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==
===Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style===
The passing of this proposal would include the in-game [[mission]]s and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from ''Super Mario Sunshine'', objectives from ''Super Mario Odyssey'', etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Italicizing titles|Manual of Style]].
 
In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html well-established practice]. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Do not surround song titles with quotes|proposal]] that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:
<blockquote>The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''The Color of Water''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''Resident Alien''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
</blockquote>
I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.
 
I would like us to explicitly include [[mission]]s as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that [[Here Come the Hoppos]] is a level, whereas "[[Footrace with Koopa the Quick]]" is a scenario ''within'' a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.
 
As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.
 
For clarification, <u>this proposal does not impact the names of actual ''levels''</u>, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.
 
I offer two options:
 
#'''Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.'''
#'''Don't do that.'''
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "[[Mama Luigi]]", quotation marks in places like the [[Super Mario World (television series)#Episodes|list of episodes]], to even the infobox of its own article, we can see ''a'' reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are ''useful''. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D ''Mario'' platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is ''Super Mario Odyssey'', regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Per proposal. In my opinion, this only serves to bring further clarity to the title of a mission within the level vs. the level itself. With the established notion of a mission being inherent to 3D Mario as a sub-category within levels themselves, I don't see this causing any confusion whatsoever.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal. I do see that there are some tricky gray areas to this mentioned by the opposition, but I do think it's fair to consider ''Mario 64'' style missions the equivalent of something like a chapter or TV episode — they were even called episodes in ''Sunshine'', after all!
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal and per Hooded Pitohui especially. Having an established separator between a location and the "scenario" within said location is not just a nice little feature but can even bring clarity with active or new readers of the Wiki. I see this causing quite the opposite of confusion.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
 
====Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the [["Deep, Deep Vibes"|errant times they are official]] from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an ''average'' and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like [[Bowser Jr. Showdown]], and missions can lack those, like with [[Smart Bombing]]. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard [[Power Moon]] names count, if ''SM64'' stars do? what about ''Brothership'' [[List of Mario & Luigi: Brothership side quests|side quests]]? ''TTYD'' [[Trouble Center|troubles]]? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like <i>Master of Disguise</i>'s [[Whose Show Is This Anyway?!!|first]] and [[The Purple Wind Stinks Up the Ship!|second]] levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.


===List of talk page proposals===
<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.</s>
{{TPPDiscuss|Split [[List of Mario references in video games]]|Talk:List of Mario references in video games#Split Article|Passed}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Repurpose {{tem|more media}} Template|Template talk:More media#Repurpose Template|June 24, 2017, 23:59:59 GMT}}


==Writing guidelines==
====Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal====
''None at the moment.''
{{@|Ahemtoday}} I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks ''around'' the name of a subject and assume it is literally part ''of'' the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.
 
Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title ''Super Mario Galaxy'' on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the [[:File:SMG Title Screen.png|title screen]] is capitalized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]] but are not part of the title of "[[Happy & Sappy]]". Similar cases are "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario Bros.|"Hurry Up!" Ground BGM]]" and "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario 64|"It's-a Me, Mario!"]]", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many [[List of albums|album pages]] (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::Then why do we italicize game titles? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
::::::::I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from [[Super Mario Galaxy#Notes and references|the articles I contribute to the most]] that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like ''Final Fantasy'' where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the ''Super Mario'' series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:It is not that readers, necessarily, will '''believe''' that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they ''weren't'' equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Hewer}} I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
 
I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D ''Super Mario'' games and missions in 3D ''Super Mario'' games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of [[Meringue Clouds]] but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like [[Cosmic block]]'s first sentence in it's ''Super Mario Galaxy'' section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't [[Spine Coaster]]s get this treatment when they appear in [[Thrilling Spine Coaster]] and in [[Rock-Candy Mines]]? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
:The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in ''Super Mario 64'' is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are ''Super Mario Sunshine'' and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. The other three do: ''Super Mario 64'' has its levels broken up into floors; ''Super Mario Galaxy'' has [[dome]]s; and ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' has what are literally called [[World#Super Mario Galaxy 2|World]]s. So if the the equivalency of the [[Terrace (Super Mario Galaxy)|Terrace]] in ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' is [[Acorn Plains]], and the equivalency of [[Good Egg Galaxy]] is [[Acorn Plains Way]], than what is the equivalency of "[[A Snack of Cosmic Proportions]]?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
::And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an [[:File:3D Mario Infograph.jpg|image]] that ''Odyssey'' is actually the sequel to ''Sunshine'' and the ''Galaxy'' games float off with ''3D Land'' and ''3D World'', then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an [[mission|article for them]]. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a [[Spine Coaster]] is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D ''Mario'' games - named scenarios. The missions in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::::My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things).
::::Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_in_the_Honeyhive_Kingdom&diff=4484131&oldid=4482705 this edit summary] and [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_on_the_Roof&diff=4470879&oldid=4448218 this edit summary] the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star ''and'' the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a [[Bob-omb Buddy]] to unlock the [[cannon]]s, an extra [[metal ball|iron ball]], and neither [[King Bob-omb|Big Bob-omb]] nor a [[Koopa Shell]]. (This explanation on {{iw|Ukikipedia|Bob-omb Battlefield}} brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier ''Odyssey'' joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D ''Super Mario'' game.
::::For completion's sake, I should also mention that [[Dire, Dire Docks]] throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of [[Bowser in the Fire Sea]] and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. ([[Tick Tock Clock]] presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)
{{@|EvieMaybe}}, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D ''Super Mario'' platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to ''Wario: Master of Disguise'' or ''Mario & Luigi: Brothership''. I am only interested in ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Sunshine'', ''Super Mario Galaxy'', ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'', and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal ''inherently'' extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the [[mission]] page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)
 
On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)
 
===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?
 
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''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''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.
 
====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==
''None at the moment.''
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.
 
Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.
 
For example, let's say for [[Luigi]] in his appearance in ''[[Mario Sports Superstars]]'', there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:
 
:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''
 
The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} This is a good idea, and all it does is make it easier for readers to find information that's otherwise scattered across various pages. It's a centralizing effort that I think could be fairly helpful.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Mario}} Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I worry this would make history sections messy and repetitive when the focus should be on the written text.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per Lefty and N101.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)
 
If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)
:I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)
 
@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)
 
How much are you envisioning this is going to be used? Is it just going to be for linking to character stats or is it for any game that has a section on the profiles and statistics page? If it's just stats, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed (that information used to be in history sections anyway before profiles and statistics sections were created and later split off from their pages), but I don't think [[List_of_Mario_profiles_and_statistics#Super_Mario_Galaxy_2|something like this]] warrants a template directing readers off the page. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 13:34, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:When I voted this, I was envisioning just stats pages with significant information such as stats or other notable traits a character might have inherent to a specific game. If it's a link for EVERY category, I would honestly swap to oppose. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 18:31, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:This is a good point, I also support only doing this for stats. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 21:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)
 
===Make categories for families===
I've made a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Families|similar proposal]] a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin[https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case 「¹」] (unrelated, but meh).
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Weegie baby}}<br>'''Deadline''': January 30, 2025,  23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} Per me.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Mario}} So, have any idea what this category will exactly comprise of? Seeing the organization this user is proposing (putting Daisy into Peach's family for instance) isn't making me really want to support.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Going from the names described in the comments, I disagree with the addition of characters like Daisy and Toadette, whose familial connections hinge on single instances from prima guides. Having them in those categories is borderline misleading. <s>I also disagree with adding implied characters, since they literally do not have their own page, and we just cannot simply add categories to the whole list articles.</s> There might be some merit to categories for Bowser's Peach's and Toad's families (if there's enough of them) because they are legitimate characters (even if from fringe media) but overall, I am not convinced. I've been corrected on list article categories, but I still feel implied characters should not be counted.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per Mario and LadySophie17
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
{{@|Weegie baby}} You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:Yeah, I forgot, thanks. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)
 
Each of these new categories should have at least '''five entries'''; see [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]]. I'm not sure Donkey Kong, Toad, or Peach meets the minimum number of entries. Would the Koopalings still count as Bowser's family?--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 23:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:Donkey Kong certainly has enough, though there might be a bit of overlap with [[:Category:Kongs]]. Peach and Toad probably have enough if you count [[List of implied characters|implied characters]] (which can be included in the categories as redirects). More examples were mentioned in the previous proposal's comments. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:23, January 18, 2025 (EST)
 
:Here are 5 people in each family:
:Peach’s family: [[Princess Peach]]; [[Princess Daisy]]; [[Mushroom King]]; [[Gramma Toadstool]]; [[Obā-chan]]; etc.<br>Bowser’ family: [[Koopalings]] (even more than 5); etc.<br>Donkey Kong’s family: [[Donkey Kong]]; [[Donkey Kong Jr.]]; [[Cranky Kong]]; [[Wrinkly Kong]]; [[Uncle Julius]]; etc.<br>Toad’s family: [[Toad]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Mushroom Marauder]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Jake the Crusher Fungus]]; [[Gramps]]; [[Toadette]] (Toad’s sister sometimes); etc (in this case, [[Moldy]] and [[Toad's cousin|Toad’s cousin]]).
:I actually thought there should be an article for Dixie’s family, but there are only 4 known members (unless we count [[Baby Kong]]), so her family should be in the category for Donkey Kong’s. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 15:25, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::It's not about number of people but '''entries'''. [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus]] is a single entry. It really looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Daisy and Toadette because of single throwaway lines in the Prima guides? Implied characters? Baby versions? As [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]] says: "a minimum of '''five entries''' (including any subcategories' entries), however they ''should'' have many more than that, since small lists can simply be placed on an article that's central to the subject at hand (for example, the six [[Dixie Kong's Photo Album#Aquatic Attackers|Aquatic Attackers]] are listed on that very page, which they all link back to)." Mario and Luigi's family got their own category because there were so many entries. They have their own page because putting it all on Mario's page is cumbersome. Right now, Toad and Peach's families can fit into single paragraphs in their respective articles. Donkey Kong's only has Cranky due to his ambiguous identity. I can get behind Bowser since his family has its own template, even if there are lots of retconned and implied characters in it.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 20:26, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:::Look, Platform, I stopped reading after the fourth sentence. I just wanna say: even though that, there are still enough characters to make the categories. If Mushroom Marauder and Jake are in the same page, add [[Toad's cousin]]. He's someone else. And if you don't wanna add Toadette and Daisy, fine. There are still enough people. So, ☝️🤓, okay? And, btw, if you don't like the idea of my wonderful proposal, then oppose. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 12:56, January 21, 2025 (EST)
::::That is incredibly rude of you. And also an IGN journalist is not a valid source of information. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 19:34, January 21, 2025 (EST)
 
@LadySophie17: Implied subjects can be added to categories in the form of redirects, this is an established practice. For example, see [[:Category:Organizations]], which includes several implied organizations. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:40, January 21, 2025 (EST)
:Fair enough. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 20:21, January 21, 2025 (EST)
 
What about times where families get..screwy (e.g. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0uXcTF3mA&t=281s that one time Mario and Peach were married and became parents to baby Luigi])? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 12:09, January 22, 2025 (EST)


==Removals==
==Removals==
===Remove the eleventh featured article/list standard===
===Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects===
"11. [An article must] be of reasonable length and not marked as a stub."
The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called [[Mario Party 13]] (as of proposal, this leads to ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'', which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as [[MP11]], [[MP12]], and [[MP13]].
 
Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for ''[[Super Mario Party]]'', ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]''. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "[[Fury Bowser|God Slayer Bowser]]" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Delete (party's over!)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Does anyone actually call those games ''Mario Party 11'', ''12'' or ''13''? Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all.
#{{User|Drago}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of ''"Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100"'' and re-redirected the MP12 ones from ''Superstars'' to ''Jamboree'', already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Honestly, I’m already on edge on Mario Parties 6-10 because of the non-mainline Mario Parties, but unlike those 5 games, the three concerned don’t even use those as their own game, not to mention ''Jamboree'' is basically a sequel to ''Super Mario Party''.
#[[User:Winstein|Winstein]] ([[User talk:Winstein|talk]]) I think that it's not useful to assume the games have a numeral, even when ''Super Mario Party'' dubbed itself the "11th Party" by Birdo. This isn't like ''Super Mario World'' where ''Super Mario Bros. 4'' at least got mentioned in full in Japan. Maybe unless there is a future ''Mario Party'' game that reinstate a numeral that acknowledges anything in between.
 
====Delete MP12/MP13, keep MP11 (...except you, you stay.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we personally feel like a clean sweep makes the most sense, but we understand the merit of keeping MP11 given that at least ''Super Mario Party'' has ''a'' piece of dialogue calling it the 11th party.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|the proposal that added the Mario Party 11 redirect]].
#{{User|Arend}} Secondary choice; I guess it makes sense to still call ''Super Mario Party'' the 11th one, and my vote for deleting them all stems from the confusion whether Superstars or Jamboree is the 12th one, a discussion from which ''Super'' is exempt.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Secondary option. I’m sure there is like 6% of users who would search ‘MP11’, but ''Jamboree'' is basically SMP2 anyways, and whether MPS or Jamboree is MP12 is so confusing we might as well delete MP12 and 13.
 
====Keep (party on!)====
<s>#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|this proposal]].</s>
 
====Comments (idle party chat)====
I do think fan nicknames [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53#Recreate the numbered Mario Kart redirects|can be allowed as redirects]], so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)
 
This is up for debate, because there's redirects for [[Mario Kart 1]] through [[Mario Kart 6]], so if these are to be affected, then they'd need to go too, but I see no reason to remove those as they may come in handy if someone wants to search for the [[Mario Kart 5|5th Mario Kart]] for example. Simply ask "what's the [[Mario Party 11|eleventh Mario Party]]?" and there it is. Another proposal with tons of grey area unaccounted for it seems. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 13:28, January 12, 2025 (EST)
:I'm not fond of "MK6"-style redirects, but at least there's no confusion about the 6th ''Mario Kart'' game was and you can be pretty sure that there will never be a game titled ''Mario Kart 6''. However, you wouldn't create a "MK9" redirect to ''Mario Kart Tour'', would you? It is debatable whether this game would count as the 9th ''Mario Kart'', and Nintendo could still release a game titled ''Mario Kart 9'' in the future. I admit that it is less likely that Nintendo would release an actual ''Mario Party 11'', but it could still happen – they did release ''New Super Mario Bros. 2'' when there was already [[New Super Mario Bros. Wii|a second ''NSMB'']] after all. As for people who would know what is the 11th ''Mario Party'' released on a home console (which is not the 11th ''Mario Party'' game overall if you include the handheld games), they will probably want to find the 12th as well, which, since there's no consensus on what ''Mario Party 12'' should even be (''Superstars'' or ''Jamboree''?), would probably only lead to frustration no matter what we choose "MP12" to redirect to. Frankly, unless Nintendo suddenly announces a game titled ''Mario Party 14'' which would retroactively confirm that the current Switch games are ''MP11'', ''MP12'' and ''MP13'', I would rather not keep these redirects. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 06:07, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::This is why I'm in support of only keeping the Mario Party 11 redirect, as Birdo states in dialogue in the game that it's the "eleventh party", so it's not ambiguous whether it counts. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:04, January 13, 2025 (EST)
:::Question! Would it be too late to add a "keep MP11, delete MP12/MP13" option to this proposal? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:08, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::::You can add options within the first four days of a proposal's creation, so yes, I think today is the last day you can add an option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:15, January 13, 2025 (EST)
:::::Nintendo is probably not going to release Mario Party 14 (too lazy to do italics), because they’ll probably make Super Mario Party Superstars Jamboree or Super Mario Party Jamboree 2 or whatever. {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:25, January 17, 2025 (EST)


This is the eleventh and final standard that must be followed for featured articles and featured lists, as described on [[MarioWiki:Featured articles]], and it is completely unnecessary. For starters, it is too vague to be of any practical use, and it would be difficult to use our current featured articles for comparison since they have wildly different sizes. [[Mt. Teapot]], [[Mystic Forest]], [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]], and [[Mario Sports Superstars]] clearly all have different lengths, and yet they're all featured articles. If we tried to be strict and set a minimum character count or word count, then we're only going to promote articles that have been stretched and padded out solely to meet the minimum count. Needless to say, that is bad. With that in mind, why should we look at the length of an article to judge its quality? There are plenty of articles that are long, but they haven't been featured because they're missing information or their writing isn't good or their images are blurry or they have an improvement tag or for a myriad of other reasons based directly on the article's content, all of which are already covered by the other featured article standards. An article's length has next to nothing to do with its content and quality, so why should it be used to judge articles that, and I quote, "represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer"?
[[Mario Party 12]] leads to SMPJ... {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 08:50, January 18, 2025 (EST)


Finally, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_34#Change_FA_size_requirement|there's already a proposal]] that discusses lowering the size requirement for featured articles (which was also my original idea apparently although I genuinely don't remember it), ''and it passed''. Since the proposal was four years ago, it's hard to see how much of it is still in effect today, but my proposal clearly hasn't come from nowhere, and this is to say nothing of the [[forum:38624.0|recent forum post]] and the replies therein that inspired me to make this proposal. Simply put, the eleventh standard is too vague to be useful and is redundant with the other standards, and that is why I want it to be removed.
===Remove staff ghost times from the driver's list of profiles and statistics===
Currently, our lists of profiles and statistics list all of the details for every ''Mario Kart'' staff ghost where that driver is used. See [[List_of_Mario_profiles_and_statistics#Mario_Kart_8_Deluxe|Mario's from ''8 Deluxe'']] as an example. That seems odd to me, so I'm proposing their removal for two main reasons.
#'''I don't view staff ghosts as being intrinsic to the character.''' Unlike the unique stats a driver has, a staff ghost is not really part of what the character was built to do in the game. Instead, it's the other way around - the character is being used in service of the staff ghost mechanic, and that's about it. Even if you do take the perspective that these are intrinsic to the character, there's arguably superfluous information here. Is the fact that Laura from NoA decided to play as Mario on Mute City that important to Mario the character in ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe''?<br>Not everything that a character does in the game is necessarily a statistic - for example, it's generally agreed on the wiki that the levels in a platforming game where an enemy appears are not a statistic to be counted in this section, and I see this as basically equivalent for a racing game. (Yes, I'm aware that there are several examples of this currently being done. I do not think this is appropriate.) IMO, it would be more appropriate to use the character's history section to list the course(s) they appear as a staff ghost on in prose.
#'''It's inconsistently applied.''' To my knowledge, this is only done with drivers - not karts, tires, or gliders. Mechanically, the vehicle that a character drives is just as important as the character driving it, so if we really wanted to be consistent here, we'd have to add staff ghost times to all of those other pages too. I think you can guess by the rest of the proposal that I don't support this.
You could also make some argument that this is stretching [[MarioWiki:Once and only once|once and only once]] a bit too far, since we have staff ghost times already listed on the game page and individual course pages. I'm admittedly not as much of a stickler for once and only once as some users and I think it's sometimes applied too rigidly, but character profiles are a third (and if we want to apply this consistently to karts as well, potentially fourth, fifth, and sixth) page where stats are repeated. That's quite a few pages that could have to be fixed up if we ever discovered a mistake, and those aren't places an editor is likely to check if they aren't already aware of them.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <del>June 11, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT</del> Extended to June 25, 2017, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: They're out of time====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Ghost 'em.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer. Now that I think of it, most would be looking for them on a Staff Ghost page in any case. With these characters, they just so happen to be selected by the Staff Ghost, practically never due to any clear theme involving that character.
#{{User|Tails777}} Staff Ghosts are tied more to the tracks than the characters. The tracks themselves all cover the Staff Ghost information perfectly fine, as do the actual game articles. I don't see them as a harm being on the statistic pages of the characters, but I also don't think they ''need'' to be there. Plus, the point of not doing the same with karts, tires and gliders also provides a fair point towards axing this info. In short: RIP, per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. Why are these attributed to the characters and not the tracks themselves, anyways?
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} Time's up!
 
====Oppose: Keep time====
 
====Comments on staff ghost proposal====
 
==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 [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.
 
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''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per proposal.
#{{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|Yoshi the SSM}} Sure. Per all.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} This rule really has no purpose. Featured articles are about quality, not length. If a stub is a good article, it should still be featured. There is absolutely no reason why this rule should not be removed. Additionally, if there is a proposal that passed for this 4 years ago, then this proposal doesn't need to be here. Remove the rule, end of story.
#{{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|Tails777}} Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} To keep this being discussed further, I am going to balance the votes to be 6-6 (as of Sunday, June 11th, 06:21 GMT). I am only going to support if the rule will be "[An article must] not be marked as a stub" because reasonable length is arbitrary and subjective. Stub means missing information, not short article, so a featured article needs to mostly be complete, if not fully complete.
#{{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|3D Player 2010}} 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|The Koopa Bro.}} Per all. My only concern was that the {{tem|stub}} part shouldn't be removed, but that part is already covered by rule 5.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} The purpose of the Featured Articles system is to be applied to the best articles on the wiki. There are many articles that are very well-written and that meet all the requirements, but shouldn't be featured because they are very short and therefore cannot be the best articles on the wiki. I think an article needs to be long enough to be featured, but there should not be a specific number of bytes because articles vary due to images, tables, etc. and reasonable length can vary between different types of articles. I support {{User|Baby Luigi}}'s [[User:Baby Luigi/Featured Articles guidelines|page]]. I agree that the rule should be ''changed'' but not removed.
#{{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|Baby Luigi}} '''Strong oppose''': This entire proposal has its foundation on a logical fallacy. Honestly, I think removing featured article size requirements altogether would be disastrous for Featured Articles in MarioWiki. It's far better to revise the guideline that outright remove it all together. This is really a sledgehammer situation to a problem that can easily be solved through compromise. Also, per my comments below.
#{{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|Toadette the Achiever}} Per Baby Luigi. Her point has motivated me enough to change my vote. Change it, but don't outright ''remove'' it. Even if an article was featured as a stub, the very little information on it would be '''contradictory''' to the purpose of featured articles.
#{{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|Ultimate Mr. L}} Changing my vote. Per Baby Luigi. The rule should be changed, not removed. (I was a bit confused when I supported. :P)
#{{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|TheFlameChomp}} Per Baby Luigi. I have changed my mind, as I agree that it is better to change the rule than remove it completely.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per Baby Luigi.
#{{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|Shokora}} &ndash; In what circumstances could a stub qualify as a featured article? Per all.
#{{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|Magikrazy}} After thinking it over, I gotta side with Oppose, per my reasons below.
#{{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|Lord Bowser}} This is a highly divisive issue, and I wasn't sure what side I aligned with better, but I'm going to cast a vote for oppose for the time being. I feel like the best way to go about this is to go with a case-by-case thing, instead of an overarching rule. Length and length alone shouldn't exclude an article from being featured, but the rule shouldn't be removed entirely; otherwise, we could have stuff like [[Ronald B. Ruben]] up for nomination (thanks {{User|Magikrazy}}). Even if someone does lack common sense and we get very short articles nominated, it's extremely unlikely that there will be a ''unanimous'' vote to have said very short articles featured. The other ten rules for featured article standards are clearer and less open to interpretatiom, while rule 11 is, as it currently is, very vague. Rewording it or going with a case-by-case standard would be the best approach for this matter.
#{{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|Alex95}} - I agree this is vague, but it should be reworded, not removed (which can be discussed in full elsewhere). The info about {{tem|stub}} should be removed, as I feel that would fall under rule 5, ultimately be redundant. A case-by-case basis would be better, like Lord Bowser said.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Alex95.
#{{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.
<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====
So, to confirm, articles of any size would be able to become featured as long as they meet the other ten requirements, right? --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 21:46, 3 June 2017 (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)
:[https://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=38624.msg1934027#msg1934027 I'll agree with Steve] on this point. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:00, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
: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)
::From experience writing essays in high school and college, word count and character count is in no way an indication of quality because I could ramble on about something instead of writing something that actually says something accurate and straight forward. As the saying goes, ''less is more''. I mean I ''really'' stretched to meet minimum requirements. For a real life example, most politicians don't even read [[Wikipedia:Bill (law)|bill]]s before they vote on them because they are ridiculously long! As of right now, I am neutral and not voting. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:13, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::{{@|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)
:::Our featured articles guidelines already discourage padding to meet out minimum requirements. Again, if an article was padded out only to give the false impression that it is sophisticated it easily fails. My argument is that writing should definitely be focused on quality, but the quantity of the quality is also something that should be taken into account when it comes to designating articles as the "best" in MarioWiki. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:22, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
:::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)
::::In general, I find the whole system biased trying to showcase articles because we the contributors are biased liking Mario games. I don't really consider MarioWiki literature but rather a database of knowledge. [[MarioWiki:Featured articles|Featured articles]] do nothing to enhance the database. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:28, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::::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)
:::::To me, I see Featured Articles as an example of how an article should ideally look in MarioWiki, so we have a goal to work towards to when we improve articles and our writing overall. Setting a clear, visual goal helps me and other editors look out at what other articles do that work and what doesn't work. The concept of Featured Articles is how I got inspired to write [[Mario Party: Star Rush]] and [[Mario Sports Superstars]] anyway. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:36, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::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)
::::::Keep in mind that some articles become unfeatured because something went wrong when trying to follow [[MarioWiki:Writing guidelines|writing guidelines]]. I'm not sure how an article can get into such a disheveled state but couldn't it be argued that someone could take wrongful inspiration if the upkeep of featured articles is not kept? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 00:24, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
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)
:::::::Some articles are unfeatured mostly because of outdated writing styles that editors have overlooked. Like, in 2015, I've unfeatured Mario Kart 64 because that article looks totally barren today back when it was originally featured, standing up to articles such as Mario Kart 8 or Mario Kart Double Dash. I'm not saying all featured articles are a caliber of quality, but a decent amount of them are and they're enough inspiration to work at my hardest. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:34, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
: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)
@YoshiFlutterJump: The proposal linked to is referring to decreasing the the size an article needs to be to become an Featured Article, not about removing the rule, so this proposal still is necessary in order to remove the rule. Also, stubs cannot become featured articles, as a featured article cannot be tagged with any sort of improvement tags, which includes {{tem|stub}}. --{{User:TheFlameChomp/sig}} 14:35, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::"''I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?''"
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from ''removing'' it if they should so choose. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is ''still there'', even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)


@Supermariofan67: Why can't a short article be the best? If it follows all of the other standards to a T, I frankly don't see why the content should be outright ignored. What about its length says anything about the article itself? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 16:27, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
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)
: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)


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


I'll try to rebuke several things brought up in this proposal.
{{@|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)


;If we tried to be strict and set a minimum character count or word count, then we're only going to promote articles that have been stretched and padded out solely to meet the minimum count.
{{@|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)
If that were the case, the Featured Article nomination would easily fail because it doesn't pass the "well-written" rule that is put up there easily for that reason, and therefore, would not be fit as a Featured Article. This is a strawman of imposing a minimum size guideline, and obviously, we're not going to feature articles that are flowery or padded out just for the sake of meeting just one rule out of the rest of rules that are there to keep things in check. It's like badly formatting images just so the article can meet the image requirement. A minimum size requirement rule assumes that the article is already well-written and covers everything about the subject. My idea is to make it, y'know, a guideline. Have say 2,000 words give or take 100 or 50 or whatever.
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)


;With that in mind, why should we look at the length of an article to judge its quality?
=== Allow co-authorship of proposals ===
I'd argue that length '''is''' an element of quality for an article to be featured on MarioWiki, just like how something should be well-written or something should have high quality images to be considered to be featured. We feature articles because they provide meaningful, detailed content, they represent the '''best''' MarioWiki has to offer. The best means that '''all''' factors have to be taken into account, and for this, we're not looking at ''just'' its length as you're implying. Many articles have barriers to prevent them from passing to be featured on the main page, even if they're written the best they could. If they lack images because they're too obscure to be found, they can't be featured. Shorter articles have their length as their barrier of entry, and this barrier prevents us from calling ''any'' article the "best" on MarioWiki. There's plenty of fish in the sea for MarioWiki, and having a minimum size limit rule picks out only the best and biggest fish, which is supposed to be the Featured Article's original purpose. There's a huge reason that most Featured Articles are long and detailed, it's because they provide content in ''both'' size and quality, and there's a reason shorter articles like Culex are in the vast minority. And finally, this argument fails because it's a false dichotomy. This is not a binary problem, an article can be BOTH large and have quality content, it's what separates the longer FAs from the very, very short ones, and what I think is a huge quality difference between the two.
{{early notice|January 24}}
The passing of this proposal would allow duel authorship of proposals (including talk page proposals), where both authors shape the same proposal, the written text, and have equal responsibility for its implementation. It would not allow more than two authors on any proposal for reasons I will explain below.


The proposal Time Turner linked to looks really flimsy to my eyes today, I really wouldn't cite it for serious reasons. Also, in my thread, most responses were against the Good Articles idea, and no one has bothered even refuting my comments on how quantity can be linked to quality if you think about it. I'd also per Glowsquid's comment in that thread, "''It's like, if you think there's a minimum length needed for front page exposure, that's fine, and it's a principle nearly every print media operates on, but "featuring" content will always be exclusionary in nature.''" Removing a minimum word limit is not how print media operates on and we shouldn't ignore why they have a minimum word count, aside from using false dichotomy arguments that quality and quantity have to be separate qualities of an article. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:59, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
[[File:Princess Peach and Princess Daisy - Mario Party 7.png|right|200px|buds]]
:I've messaged Steve so that he can participate directly in this discussion. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 20:18, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
I have sometimes come up with changes I thought would be nice for the site and have wanted to make proposals for, but stopped myself because the sheer scope of seeing them implemented have kept me from doing it. While maintaining and editing a wiki is a communal craft, passed proposals - regardless of whether they require simply changing the name of an article or creating hundreds of new ones based on the splitting of a list article - are often largely the burden of the person who proposed it. These can be very big time commitments and ultimately feel monotonous and - even when one supports the ideas behind a proposal and do not regret passing it - the weighing monotony can lead to poor editing decisions with rolling it out. It can also lead to big proposals with lots of support not being realized for a long time, sometimes multiple years, as a cursory view of the [[#Unimplemented proposals|unimplemented proposals]] list would seem to support. Additionally, as prefaced, it can lead to some good ideas not being proposed because the idea of carrying out the changes is discouraging. I don't think that's a good thing.
I think the "stub" part could be removed, as that seems to also fall under Rule 5. <br>
"''There are plenty of articles that are long, but they haven't been featured because they're missing information or their writing isn't good or their images are blurry or they have an improvement tag or for a myriad of other reasons based directly on the article's content, all of which are already covered by the other featured article standards.''"<br>
In this case, then they should remain unfeatured. Not because of the length, but because they should be tagged for improvement or the images need to be replaced, etc. I agree padding should be removed when noticed, but if they have other problems, then length isn't the issue. I '''do''' think articles should have length to them, for example, nothing like [[Water Bomb (Super Mario 64)|Water Bomb]] and has headers that describe what the subject is, infoboxes if needed, images, etc. However, length should probably be of the '''lowest''' priority when it comes to article content, but still be considered. If there isn't anything more to add, then there's nothing more to add.<br>
Not sure how I'm voting on this, but just putting in what I think. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 22:42, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
:Really, the issue of prioritizing length all depends on the article itself. When it comes to being detailed about media, a longer length should just come naturally as a result of being comprehensive and detailed. I do agree that good writing and formatting should be stressed over length, but length cannot be ignored outright either, which is what this proposal is proposing to ignore, as people here think quality and quantity are two mutually exclusive aspects of a Featured Article when they're not at all. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:02, 4 June 2017 (EDT)


I am going to bring up the Bible. I know not every one believes it, but it is one of the largest books and it is considered one of the bests. So, this does show quality and quantity to be near equal. But, let me show you two different things. The first is the incomplete Bible. This Bible is a little less than the Bible, but you wouldn't know that unless you compared them. This incomplete Bible drops in quality, too. The second is child Bible. This may sound like an incomplete Bible, but the difference is it is meant for children. It has the quality of the Bible it comes from without the quantity. The only time quality and quantity aren't related. Now to translate this to articles. There will be long articles with good quality, and long articles with no good quality. If we bring in short articles of good quality, they won't make much difference. And, by the way, there would be an indirect length standard. Why? We would not want a whole article or a lot of it on the front page, which would only happen if it is just an intro. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 22:42, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
I wish there was more collaborative involvement in larger proposals, maybe with aide from the supporters, instead of the expectation being almost entirely on the person who passed it. I think it further fosters collaboration and passive comradery among the userbase, encourage users who largely only participate in proposals to get involved with revising articles directly, and come with a more equitable expenditure of time and effort on larger projects. The aims of this specific proposal will not enable all of those things, but I think it will be a step in the right direction for greater collaboration among users and ease the burden of seeing large proposals realized by a single individual person. Sometimes a good idea comes up in passive conversation anyways, and there are sometimes users one appreciates that they would like the opportunity to work with more directly on a shared project (or at least that is the case for me). Direct collaboration can result in stronger proposals as well, as both authors could spot one another's blind spots and oversights.
:I really don't understand your point. Can you (or someone) clarify, please? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:24, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::I think he's saying that it doesn't matter the length as long as the quality is good? {{User:Alex95/sig}} 23:26, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
:::I have already argued that length does play a factor in terms of designating what is considered the best. Assuming that your article is well-written and not artificially long, a long length should be considered a positive quality, not a negative one, as typically, long length naturally comes from the article being comprehensive and detailed, which is what we're aiming for with featuring articles on the main page. Also, I think the Bible analogy isn't correct: there's a myriad of reasons children's Bibles would be simplified and abridged, and this doesn't relate to how we feature articles here. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:31, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Yes, Alex95. Also, the incomplete Bibles also use padding by not removing the number of the verse that was removed altogether. And children's Bible is the closest thing to small articles that relates to the Bible. Sorry if the relation between isn't perfect. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 23:38, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::::I see that whole analogy more analogous to regular [https://www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia] and [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Simple Wikipedia] than smaller articles and bigger articles here, where Simple Wikipedia is like the children's Bible where content has to be abridged and simplified for a different audience, that's why I think your analogy doesn't work. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:43, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::That may be true, but before now, I never heard of Simple Wikipedia. Also, it is the closest thing of small being a good quality. And by the way, when I say children's Bible, I also include lessons for any age group and messages, which are shorter than reading the entire Bible through, though I may not refer to them directly. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 23:53, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::I mean, I understand your point. I definitely agree that quality should be emphasized over quantity and that longer doesn't necessarily mean better. Padding is a sign of terrible writing. However, this is a standard every single MarioWiki article wants to have; in terms of featuring it in the main page, size of the article definitely should be taken into account, as it's a different standard than the typical fare of how an article should look in MarioWiki. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:03, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::I think I got an idea. Go find 6 articles (requirements below) and make a comment of which articles they are. Don't ask why, just do it. I will explain after you do that. For me, I am going to bed. Oh, and the deadline is June 7 at noon according to the time the Wiki uses. You comment on what you got at that time if you can't find all. Ps. Rules below refer to feature article rules.{{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 00:20, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
#an article you feel meets rule #11 and the rest of the rules
#an article you feel meets rule #11 and breaks at least one of the other rules
#an article you feel falls short of rule #11 (but not too short), but meets the rest of the rules
#an article you feel falls short of rule #11 (but not too short), and breaks at least one of the other rules
#an article you feel is very short, but meets the rest of the rules
#an article you feel is very short, and breaks at least one of the other rules.
:#[[King K. Rool]], [[Goomba]], [[King Boo]], [[Mario Kart DS]], [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]], [[Hammer Bro]]. [[Mario Strikers Charged]], [[Baby Peach]], [[Baby Luigi]], [[Baby Mario]], [[Super Smash Bros.]], [[Dixie Kong]], [[Petey Piranha]], [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], [[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]], [[List of Collectibles from Mario Party DS]], [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]], [[Sticker (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)]], [[WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!]], [[Super Mario 64 DS]], [[Mario Super Sluggers]], [[Diddy Kong Racing]], [[Assist Trophy]], [[Paper Mario]], [[Wario Land II]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)]], [[Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time]], [[List of Bonuses in Super Smash Bros. Melee]], [[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]], [[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]], [[Chain Chomp]], [[List of Tayce T. Recipes]], [[Donkey Kong Country]], [[Mario Kart: Super Circuit]], [[Toadette]], [[Mario Sports Mix]], [[Mario Superstar Baseball]], [[Coin Rush]], [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]], [[Mario Party DS]],  [[Mario Kart 7]], [[Super Mario Bros. 2]], [[Super Duel Mode]], [[Ashley and Red]], [[WarioWare: Smooth Moves]], [[Pauline]], [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong]], [[Mario Tennis Open]], [[Mona]], [[Blooper]], [[Iggy Koopa]], [[Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]], [[Dr. Mario]], [[List of Zess T. recipes]], [[Donkey Kong 64]], [[WarioWare: Twisted!]], [[WarioWare: Touched!]], [[Mario Kart 8]], [[Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash]], [[Mario (franchise)]], [[Wiggler]], [[Mario Party: Star Rush]], [[Equipment]], [[Donkey Kong (franchise)]], [[Super Mario 3D World]], [[Koopa Paratroopa]], [[Mario Sports Superstars]], [[Donkey Kong Barrel Blast]], [[Banzai Bill]]
:#[[Lakitu]], [[Kamek]], [[Dry Bones]], [[Mama Mario]], [[Mt. Teapot]], [[Nintendo DS]], [[Wii]], [[Rice Beach]], [[Bramble Scramble]], [[Yoshi's Island DS]], [[Mystic Forest]], [[Mario Party 9]]
:#[[Ganondorf]], [[Badge]] (this article was featured for completely different reasons than it looks today), [[Miracle Book]], [[Rosalina's Storybook]]
:#[[Dimentio]], [[Kolorado]], [[Doopliss]], [[Smithy]]
:#[[Baby Daisy]], [[Geno]], [[Kiddy Kong]], [[Culex]], [[Vivian]], [[Koopa Bros.]]
{{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:34, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
::Wow. very good list. *looks at the articles. Notices that they are featured articles.* You know that you can also include non-feature articles as well. Seems kinda bias too, but then I said feel. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 15:47, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Well if articles aren't featured yet, they probably don't meet all of the rules yet. It's easier to select what is already featured than analyze some articles. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:05, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
::::I can totally agree with that. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 16:11, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::Ok, fine. I wonder how many people agree with this list. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 16:23, 5 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::Look, after compiling this list I've realized this: we have 97 Featured Articles. If 3, 4, 5 were to be excluded due to their questionable length and this is going to be excluding the shorter listicles like Miracle Book and Rosalina's Storybook, only like, 12 articles out of 97 would be unfeatured due to the rule. That's only a paltry 12% of all Featured Articles. If we cut it down to just 4 and 5, it'd just be 10 articles. There's a reason articles like those are in the minority. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 16:55, 5 June 2017 (EDT)


@Wildgoosespeeder: That's what the opposing side is arguing. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 08:52, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
I originally thought having more than two authors on a proposal would be fine, but I think it would be undemocratic and awful if - say - someone raised a proposal with ten "authors" who all immediately voted to support. I view that as manufactured consent, and would make it difficult to oppose even if the ideas behind it are poor. I think having two authors should be sufficient. If this proposal passes, users would be permitted to ask one another{{footnote|main|*}} if they would like to create a proposal together and shape the ideas behind it, to which the other user can accept or decline as they so choose. If accepted, they would write something together, or at least mutually support the written text before it is published, and if there is a supplemental article draft used for the proposal, they would both have to be supportive of how that is laid out and written as well. No user can be attached to a proposal unless they were legitimately involved in its creation and support the published text. If neither is the case, they are to alert [[MarioWiki:Administrators|site staff]] who will issue a [[MarioWiki:Warning policy#Level two offenses|warning]] to the offender and the proposal is to be cancelled. If the alleged offender has proof to the contrary, they are to present it to staff. (I only clarify these details not to intimidate anyone or make them uneasy, but to layout what I think are sufficient guardrails.)
:I am aware. The vote is neither for nor against but because of the two-choice voting, strategic voting took place to maximize discussion, because of how split people are. My best advice for {{user|Time Turner}} is to ask permission from sysops to cancel the proposal and continue discussion (with {{tem|talk}}) over on [[MarioWiki talk:Featured articles]] or something. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 14:17, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
::Your vote already complicates things, since this proposal would be extended regardless of your vote, considering the proposal has more than 10 votes and thus, needs a margin of three votes from one side to pass in the first place. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 14:57, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Again, aware. Instead of needing two more votes, brought it back to needing three. That's not the point. The point was to keep the discussion going for as long as possible. This is quite a controversial change, and the current proposal isn't sufficient for both sides. Needs to go back to the drawing board. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:29, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
I will not vote so as to keep discussion flowing for another week or so, but I don't think outright removing the rule is a good idea. Length isn't a factor in quality of an article, but we shouldn't just throw around the Featured Article status to any Kart article just because it's well written. I don't like the idea of a set in stone "it must be this long or absolutely no feature", but not having a length rule will just oversaturate the Featured Article list with well written but tiny articles about Paper Mario NPCs and Mario Party items. How will that make us look? Really, I think the best thing to do when it comes to article length is use your common sense. If it doesn't look too short to you, go ahead and nominate it. The worst that can happen is it's not featured. Yeah, this rule ends up excluding some well written articles. Oh well. If your goal when writing articles is only to get them featured, then you're wasting your time. [[User:Magikrazy|Magikrazy]] ([[User talk:Magikrazy|talk]]) 14:06, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:In my opinion, having well-written articles should already be the '''default''' goal of all articles in MarioWiki in the first place. We should already try writing articles to the best of our abilities, that's why we tag pages with improvement templates. Featured Articles is another standard above the standard we try to aim for with regular articles in MarioWiki and in this case, length should definitely matter for that higher standard. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 14:54, 11 June 2017 (EDT)


People throw around feel-good statements like "Length shouldn't a factor as long as the article is well-written", and to be honest, I think it's kind of, for a lack of a better word, deluded. If you're going to focus all eyeballs on a specific page for a week of time, length *absolutely* does matter. The Featured Article spot is basicallly '''marketing''' for the wiki. It exist to retain new readers and fidelize existing ones. People who nominate articles may have a different agenda for doing so (likely vindicating their efforts on writing a page or to publicize their favourite character), but even there's an underlying goal of having an article exposed to as many people as possible because someones want to. You impress people by having up-to-date information on the latest games, with fancy and creative ways of presenting statistics lsited or unlisted, or having an exhaustive and accurate description of every media a 20-years old character has appeared in. You don't ''impress'' people with three-paragraph articles about Paper Mario NPCs.
{{footnote|note|*|At baseline level, I think reaching out should be permitted on the user talk pages of the wiki, but I also think it would be fine to reach out to a fellow user on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord Server. In my view, this just facilitates ease of communication and allow options. <u>'''If anyone has concerns about collaborations occurring on these other two platforms, please raise them below.'''</u>}}


Ultimately I agree with Baby Luigi's statement that articles being well written (... and accurate) should be the baseline expectation, not something to throw a shiny sticker at. A page like [[Goombob]] is fine. Indeed it may be "better" that a bloated article that looks superficially "big" and "impressive" at a first skimming, but reveals itself to have clumsy writting and poorly-organized information. But a page like that isn't what you use to show you're the definitive Mario fansite out there. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 19:31, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
I offer two options:
:To a degree, length matters (such as making sure statements are detailed enough), but there does come a point where there are too many words and you lose your audience's attentiveness (TMI), which is often why we split articles. Strive for quality over quantity. I think word count falls on a bell curve to determine effectiveness of the article's ability to convey information. The right amount of words varies from article to article. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 20:14, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
#'''Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!''': This would amend the rules above on the proposal page, give space for two users to be cited in the "list of ongoing proposals" and "archiver" list, add nonconsensual attribution as a level two offense, and allow two users to co-author proposals (including talk page proposals).
:: "but there does come a point where there are too many words and you lose your audience's attentiveness (TMI), which is often why we split articles." This is blatantly, hilariously wrong and I have no idea how you came to reason this is the reason articles are split. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 20:33, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
#'''Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.'''
:::Many [[galaxy]] pages are getting split into mission subpages. I figure the reasoning is to separate missions from what is found in the galaxy. Same thing is happening to ''[[Super Mario 64]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' places and missions. Other kinds of splits include [[List of Mario references in video games]], which a proposal passed to split them into 1st and 3rd party. We have a [[MarioWiki:Article size|policy page]] how to tell us if an article needs to be split. That just means there are too many words on the article page and needs to be split into digestible chunks. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 20:58, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::: The mission pages are split by site owner's edict they should be (for more ad revenues, consistency with level pages for the 2D games , etc etc.). The reference pages and 99% of page splits on the wiki are done because the uncropped page is Too Big to comfortably load on low and mid-range computer rigs. No pages were split "to hold the audience's attention" as you claimed. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 21:10, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::But there are splits that are occurring on pages that can load on low to mid range computers. Take [[Skeeter]] and [[Skeeter (New Super Mario Bros.)]]. They were split because the attack changed. That would be like creating an article for [[Ukiki]] holding a cactus thing and an Ukiki holding a bomb. Ad revenue, well, you kind of got me there, except why not split the long articles so you can make more ad revenue? More page navigation means more ad revenue, which seems to be against the interest of long articles. Do you have hard data to support that readers aren't overwhelmed? From my experiences, people in general often complain about having to read walls of text and would rather have a shorter version of what they are reading. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:26, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::For the quick, "shorter version", that sort of info usually goes into infoboxes. The wiki is not meant to hold reader's interests, it is to provide information. Level of interest varies on the person. Also, that's what section headers are for: for readers to easily find the info they are looking for, despite the length of the article. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 21:32, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::Attentiveness means to pay attention to details, and if there are too many details, it becomes very hard to keep information straight. I think it was confused for active reading and attention span. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:38, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::Wildgoosespeeder, our job isn't to entertain writers. It's to inform them. If they're too lazy to read comprehensive information, they're in the wrong place. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:35, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::I think you misread my statements. I never claimed entertainment. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:42, 11 June 2017 (EDT)
Also it seems my commen went over your head because I never implied articles should artificially be padded or that being more lengthy is innherently "better". The opposite even. My point is that a page specifically linked to the front page for its quality should be both "big" and good. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 20:46, 11 June 2017 (EDT)


I posted all this in Discord, so I'm just gonna copy/paste what I said there (save typos and whatever):
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 31st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


"''I think this sort of thing would be decided on a case-by-case basis, like what LB said on his oppose. If it's well written and has enough detail to adequately state what the subject is, then great. But we probably wouldn't nominate articles like [[Bumble V]] or whatever. The current issue with [[Culex]] is, I think, probably a good representation here. It has solid information, describes what the subject is, and the history around him. It is also of considerable length, imo. Whereas Bumble V is well written (from what I can tell, anyway), but is rather short as it really only appeared in one game (though so did Culex), so there isn't much about it. All in all, the ultimate decision would boil down to the nomination process itself and what other users would have to say about it. I do think the stub thing in rule 11 should be removed, as I think that's covered in rule 5. As for rule 11 itself, I'm not so sure...''
====Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As someone whose proposals have been hit or miss, the ability to co-author proposals will increase the likelihood of them passing. This will resolve an issue where the proposer may not necessarily see the flaws of what they are proposing.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this makes sense!
#{{User|Technetium}} Hell yeah!
#{{User|Sparks}} Friendship Is Magic!
#{{User|Tails777}} Teamwork makes the dream work! Per proposal!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} <s>wow the plural system is a fan of co-operation???</s> Per proposal, we're a little surprised there hasn't been a formal system for co-authored proposals before honestly, given a few proposals in particular have already happened precisely because of talk page discussions. Though, in fairness, those talks usually involve a lot more than 2 people, and only one of them mediates the proposal itself. Still, hey, if multiple users want to work on the same proposal, why not, right?
#{{User|Mario}} I never thought it was disallowed, but sure. I do think this was practiced before, but not necessarily full-on co-authorship, such as this proposal[https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Redesign_RPG_infoboxes_and_bestiaries] by Walkazo that cited me (Bazooka Mario) and Megadardery and others who helped make this proposal. In archival process, it might help to make a list of users similar to a citation that lists multiple authors (such as Mario, M.; Mario, L.; Toad, T; Koopa, B.).
#{{User|Pseudo}} This seems quite healthy for the wiki!
#{{User|BMfan08}} The law firm of Dewey, Lykit and Howe will be pleased to hear this. Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Good idea, I think this will be very useful.


"''Point I'm trying to make is: Length should be considered, but the size of the article should be taken with some common sense, you know? If it's a well-written article, but only one paragraph long, it probably won't be nominated. Whereas if the article is over 30,000 bytes long, but is a complete mess and info is jumbled, it wouldn't be nominated either. I feel like this proposal is a waste of time, tbh. Everyone has different opinions over what counts as a "long article", that it should be decided on the proposal pages itself.''"
====Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.====


I would vote to support the removal of the rule, but at the same time, I feel the rule should be rewritten. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 00:29, 12 June 2017 (EDT)
====Comments on co-authorship proposal====
Our only real question is, what do we do for archiving these co-authored proposals? We might need to update the author parameter to account for the possibility of a second author. If that was addressed, we'd support this in a heartbeat. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:I specify above that space would need to be allocated for two users to be cited rather than just one when applicable in the archives and other comparable lists. I do not offhand know the the technical steps needed for this to occur, but I assume it is not technically difficult. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:pick a character that can't be part of a username and make the template detect that as a divider in the username field {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 19:06, January 18, 2025 (EST)


Since it looks like we're gonna get another extension, I'd like to re-iterate that Featured Articles are only a showcase of our best articles, not our whole enchilada. [[User:Magikrazy|Magikrazy]] ([[User talk:Magikrazy|talk]]) 10:09, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
===Merge the Tortes===
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
* [[Chef Torte]]
* [[Torte]]


==Changes==
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.
''None at the moment.''
 
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.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====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|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
 
====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.
 
====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 <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)
 
@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)


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

Latest revision as of 12:56, January 23, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, January 23rd, 18:58 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. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. 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.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. 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}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your 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 {{TPP discuss}}. 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, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
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)
Establish a consistent table format for the "Recipes" section on Paper Mario item pages, Technetium (ended January 8, 2025)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 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)

Writing guidelines

Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style

The passing of this proposal would include the in-game missions and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from Super Mario Sunshine, objectives from Super Mario Odyssey, etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.

In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a well-established practice. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a proposal that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:

The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a greater whole (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in The Color of Water. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of Resident Alien. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "Gusty Garden Galaxy" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and Gusty Garden Galaxy is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.

I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.

I would like us to explicitly include missions as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that Here Come the Hoppos is a level, whereas "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario within a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.

As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the Super Mario Galaxy article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.

For clarification, this proposal does not impact the names of actual levels, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.

I offer two options:

  1. Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.
  2. Don't do that.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "Mama Luigi", quotation marks in places like the list of episodes, to even the infobox of its own article, we can see a reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
  4. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are useful. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D Mario platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is Super Mario Odyssey, regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.
  5. Fun With Despair (talk) Per proposal. In my opinion, this only serves to bring further clarity to the title of a mission within the level vs. the level itself. With the established notion of a mission being inherent to 3D Mario as a sub-category within levels themselves, I don't see this causing any confusion whatsoever.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal. I do see that there are some tricky gray areas to this mentioned by the opposition, but I do think it's fair to consider Mario 64 style missions the equivalent of something like a chapter or TV episode — they were even called episodes in Sunshine, after all!
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per proposal and per Hooded Pitohui especially. Having an established separator between a location and the "scenario" within said location is not just a nice little feature but can even bring clarity with active or new readers of the Wiki. I see this causing quite the opposite of confusion.
  8. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
  9. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.

Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the errant times they are official from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
  3. Salmancer (talk) Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an average and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like Bowser Jr. Showdown, and missions can lack those, like with Smart Bombing. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard Power Moon names count, if SM64 stars do? what about Brothership side quests? TTYD troubles? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like Master of Disguise's first and second levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
  5. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all.
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

#Jdtendo (talk) Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.

Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal

@Ahemtoday I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks around the name of a subject and assume it is literally part of the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from Paper Mario: The Origami King - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.

Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title Super Mario Galaxy on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the title screen is capitalized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)

The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of "Deep, Deep Vibes" but are not part of the title of "Happy & Sappy". Similar cases are ""Hurry Up!" Ground BGM" and ""It's-a Me, Mario!"", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many album pages (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — Nintendo101 (talk) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Then why do we italicize game titles? - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in Super Mario Sunshine is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from the articles I contribute to the most that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like Final Fantasy where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the Super Mario series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
It is not that readers, necessarily, will believe that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they weren't equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? Ahemtoday (talk) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)

@Hewer I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — Nintendo101 (talk) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D Super Mario games and missions in 3D Super Mario games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of Meringue Clouds but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like Cosmic block's first sentence in it's Super Mario Galaxy section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't Spine Coasters get this treatment when they appear in Thrilling Spine Coaster and in Rock-Candy Mines? Salmancer (talk) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in Super Mario 64 is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Odyssey. The other three do: Super Mario 64 has its levels broken up into floors; Super Mario Galaxy has domes; and Super Mario Galaxy 2 has what are literally called Worlds. So if the the equivalency of the Terrace in New Super Mario Bros. U is Acorn Plains, and the equivalency of Good Egg Galaxy is Acorn Plains Way, than what is the equivalency of "A Snack of Cosmic Proportions?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an image that Odyssey is actually the sequel to Sunshine and the Galaxy games float off with 3D Land and 3D World, then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) Salmancer (talk) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an article for them. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a Spine Coaster is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D Mario games - named scenarios. The missions in Super Mario Sunshine are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things).
Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to this edit summary and this edit summary the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star and the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a Bob-omb Buddy to unlock the cannons, an extra iron ball, and neither Big Bob-omb nor a Koopa Shell. (This explanation on Bob-omb Battlefield brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier Odyssey joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D Super Mario game.
For completion's sake, I should also mention that Dire, Dire Docks throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of Bowser in the Fire Sea and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. (Tick Tock Clock presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) Salmancer (talk) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)

@EvieMaybe, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D Super Mario platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to Wario: Master of Disguise or Mario & Luigi: Brothership. I am only interested in Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Super Mario Odyssey. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)

By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal inherently extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the mission page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)

On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. Jdtendo(T|C) 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)

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.

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

Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page

This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more Super Mario games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for Mario, Bowser, and many other recurring subjects.

Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.

For example, let's say for Luigi in his appearance in Mario Sports Superstars, there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:

For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see here.

The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
  3. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  4. Fun With Despair (talk) This is a good idea, and all it does is make it easier for readers to find information that's otherwise scattered across various pages. It's a centralizing effort that I think could be fairly helpful.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) I worry this would make history sections messy and repetitive when the focus should be on the written text.
  3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Lefty and N101.
  4. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Hewer I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)

If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)

@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)

How much are you envisioning this is going to be used? Is it just going to be for linking to character stats or is it for any game that has a section on the profiles and statistics page? If it's just stats, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed (that information used to be in history sections anyway before profiles and statistics sections were created and later split off from their pages), but I don't think something like this warrants a template directing readers off the page. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 13:34, January 17, 2025 (EST)

When I voted this, I was envisioning just stats pages with significant information such as stats or other notable traits a character might have inherent to a specific game. If it's a link for EVERY category, I would honestly swap to oppose. --Fun With Despair (talk) 18:31, January 18, 2025 (EST)
This is a good point, I also support only doing this for stats. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Make categories for families

I've made a similar proposal a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin「¹」 (unrelated, but meh).

Proposer: Weegie baby (talk)
Deadline: January 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Hewer (talk) Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
  2. Weegie baby (talk) Per me.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) So, have any idea what this category will exactly comprise of? Seeing the organization this user is proposing (putting Daisy into Peach's family for instance) isn't making me really want to support.
  2. LadySophie17 (talk) Going from the names described in the comments, I disagree with the addition of characters like Daisy and Toadette, whose familial connections hinge on single instances from prima guides. Having them in those categories is borderline misleading. I also disagree with adding implied characters, since they literally do not have their own page, and we just cannot simply add categories to the whole list articles. There might be some merit to categories for Bowser's Peach's and Toad's families (if there's enough of them) because they are legitimate characters (even if from fringe media) but overall, I am not convinced. I've been corrected on list article categories, but I still feel implied characters should not be counted.
  3. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per all
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per Mario and LadySophie17
  5. Sparks (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Weegie baby You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Yeah, I forgot, thanks. Weegie baby (talk) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Each of these new categories should have at least five entries; see MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope. I'm not sure Donkey Kong, Toad, or Peach meets the minimum number of entries. Would the Koopalings still count as Bowser's family?--Platform (talk) 23:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Donkey Kong certainly has enough, though there might be a bit of overlap with Category:Kongs. Peach and Toad probably have enough if you count implied characters (which can be included in the categories as redirects). More examples were mentioned in the previous proposal's comments. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:23, January 18, 2025 (EST)
Here are 5 people in each family:
Peach’s family: Princess Peach; Princess Daisy; Mushroom King; Gramma Toadstool; Obā-chan; etc.
Bowser’ family: Koopalings (even more than 5); etc.
Donkey Kong’s family: Donkey Kong; Donkey Kong Jr.; Cranky Kong; Wrinkly Kong; Uncle Julius; etc.
Toad’s family: Toad; Mushroom Marauder; Jake the Crusher Fungus; Gramps; Toadette (Toad’s sister sometimes); etc (in this case, Moldy and Toad’s cousin).
I actually thought there should be an article for Dixie’s family, but there are only 4 known members (unless we count Baby Kong), so her family should be in the category for Donkey Kong’s. Weegie baby (talk) 15:25, January 18, 2025 (EST)
It's not about number of people but entries. Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus is a single entry. It really looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Daisy and Toadette because of single throwaway lines in the Prima guides? Implied characters? Baby versions? As MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope says: "a minimum of five entries (including any subcategories' entries), however they should have many more than that, since small lists can simply be placed on an article that's central to the subject at hand (for example, the six Aquatic Attackers are listed on that very page, which they all link back to)." Mario and Luigi's family got their own category because there were so many entries. They have their own page because putting it all on Mario's page is cumbersome. Right now, Toad and Peach's families can fit into single paragraphs in their respective articles. Donkey Kong's only has Cranky due to his ambiguous identity. I can get behind Bowser since his family has its own template, even if there are lots of retconned and implied characters in it.--Platform (talk) 20:26, January 18, 2025 (EST)
Look, Platform, I stopped reading after the fourth sentence. I just wanna say: even though that, there are still enough characters to make the categories. If Mushroom Marauder and Jake are in the same page, add Toad's cousin. He's someone else. And if you don't wanna add Toadette and Daisy, fine. There are still enough people. So, ☝️🤓, okay? And, btw, if you don't like the idea of my wonderful proposal, then oppose. Weegie baby (talk) 12:56, January 21, 2025 (EST)
That is incredibly rude of you. And also an IGN journalist is not a valid source of information. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 19:34, January 21, 2025 (EST)

@LadySophie17: Implied subjects can be added to categories in the form of redirects, this is an established practice. For example, see Category:Organizations, which includes several implied organizations. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:40, January 21, 2025 (EST)

Fair enough. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 20:21, January 21, 2025 (EST)

What about times where families get..screwy (e.g. that one time Mario and Peach were married and became parents to baby Luigi)? LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:09, January 22, 2025 (EST)

Removals

Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects

The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called Mario Party 13 (as of proposal, this leads to Super Mario Party Jamboree, which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as MP11, MP12, and MP13.

Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for Super Mario Party, Mario Party Superstars, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "God Slayer Bowser" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.

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

Delete (party's over!)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Does anyone actually call those games Mario Party 11, 12 or 13? Per proposal.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
  4. Sparks (talk) What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all.
  6. Drago (talk) Per all.
  7. Arend (talk) The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of "Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100" and re-redirected the MP12 ones from Superstars to Jamboree, already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  9. Mushroom Head (talk) Honestly, I’m already on edge on Mario Parties 6-10 because of the non-mainline Mario Parties, but unlike those 5 games, the three concerned don’t even use those as their own game, not to mention Jamboree is basically a sequel to Super Mario Party.
  10. Winstein (talk) I think that it's not useful to assume the games have a numeral, even when Super Mario Party dubbed itself the "11th Party" by Birdo. This isn't like Super Mario World where Super Mario Bros. 4 at least got mentioned in full in Japan. Maybe unless there is a future Mario Party game that reinstate a numeral that acknowledges anything in between.

Delete MP12/MP13, keep MP11 (...except you, you stay.)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we personally feel like a clean sweep makes the most sense, but we understand the merit of keeping MP11 given that at least Super Mario Party has a piece of dialogue calling it the 11th party.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per my comment and the proposal that added the Mario Party 11 redirect.
  3. Arend (talk) Secondary choice; I guess it makes sense to still call Super Mario Party the 11th one, and my vote for deleting them all stems from the confusion whether Superstars or Jamboree is the 12th one, a discussion from which Super is exempt.
  4. Mushroom Head (talk) Secondary option. I’m sure there is like 6% of users who would search ‘MP11’, but Jamboree is basically SMP2 anyways, and whether MPS or Jamboree is MP12 is so confusing we might as well delete MP12 and 13.

Keep (party on!)

#Hewer (talk) Per my comment and this proposal.

Comments (idle party chat)

I do think fan nicknames can be allowed as redirects, so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)

This is up for debate, because there's redirects for Mario Kart 1 through Mario Kart 6, so if these are to be affected, then they'd need to go too, but I see no reason to remove those as they may come in handy if someone wants to search for the 5th Mario Kart for example. Simply ask "what's the eleventh Mario Party?" and there it is. Another proposal with tons of grey area unaccounted for it seems. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 13:28, January 12, 2025 (EST)

I'm not fond of "MK6"-style redirects, but at least there's no confusion about the 6th Mario Kart game was and you can be pretty sure that there will never be a game titled Mario Kart 6. However, you wouldn't create a "MK9" redirect to Mario Kart Tour, would you? It is debatable whether this game would count as the 9th Mario Kart, and Nintendo could still release a game titled Mario Kart 9 in the future. I admit that it is less likely that Nintendo would release an actual Mario Party 11, but it could still happen – they did release New Super Mario Bros. 2 when there was already a second NSMB after all. As for people who would know what is the 11th Mario Party released on a home console (which is not the 11th Mario Party game overall if you include the handheld games), they will probably want to find the 12th as well, which, since there's no consensus on what Mario Party 12 should even be (Superstars or Jamboree?), would probably only lead to frustration no matter what we choose "MP12" to redirect to. Frankly, unless Nintendo suddenly announces a game titled Mario Party 14 which would retroactively confirm that the current Switch games are MP11, MP12 and MP13, I would rather not keep these redirects. Jdtendo(T|C) 06:07, January 13, 2025 (EST)
This is why I'm in support of only keeping the Mario Party 11 redirect, as Birdo states in dialogue in the game that it's the "eleventh party", so it's not ambiguous whether it counts. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:04, January 13, 2025 (EST)
Question! Would it be too late to add a "keep MP11, delete MP12/MP13" option to this proposal? Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:08, January 13, 2025 (EST)
You can add options within the first four days of a proposal's creation, so yes, I think today is the last day you can add an option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:15, January 13, 2025 (EST)
Nintendo is probably not going to release Mario Party 14 (too lazy to do italics), because they’ll probably make Super Mario Party Superstars Jamboree or Super Mario Party Jamboree 2 or whatever. MHA Super Mushroom:) at 07:25, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Mario Party 12 leads to SMPJ... MHA Super Mushroom:) at 08:50, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Remove staff ghost times from the driver's list of profiles and statistics

Currently, our lists of profiles and statistics list all of the details for every Mario Kart staff ghost where that driver is used. See Mario's from 8 Deluxe as an example. That seems odd to me, so I'm proposing their removal for two main reasons.

  1. I don't view staff ghosts as being intrinsic to the character. Unlike the unique stats a driver has, a staff ghost is not really part of what the character was built to do in the game. Instead, it's the other way around - the character is being used in service of the staff ghost mechanic, and that's about it. Even if you do take the perspective that these are intrinsic to the character, there's arguably superfluous information here. Is the fact that Laura from NoA decided to play as Mario on Mute City that important to Mario the character in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe?
    Not everything that a character does in the game is necessarily a statistic - for example, it's generally agreed on the wiki that the levels in a platforming game where an enemy appears are not a statistic to be counted in this section, and I see this as basically equivalent for a racing game. (Yes, I'm aware that there are several examples of this currently being done. I do not think this is appropriate.) IMO, it would be more appropriate to use the character's history section to list the course(s) they appear as a staff ghost on in prose.
  2. It's inconsistently applied. To my knowledge, this is only done with drivers - not karts, tires, or gliders. Mechanically, the vehicle that a character drives is just as important as the character driving it, so if we really wanted to be consistent here, we'd have to add staff ghost times to all of those other pages too. I think you can guess by the rest of the proposal that I don't support this.

You could also make some argument that this is stretching once and only once a bit too far, since we have staff ghost times already listed on the game page and individual course pages. I'm admittedly not as much of a stickler for once and only once as some users and I think it's sometimes applied too rigidly, but character profiles are a third (and if we want to apply this consistently to karts as well, potentially fourth, fifth, and sixth) page where stats are repeated. That's quite a few pages that could have to be fixed up if we ever discovered a mistake, and those aren't places an editor is likely to check if they aren't already aware of them.

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

Support: They're out of time

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Ghost 'em.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer. Now that I think of it, most would be looking for them on a Staff Ghost page in any case. With these characters, they just so happen to be selected by the Staff Ghost, practically never due to any clear theme involving that character.
  3. Tails777 (talk) Staff Ghosts are tied more to the tracks than the characters. The tracks themselves all cover the Staff Ghost information perfectly fine, as do the actual game articles. I don't see them as a harm being on the statistic pages of the characters, but I also don't think they need to be there. Plus, the point of not doing the same with karts, tires and gliders also provides a fair point towards axing this info. In short: RIP, per proposal.
  4. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Why are these attributed to the characters and not the tracks themselves, anyways?
  6. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
  7. Sparks (talk) Time's up!

Oppose: Keep time

Comments on staff ghost proposal

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

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.

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.

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)

Allow co-authorship of proposals

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 24 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

The passing of this proposal would allow duel authorship of proposals (including talk page proposals), where both authors shape the same proposal, the written text, and have equal responsibility for its implementation. It would not allow more than two authors on any proposal for reasons I will explain below.

buds

I have sometimes come up with changes I thought would be nice for the site and have wanted to make proposals for, but stopped myself because the sheer scope of seeing them implemented have kept me from doing it. While maintaining and editing a wiki is a communal craft, passed proposals - regardless of whether they require simply changing the name of an article or creating hundreds of new ones based on the splitting of a list article - are often largely the burden of the person who proposed it. These can be very big time commitments and ultimately feel monotonous and - even when one supports the ideas behind a proposal and do not regret passing it - the weighing monotony can lead to poor editing decisions with rolling it out. It can also lead to big proposals with lots of support not being realized for a long time, sometimes multiple years, as a cursory view of the unimplemented proposals list would seem to support. Additionally, as prefaced, it can lead to some good ideas not being proposed because the idea of carrying out the changes is discouraging. I don't think that's a good thing.

I wish there was more collaborative involvement in larger proposals, maybe with aide from the supporters, instead of the expectation being almost entirely on the person who passed it. I think it further fosters collaboration and passive comradery among the userbase, encourage users who largely only participate in proposals to get involved with revising articles directly, and come with a more equitable expenditure of time and effort on larger projects. The aims of this specific proposal will not enable all of those things, but I think it will be a step in the right direction for greater collaboration among users and ease the burden of seeing large proposals realized by a single individual person. Sometimes a good idea comes up in passive conversation anyways, and there are sometimes users one appreciates that they would like the opportunity to work with more directly on a shared project (or at least that is the case for me). Direct collaboration can result in stronger proposals as well, as both authors could spot one another's blind spots and oversights.

I originally thought having more than two authors on a proposal would be fine, but I think it would be undemocratic and awful if - say - someone raised a proposal with ten "authors" who all immediately voted to support. I view that as manufactured consent, and would make it difficult to oppose even if the ideas behind it are poor. I think having two authors should be sufficient. If this proposal passes, users would be permitted to ask one another* if they would like to create a proposal together and shape the ideas behind it, to which the other user can accept or decline as they so choose. If accepted, they would write something together, or at least mutually support the written text before it is published, and if there is a supplemental article draft used for the proposal, they would both have to be supportive of how that is laid out and written as well. No user can be attached to a proposal unless they were legitimately involved in its creation and support the published text. If neither is the case, they are to alert site staff who will issue a warning to the offender and the proposal is to be cancelled. If the alleged offender has proof to the contrary, they are to present it to staff. (I only clarify these details not to intimidate anyone or make them uneasy, but to layout what I think are sufficient guardrails.)

* - At baseline level, I think reaching out should be permitted on the user talk pages of the wiki, but I also think it would be fine to reach out to a fellow user on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord Server. In my view, this just facilitates ease of communication and allow options. If anyone has concerns about collaborations occurring on these other two platforms, please raise them below.

I offer two options:

  1. Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!: This would amend the rules above on the proposal page, give space for two users to be cited in the "list of ongoing proposals" and "archiver" list, add nonconsensual attribution as a level two offense, and allow two users to co-author proposals (including talk page proposals).
  2. Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 31st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) As someone whose proposals have been hit or miss, the ability to co-author proposals will increase the likelihood of them passing. This will resolve an issue where the proposer may not necessarily see the flaws of what they are proposing.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) this makes sense!
  4. Technetium (talk) Hell yeah!
  5. Sparks (talk) Friendship Is Magic!
  6. Tails777 (talk) Teamwork makes the dream work! Per proposal!
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) wow the plural system is a fan of co-operation??? Per proposal, we're a little surprised there hasn't been a formal system for co-authored proposals before honestly, given a few proposals in particular have already happened precisely because of talk page discussions. Though, in fairness, those talks usually involve a lot more than 2 people, and only one of them mediates the proposal itself. Still, hey, if multiple users want to work on the same proposal, why not, right?
  8. Mario (talk) I never thought it was disallowed, but sure. I do think this was practiced before, but not necessarily full-on co-authorship, such as this proposal[1] by Walkazo that cited me (Bazooka Mario) and Megadardery and others who helped make this proposal. In archival process, it might help to make a list of users similar to a citation that lists multiple authors (such as Mario, M.; Mario, L.; Toad, T; Koopa, B.).
  9. Pseudo (talk) This seems quite healthy for the wiki!
  10. BMfan08 (talk) The law firm of Dewey, Lykit and Howe will be pleased to hear this. Per all.
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Good idea, I think this will be very useful.

Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.

Comments on co-authorship proposal

Our only real question is, what do we do for archiving these co-authored proposals? We might need to update the author parameter to account for the possibility of a second author. If that was addressed, we'd support this in a heartbeat. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I specify above that space would need to be allocated for two users to be cited rather than just one when applicable in the archives and other comparable lists. I do not offhand know the the technical steps needed for this to occur, but I assume it is not technically difficult. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
pick a character that can't be part of a username and make the template detect that as a divider in the username field — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 19:06, January 18, 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. 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.

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)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4652476"