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"
''None at the moment.''
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==New features==
===Introduce a new type of proposal===
{{early notice|February 14, 2025}}
While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|this proposal]], which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 this old proposal attempt] for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named '''poll proposals'''.  
#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.
*Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.  
#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.''')
*Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
#*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.
**Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
*Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
#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]].
*Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
#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.
*Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to 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 allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B".  
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>
I've written down a [[User:EvieMaybe/Poll proposal|mockup poll proposal]] for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
'''Deadline''': February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT


<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Neat idea, per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Waluigi Time and Ahtemtoday's suggestion; as long as tallying is made easier than the original example, we see no reason to not add these.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Good idea for larger projects. Per proposal.


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


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


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
 
==Changes==
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
*[[List of implied species]]
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
*[[Soybean civilization]]
*[[Hooroglyphs]]


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


'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


<br>
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
-->
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].


<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
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.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can ''see'' the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all.


:''For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see [[:Category:Settled Talk Page Proposals|here]].''
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====


<h3 style="color:black">How To</h3>
====Merge none (do nothing)====
#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===
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====
*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 (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==
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
===MLA Format===
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'']].
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>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline:''' July 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Plumber}}For clarity
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; From the sounds of this, what Plumber is doing is suggesting we change our quotations and citations to a well-known, credible standard. I don't know why we shouldn't upgrade to a more credible standard, so I'll offer my support to this proposal.
#{{User|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|Superfiremario}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} 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.
 
====Oppose====
====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|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 Walkazo
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; MLA format shouldn't be directly used on a website like this, in my opinion. Also, per Walkazo.
#{{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|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Walkazo has a good idea.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mariomaster228}} Per Walkazo.
 
#{{User|Xzelion}} &ndash; Per Walkazo.
====Comments====
@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)
: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)
::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)
:::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)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 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. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk: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 [[: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)
 
===Split the image quality category===
'''Issue 1:''' [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]] is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. '''Issue 2:''' All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:
*'''Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
*'''Assets to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as [[:File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png]].
Additionally, [[Template:Image-quality]] will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Split both====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense
 
====Only split screenshots====
 
====Only split assets====
 
====Leave image quality alone====
 
====Comments on image quality proposal====
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
<gallery>
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)


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


:Modern Language Association. {{User|Phoenix}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
::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}}
====Support====
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.


Won't this be a massive overhaul of practically every single article on the wiki? {{User|Dr Javelin}}
====Oppose====
::::<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}}
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per ThePowerPlayer's comment.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all


:@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}}
====Comments====
Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)


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}}
What about [[Dr. Mario (game)|''Dr. Mario'']]? That game also has a [[Dr. Mario (Gamewatch Boy)|separate release also called ''Dr. Mario'']].--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:How minor? {{User|Xzelion}}
::The reason why the games ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Dr. Mario'' should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from ''Donkey Kong'' on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "''Dr. Mario'' (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)
::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}}
what about Donkey Kong (1981)? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:39, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:That would work for ''Donkey Kong'', but the original ''Mario Bros.'' and the arcade game of the same title were both released in 1983. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:49, February 12, 2025 (EST)


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}}
===Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes===
So far, the use of "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes on this wiki has been rather inconsistent and arbitrary, to say the least. While Nintendo is typically known for providing distinct English localizations for the United States (and other English-speaking territories in the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and other territories where Commonwealth English is standard, apart from Canada), the actual differences between them, if any, have varied over time.


May you please elaborate on that, because I'm still not sure what you trying to do. {{User|Zero777}}
Historically, many Nintendo games have featured minor English text differences between their releases in the Americas and Europe/Oceania; however, these were typically not wholly separate localizations to account for the differences between American and British (or Commonwealth) English – they tended to follow American English conventions for the most part regardless. Rather, they were simple amendments made by Nintendo of Europe to Nintendo of America's existing English scripts, usually either to rectify perceived shortcomings or to modify certain terminology based on internal preferences. These versions were typically stored separately on region-specific cartridges or discs, with occasional differences in how they were labeled in internal data.
::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==
Later, during the DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U eras, more distinct localizations specifically for the United States and United Kingdom that also accounted for regional language differences became more commonplace. However, all of the aforementioned practices have largely faded with the advent of the region-free Nintendo Switch, where games now typically release simultaneously worldwide on identical cartridges. As a result, English scripts are now more often than not also identical across regions (or at most contain only very minor differences, such as the date format used; in many cases, the date format is the ''only'' difference), though they are still almost always stored and labeled separately in internal data, typically alongside each other.
''None at the moment.''
 
This proposal aims to determine how we should handle cases of identical or nearly identical (American) English scripts between regions when identifying languages in game infoboxes. Should we list them both as "English (United States)", simply as "English" or adhere to how they are distinguished in internal data, even when actual differences are minimal?
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==Removals==
====Option 1: List largely identical American English localizations only as "English (United States)"====
===Reform MarioWiki:Proposals===
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.
As two old users, we jointly feel that the decision-making system pre-MarioWiki:Proposals was superior to the current system. The current system of MarioWiki:Proposals is based upon popularity contests. The previous system involved discussion on the Community Portal and Talk:Main page. This new proposal would restore any potential problems to be discussed on Talk:Main page, not with "support" and "oppose" columns, but genuine ”bona fide” arguments and discussion. When consensus has been reached, the fate of the "proposal" will be decided. This was the way the system worked before the infamous and perfidious troll {{User|A Link to the Past}} tricked {{User|Porplemontage}} and {{User|Wayoshi}} into creating the proposals (only after his disastrous MarioWiki:Peer Review scheme had failed; Proposals were made largely as a concession to his whining). If this measure passes, it shall go into force July 17, 2011, although any Proposals that still need to expire will be left to expire at their natural time.


EDIT: MarioWiki:Proposals will still serve as the main place for talk page proposals. Many thanks to {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} for bringing that up.
====Option 2: List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English"====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.
#{{User|Hewer}} I feel like this way is the most straightforward and accurate.
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I mean, if it’s just the same thing and no changes (assuming it doesn’t include dates for save files), then I guess this one makes the most sense.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's the simplest, it seems reasonable enough, and is applicable across the board; while it isn't exactly in-line with how Nintendo is handling things as of the Switch era, it's reasonable ''enough'' and can easily account for pre-Switch cases very well.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all. Especially if that means that we will stop using "English (United States)" for games that use a variety of English that is not specifically American and weren't even released in America such as ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels|SMBTLL]]'' or ''[[Mario & Wario]]''.


'''Proposers:''' {{User|Xzelion}}, {{User|Plumber}}, and {{User|Master Crash}}<br>
====Option 3: List both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if distinguished in internal data, otherwise simply list "English"====
'''Deadline:''' July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it ''could'' make sense to follow suit...
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary choice, as this seems to be Nintendo's official methodology as of the Switch; however, this ''exact'' rationale doesn't account for situations like, say, [[Mario Party 8]] and its infamous recall in the UK, which predates Nintendo's official distinguishing of NA English and UK English from the Switch era, leaving us at a bit of a loss for how to handle it exactly.
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} This option could also work if date formatting is different despite the game itself using the same script for the US and UK/Australia, like Mario & Luigi: Brothership.


====Support====
====Option 4: Do nothing====
#{{User|Xzelion}} &mdash; Per Plumber.
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I’m actually surprised no one put anything in this option kind of like the title mentions “Do nothing.”
#{{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====
====Comments====
#{{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.
For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)
#{{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.
#{{User|Mariomaster228}} Per all.
#{{user|Coincollector}} Per <nowiki>[Insert anything from the oppose list here]</nowiki>. The current system ain't perfect at all as the per thing may become pretty ambiguous and even users just want to skim specific ideas, but is the most accessible. Using the other way would restrict users that are only especialized in this kind of issues and close the doors to the others to see what's going on and the cosequent changes that a new proposal will grant and then we have to deal with. At least, those that say "per whoever" is that they try to explain the same thing in favor to the proposer.
#{{User|Dr Javelin}} After much thought, I've finally decided to choose the opposing side for two main reasons. 1. As brought up my many users (and myself in the comments below), the lack of a time limit could lead to major issues. It may have worked in the past when there were fewer users, but with so many opinions, proposals could drag on forever. In fact, the Starting Planets Proposal would have dragged on forever. I believe one of the admins created a rule preventing proposals from being extended more than two times. 2. When you boil both sides down, the lack of being able to vote with "per" will not deter many voters. If you're on this wiki, it means you know about Mario and care enough to make an account and actually contribute to this database. If all you wanted to do was to vote for your friends, then you likely would not be here. Walkazo and Edofenrir have already covered the rest of my complaints with the new system, and have done it better than I can. The old system worked great for the old wiki with fewer users. The current system works well for the current wiki with more users.


====Debate====
:Noted. Though I decided to focus mainly on the terminology used in game infoboxes, as I realized this wiki's use of the term "British English" is effectively its own can of worms... [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)
This proposal include removing the TPP proposal system and if it does are all the TPP proposals that expire after the deadline of this proposal cancelled {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
: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}}
I'm a bit confused what this proposal is trying to change. Is it just about terminology used in game infoboxes? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:31, February 9, 2025 (EST)
: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}}
:In hindsight, I realized this proposal was trying to change too many things at once, so I decided to tidy things up and focus on just the game infobox terminology for now. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)
: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}}
Realistically even though Canadian English does use British/Commonwealth spelling most of the time, they just get US English spelling in games as Nintendo groups Canada with North America and their English is pretty similar to English in the US, so Nintendo products in Canada are just the same as in the US.  


'''@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}}
In this case why don’t we also just group American English and Canadian English into one and call it "North American English" even if it’s moreso mainly American English? [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 10:45, February 11, 2025 (PST)


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.}}
:I'm not quite sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, but per [[Template:Languages/doc|the documentation for the "languages" template]], the reason they're labeled the way they currently are in game infoboxes is because they're the primary markets American English and British/Commonwealth English localizations are made for. And for what it's worth, whenever Nintendo specifically labels "North American English" as a selectable language whether in-game or in internal data, they usually refer to the United States or US specifically, not North America/NA as a whole. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 16:27, February 11, 2025 (EST)


So how will the old system work? You didn't necessarily elaborate on that. {{User|Zero777}}
::I think I’m going with the fact that the English (United States) language for Nintendo is also intended for Canada (and it’s also applied onto the "Japan" and "Hong Kong/Taiwan/South Korea" regions on the Switch) despite just using American English. Kinda like with European French where although it’s just moreso referring to Standard French/French from France, it’s intended for all French-speaking regions in Europe (France, Belgium and Switzerland). [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 14:58, February 11, 2025 (PST)


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}}
If Nintendo is also still adding English (United Kingdom) for their games despite there being almost no differences from the North American English versions aside from date or other words if needed, why do they keep American spelling? Wouldn’t it make more sense for British English spelling to be used even if it’s one of the only differences between English (United States) and English (United Kingdom)? [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 22:00, February 12, 2025 (PST)


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)
:Less work for something ultimately unimportant, I guess? It's not like American spelling is unintelligible to non-Americans. Anyway, what does this have to do with the proposal? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:39, February 13, 2025 (EST)
: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}}
::Just came up to me somehow on the topic of American English and British English. Not as big of a problem anyways but just hit me. [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 7:37, February 12, 2025 (PST)
: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}}
===Make Dark Mode available to everyone===
: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)
Dark Mode is available to users with an account under preferences but it should be a toggle-able option for all users, even if they're not an editor. Wikipedia allows everyone regardless of role to toggle Dark Mode, so I don't see why [[Super Mario Wiki|this wiki]] shouldn't follow suit.


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.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Pizza Master}}<br>
{{User|Superfiremario}}
'''Deadline''': February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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)
====Support====
: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}}
#{{User|Pizza Master}} per.
====Oppose====


==Changes==
====Comments====


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 16:17, February 13, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, February 13rd, 21:15 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."

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Introduce a new type of proposal

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 14, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
  3. PopitTart (talk) For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
  4. Rykitu (talk) Neat idea, per all.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  7. 1468z (talk) Per all.
  8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Waluigi Time and Ahtemtoday's suggestion; as long as tallying is made easier than the original example, we see no reason to not add these.
  9. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  10. Nintendo101 (talk) Good idea for larger projects. Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments on proposal proposal

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

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

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

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

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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)

Split the image quality category

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

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

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

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

Split both

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

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

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

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

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

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

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

what about Donkey Kong (1981)? — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:39, February 9, 2025 (EST)

That would work for Donkey Kong, but the original Mario Bros. and the arcade game of the same title were both released in 1983. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:49, February 12, 2025 (EST)

Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes

So far, the use of "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes on this wiki has been rather inconsistent and arbitrary, to say the least. While Nintendo is typically known for providing distinct English localizations for the United States (and other English-speaking territories in the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and other territories where Commonwealth English is standard, apart from Canada), the actual differences between them, if any, have varied over time.

Historically, many Nintendo games have featured minor English text differences between their releases in the Americas and Europe/Oceania; however, these were typically not wholly separate localizations to account for the differences between American and British (or Commonwealth) English – they tended to follow American English conventions for the most part regardless. Rather, they were simple amendments made by Nintendo of Europe to Nintendo of America's existing English scripts, usually either to rectify perceived shortcomings or to modify certain terminology based on internal preferences. These versions were typically stored separately on region-specific cartridges or discs, with occasional differences in how they were labeled in internal data.

Later, during the DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U eras, more distinct localizations specifically for the United States and United Kingdom that also accounted for regional language differences became more commonplace. However, all of the aforementioned practices have largely faded with the advent of the region-free Nintendo Switch, where games now typically release simultaneously worldwide on identical cartridges. As a result, English scripts are now more often than not also identical across regions (or at most contain only very minor differences, such as the date format used; in many cases, the date format is the only difference), though they are still almost always stored and labeled separately in internal data, typically alongside each other.

This proposal aims to determine how we should handle cases of identical or nearly identical (American) English scripts between regions when identifying languages in game infoboxes. Should we list them both as "English (United States)", simply as "English" or adhere to how they are distinguished in internal data, even when actual differences are minimal?

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

Option 1: List largely identical American English localizations only as "English (United States)"

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

Option 2: List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English"

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.
  2. Hewer (talk) I feel like this way is the most straightforward and accurate.
  3. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) I mean, if it’s just the same thing and no changes (assuming it doesn’t include dates for save files), then I guess this one makes the most sense.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. It's the simplest, it seems reasonable enough, and is applicable across the board; while it isn't exactly in-line with how Nintendo is handling things as of the Switch era, it's reasonable enough and can easily account for pre-Switch cases very well.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all. Especially if that means that we will stop using "English (United States)" for games that use a variety of English that is not specifically American and weren't even released in America such as SMBTLL or Mario & Wario.

Option 3: List both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if distinguished in internal data, otherwise simply list "English"

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it could make sense to follow suit...
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary choice, as this seems to be Nintendo's official methodology as of the Switch; however, this exact rationale doesn't account for situations like, say, Mario Party 8 and its infamous recall in the UK, which predates Nintendo's official distinguishing of NA English and UK English from the Switch era, leaving us at a bit of a loss for how to handle it exactly.
  3. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) This option could also work if date formatting is different despite the game itself using the same script for the US and UK/Australia, like Mario & Luigi: Brothership.

Option 4: Do nothing

  1. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) I’m actually surprised no one put anything in this option kind of like the title mentions “Do nothing.”

Comments

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

Noted. Though I decided to focus mainly on the terminology used in game infoboxes, as I realized this wiki's use of the term "British English" is effectively its own can of worms... PaperSplash (talk) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)

I'm a bit confused what this proposal is trying to change. Is it just about terminology used in game infoboxes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:31, February 9, 2025 (EST)

In hindsight, I realized this proposal was trying to change too many things at once, so I decided to tidy things up and focus on just the game infobox terminology for now. PaperSplash (talk) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)

Realistically even though Canadian English does use British/Commonwealth spelling most of the time, they just get US English spelling in games as Nintendo groups Canada with North America and their English is pretty similar to English in the US, so Nintendo products in Canada are just the same as in the US.

In this case why don’t we also just group American English and Canadian English into one and call it "North American English" even if it’s moreso mainly American English? CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 10:45, February 11, 2025 (PST)

I'm not quite sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, but per the documentation for the "languages" template, the reason they're labeled the way they currently are in game infoboxes is because they're the primary markets American English and British/Commonwealth English localizations are made for. And for what it's worth, whenever Nintendo specifically labels "North American English" as a selectable language whether in-game or in internal data, they usually refer to the United States or US specifically, not North America/NA as a whole. PaperSplash (talk) 16:27, February 11, 2025 (EST)
I think I’m going with the fact that the English (United States) language for Nintendo is also intended for Canada (and it’s also applied onto the "Japan" and "Hong Kong/Taiwan/South Korea" regions on the Switch) despite just using American English. Kinda like with European French where although it’s just moreso referring to Standard French/French from France, it’s intended for all French-speaking regions in Europe (France, Belgium and Switzerland). CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 14:58, February 11, 2025 (PST)

If Nintendo is also still adding English (United Kingdom) for their games despite there being almost no differences from the North American English versions aside from date or other words if needed, why do they keep American spelling? Wouldn’t it make more sense for British English spelling to be used even if it’s one of the only differences between English (United States) and English (United Kingdom)? CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 22:00, February 12, 2025 (PST)

Less work for something ultimately unimportant, I guess? It's not like American spelling is unintelligible to non-Americans. Anyway, what does this have to do with the proposal? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:39, February 13, 2025 (EST)
Just came up to me somehow on the topic of American English and British English. Not as big of a problem anyways but just hit me. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 7:37, February 12, 2025 (PST)

Make Dark Mode available to everyone

Dark Mode is available to users with an account under preferences but it should be a toggle-able option for all users, even if they're not an editor. Wikipedia allows everyone regardless of role to toggle Dark Mode, so I don't see why this wiki shouldn't follow suit.

Proposer: Pizza Master (talk)
Deadline: February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Pizza Master (talk) per.

Oppose

Comments

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4733281"