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>
''None at the moment.''
<br clear="all">
{| 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>
==New features==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?
##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).
I have several pitches for you.


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


__TOC__
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)


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


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


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


Here are the details of the proposal that would go into effect:
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.


*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.
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
*Banjo and Conker series would be added as Tertiary Importance to the [[MarioWiki: Importance Policy|Importance Policy]].
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.
*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>
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 21 September 2007


====Recreate Banjo and Conker Articles====
''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - I am the proposer and I have included ''some'' of my reasons above.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Never thought they should have gone in the first place.
#[[User: Ultimatetoad]] (nope tiptup wasnt in pilot, but still....I agree with SOS)
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Even if it is somewhat far-fetched, Banjo and Conker are part of the Marioverse and therefore deserve inclusions here.
#Per YY398. --{{User:KPH2293/Signature}} 14:59, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Per all of the above...
# -- [[User: Sir Grodus|Sir Grodus]] &ndash; Per SoS.
#[[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.


====Leave Banjo and Conker Articles Out of the Wiki====
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
#{{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.
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.
#{{User:Max2/sig}} per cobold
#[[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:Xzelion/Signature}} Per Cobold
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; most of both of these series is out of Marioverse.
#{{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: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: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:Master Crash/sig}} per walkazo!


====Comments====
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.
{{scroll box|content=
I agree on everything you have said except two things you may want to take into consideration
#We should Import them from the Rare Wiki at Wikia since they may have been lengthened a little in there time there.
#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
 
{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 02:05, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
: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}}
: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)
: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)
 
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.
 
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.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
Walkazo: Well, actually, Mario could be considered a spin-off of Donkey Kong.
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
: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]]
 
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.
 
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? 
 
And people have already asked if they could include other Zelda information and we simply explain they can't. Problem solved. 
 
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]]


:Thanks for the mention, but just so you know, I'm a girl. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT


:Explain your censoring point to parents. I don't think they all think that way. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:32, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
====Option Zero====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
#{{User|Arend}} Per Porple.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per porplemontage.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.


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


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


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


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)
====Option Four====
: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]]
 
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?
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
 
: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]]
 
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]]
 
Max2, if they made a Mario First Person Shooter rated M, would we cover info in that? {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
: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]]
::::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}}
::::::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}}
 
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]]
 
I havn't seen a flame war, yet, but its stupid to fight over something like this!
 
{{User:Master Crash/sig}}
:Fg flamed Glowsquid in chat. {{User:Xzelion/Signature}}
: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}}
:What? {{User:Xzelion/Signature}}
 
== 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====
====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]]
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)
 
=== 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 don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I 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]]
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I agree. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)


===Improvement Drive Idea===
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)
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.
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


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


'''Proposer:''' [[User: Max2|Max2]]<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 22 September 2007


==== Give it a Try ====
====Support====
#{{User:Max2/sig}} Supporter, reasons given above
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User:Super mario97/sig}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Sounds like a good idea!
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}-Per Max2
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#[[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|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User:Peachycakes 3.14/sig}} 06:57, 17 September 2007 (EDT) I'll help, it seems like a neat idea.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#<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!
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} I'm voting for this.
#{{User|Fakename123}} Per Hewer.


====Nah====
====Oppose====
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} These projects always seem to fail. I don't think we're ready for it yet.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Pertendo101.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{user|wildgoosespeeder}} Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon <nowiki>[[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']]</nowiki>, unless you mean to use <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}</nowiki>, which does work on the category page.
#{{user|Fun With Despair}} Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
#{{User|Arend}} I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki>, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced  by the system to be displayed in italics when they're ''redirects'' (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were ''all'' displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.


====Comments====
====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]]
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


Yeah, an Improvement Drive. That's exactly what I mean! {{User:Max2/sig}}
@wildgoosespeeder: The intention of the proposal is just to add italic titles to the category pages themselves.<br>@Fun With Despair: I don't see how copy-pasting a template onto a bunch of categories is such a big ordeal? We've certainly had proposals that'd take [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Require citations for names in other languages|way more work]] that have passed, I don't think it's a good reason for opposing something.<br>@Arend: Everything you said about categories not displaying the italics in certain contexts or only displaying them if they're redirects also applies to articles, and yet those are allowed to have italic titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:51, March 11, 2025 (EDT)


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


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


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


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


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


== Merges and Splits ==
I offer three options:
=== Mario Cartoons: Split Multiple Episode Pages ===
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''


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


'''Proposer:''' [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] <br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 21 September
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==== Split these Articles ====
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
# Per Son of Suns; {{User:Xzelion/Signature}}
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Agreed. They are two entirely differant episodes, with nothing to do with each other.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Per all the ones on my side
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per everyone above.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Per SoS.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
# -- [[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|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#[[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|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User:Toadbert101/sig|Sounds good.}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. death to the smash bros lists
#{{User|Mario}} Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.


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


#For "cartoon-learners", I think the should only spend half the time, and I find it fine. [[User:Minimariolover10|Minimariolover10]]
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====


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


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


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]]
This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
:Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)


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)
===Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one===
{{early notice|March 17, 2025}}
When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for [[Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards)]].
It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.


=== List of Mario Kart Sponsor ===
To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one.
That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.


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.
The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion.
If this proposal passes, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Gallery_talk:Donkey_Kong_Card_Game_(trading_cards)&oldid=4730155 the aforementioned page] would look [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Jdtendo/Bacassab&oldid=4776920 like this].


'''Proposer:''' [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] <br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 19 September
'''Deadline''': March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==== Create that list ====
====Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one====
#[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal
# {{User:Xzelion/Signature}} Per Glowsquid
#{{User|Technetium}} Good idea
# [[User:Bastila Shan|Bastila Shan]] What gofer Said
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
# {{User:Cobold/sig}} - Too minor to warrant articles.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems useful for navigation!
# [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]- Good idea.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} - Sounds like a neat idea!
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all! very good idea
#{{User:Aipom/sig}} Per Glowsquid.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} per all. That has always bothered me.
#[[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|Ahemtoday}} Very good to establish consistency.
#{{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|Nelsonic}} Per all.
#{{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|Rykitu}} Per all. Finally consistency.
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} Ya, i've always wanted somethin like this.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} The fact there are no headings on the first topics of talk pages annoys me so much 😤


==== Nay ====
====Oppose: don't add headings to topics====


==== Comments ====
====Comments (first topic heading)====


== Miscellaneous ==
==Miscellaneous==
''No current proposals.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 18:16, March 12, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, March 13rd, 03:57 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

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

I have several pitches for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option Zero

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) perple montage
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the worst thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the whole wiki. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
  5. Arend (talk) Per Porple.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per porplemontage.
  7. Salmancer (talk) Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.

Option One

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

Option Two

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

Option Three

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

Option Four

Comments

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

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

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think slightly slanted text is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that is there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
  4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  5. Salmancer (talk) It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
  6. Hewer (talk) The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put Template:Italic title on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Hewer
  8. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) sure, for consistencies sake
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer, then.
  10. Scrooge200 (talk) Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.
  11. Weegie baby (talk) I'm voting for this.
  12. Fakename123 (talk) Per Hewer.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) Pertendo101.
  10. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  11. wildgoosespeeder (talk) Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon [[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']], unless you mean to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}, which does work on the category page.
  12. Fun With Despair (talk) Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
  13. Arend (talk) I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced by the system to be displayed in italics when they're redirects (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were all displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.

Comments

@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)

Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using {{Italic title}}, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do not serve a utility purpose, such as the various "users that know a given language" categories.
As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be that hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]" instead of just "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "[[Category:" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)

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

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

@wildgoosespeeder: The intention of the proposal is just to add italic titles to the category pages themselves.
@Fun With Despair: I don't see how copy-pasting a template onto a bunch of categories is such a big ordeal? We've certainly had proposals that'd take way more work that have passed, I don't think it's a good reason for opposing something.
@Arend: Everything you said about categories not displaying the italics in certain contexts or only displaying them if they're redirects also applies to articles, and yet those are allowed to have italic titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:51, March 11, 2025 (EDT)

Introducing the crossover article

The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

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

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

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

frog man!
green lad!

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

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

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

I offer three options:

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

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

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

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

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

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

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

Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles

Crossover comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 17, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards). It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.

To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one. That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.

The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion. If this proposal passes, the aforementioned page would look like this.

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal
  2. Technetium (talk) Good idea
  3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Seems useful for navigation!
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all! very good idea
  7. LadySophie17 (talk) per all. That has always bothered me.
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) Very good to establish consistency.
  9. Nelsonic (talk) Per all.
  10. Rykitu (talk) Per all. Finally consistency.
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  12. Weegie baby (talk) The fact there are no headings on the first topics of talk pages annoys me so much 😤

Oppose: don't add headings to topics

Comments (first topic heading)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4780115"