MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
==Writing guidelines==
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
===Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3===
<br clear="all">
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?
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*Any past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
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?
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
#A user calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary, and archives the proposal.


The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
====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.


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


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
====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.''


===Re-Add Banjo and Conker Articles===
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


I've been thinking about this for a long time, and this proposal is to gauge how users would react to the re-inclusion of [[Banjo]] and [[Conker]] info into the wiki.  Banjo and Conker first appeared in ''[[Diddy Kong Racing]]'', and their series developed out of that game. As such, Donkey Kong, Banjo, and Conker are believed to exist in a greater DK Universe (and an extension of the Marioverse).  As we have been redefining our view of remakes, that they are not replacements but supplements to the originals, I feel Banjo and Conker should have a place here. Just because ''[[Diddy Kong Racing DS]]'' is a remake that removed these two characters does not mean Banjo and Conker don't have their origins in the Donkey Kong series. Ultimately, there are many reasons for their inclusion in this wiki, and many reasons for their exclusion. All are valid. I don't want to start any flame wars, and I do not want make this a big deal.  Please keep all discussions about this respectful.  I just want to see if a majority of users would like Banjo and Conker content reintegrated at this time, or if they do not.  Somehow I feel this info will eventually become a part of the wiki, as they are part of the greater world [[Nintendo]] and [[Rare]] created out of the Donkey Kong series, but this may not happen for a long time.
==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.


Here are the details of the proposal that would go into effect:
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.


*Banjo and Conker related articles can be recreated on the wiki.  First we should go through deleted edits to restore as much as we can, then start editing and creating articles like normal.
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."
*Banjo and Conker series would be added as Tertiary Importance to the [[MarioWiki: Importance Policy|Importance Policy]].
*Additionally, this proposal would also move all crossovers (including ''[[Super Smash Bros.]]'') to Secondary Importance.
*This proposal would also prohibit articles about the ''Star Fox'' series and ''Grabbed by the Ghoulies''.  [[Tricky]] from ''Diddy Kong Racing'' exists in a separate continuity from Tricky EarthWalker from the ''Star Fox'' series, although the latter is a out-of-universe reference to the former.  In ''Grabbed by the Ghoulies'', no major characters return in a major role (there are some minor cameos, just as major ''Jet Force Gemini'' characters appear as cameos in ''Banjo-Kazooie'', and ''Jet Force Gemini'' is not a part of the ''Banjo-Kazooie'' continuity).  This differs from Diddy Kong Racing, where Banjo and Conker were major characters who spun off into their franchises.


'''Proposer:''' [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 21 September 2007
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Recreate Banjo and Conker Articles====
====Support====
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - I am the proposer and I have included ''some'' of my reasons above.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Never thought they should have gone in the first place.
#{{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: Ultimatetoad]] (nope tiptup wasnt in pilot, but still....I agree with SOS)
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Even if it is somewhat far-fetched, Banjo and Conker are part of the Marioverse and therefore deserve inclusions here.
#{{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.
#Per YY398. --{{User:KPH2293/Signature}} 14:59, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Per all of the above...
#{{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: Sir Grodus|Sir Grodus]] &ndash; Per SoS.
#{{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:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] While I don't belive ''Conker'' has enough tie to the Marioverse, I believe Banjo is related to the marioverse, see my comments below.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.


====Leave Banjo and Conker Articles Out of the Wiki====
====Oppose====
#{{user:Mr.Vruet/sig}} If we do that we would have arcticles on everything in the zelda series the metroid series and you get the idea....as they were all in Super Smash bros which is a crossover.
#{{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:Max2/sig}} per cobold
#{{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: Walkazo|Walkazo]] - As I see it, the ''Donkey Kong'' Series is a spin-off of ''Mario'' and therefore the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' series are spin-spin-offs. They're just to far removed from ''Mario'' to be included in ''Super '''Mario''' Wiki'' (in my opinion).
#{{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:Xzelion/Signature}} Per Cobold
#{{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:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; most of both of these series is out of Marioverse.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} '''Mario'''Wiki. '''Mario'''. Not Donkey Kong. Not Conker. Personally, I feel that extended universes should be limited to a single article per. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 02:25, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
#{{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:Pokemon DP/sig}} After hearing that thing about [[Tiptup]], I believe Banjo could make it in. Conker, however, has no relations to the series other than [[Diddy Kong Racing]], and he was even taken out in the remake, meaning he has no real relations to the DK series, thus, no relations to the Mario series.
#{{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:Cobold/sig}} - ''Conker's Bad Fur Day'' isn't a game that can be featured on a children's wiki, it has too many adult themes.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


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


{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 02:05, 15 September 2007 (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)
:OMG, I just remembered. The Conker games are very much sick, aren't they? M rated, correct? Wouldn't it be bad for the young children who come here if we make articles on the rude content in the Conker series? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
: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)
:A wiki is an encyclopedia. It is not meant to be censored, it is meant to tell information. Also, Vruet, we only make articles about those in the Smash Series., and none of those other series developed from the Mario series. {{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 02:26, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:Yeah but this wiki is full of young people so we should keep it censored aslo those series are gonna make people asking if they can upload zelda arcticles and stuff as they are in a crossover-[[User:Mr.Vruet|Mr.Vruet]] 02:37, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::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)


As Plumber said, an encyclopedia is for information. Using the "A kid could see it!" logic, any depiction of genitalia in paper encyclopedia should be censored since a kid can read it.
: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)


Conker? I am kind of neutral on it. However, I'm all for the re-inclusion of banjo content sincee Titup, a minor character in both Banjo Kazzoie and Tooie (I think he was also in pilot, but not too sure.), reappered in DKRDS.
{{@|Technetium}} That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by {{@|Mario}}) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]  


Walkazo: Well, actually, Mario could be considered a spin-off of Donkey Kong.
{{@|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)
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
:[[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)


:I know, since Mario's first game appearance was [[Donkey Kong (arcade game)|Donkey Kong]]. But as I see it, that game is more related to ''Mario'' games than it is to ''Donkey Kong'' games plot and gameplay-wise. It's just like [[Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land]], it's the first real ''Wario'' game, yet it's in Mario's name. Then there's the fact that ''Nintendo'' immediatley started making ''Mario'' games, while it took years for ''Rare'' to come out with [[Donkey Kong Country]], for all we know, they were simply recycling Nintendo's discarded Donkey Kong character, and the same might even be true for Banjo and Conker, since they came from [[Diddy Kong Racing]], Rare was just a bit more speedy in developing them in their case. All in all, it's all quite muddled. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
===Merge the Tortes===
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
* [[Chef Torte]]
* [[Torte]]


To Plumber, we can import from Rare Wiki, but only Banjo and Conker content of course.  We created that wiki, so we have the right to re-import the information.  For crossovers, I think it depends on what the crossover features.  For example, Super Smash Bros. features Mario, so it's one degree away from the Mario series. However, Wario vs. Bomberman features Wario, who is one degree away, so this crossover would be another degree away.  Maybe? Well, we can sort all that out again later, but for now crossovers will be Secondary if this proposal passes.
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.


To others, this is an encyclopedia.  We don't need to censor information for children.  It's all available on Wikipedia anyways, which I am sure many of you frequent.  And why should we censor information to children?  Don't they have a right like any other person to choose what they want to learn about? 
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.


And people have already asked if they could include other Zelda information and we simply explain they can't.  Problem solved. 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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


:Thanks for the mention, but just so you know, I'm a girl. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
====Do nothing (It's gourmet!)====


:Explain your censoring point to parents. I don't think they all think that way. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:32, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
====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)


::Quite a few adults work on this site - why should we be penalized because there are kid users too?  Why should the Super Mario Wiki be any different than Wikipedia, which has a lot of kid users but articles about fellatio, sex, rape, murder, suicide, drugs, alcohol,  etc.?  If we are to be taken seriously as a source of information, we have to get out of this child-censoring mindset.  I just think kids need to be given more credit.  They are not stupid - they have free will like any adult.  They know what is appropriate for themselves.  Children need to be given more rights, instead of being sheltered their whole lives. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
@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)


SoS, for once, I disagree. Wikipedia, one out of a hgundred users is a kid. Mariowiki, I think you are like one of 3 adults. Why should us kids be penalized because of that? {{User:Max2/sig}}
By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs]]? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:Not any more than [[Cork and Cask]] does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, {{@|Camwoodstock}}, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
::We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:::Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of [[Snifster]]s are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)
::::Well they don't really have names, they have numbers. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:51, February 2, 2025 (EST)
:::::Well, by that logic, the Tortes don't really have names, they have job titles. Point is, they're identical-looking characters with identical in-battle names, but distinct out-of-battle names and personalities. (even if No. 1 and 2 don't seem particularly different in English, I'm trusting the Legends of Localization playthrough) [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]])


:How are you penalized?  You don't have to read the articles.  And I am sure there are a lot more kid users on Wikipedia then you state.  And you don't know how many adult users visit this site, especially when blogs from adults references this site as a source of information.  Books written by adults even reference this site.  I just wish some users would keep an open mind.  -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
*[[List of implied species]]
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
*[[Soybean civilization]]
*[[Hooroglyphs]]


Let me give my opinion... Leaving out of account whether a game like ''Conker's Bad Fur Day'' would be appropriate for children - why in the world would an ''article'' about that game be not appropriate for children in any way? The article ''describes'' the game. I guess the game is M rated because of containing violence? Well... so what? The ''article'' won't contain ''any'' violence! I don't understand why you seem to confuse ''promotion for a game'' with ''information about a game''. Or do you think history lessons in school should be abolished in order to protect children from ''information'' about wars? Would be quite dumb, right? / [[User:Time Q|Time Q]] 13:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue [[Hoohooros]], but also [[Hooroglyphs]] and [[Beanstone]]s. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in ''March 2007'', actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.
:The article wouldn't contain violence, but it would possibly contain the sexual themes. Also, screenshots would have to be selected carefully. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:10, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::I agree on this; if there are screenshots which might be unsuitable for children, they should better be left out. But I don't understand why some users are against even ''creating'' such articles. / [[User:Time Q|Time Q]] 13:18, 15 September 2007 (EDT)


You both make some very good points.  We will not be writing articles promoting the game or any behaviours in the game, but merely describe them academically, and respectably (if this proposal passes that is; it's something I believe in, but will not force upon people).  It's not like we won't be sensitive to children in regards to certain material, but it doesn't need to be censored.  These articles will be purely informative, and avoid raunchiness (we will use academic terms, instead of lower language).  That's what Mario Wiki is all about - writing objective, informative articles. =) -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


I wonder... Why we couldn't create a template that would warn the reader about offensive/innapropriate content and put it on the Conker Bad fur day-related page?
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].


:We could potentially, but we don't necessarrily have to.  What is offensive to people is completely objective.  I'm sure some people would object to Daisy showing her stomach in Mario Strikers - so should she be included in this template?  Wikipedia does not have such templates, and I don't think we need it. But whatever happens happens. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.


I think people are blowing this "sensory issue" way out of proportion. As Son of Suns said, we'd be using academic terms to describe the more mature subject matter, and since this is an encyclopedia and should contain all the information pertaining to ''Mario'' as we writers can find. It's not our fault if people find one thing or another offensive, as long as we write about it in good taste we're just writing the truth. Also, as SoS pointed out, there's no telling what people are going to get fussy over: I know people (myself included) who disapprove of Mario slaughteing thousands of Goombas on his way to save Peach - that's pretty violent. Then again, so's Bowser forcing his ''children'' to fight Mario, or Ash forcing his [[Pikachu|''pet'' electric mouse]] to fight firebreathing dragons in Pokémon (and the [[Super Smash Bros.(series)|Super Smash Bros.]] series)... The point is, there's a lot more than ''Conker's Bad Fur Day'' that will get (some) people mad on this site, and we can't help that. If worst comes to worst, we can put up a general warning on the main page. That way we can be sure no parents are gonna come busting our chops, and not have to worry about what subject matter would warrent the use of a "warning template" on an individual article. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====


Max2, if they made a Mario First Person Shooter rated M, would we cover info in that? {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
====Merge none (do nothing)====
:What the? Where did that come from? Think about it logically, [[Shigeru Miyamoto]] would NEVER do that. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
:: He allowed Link to be in a Soul Calibur game, which I'm pretty sure has blood, etc. to some extent. -- [[User: Sir Grodus|Sir Grodus]]
:::Er, Twilight Princess also has that stuff, but to a lesser extent. It is M. I was talking about Mario games. Shigeru Miyamoto would never make a Mario game like that. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}


:::Soul Calibur has Ivy....and you thought [[Flurrie]] was voluptuous! Also, Mr. Miyamoto will die someday - who knows where Nintendo will take Mario (or Microsoft when they buy the rights to Mario) with him gone?  And to be fair, Conker is a pretty good squirrel - he rarely swears, and only does so when parodying popular movies many of us have seen (like the Matrix and the Terminator). -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====
::::I was fairly sure that Conker was a very bad squirrel. Either that or my Brother-in-Law lied to me. And, by Conker, I meant the series as a whole. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} And, we are not talking about Sould Caliber, that is NOT mario-related. We are talking about wether Banjo and Conker are Mario-related or not.


:::::Even if we DON'T bring Conker back, we should still bring Banjo back, and Conker was not as bad as... Some stuff... {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
==Miscellaneous==
::::::I still don't think the Banjo series should be able to make it into this. It is not related enough to the Mario series, and neither is Conker. And, what do you mean it isn't as bad as some stuff? What stuff? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
''None at the moment.''
 
Well, Conker's Bad Fur Day is rated M for a reason. But we would not be promoting the rated M material, we would be describing academically, as Wikipedia does. I do believe Banjo and Conker are related to Mario, as they went on adventures with Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong prior to the events of Diddy Kong Racing, as stated by the instruction manual. They were all buddies before the events of the game. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
:What do you mean you won't be promoting the rated M material? And, BTW, it is rated MA down here. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} However, I still don't think we should put any Conker and Banjo stuff in it.
 
::A lot of other people have already wrote about this, so look above.  Anyways, we would objectively write about the series as we do any other series, instead of saying the content is good, which is subjective and POV.  Also, DK lives in the same world as Banjo and Conker.  [[Squawks the Parrot]] even delivered letters directly to Banjo and Conker, proving they all live together in the same universe. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
:::It just seems to 3rd Party-ish to be in this Wiki. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
::::Technically, Rare was a 2nd party at the time of most of these games, so it was a part of Nintendo proper.  But now it is either a 1st or 2nd party....to Microsoft.  I'm not trying to upset you or anything.  I think the whole maturity argument is not that valid.  But if you feel that it is too far removed from Mario (you can't deny it had its origins there), that's cool with me. =) -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
I must also note there is a moral to Conker's Bad Fur Day.  It's not just empty jokes - it all leads to a very dramatic and emotional climax, where a real lesson is taught to the players. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
:::::I am just telling my thoughts on this situation. If we lose, we lose, I don't care, really. I just feel it is too distant from the Mario franchise. But, I, by myself, cannot choose wether it should be put here or not. So, whatever happens, happens. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
::::::Cool man.  I feel exactly the same way. =) -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
Just for the record, if a Mario First Person Shooter was made, we would cover it. It being a Mario game and this being a Mario wiki. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 02:18, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
 
I don't think the maturity thing is a valid oppose, as nothing should get in our way of contributing to the wiki and making more articles. If some really have a problem with a content, we could put <nowiki>{{mature}}</nowiki> on the top of the page. Also, Vruet, none of those series originated from the Smash series, so we wouldn't make any further articles about them. {{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 02:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
 
RXCUSE ME MR. DP!!! KIDS ARE OBNOXIOUS THESE DAYS!!! Forgive me, but what the H*** is THAT supposed to mean. We have hundreds of kids on hear already..... a couple weeks ago, I was one. And for the record, do you know how easy it is for a 11-12 yr. old to go onto sights based upon mature content? A MARIO WIKI will be the LAST thing Parents worry about. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:One, no swearing. Two, no flaming. Three, that is my point. If a Mario Wiki is the last thing they will worry about, how devastating would it be if they saw something like the Conker series on here? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
1. Sorry, mornings are always a bad time for me. Two. I was'nt actually FLAMIJNG him i don;t think, but his comment did insult half the users here. 3. In my opinion, they WOULDNT CARE. There's worse stuff out there then a game with a bit of gore, and little sexual innuendo in it. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
::One, its OK, but it is still not a good excuse to swear. Two, yes, you were technically flaming, and how do you know it insulted many people? Three, yes, there is worse stuff. BUT, their parents would probably think "You can go on MarioWiki, it is a safe website for you to browse", or something like that. How bad would it be if they noticed the Conker stuff, they would never allow their children back on the Wiki again. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
And, i've seen my cousin playing it, thats all there really is. I've seen worse stuff on average on any one episode of family guy, which children without cable can watch every sunday.....
As for the too far removed stuff just how too far CAN it be? The DKC series is often considered a seperate series from the Mario one, and it obviously provides a different flavor then most mario games, but it's here. What about the Donkey Konga series? It's a spin-off of a Spin-off, but we cover that. -
[[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
1. Yes I know, again sorry. 2. the users here arent insulted by being called obnoxious? O.K, maybe half the users here arent kids, but I know at least two below the per-teen level. 3. I've seen sexual innuendo, in my cartoon watching days. on Cartoon Network and Nickolodeon. WORSE STUFF then this wiki wil convey. The Conker games, I'll admit, may not be appropriate for a 7 or 8 year old to play, but the wiki articles will be appropriate for them to read. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:But, Donkey Kong has appeared in more than just one Mario-series game. And, what you just said actually further told us to leave out Conker and Banjo. You say that the Donkey Kong series should not be here because it is completely unique. If that is the case, Conker and Banjo couldn't even make it here, because their only Mario-related appearance was in a Donkey Kong game. The point is, Donkey Kong has appeared alongside Mario in more than one game, Conker and Banjo haven't. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
I did not say we should take DKC out because it's too unique. I Meant we should leave it in. Again, it all comes down to how far wer're willing to go for a spin-off.... and heres another interesting thought: Was Rare planning the Banjo and Conker games BEFORE or AFTER Diddy Kong Racing? If before, they may have made the games even if DKR was cancelled.... which would have made all the difference, as therw would have been no connection to the marioverse. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
Another thought: if we allow Banjo and Conker in here, and one day Bottles gets his own series, will we let that series in? - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:Who? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
A Banjo caharacter... that would be a spin-spin-spin-off. But, as far as i'm concerned, all things in mario's universe should be covered, and TipTup proves that banjo is indeed in Mario's universe. Conker, has no such proof that I know of, so whatever, but of Banjo we have facts that show his homeland is located in the same world as Mario and Donkey Kong's is... otherwise, how could TipTup have gotten there.? - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:I guess Banjo could make it in... barely. Conker, however, I'm not so sure about. In my opinion, they are both TOO 3rd Party-ish. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
Maybe we should make a third category... and, for the record, Tiptup's appearence in BK and BT was'nt just a cameo, he was a tangible character that gave you rewards. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:Well, after hearing that, I guess Banjo could be allowed. However, er, isn't their a Banjo game coming out for the XBox 360? If so, what should we do about that? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} You still don't have my vote on putting Conker here.
 
Ummm... put the info on here? this is'nt a nintendo only wiki, we have info on games like Hotel MArio, even though there not Nintendo developed. Heck, we could even make an article on Microsoft and the XB360, if this passes through. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
Conker's a bit harder to place, i'll admit... - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
And, heres a fun fact: There [[Yoshi's Safari|HAS]] been a MArio FPS. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
I would agree to add Banjo but leave Conker out, not because of "It's too mature!. stuff (Which for me, is total b****ck.) but rather because there is no tie to the Marioverse past his appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. - [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid, I reallty thinkthis need a 3rd option.]]
 
There... two new options. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
:Good. Man, I never thought this would become the Proposals biggest argument yet. :P {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
Cobold Max2 & Xzelion: Since an option to add Banjo content but leave Conker out have been added, and your reasons for opposing are against Conker, could you please change your votes, or the reasons behind them?
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
SOS, have you read ANY of these reasons? why did you take the two new things out. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
:You can't change the proposal like that. Banjo and Conker are friends. Their series emerged from Diddy Kong Racing, neither had a franchise before. Tiptup is not a Banjo character per-se, he can be considered a cameo character. I moved all votes to oppose, so you may have to change your comments or votes. Just pick yes to both or no to both. If you accepte one you have to accept the other, as Tiptup is a cameo character. Also, Banjo and Kazooie appear in the Conker series, so those two series are connected that way. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
BJ is a stuffed head and Kazooie's an umbrella, THATS a cameo. But You can TALK to Tiptup, and he gives you items. Thats not a cameo. And also, is'nt this supposed to be a democracy? three users agree with this idea, but you don't so you can remove it? Did'nt you leave a few months back because another user was doing the same thing?!. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
From an edit summaries: "It's either both or neither, as Banjo, Conker, Donkey Kong, and Diddy Kong are friends" + :You can't change the proposal like that. Banjo and Conker are friends. Their series emerged from Diddy Kong Racing, neither had a franchise before. Tiptup is not a Banjo character per-se, he can be considered a cameo character. I moved all votes to oppose, so you may have to change your comments or votes. Just pick yes Banjo and Kazooie appear in the Conker series, so those two series are connected that way. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] to both or no to both. If you accepte one you have to accept the other, as Tiptup is a cameo character. Also,
 
The fact than they are "friends" is irrevalant (plus, it sound retarded.), Conker is completly absent [[Diddy Kong Racing DS]], a remake of the original, some (including me) think that remake are of an higher level of canon than the original game, however, even if Banjo himself is not present, he still somehow have tie to the Marioverse since Titup, a minor Banjo character made an appearance in DKRDS, if they are not in the same world, how he managed to get there? However, the same can't be said for Conker, who has nothing to conect him to the Marioverse appart for his (rectconed) appearance in Diddy Kong Racing.
 
Sincerely - [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
You have to wait for this proposal to expire before creating a completely different one. This is the proposal. Users can't just go around changing every proposal, adding millions of options. I gave these two options, pick one or neither. Also, [[Slippa]]s appear in ''Conker's Pocket Tales''. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
:Really, is he specifficaly named "Slippa"? <s>That change everything, then.</s> Actually, no, it don't. Because in both universe exist a simmilar creature/character don't mean the two are connected, it's the same thing as Tricky, really.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
 
Are they REFFERED to as Slippas? If so, then maybe... although a species is different then a character in some ways. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
:Now that I have to do some research on.  It's pretty clear that enemies such as [[Slippa]]s and [[Army]]s are in the game.  But sometimes things aren't named, so let my research it.  But again, this is the proposal, so please adjust your votes.  And I think the fact that Donkey Kong, not simply Diddy Kong, but Donkey Kong himself went on adventures with Conker is very notable, just as is him advanturing with Banjo.  If that connection wasn't there, I wouldn't support this proposal.  -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
When did Donkey Kong go "adventuring with Conker"? and Actually, Glowsquid has a point. A certain type of fish may exist in both North America and Australia, but that deosnt mean it had to start out on either. A man named joe coolex, though can only be in one place at one thime: There can only be one of him. The same is true with the Slippas and tippy. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
I just did some research - Armies could not be in CPT because it was released BEFORE DK64 ever came out. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
: Uh, Army appeared in DKC, a big army was a boss in DK64 thought.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
Still, the fact than some creatures in Conker Tales are simmilar to other DK creatures is for me, irevalant. Creature that looked, acted and (Not sure) named exactly after the Chain-Chomps appeared in a few Zelda games as enemies. Should we star doing Zelda article because of that? [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
Armies are in Donkey Kong Country.
   
Banjo: Even before the start of his future partnership with Kazooie, Banjo isn't one to turn down the chance of an adventure. So when Squawks brings the message from his pal Diddy Kong, the Honey Bear stuffs a few things into his trusty backpack and takes to his heels.
 
Conker: Another friend made by Diddy Kong on one of his endless adventures with Donkey Kong, Conker is also an exploration nut who'll jump at any chance to break free of a squirrel's less than exciting daily routine. He's eager to join with Banjo as the bear passes through.  + 
 
This proves a connection between Diddy Kong, Donkey Kong, Conker, and Banjo. Plus Squawks the Parrot delivers letters to Conker and Banjo, as stated in the story. The parrot does not deliver a letter to Timber or Tiptup or any other character, as the rest besides Krunch live on Timber's Island. Diddy Kong wants extra help, so he sends Squawks to the homes of Banjo and Conker, who do not live on Timber's Island.  The Banjo and Conker series emerged from the Donkey Kong series.  If DKR was a flop, the Banjo and Conker series may have not been created.  It's not all about characters, it's about where franchises come from.  The WarioWare series comes from the Wario and Mario series, but no WarioWare characters have ever appeared in a Mario game.  Does that mean we don't include those characters?  No Conker characters have appeared in a Donkey Kong game.  It's the same thing.
 
And the same species cannot emerge in two different places. Law of natural selection prevents that. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
How does that little selection prove anything? Donkey is'nt even MENTIONED in Banjo's profile. and snakes are a very common basis for enemies, CPT and DKC have very different graphical styles, I see no way for you to conclude that these snames in Conker's Pocket Tales are Slippas. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
:I thought Banjo was already taken care of because of Tiptup. ;) -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
Should the WarioWare series be removed from the wiki as Wario is the only major connection? -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
For what we know, Banjo and COnker games may have been in making before Diddy Kong Racing, wheter Diddy Kong Racing may have allowed these two guys to have a game is pure speculation. Unlike Conker, The Wario Ware character didn't get removed in a remake of thhe original game.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
:There hasn't been a remake of a WarioWare game.  Plus, according to official wiki policy, originals are as valid as remakes in terms of canon, so these are moot points. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
::Actually, it did. Mega Party game on the Gamecube. Anyway, I'm out of here, we are all for the re-inclusion of Banjo content (And I'm sure we don't mind Conker,either.), and yet we are fighting about who should be in and who is not, that's ridiculous.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
I'm not really arguing with you, SOS, but while the link between Banjo and DK is a Character, Conker's link is practically nothing. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
Think in terms of franchises.  Say [[Mona]] got a game that took place in a new world, with all new characters, with no references to Wario or anything else from the WarioWare series, we would cover that series, right?
 
Also, I think I am upset that my proposal was changed.  I have no hard feelings against anyone, but you can't just subvert the whole proposal.  If you just want Banjo, you'll have to oppose this proposal then start a new one later.  -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
:Mona is a big part of the WW series so it only seems right that we'd include her spin-spin-off game, and Banjo and Conker were a big part of [[Diddy Kong Racing]], so her series' inclusion would mean their spin-spin-offs would have to be included too. An interesting dilemma, however I think it sould depend on how similar the ''Mona'' series was to [[WarioWare]], if it were as disimilar as ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' are to ''Donkey Kong'' games I'd say we should leave her out. But that's all theoretical and all we're dealing with is ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'', and I stand by my opinion that they are too far removed from ''Mario'' and shouldn't be included any more than they are now. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
 
Right. I'm NOT disagreeing, again (you'll notice my vote is still in the C&B section). The reason those other options were created were to suit some users who felt that way. (Many other proposals, I will point out, have more than one option) I still agree with putting Banjo & Conker in the wiki. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
 
I know.  Again, this is the proposal I wanted.  If you want something different, wait until this proposal expires.  Okay.  New start. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
Mario was briefly mentioned in ''Banjo & Kazzoie'', just wanted to point that out.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
:That's true.  What I love about this proposal is that we are finding all these connections.  Like I said above, I wanted to learn how people feel about Banjo and Conker content on this wiki.  It's very interesting to hear everyone's viewpoints and counterpoints.  That was my main stimulus for creating this proposal.  -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
A poster of Berri can be found in ''Banjo-Tooie''. -- [[User: Sir Grodus|Sir Grodus]]
 
I'd just like to address some earlier statements: [[WarioWare]] isn't really a spin-off of the ''Wario'' series, since it still stars Wario. I think of it as a sorta sub-series, like [[Donkey Konga]] is for ''Donkey Kong''. Wario and Donkey Kong are clearly main characters in the Marioverse, so there should be no question about whether or not these sub-series should be included. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
 
I find kind of funny how everyone is complaining about the possibly offensive content on the Conker-related page, and yet, the [[Bob Hoskins]] page is not censored.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
Hey, kids? All this talk about who was in what is irrelevent. OMG, Chain Chomp-like characters in a Zelda game? That's called a cameo, put it in the trivia section for Chain Chomp.
 
This is getting out of hand. The proposal is for Conker and Donkey Kong, focus on the simple part of that for now. If it comes to pass that all is readded, we can debate about the inclusion of mature content and Tiptup then. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 18:40, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
 
<!-- ADD NEW TEXT BEFORE THE ENDING }} -->
}}
 
== Removals ==
=== Cool User Lists ===
Many users have a section on their userpage listing other community members they like. Often there is unnecessary conflict and even (pardon) stupid flaming when a user removes someone from this list. I say we get rid of all of these sections &ndash; there's no need to hurt anyone's feelings over any one of these. True friends &ndash; online or offline &ndash; can't be simply added or removed from your life on a list. We have a good group dynamic overall in our community, so let's not wreck it. Another option is to rename & rephrase all these lists so they are neutral, such as "User Neighbors I Know", though removing users could still bring questions and trouble.
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br/>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 19 September
 
==== Delete Them All ====
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; reasons in description above.
#{{User:Xzelion/Signature}} saying some people are cool and leaving some out is a recipe for bad blood.
#[[User:Bastila Shan|Bastila Shan]] You guys are right,
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Agreed, I removed my Cool Users list already.
#{{User:Ghost_Jam/sig}} If the wiki had a few hundred active members, then I could see sections like these working. The way it is, no.
# [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Xzelion and Ghost Jam.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} - After reading the above... Per all the other dudes... *Goes to delete his*
#[[User:Fixitup]] - Makes perfect sense to remove them.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Even a neutral one will one day cause a problem somewhere.
#{{User:Toadbert101/sig|OFF WITH THIER HEADS!}} Wayo is right. You couldn't believe how long I wiated to be in one,seems right not to make people do that like me.
#{{User:WarioLoaf/sig}} - i will remove mine right now. I agree fully.
#[[User:The K|The]] [[User talk:The K|K]] I agree. These lists might hurt someone's feelings.
 
==== Rephrase for Neutrality ====
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} - per my comments.
#[[User:Nasakid|Zach121]]- I think that they should change the name to wiki friends
#{{User:King Mario/sig}}-I'll just descibe if I met/talked to them and how I helped them or how they helped me.
#{{User:Lario/sig}} Change name like alll guys above
#{{User:3dejong/sig|no need to totally DELETE it. Dude.}}
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}-What's wrong with having one. Look at mine! Mine is neutral.
 
==== Keep As Is ====
#{{User:Max2/sig}} The only people who flame about these things are the people who don't edit.
#--[[User:Luigibros2|Luigibros2]] 21:00, 13 September 2007 (EDT) As long as it ain't flameing or swearing at another user it's fine.
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Cool User lists were made simply to list friends and make others feel liked. It's silly to start flame wars over them, and that seems like something very few people here would do.
#{{User:Peachycakes 3.14/sig}} 07:35, 18 September 2007 (EDT) Per Yellow Yoshi
 
==== Comments ====
 
Could we do something like, users we've come across? or at least something like that. {{User:Master Crash/sig}}
:That would be the option "Rephrase for Neutrality". - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:26, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
 
oh.....{{User:Master Crash/sig}}
 
While I agree that we should nuke the cool user list, I have the impression it would create a flame war as bad as the one over the removal of featured article. Thus, I'm kind of neutral on it.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
:To be honest it doesn't matter if we rename it or not, everyone knows what is it, no-mater what the name, at this point renaming it would be useless. {{User:Xzelion/Signature}}
::Agreed. For something like this to work and not be a problem, we would need a far larger number of active users than we currently do. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 17:46, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
 
can i do two? 0_o
 
{{User:Master Crash/sig}}
 
== Changes ==
===New Subject Articles===
This proposal would put a bit stricter standards on what articles can be created on new subjects (i.e. those with the [[:Template: Newsubject|Newsubject template]]).  While most are fine, such as the ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' articles, some are not.  I am mostly referring to the mass of fan conjecturally named ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' articles.  Many creatures and planets are given conjectural names, despite the fact they may disappear entirely, or may never be officially named (the planets may just be a part of greater officially named galaxies, and should just be described in the galaxy article in the first place).  This proposal '''would not delete''' all these articles.  They will stay until they can be organized when ''Super Mario Galaxy'' and other games are released.  However, if this proposal passes, all new subject articles '''will be regulated''' from that point on.  The criteria would be that the subject must be '''officially named''' by some means.  Although these names are still considered conjecture until the game is released, they are still officially conjectured names, and will have a name (even if it's changed) when the game is released.  All other conjectural information that is not officially named should go in the unreleased game's article (or in the articles of species, characters, places, etc.).  The information is fine, but it's not article worthy.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 24 September 2007
 
====Regulate the Creation of New Subject Articles====
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
#{{User:Peachycakes 3.14/sig}} 10:04, 17 September 2007 (EDT) Here here, I've been wanting a crackdown on those Super Mario Galaxy articles for a long time.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} Per above. I also don't like this "cosmic species" concept, when it has never been said that the guys are indeed from a different species.
#[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] Completly agree.  I find ridiculous that we have an article on [[Cosmic Tox Box]], which act exactly like a regular [[Tox Box]], simply because it's appear in Super Mario Galaxy.
 
====Allow the Creation of Fan Named New Subject Articles====
 
====Comments====
Again, I will note this proposal will not delete all these articles in one fell swoop.  You can argue on individual talk pages if you think a certain article should be merged, and take action if there is a consensus.  Or you can just wait for the game to come out before making changes.  But if this proposal passes, we won't allow something like this ''Super Mario Galaxy'' article fiasco happen again. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
=== Subsized Categorys===
Every once in a while, a category that can have too few enteries shows up. Such as Category:X-Naut's Weapons (Though it's deleted), so I think that those should be prevented like stub articles.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Lario|Lario]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 22 September 2007
 
==== Prevent Them ====
#{{User:Lario/sig}} This is important
==== Keep Them ====
# They are still categories. I think that stuff like that should exist if it's not only one article. {{User:Smiddle/sig}} 13:24, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
 
====Comments====
I think we should just do a case by case basis, like new articles.  We ask: "Is there enough for its inclusion?"  There's no way to prevent someone from creating categories - we just have to decide if they are needed when it happens.  I don't think this proposal can do much, so I am not voting either way. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
:I agree. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
 
===Improvement Drive Idea===
I think we should have a project similar to Featured Articles and the Pipe Plaza, where, instead of pointing out the ''best'' articles, we point out the ones that need Work, so users can all work on one project, instead of everyone editing the "featured article" status ones, and leaving articles like [[Doopliss]] un-edited.
 
The process would be similar to Featured Articles. We make a new page about the project, where we come together and list the articles we think are shortest, but have potential. Then, we might make a box on the main page to show what the article is. Each article will get one week on the main page, again, similar to Featured Articles.
 
I know no-one may say yes cause I'm not someone who edits, but I think this would help users, ecspecially new users, who may be nervous making an article. This does not mean we will have stub articles, and I frankly think this project will prevent them.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User: Max2|Max2]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 22 September 2007
 
==== Give it a Try ====
#{{User:Max2/sig}} Supporter, reasons given above
#{{User:Super mario97/sig}}
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Sounds like a good idea!
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}-Per Max2
#[[User:Minimariolover10|Minimariolover10]] I agree.  It won't fail. Plus, we have no idea what to edit, and recently messages aren't replying fast.
#{{User:Peachycakes 3.14/sig}} 06:57, 17 September 2007 (EDT) I'll help, it seems like a neat idea.
#<span style="white-space: nowrap">[[Image:Triforce.gif|30 px]][[User:CaptainN|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:#009900;">'''CaptainN'''</span>]][[Image:Triforce.gif|30 px]]</span> I think that would help!
 
====Nah====
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} These projects always seem to fail. I don't think we're ready for it yet.
 
====Comments====
Are you thinking about something like [[MarioWiki: PAIR]]; or an Improvement Drive, where we pick one article a week or month, feature it somewhere and encourage all users to work on it?  Or are you thinking something else?  It would be nice to get a better sense of what you are thinking, cause I am all for helping users getting active and making improvements. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
Yeah, an Improvement Drive. That's exactly what I mean! {{User:Max2/sig}}
 
Okay.  I think you need to clarify some points.  You should state above what this would entaiil exactly.  For starters, you can answer these questions and put them in the proposal itself.  Would users vote for an article to be improved (the one with the most votes gets featured)?  Would the article be featured for a week, a month, etc.?  And would the article be featured on the main page (like, This Week (or month)'s Collaboration is: so and so) with a link to that page? -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
Ok. Is this clarified enough? {{User:Max2/sig}} I added descriptions of the aspects of the project, how to set it up, and why I think it would work.
 
:Yes.  That makes sense.  One more question: would one of the secondary goals be to get improvement drive articles to FA standards, if the subject is notable? (An aside: even Doopliss is a notable subject - it could become an FA.) -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
Well, as most users say, the goal for every article would be to become an FA. i'm ont saying we only improve articles that can be FA articles, this is mainly just to cut back on stubs and short articles. {{User:Max2/sig}}
 
:That makes sense.  I wish you the best of luck with this project.  I don't know how I feel about this yet, as previous improvement drive/collaboration projects have failed.  We'll see what happens. =) -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
== Merges and Splits ==
=== Mario Cartoons: Split Multiple Episode Pages ===
 
Some of ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' cartoon articles are seperated by what cartoon episode they appeared with, such as the article [[King Mario of Cramalot / Day of the Orphan]].  This proposal would split these articles into two independent articles.  Each episode is independently named, and in re-releases of the series, such as on video and DVD, the episodes are often grouped differently from the original television release, showing that the pairings are rather arbitrary.  While it should be noted what episode each one originally appeared with, I feel each cartoon should have its own article.  It's strange having an article that is split in two sections that are basically completely unrelated.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] <br>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 21 September
 
==== Split these Articles ====
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
# Per Son of Suns; {{User:Xzelion/Signature}}
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Agreed. They are two entirely differant episodes, with nothing to do with each other.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Per all the ones on my side
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per everyone above.
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Per SoS.
# -- [[User: Sir Grodus|Sir Grodus]] &ndash; Per Son of Suns; The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 articles are seperate, so I guess these should be too.
#[[User: Booster|Booster]] - Per everyone else. The two stories are unrelated. I'd be willing to fix things up a bit once this proposal goes through.
#{{User:Toadbert101/sig|Sounds good.}}
 
==== Keep them Merged ====
 
#For "cartoon-learners", I think the should only spend half the time, and I find it fine. [[User:Minimariolover10|Minimariolover10]]
 
==== Comments ====
 
Minimariolover10: Could you expand on your comment about ''cartoon-learners''. Most of the ''Mario'' cartoon episodes were "half-episodes" (half of the half-hour show), but they all have plots and deserve their own articles. I couldn't even find an episode called ''cartoon-learners''... - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
 
If this proposal goes through (and it probably will), I think that we should integrate the live-action segments from ''The Legend of Zelda'' cartoons into the chronology of the segments from the Mario cartoon episodes, like so:
 
# Neatness Counts
# Day of the Orphan
# All Steamed Up
# Marianne and Luigeena
# Slime Busters
# The Mario Monster Mash
And so on, meaning that every fifth segment would be from the Legend of Zelda, for a total of sixty-five segments. -- [[User: Booster|Booster]]
 
:I just want to state this is not part of the proposal, but users can debate this issue on article talk pages (or here - whatever; I'm just saying any consensus reached on this issue is distinct from the actual proposal). -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
===Recipes Pages===
Almost all of the Recipe Articles are short and state:
*What Game
*What Effect
*How to get the item
*Picture
 
All which would be included in a table. [[User:SpikeKnifeNeedleSword/Recipes|Table shown here, Credit to SpikeKnifeNeedleSword]] for the design. This would work such as the [[Badges]] page. Lets face it they're too minor and too many of them.
 
'''Proposer:''' {{user:Xzelion/Signature}} (started by {{user|SpikeKnifeNeedleSword}}) <br/>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 19 September
 
====Merge====
# {{User:Xzelion/Signature}} My Reasons are stated above.
#[[User:Bastila Shan|Bastila Shan]] Xzelion is right
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Though items which can be gotten without cooking, such as the [[Boo's Sheet]], should still have their own article.
 
====Keep Separate====
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - As officially named items they should be kept.  They have just as much info as any other item in the series.  They are exactly the same as regular items: what game, what effect, how to get the item, and a picture.  Look at the [[Strange Leaf]] article, a normal item used for recipes.  It is exactly what is in a recipe article, or any other item article for that matter.
#{{User:Moogle/sig}} - We have articles for other items, dont we? D:
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} All items should get an article, since a lot of them can be gotten by cooking, AND by finding them somewhere not to mention some other reason... *Talks for hours*.
#{{User:Aipom/sig}} Per SoS.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Per that Pokemon
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Per SoS.
#[[User: Booster|Booster]] - Per SoS. They qualify for seperate articles, as they are officially named, and they have different effects, unlike say Wario game treasures.
#[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] - Per Booster.
 
====Comments====
Son of Sun: Your example would be a little more convincing if you didn't purposely choose a stub. For normal items, you can talk about were they are found, if they are revallant to the plot (Like the [[Dried Shroom]])  ,how you can obtain them apart for beating up random enemy, and how they can be used for cooking. For a recipe, you simply say which item can be used for cooking them and their effects, deffinately a table job IMO.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
I think there's been some confusion between recipes and food items. As far as I know, Recipes are "Item 1 + Item 2 = Item 3", not the food items involved, which is what seems to be the common belief (Food Items are even categorized as Recipies, which makes '''no''' sence). I'll use the [[Dried Shroom]] article to highlight my point: The text part is about the '''item''' Dried Shroom, and the "Recipes" secion is a list of the '''recipes''' it's used in. Make a list of the ''recipes'', but keep the articles about the ''items''. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
 
Look at the [[Shroom Steak]] article. There's numerous ways to make one. If we were to list all possible ways of making each item, the chart would be huge. Also, a list makes it harder to describe items in detail, such as is it worth the money to cook, or is it unworthy, and should only be made once just for the recipe log? [[User: Booster|Booster]]
 
There are problems on with both solutions. The current way, we have a high number of articles that are just a few words shy of stub-status (EX: [[Fried Shroom]]). The other way, we end up with a handful of very, very long articles (EX: [[Shroom Steak]]). We need to find a middle ground. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:01, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
 
=== List of Mario Kart Sponsor ===
 
Some day ago, Wayoshi deleted an article about Wario Mall, an organization briefly mentioned on a spot in Mario:Kart DS. The Mario Kart series is FULL of random sponsors. I thought we could create a list of these organization of one page, since they do exist, but aren't major enough to have their own articles.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] <br>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 19 September
 
==== Create that list ====
#[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
# {{User:Xzelion/Signature}} Per Glowsquid
# [[User:Bastila Shan|Bastila Shan]] What gofer Said
# {{User:Cobold/sig}} - Too minor to warrant articles.
# [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]- Good idea.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} - Sounds like a neat idea!
#{{User:Aipom/sig}} Per Glowsquid.
#[[User:Snack|Snack]] 20:55, 14 September 2007 (EDT) Sounds like a great idea. Like Cobold said, they are way too minor to have their own articles, but one big list of them would be great.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 02:10, 15 September 2007 (EDT) I think I was going to do this a long time ago, but wasn't sure if they should be on a list or not. Now I've made my decision.
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; This is a great idea; Mario Kart sponsors aren't worthy of their own articles, but a list would be fine.
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} Ya, i've always wanted somethin like this.
 
==== Nay ====
 
==== Comments ====
 
== Miscellaneous ==
''No current proposals.''

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

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

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3

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

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

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

Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)

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

Keep at 4 (forced to four!)

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

Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)

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

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

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge the Tortes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

Do nothing (It's gourmet!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The glyphs are actually seen, though.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

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