MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
===Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3===
This was spurred by the introduction of the to-do bar. Thanks, to-do bar! Anyways, if you look at [[Special:WantedCategories]], at the moment, it's all entries with 3 or fewer items each; this makes sense, given we have a policy that suggests [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope|categories are kept to only 4 or more items]]. However, for a good portion of the 3-itemers, these are all fairly featured images from sources like various short flash advergames, or more niche subjects like the [[MediaBrowser]] which came in a series of, well, 3 web browsers. In comparison to the 1-or-2 entry, well, entries, these have a bit more substance to them, basically waiting for a fourth image to be taken at some point; and while in some cases, that image can come up, in others... Well, what are the odds a fourth MediaBrowser is releasing when they went bust back in 2001, y'know?


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
While we don't feel strongly about what happens to the 1 or 2 entry categories, we do think there is ''just enough'' to these 3-entry categories to warrant a closer look our current policies are not providing. Should we lower the cutoff to 3? Or is 4 the magical number for categories?
*Separate [[Wii U]] audio files from the ones on the [[GBA]] ([[Talk:Mario Circuit (GBA)#Separate Audio Files|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Merge [[Choco Cake]] with [[Chocolate Cake]] ([[Talk: Choco Cake#Merge Choco Cake with Chocolate Cake|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Split the Paper Mario boos from [[Big Boo]] into a separate article. ([[Talk:Big_Boo#Split_the_Paper_Mario_boos_into_a_separate_article|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Decide if [[Bandit]]s are a sub-species of [[Shy Guy]]s ([[Talk:Bandit#Decide if Bandits are a sub-species of Shy Guys|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 7, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Decide if [[Porcupuffer]]s are [[Cheep Cheep]]s ([[Talk:Porcupuffer#Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Seperate [[Payday Waystation]] into a separate article ([[Talk:Shy Guy's Perplex Express|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Recreate [[List of Saffron and Dyllis Recipes by ingredient]] ([[Talk:List of Saffron and Dyllis Recipes by ingredient#Keeping this article|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Blurp (Yoshi's Story)]] with [[Cheep Cheep]] ([[Talk:Blurp (Yoshi's Story)#Merge Blurp (Yoshi's Story) with Cheep Cheep|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT


==Writing Guidelines==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
''None at the moment.''
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves, of course. We don't see any particular harm in this when, as of submitting this proposal, this would only create, what, 10 categories?
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me, especially because, if an individual is uploading images to the wiki for a source that currently has no images, there's a solid chance that that person will upload three images. {{wp|Rule of three (writing)|It's a popular number}}!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Three is a magic number.
 
====Keep at 4 (forced to four!)====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple in the comments, image categories don't have this restriction so the proposal seems moot otherwise. I don't see a benefit to reducing this limit across the board, and I'm very hesitant to support without a clearer picture of the implications. (The assertion in the comments that this wouldn't have immediate impact was based on the list on Special:WantedCategories - there weren't any categories there besides image ones because that would require mainspace articles to have redlinked categories that would go against policy if you made them. Obviously, that wouldn't fly.)
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Porplemontage and Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Honestly, five would be a better restriction so that it's a well rounded number.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.
 
====Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)====
The intent of that restriction is that, for example, if there aren't four articles for [[:Category:Super Paper Mario characters]] then the couple characters would just go in [[:Category:Super Paper Mario]] rather than create the subcategory. Image categories are different since moving up the tree in the same way would be undesirable (there would be a bunch of random images at the bottom of [[:Category:Game images]] rather than those categories being redlinked). We can create image categories with as few as one entry; I updated [[MarioWiki:Categories]]. If you still want to change the number needed for articles, up to you. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 22:38, January 21, 2025 (EST)
:Oh! We didn't know that, good to know! We'd like to proceed with the proposal, even if we don't think it'd have any immediate impact under these rules--all the 3-item categories have to do with images at the moment. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)


==New features==
==New features==
Line 18: Line 31:


==Removals==
==Removals==
===Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wiki===
''None at the moment.''
For pretty much the wiki's entire run, "sub-species" (or "subspecies") has been used as shorthand to denote species like [[Gloomba]] or [[Fire Bro]] from the more basic species they're derived from (i.e. [[Goomba]] and [[Hammer Bro]]), but it's high time we put and end to it, and here's why:


#'''It's wrong''' - In science, "subspecies" denotes different populations of a species that are genetically, geographically, behaviourally, and/or morphologically distinct, yet still similar enough for interbreeding to occur freely when possible. What ''we'' call "subspecies" are ''not'' actually subspecies at all: they are completely different species, whether we're comparing [[Lakitu]]s to [[Koopa Troopa]]s or [[Deep Cheep]]s to [[Cheep Cheep]]s. There is no reason why we should so wilfully misuse very specific scientific terminology incorrectly when there are other options available like simply "type", "variation" or just plain "species". It's not like "beta elements" where there is no umbrella term and we have to make due with what readers are most familiar with: everyone already understands what "species" means, unlike the muddled "subspecies" (which even scientists argue about).
==Changes==
#'''It's speculation''' - It's clear enough when things are based on other things to whatever extent, but classifying some enemies as "subspecies" instead of "species" has always struck me as presumptuous. Where exactly does the line get drawn? Some things like [[Koopa Paratroopa]]s are rather basic and fundamental in their own rights, with many derived species of their own, yet are still called "subspecies". And what about things like [[Shady Paratroopa]] that could be a subspecies of Koopa Paratroopas ''or'' Shady Koopas? Only a few sets of differently-coloured/powered RPG enemies and things like the red and blue ''PM'' [[Spike Top#Official profiles and statistics|Spike Top]]s really fit the proper "subspecies" definition, but we already established that we're not using science here, so all that's left are judgment calls being passed off as hard distinctions that don't actually exist in official material.
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
#'''It's misleading''' - Despite the liberties we're taking with the term, "subspecies" still inherently sounds like it requires close relatedness between species (based on their names and/or appearances), but for the sake of navigation and connectivity between articles, sometimes it's useful to be able to reflect the conceptual relatedness between rather different species, such as [[Clubba]]s and [[Chargin' Chuck]]s being related to the more standard Koopa species. Having relaxed terminology would make this easier (i.e. potentially [[Talk:Bandit#Decide if Bandits are a sub-species of Shy Guys|avoiding]] some [[Talk:Porcupuffer#Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps|TPPs]] and [[Talk:Snifit#Are_they_Shy_Guys.3F|other such discussions]]) and result in less cross-talk between users operating on differing definitions of "subspecies".
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
#'''It's inconsistent''' - As well as murky definitions and three different ways to spell the term ("subspecies"/"sub-species"/"sub species") being found across the wiki, and even side-by-side in single articles, there are also plenty of cases where single subjects are being called both "species" and "subspecies". For example, [[Ice Piranha Plant]] bears both [[:Category:Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:New Super Mario Bros. U Species|Category:NSMBU Species]], is listed as a "sub-species" in the [[Piranha Plant]] infobox, and is part of the "species" list in {{tem|Piranha Plants}}. This is not good.


Between the disconnect with how the real world uses the word, and the different definitions, applications and spellings throughout the wiki, there is really only one way to sum up the use of "subspecies" around here: '''''it's confusing''''', and we should get rid of it. Specifically, we should do the following:
If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.


*Remove all occurrences of "subspecies", "sub-species" or "sub species" from the articles. Instead, everything should be called plain "species", and described informally as being based on and/or related to other species with words like "type", "variety", "kind", etc.
This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."
*Delete [[:Category:Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Yoshi Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Donkey Kong Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:Wario Sub-Species]]. The equivalent "Species" categories exist [[:Category:Species|for]] [[:Category:Yoshi Species|all]] [[:Category:Donkey Kong Species|four]] [[:Category:Wario Species|cases]], but ideally, ''game-specific'' "Species" categories should be used to replace everything (but that's another kettle of fish altogether).
*Replace the "sub_species" variable in {{tem|Species-infobox}} with "derived_species". At the same time, "species_origin" should be replaced with "parent_species", for the sake of uniformity (there's already a "related species" variable for similar species not directly based on or providing the basis for the subject in question) and killing two birds with one stone since we'll have to fix the infoboxes anyway; this second change is from [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_42#Set_Clear_Rules_as_to_What_.22Species_Origin.22_Means|this cancelled proposal]] and its [[forum:34578.0|corresponding forum thread]] (both of which debate the use of "subspecies").
*Add "subspecies" to [[MarioWiki:Good_Writing#Frequently_misused_terms|the list of frequently misused terms]].


This will affect A LOT of articles and will take time to gradually roll out, but I think it's worth doing. There is no good reason why we need to stay inconsistent, confusing and misinformed about how we go about defining the species of the ''Mario'' series.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
 
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Proposer''': {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per proposal. The zoologist half of me has wanted to eradicate this accursed term from the wiki for over seven years now. No more.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per Walkazo. And yes, even though the term is used to described fictional species, it still gave me misinformation when thinking about actual sub-species. That's not right. I admit I am a bit pedantic when it comes to vocabulary and jargon but honestly, I'm pedantic for the very reason of being fed misinformation, which isn't the ideal way to learn things.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
#{{User|ShyGuy8}} Per Walkazo and Baby Luigi. Yes, that's not right. In fact, I think it should be ''related spiecies'' instead of ''subspiecies''.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Kart Player 2011}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{User|Mario}} Yes, remove ALL instances of it. I was misinformed about the true definition of "subspecies" this entire time I was in this wiki. This is a personal account, but if it confuses me, it's bound to confuse a lot of other readers. This wiki leads us to think "subspecies" means a derived or related organism even though the technical term is "some differences but capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring", especially provided that the "producing fertile offspring" part is the fundamental definition of a species. In that sense, subspecies do NOT denote separate species; the basic Linnaeus names have two names, but a third one is given if it's a subspecies. "Derived species", "parent species", "related species", these are all more correct and much more precise substitutes, making them vastly superior to the vague, confusing, incorrect "subspecies". In writing, we aim for precision and accuracy, and this proposed changes does exactly what is the gold standard in writing, so, as someone who admits of being very pedantic at times (the scathing criticism to singular "they" and contractions), it's not surprising that I want these changed enacted. This time, though, it's not pedantry, it's about being precise and accurate. It's been seven years, but better late than never to undo all that damage.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all, but take note of the rare few [[Pale Piranha|official]] cases.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|Andymii}} Per all; a nicely crafted argument. I just find it funny that we are now debating over scientific terminology in a wiki about talking mushrooms and turtle kings.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Per proposal. (I also notice a bit of support due to the inadvertent spread of misinformation - "Beta" is rightfully considered a misused term as well, but I really do think a better label than "Beta elements" should be considered since it's a somewhat similar situation.)
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
#{{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}} Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|Binarystep}} <s>my younger self would hate me for this</s> Per all.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments====
@SmokedChili: We ''can'' make an exception, but it's going to break consistency, and it won't be unreasonable to assume it's another species (just how people assumed all those [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark-eyed_junco dark-eyed juncos] were separate species), and, besides, Nintendo was ''very'' wrong about terminology before (most blatantly, the most egregious and irresponsible usage of "remix" I've ever seen in official media: ''Super Smash Bros. 4''). {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:09, 5 June 2015 (EDT)
{{@|Nintendo101}} Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)
 
:I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Commenting on the Shady Paratroopa part, I think we should just use the most basic enemy and say its a derivative (or whatever word we decide on using) of Koopa Troopa. {{User|Magikrazy}}
::{{@|Nintendo101}} The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, '''not''' others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:I actually feel like it'd be better to say it's a derivative of both Shady Koopa and Paratroopa, rather than listing derivatives of derivatives on the most basic pages, at that makes for some potentially unwieldy lists. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:::Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
 
::::I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
==Changes==
:::::My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)
===Super Mario Land 1 and 2 confirmed apart of the ''main series'' by Nintendo: Super Mario wiki should change accordingly===
Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a '''lot'''. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you ''are'' allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, ''you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings''. So why is it so much more locked-down here? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)
For years it has been debated whether Nintendo considered the Super Mario Land games apart of the main Mario series or not. Super Mario Wiki, and rightfully so, chose that the Super Mario Land games are not apart of the main Mario series but rather considered its own series most likely because of the Nintendo sources below.
:I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
::"''I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?''"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzERrLY-_9s <br>
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
[http://videogamemm.com/main/sites/default/files/images/DSCN1748.preview.JPG]
:::...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from ''removing'' it if they should so choose. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
::::I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
As one can see, Nintendo did not include the land games as part of the main Mario series titles during Mario's 25th anniversary 5 years ago. This has lead people such as myself to believe that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of their own series. However, as of May 29, 2015. Nintendo has updated Mario's 30th anniversary site to include all the main series Mario titles. In this list is Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. As shown, this is included in both the American and Japanese versions of the site.
:::::That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is ''still there'', even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/ <br>
http://supermario.nintendo.com/#/history/
 
Due to this confirmation by Nintendo, all articles on Super Mario Wiki should be changed to fit this new information. Such articles as the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario Series'']] articles should be changed to add the two Land games, and articles such as ''[[Super Mario Land (series)|Super Mario Land Series]]'' articles should most likely be deleted entirely due to their interference of the first two Super Mario Land games being apart of the main Mario series. Other changes being the chronological order of Mario titles. An example being, changing "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." To. "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth installment in the Super Mario series."  
 
These things might change from time to time, but it's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. This is why the Super Mario Land games should now officially be considered apart of the main Mario series by Super Mario wiki.


'''Proposer''': {{User|thenintendostooge}}<br>
I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)


====Support====
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|thenintendostooge}} Per my proposal. Due to the recent confirmation by Nintendo themselves, the wiki should have articles changed to fit this new confirmation.
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Aokage}} More recent stuff takes precedence. It doesn't really make sense to exclude the Land games from the main series, anyway.
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)


====Oppose====
{{@|Technetium}} That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by {{@|Mario}}) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Walkazo}} - While the 30th anniversary stuff is more recent, the fact that the 25th anniversary excluded the ''SML'' games shouldn't be ignored, and it should be kept in mind that unlike the ''[[Super Mario History 1985-2010]]'' booklet (which is more complete than the linked-to poster and video), the 30th anniversary stuff leaves out all the remakes (i.e. ''SMAS'' and the ''SMA'' series), and the US version of the website also leaves out ''Lost Levels''. Plus, neither celebration included [[Super_Mario_(series)#Ports.2C_remakes.2C_and_downloadable_content|all the random ''SMB'' remakes and whatnot]], whereas ''we'' '''do''' need to take everything into account, from the remakes to the conflicting and ever-changing stances Nintendo takes on its material, and then organize them in the way that makes the most sense. And I still think it makes more sense to keep the ''SML'' games separate in History sections, templates and categories (this is actually a big change with far-reaching consequences being proposed here: not just [[Super Mario (series)]] and a few articles' opening lines), given how different the series is, its historic separation from the rest of the games, and most of all, the fact that the series straddles both ''SM'' and ''[[Wario Land (series)|Wario Land]]'' (awkward at the best of times, but it'd be worse if no bridge series is used or acknowledged). And for all we know, the 35th anniversary will be back to separating them anyway. But I ''do'' think the ''SM'' series page should include ''SML'' (and ''Yoshi's Island'') somehow, like how it's got the remakes listed separately - but certainly not ''instead'' of the [[Super Mario Land (series)|''SML'' series page]], especially considering that ''WL:SML3'' and ''VB:WL'' definitely '''aren't''' ''SM'' material, yet should still be grouped with the first two games ''somewhere'', as well as in appropriate History sections (same reason why [[Super Mario Advance (series)|''SMA'' gets its own series page]], despite being mostly part of ''SM'' and otherwise part of [[Yoshi (series)|''Yoshi'']]).
#{{User|ShyGuy8}} Per Walkazo


====Comments====
{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed?  [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Walkazo. Potential change does not warrant the act of keeping something the same. The wiki is to be based on current viewpoints of Nintendo which is the lore creator. It's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. If we were to not follow Nintendo's viewpoint, any viewpoint could be established based on the person's own imagination. "What if Nintendo decides to officially change Birdo to Ostro to avoid confusion?" This is irrelevant as it is based on what Nintendo finds true and not true. "If" cannot be a factor of whether or not we apply the land games or not. That would be based on our own assumptions and our assumptions are endless. We must use Nintendo's current viewpoint to stay relevant in the Mario franchise. If not the wiki becomes outdated with old information. {{unsigned|Thenintendostooge}}
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:My point isn't that Nintendo ''might'' change their minds again, but rather, that they really doesn't give a crap about "lore", "true"ness or keeping its stories straight when it comes to ''Mario'': they flip-flop about stuff all the time and information is often inconsistent, and as a result, the only way to maintain easy, logical organization is for the wiki to think for ourselves sometimes, like with splitting, merging and grouping enemies based on facts other than plain names, or deciding on how to organize our game pages. For in-universe stuff like the Kooplaings' paternity, our hands are tied and we need to give the new story prominence (but still mention the old story), but this is a different matter: as long as we acknowledge on all the relevant pages that Nintendo currently considers ''SML'' 1 & 2 as part of the ''SM'' series, and didn't before, whether or not we follow up with shuffling History sections, categories, lists and templates is up to us, based on whether we think it will or won't be a better way to present and organize the information.  - {{User|Walkazo}}
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)


Whether Nintendo cares about the Mario canon or not is not for us to decide. We can mention how Nintendo used to not consider the Land games being apart of the main series, but we must also tell the reader Nintendo's current stand point. An example being starwars. The lore is changing all the time, however, the star wars wiki does not keep the old lore as canon. It mentions how it used to be canon, but supports the current standpoint of lucas film if we like it or not. There is much Mario lore that Nintendo has dropped that has been official in the past. This is not a situation like the koopalings where the creator of Mario says they are not Bowsers kids, but this is the whole company of Nintendo saying that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of the main series. Both in Japan, and all over the World. I know it sounds like a lot of work for us to have to update so many articles. If there is official information with no way to disprove it, it CANNOT be denied. All official Mario information must be used in Mario wiki. One could argue that the past has more info, but that does not make it relevant. Over time things become outdated and it is Nintendo that updates it. We must accept what Nintendo updates. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
===Merge the Tortes===
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
* [[Chef Torte]]
* [[Torte]]


@Walkazo - I'm not completely confident in either choice right now, but remakes/rereleases were never a necessary mention in official celebrations since it's understood that they're not exactly the original titles (we certainly don't count them as such, either), so I'm not sure why they're factored in the counter-argument... (I must say, ''Super Mario 3D Land'' makes sense with its namesake included.) [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:54, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the [[Jellyfish Sisters]], or [[Cork and Cask]]--and given they are the ''only'' Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct articles.


@LinkTheLefty- Indeed, the remakes have never been mentioned to be apart of the main Super Mario titles. As we all know, Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not remakes of any main series Mario game. Unless someone has any evidence to prove that Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not apart of the main series, and since Nintendo has stated they are apart of the main series as of now, it is only right to have Super Mario wiki state the same. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move [[Apprentice (Snifit)]] over to [[Apprentice]], and give it the <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template.


:My point is that what works for Nintendo for their celebration stuff doesn't necessarily work for us, since they're cherry-picking lists of showy platformers while we're trying to document every single game and present all that info in the clearest way possible. They already cut out plenty of remakes and obscure games that we can't, and they don't need to worry about awkward things like ''SML'' and ''SML2'' having a direct sequel (''WK:SML3'') that's also the start of a separate series, and another followup that never got finished (''VB Mario Land'') and wouldn't've fit in either ''SM'' or ''WL'' anyway. As long as we're basing out decisions on facts, we're allowed to make judgment calls when splitting, merging or reclassifying iffy enemy situations and whatnot, and similarly, we're also allowed to think outside the box a bit when it comes to dealing with iffy series situations. Like I said in my vote, the first two ''SML'' series games should be acknowledged on [[Super Mario (series)]] (that page is missing a lot of remakes too, but I digress), but they should remain separate when it comes to overall wiki organization. (On a side note, my guess is that ''SM3DL'' is the reason why the games are included this time around, unlike in 2010, although besides the name, like every other ''SM'' game, it has nothing to do with ''SML'' or its sequel at all.) - {{User|Walkazo}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


===Ban the term beta<nowiki>*</nowiki> and rename pages in the Beta namespace===
====Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of ''Superstar Saga''.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
#{{User|Sparks}} Merge!
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.</s>
====Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least ''have'' unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with [[Talk:Iron_Cleft#Merge_with_The_Iron_Adonis_Twins|last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins]].
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Waluigi Time.


[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_36#Correct_use_of_the_term_.22Beta.22 There was a proposal] suggesting to change the name of the "beta elements" page to something more accurate. Despite being close to succeeding, it was vetoed by the admins with the reason being that "it's not meant to be taken literally" and "it works".
====Do nothing (It's gourmet!)====


Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why
====Comments (It's... Alive???)====
This can easily be ''four'' birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki>. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)
:Good observation, actually! Went and added this. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)


1: '''It's a bad, innacurate term''': "Beta" in programming language refers to a prerelease build that's feature-complete and is being bugtested. It's not even a particularly representative term: the beta period happens near the end of development, long after production ideas are shot down, games are overhauled, unique characters and objects are removed... etc, which is what the "beta" pages usually cover.
@Doc: On that note, because of [[MarioWiki:once and only once|once and only once]], that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)
:I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)


Some may argue that "language evolves" and that "beta as it is used here is not meant to be taken literally", but I don't think it's a strong arguments. Sites focused on the documentation of unused/prelease content such as Unseen 64 and TCRF have mocked the usage of "beta" as a catch-all term and lower-quality ressources that use it that way. Other fan wikis like SegaRetro also [http://segaretro.org/Beta do not use] "beta" as a generic term. Fact is, "beta" is nowhere near accepted in professional circles and that's what the wiki claims to be - a professional ressource. Furthermore, why would you use an inacurate and potentially misleading term when dozens of accurate, non-misleading alternatives exist?
By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs]]? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:Not any more than [[Cork and Cask]] does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, {{@|Camwoodstock}}, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
::We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:::Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of [[Snifster]]s are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)
::::Well they don't really have names, they have numbers. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:51, February 2, 2025 (EST)
:::::Well, by that logic, the Tortes don't really have names, they have job titles. Point is, they're identical-looking characters with identical in-battle names, but distinct out-of-battle names and personalities. (even if No. 1 and 2 don't seem particularly different in English, I'm trusting the Legends of Localization playthrough) [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]])


2: '''It leads to muddy, vague writing.''' Whenever you see "beta" used on other pages, its catch-all nature muddies the information. "[[Dread Kong|Dread Kong did not exist in the beta version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]" - nevermind that referring to a singular "beta version" betrays a gross ignorance of how game development works, what's the "beta" in question? A preview in a magazine? A proto leaked on the internet? Something suggested in pre-production that was rejected and never programmed into the game? Banning the generic beta  and forcing editors to be more specific (as opposed to the current [[Mariowiki:Good Writing|wishy-washy stance]] that "we know it's bad, but we still use it because reasons I guess") will improve the quality of the information.
===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]]


3: '''The "grandfather clause" is never a good excuse:''' Similar to this case, "sub-species" is a long-used term that was found to be innacurate and cause inconsistencies, and the current community concensus is that it should be replaced despite its longstanding nature. "It's what we've always used" is not a good refutation when the usage of a term is proven to lower the credibility and quality of the information, as is the case here.
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.


As a replacement, I propose beta pages to be renamed '''List of prerelease and unused content'''. "Prelease" perfectly encansuplates the varieties of content that's not present in the final code, and it's wordier, yes, but not overly so. Generic mention of "beta" should not be robotically replaced with a generic "In prelease/unused content of [game]", but rather with a specific term ("magazine preview", "prototype", "unused"), with a piped link to the "List of..." pages.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


(<nowiki>*</nowiki>: This of course doesn't apply to actual beta builds, but as none of the specific builds documented here are specifically said to be real betas, that precision is kinda irrelevant.)
====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]].


'''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br>
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
'''Deadline''': June 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.


====Move beta pages to "List of prelease and unused content" and ban the generic "beta" in mainspace articles====
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====
#{{User|Glowsquid}}
#{{User|thenintendostooge}} Simply because something works does not make it professional or the most efficient. The simple term beta used on the wiki goes against basic definition and term of the word that is beta.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} "Beta" probably could be validated ''if'' it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal.


====Oppose====
====Merge none (do nothing)====


====Comments====
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====


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

Latest revision as of 14:28, February 4, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, February 4th, 21:36 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)
Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork, Scrooge200 (ended January 5, 2025)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)

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)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 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)
Merge Hurricane (move) into Gale Force, EvieMaybe (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3

This was spurred by the introduction of the to-do bar. Thanks, to-do bar! Anyways, if you look at Special:WantedCategories, at the moment, it's all entries with 3 or fewer items each; this makes sense, given we have a policy that suggests categories are kept to only 4 or more items. However, for a good portion of the 3-itemers, these are all fairly featured images from sources like various short flash advergames, or more niche subjects like the MediaBrowser which came in a series of, well, 3 web browsers. In comparison to the 1-or-2 entry, well, entries, these have a bit more substance to them, basically waiting for a fourth image to be taken at some point; and while in some cases, that image can come up, in others... Well, what are the odds a fourth MediaBrowser is releasing when they went bust back in 2001, y'know?

While we don't feel strongly about what happens to the 1 or 2 entry categories, we do think there is just enough to these 3-entry categories to warrant a closer look our current policies are not providing. Should we lower the cutoff to 3? Or is 4 the magical number for categories?

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves, of course. We don't see any particular harm in this when, as of submitting this proposal, this would only create, what, 10 categories?
  2. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me, especially because, if an individual is uploading images to the wiki for a source that currently has no images, there's a solid chance that that person will upload three images. It's a popular number!
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Three is a magic number.

Keep at 4 (forced to four!)

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple in the comments, image categories don't have this restriction so the proposal seems moot otherwise. I don't see a benefit to reducing this limit across the board, and I'm very hesitant to support without a clearer picture of the implications. (The assertion in the comments that this wouldn't have immediate impact was based on the list on Special:WantedCategories - there weren't any categories there besides image ones because that would require mainspace articles to have redlinked categories that would go against policy if you made them. Obviously, that wouldn't fly.)
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Porplemontage and Waluigi Time.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Honestly, five would be a better restriction so that it's a well rounded number.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  7. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)

The intent of that restriction is that, for example, if there aren't four articles for Category:Super Paper Mario characters then the couple characters would just go in Category:Super Paper Mario rather than create the subcategory. Image categories are different since moving up the tree in the same way would be undesirable (there would be a bunch of random images at the bottom of Category:Game images rather than those categories being redlinked). We can create image categories with as few as one entry; I updated MarioWiki:Categories. If you still want to change the number needed for articles, up to you. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 22:38, January 21, 2025 (EST)

Oh! We didn't know that, good to know! We'd like to proceed with the proposal, even if we don't think it'd have any immediate impact under these rules--all the 3-item categories have to do with images at the moment. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge the Tortes

Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:

The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the Jellyfish Sisters, or Cork and Cask--and given they are the only Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct articles.

In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move Apprentice (Snifit) over to Apprentice, and give it the {{about}} template.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of Superstar Saga.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
  3. Sparks (talk) Merge!
  4. Blinker (talk) Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.

Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.

Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least have unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins.
  4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
  5. Paper Plumm (talk) Per all.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Waluigi Time.

Do nothing (It's gourmet!)

Comments (It's... Alive???)

This can easily be four birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an {{about}}. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)

Good observation, actually! Went and added this. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)

@Doc: On that note, because of once and only once, that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)

I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)

By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against MarioWiki:Minor NPCs? --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)

Not any more than Cork and Cask does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, @Camwoodstock, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. Blinker (talk) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of Snifsters are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? Blinker (talk) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)
Well they don't really have names, they have numbers. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:51, February 2, 2025 (EST)
Well, by that logic, the Tortes don't really have names, they have job titles. Point is, they're identical-looking characters with identical in-battle names, but distinct out-of-battle names and personalities. (even if No. 1 and 2 don't seem particularly different in English, I'm trusting the Legends of Localization playthrough) Blinker (talk)

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.

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4721238"