario references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of dedicated game articles, or in Super Smash Bros. articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and are not wholly about Super Smash Bros. anyways. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the Super Smash Bros. series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that Super Mario has made references and is referenced in many other franchises outside of Smash Bros. contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how Mario has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where Splatoon and Mario have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.

frog man!
green lad!

To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, and I have been drafting what I would like to call a "crossover article" using The Legend of Zelda franchise as an example (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the universe articles from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the Zelda draft, consist of the following sections:

  • Overview : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to Mario. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For Zelda, this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because Mario had a lot of direct influence on Zelda as a series.
  • Recurring crossover subjects: for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside Mario-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with Mario highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with Mario.
  • History in the Super Mario franchise: a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the Super Mario franchise itself.
  • History in the subject series/franchise: a history section for the inverse, where Super Mario is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is Zelda.
  • Shared history (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the Super Smash Bros. series, Tetris series, NES Remix series, or other media.

Zelda is uniquely related to Mario and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with Super Mario within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to Super Mario or have elements inspired by it, such as Celeste, Gears of War, or Astro Bot.

I offer three options:

  1. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.
  2. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the Super Smash Bros. series should be left alone.
  3. Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.

I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted Zelda article! It is in my "community garden" sandbox for a reason.)

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Link costume pose in Super Mario Maker
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
  8. PopitTart (talk) It has always felt absurd to me that Captain Olimar's presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in Luigi's Mansion, WarioWare: D.I.Y., Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, Mario Kart 8, and WarioWare Move It!
  9. Jdtendo (talk) Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter Smash Bros. list articles, it's even better.
  10. Arend (talk) As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
  11. Nelsonic (talk) Makes perfect sense.
  12. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Sounds good to me.
  13. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. death to the smash bros lists
  14. Mario (talk) Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.

Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave Smash Bros. lists alone

  1. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Sophie.
  3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Soph
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
  5. Tails777 (talk) Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
  6. Arend (talk) Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
  7. Okapii (talk) Per Sophie.
  8. Nelsonic (talk) Second opinion.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering Zelda subjects had Link's Awakening failed!
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles

Crossover comments

I also happened to start a draft for a Pikmin series article the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... much rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--PopitTart (talk) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)

@Koopa con Carne thank you for the kind words! - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)

Link -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Question: One of the proposed points is to "Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?
Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through Smash Bros., such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within Smash Bros. have only crossed-over with Mario within Smash Bros., and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ARMS is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, @Arend? - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in Smash, but it would be strange to do with ARMS considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ARMS regardless, considering how most of the ARMS development team is basically Mario Kart 8 alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with Kingdom Hearts. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.
Anyway @Nintendo101, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for Mario, one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular Smash Bros. info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about Zelda in Smash Bros. and less about Zelda with Mario in Smash Bros., but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of Smash Bros., would be retained.) For example, in my Zelda draft, Ganon is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like Super Mario Maker, Mario Artist: Paint Studio, Yoshi's Woolly World, and the Super Smash Bros. series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant Zelda info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)

So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the Super Mario franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my Zelda draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the Super Smash Bros. series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how Zelda engages with Mario in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular Smash Bros. info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.
Another thing I just thought of: we already have Pushmo (series) and Just Dance (series) as guest appearances, and this proposal passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe @Kaptain Skurvy, @Nelsonic, and @Mushzoom can provide their two cents. Would you want the Pushmo, Just Dance, and Animal Crossing articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:
Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, Rhythm Heaven, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe Balloon Fight, maybe Clu Clu Land, maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would probably be redundant to split
Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles
Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken
No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts
I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
Forgot about The Legendary Starfy, that would qualify. There's also I Choose You! from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
@Nintendo101 Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of Super Mario content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the list of references in Nintendo video games or the list of references in third-party video games. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Drill Dozer or Borderlands 2), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Punch-Out!! or Mobile Golf). Nelsonic (talk) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)

This is probably a separate proposal, but should the Link's Awakening article be outright merged with the new crossover one? LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Color-code game, series and franchise infoboxes to match their navigation template colors

The color coding used in navigation templates could be used for more cases outside navigation templates. Since the wiki covers all the distinct branches of the Mario franchise (which are numerous), using those theme colors more often to sectionalize and identify them may make things easier to navigate through in some cases. While I don't think there are cases where this would have a high impact right now, we could apply them to the game, series and franchise infoboxes, where they are fitting.

As it currently stands, the light red color of the game infobox specifically implies "Mario" to me at least, while the purple color of the series and franchise templates I suppose is arbitrary. This change would make it possibly more intuitive from a glance at the top of the article to which Mario branch the article belongs. It would also establish a common element to the introduction of articles belonging to the same set, while also establishing a color consistency between the very top and the very bottom of the article.

As for the colors themselves, I imagine something like:

  • infobox background: the navigation template's lighter background (e.g. #FFF5EE for Mario);
  • darker cell background: the navigation template's darker background color (e.g. bisque for Mario);
  • header: the navigation template's header color (e.g. #CC0000 for miscellaneous Mario, #FF2400 for Super Mario);
  • border: #aac, #aca, #acc, #caa, #cac or #cca, depending on the most closely matching color.

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes

  1. Bro Hammer (talk): Per my proposal
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk): Per proposer.

Oppose: do not implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I honestly prefer keeping infoboxes color coordinated to what type of the subject the article is about. It is intuitive and helpful. I feel like allowing too many colors for this infobox would only dilute that structure across the board. I would support some sort of quick way to jump between entries in the same series at the bottom of the infobox, similar to our level and world infoboxes, but I'd rather all game articles share the same colored infobox.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101
  3. Technetium (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per, and I also already find the navbox colours for most series to be quite random and arbitrary.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101 and Hewer.
  6. Jdtendo (talk) Per Nintendo101. Btw, the salmon pink color of the game infobox does not scream "Mario" to me.
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  9. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; we prefer color-coding on subject, rather than series.

Comments

I'm gonna be completely honest...I don't understand what this proposal is asking for. Shadow2 (talk) 19:08, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Changing the colors of {{Game infobox}}, {{Series infobox}}, and {{Franchise infobox}} depending on the game series, so that they match the color schemes currently in use for navigation templates. Jdtendo(T|C) 10:53, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4775046"