MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Comments: Articles are what we are presenting to the public. Categories are not.)
 
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.
===Introduce a new type of proposal===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|this proposal]], which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 this old proposal attempt] for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?
##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).
My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named '''poll proposals'''.
*Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.
*Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
**Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
*Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
*Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
*Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.


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


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


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT


== New Features ==
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Neat idea, per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments on proposal proposal====
Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a ''lot'' more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of <nowiki>{{For}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Against}}</nowiki> templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use <nowiki>{{User}}</nowiki> to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need ''something'' to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
 
I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into [[Category_talk:Music#Proposal:_Reorganize_this_category|three]] [[Category_talk:Musical_groups#Change_into_a_category_for_musical_groups|separate]] [[Category_talk:Sound_tests#Rename_to_.22Sound_tests.22|ones]] myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave], but I can't really envision what [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|your other example]] would look like as a poll proposal. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for [[List of references in the Super Mario franchise]], and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for [[Dotted-Line Block]], options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from ''SMBW''", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)
 
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
 
==Changes==
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
 
If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.
 
This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT


=== Question of the Day ===
====Support====
I find the "Quote of the Moment" boring. I see something different every time, and yet see repeats just as much. How about having a "Question of the Day" on the main page instead? That might make viewers more interested. I've got quite a bit of questions for asking to start you guys up:
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
*"Why does Peach's castle look different every game?"
#{{User|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
*"Why are there always new places in the Mushroom Kingdom replacing the old areas in each game?"
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
*"Why does Bowser always kidnap Peach?"
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
*"Why does Mario live in a small cottage instead of his castle?"
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
*"What makes Wario so greedy?"
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
*"What is the point to having Waluigi around?"
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
*"When will Daisy be part in another adventure game?"
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
*"What makes Bowser King of the Koopas?"
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
*"Just because places are named after characters, does that mean that those particular characters own them? (examples: does Mario own Mario Circut, or does Luigi own Luigi's Engine Room?)
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
*"Why are there so many mushrooms in places where they are not famous for mushrooms?" (examples: Flipside, Rougeport, Beanbean, etc;)
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
*"Why was Donkey Kong taken out of the Mario Party sereis as a playable character?"
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.
*"Why do enemies have different names in some games?"
*"How are Goombas able to hold things when they have no arms?"
*"Why is Peach the "chosen one" for the game's plot (and therefore is kiddnapped)?"
*"Why do Dry Bones that stand up wear gloves when their living counterparts do not?"
*"When characters get flattened, why do they get TOTALLY flattened (as paper)? They are not made of putty!"
*"What makes objects like platforms and blocks float in the air?"
*"Why are there so many blocks?"
*"Why are there items in one game have the same effect as other items in another game? (examples: Fright Jar-Fright Mask, Repel Jel-Boo's Sheet)"
*"Do those spiked shells on Bowser, the Koopalings, or Koopa Kid mean ANYTHING?"
*"Why does Luigi not live in his mansion?"
*"Why did Prof. E. Gadd invent the Hydrogush to help Mario and Luigi when he could have just use F.L.U.D.D.?"
*"Where are all the humans?"
*"What would life have been like if Kamek succeeded in disposing the Mario Bros.?"
*"If characters in the video game world are playing video games of past plots, would they be considered true stories?"
*"What becomes of enemies that have been turned into eggs by Yoshi, then used?"


These are just a few that I was able to think up, but others may participate as well with their own questions. These are not questions of how much people know about the Marioverse games, just food for thought (so the title could be called "Questionable Question") One question a day, and these questions (from above) alone will last the feature 26 days. Each one can be put into the archives after the day is done, if wanted. So, what do you think? (please do not put the questions up on the main page if this proposal is to be put on the latest proposal section of the main page. It'll spoil everything.)
====Oppose====
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Green Star.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} per Green Star.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


{{User:Mrbenio/sig}} 19:52, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
====Comments====
{{@|Nintendo101}} Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Nintendo101}} The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, '''not''' others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::::I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::::My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a '''lot'''. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you ''are'' allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, ''you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings''. So why is it so much more locked-down here? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::"''I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?''"
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from ''removing'' it if they should so choose. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is ''still there'', even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)


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


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Cobold/sig}}<br>
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
'''Deadline:''' Saturday, October 13, 20:00 (EDT)
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)


==== Delete articles on Websites ====
{{@|Technetium}} That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by {{@|Mario}}) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} 08:32, 6 October 2007 (EDT) - It's useless, the websites are self-explanatory, and we have the [[Links]] page.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Cobald, the information on the Links page is all anyone would need to know until they actually go to the site (however the page could be cleaned up a bit).
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}}Per Cobold, and these sites are not part of the Marioverse.
# {{User:Xzelion/Signature}} Per Cobold.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Per Cobold.
#{{User:Moogle/sig}} We have [[Links]]...
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}-Per Cobold, you explained it all.
#Per Cobold. And, in my opinion, websites have too little relation to Mario. {{User:Smiddle/sig}}


==== Create articles on Websites ====
{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed?  [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Websites give info about games, and are about a certain game, that gives them enough right to have an article. Also, some websites give additional info not found in games, such as [[Wario's Warehouse]].
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User:King Mario/sig|Let only the important ones be created like the Smash Bros Dojo and other important games that everone is talking about}}
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)


==== Comments ====
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
To Uniju:  Websites are not part of the Marioverse, but neither are most of the games themselves.  Mario and Luigi don't have a copy of ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga'' at their house.  Should we get rid of video game articles then?  Websites are sources of canonical information, just like video games are. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
:Only some websites are official. For instance, ''Lemmy Land'' does have lots of info on some games, but most of it is fanon (fanfiction, fan-made biographies, fan-art, etc.). As for the ''games'' themselves not being part of the Marioverse, that's kinda correct, but they '''do''' cover Mario and the others' escapdes during a certain period of time. The subject matter of the games is part of the Marioverse, and it's easier to just include them within an article about the game itself (or within an article about a game's level). If we did it otherwise it'd be hard enouph for ''us'' to navigate the ''Wiki'', much less newcomers or visitors. -[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
*[[List of implied species]]
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
*[[Soybean civilization]]
*[[Hooroglyphs]]


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


All I am saying is that we have articles about the official "sources" of the fictional universe, such as games, comics, and movies.  Why should that be different for websites?  -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


:I figured you only meant official sites, but I just wanted to make my point about unofficial sites for the sake of clarity (and for everyone who doesn't know you yet). - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].


Okay, what are we?  We're a Wiki about the Super Mario Bros. series that goes very in depth. Sources that are not from video games are considered non-canon. No other specifications given that will say anything about websites.  So, we're not going to find our answer in that definition.  Let's look further: definition of Mario video games -- labors of the developers that provide us with in-universe information.  Other mediums, such as TV, are considered non-canon.  BINGO!  Check it: other mediums -- TV, movies, comics, toys, commercials, magazine articles regarding game storylines, conclusions made and names given in unofficial strategy guides.  Wouldn't websites be considered another medium?  OH, SNAP!  That brings in lots of gray area, don't it?  What I would do if I were you is to look at each website and consider: can this be put as a section on a game article (like the zillion websites from Nintendo.com)?  Should it be placed as a secondary source on the links page (ie IGN, etc)?  Should it get it's own article?  Anyway, my opinion about DOJO is that it should be put under the game's article. But I don't favor making a policy for everything! {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 12:07, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
:And what would be, according to you, a website worthy of its own article? - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can ''see'' the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.


:I don't think we should put website articles under the games' articles. For DOJO it sounds like it might work since it's '''only''' about [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], but what about all the other sites which are about many games? Or what about the un-official sites that only include canocal information like The Mushroom Kingdom.net, would we have to leave them out? I feel we should keep all the info on the websites together, like on the Links page. We could always expand the link page to include more info than it already does (though I personally don't feel this is neccesary). In theory it is reasonable to include websites just as we include comics, movies and TV shows; but if we start making articles about ''Mario'' websites I'm worried that things are just going to get muddled. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====
::Yeah, that's what I'm worried about, too.  Too much emphasis on sites would be kind of messy.  And, Cobold, I purposefully didn't mention a site that deserved an article because I don't know of any that do currently.  Anyway, sorry if I offended you, Cobold.  I was in a hurry when I wrote that.  As far as the Dojo article, I would merge it with SSBB, but as far as the Mushroom Kingdom.net, I would put it on the links page with a paragraph blurb, sort of like the article for Dojo is currently.  Then again, I've been on hiatus for some time, so I don't really have much information about the other issues surrounding the Wiki. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 17:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't see from what I should have been offended, so you don't have to worry... ;) - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 08:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::::That's good!  You know, all this website info could be posted in the game articles under a "Marketing and Promotions" header or something like that. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 22:22, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::That could work. The information concerning other forms of marketing could be included there too, like all the stuff surrounding [[Super Mario Bros. 3]]. ButI still think the ''majority'' of the information about all websites should be kept on the [[Links]] page. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
:If this is passed, then all the information should at least be on a list, I mean [[Wario's Warehouse]] has a trove of information not found elsewhere as the site itself was taken down. {{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 20:21, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
::As I see it, a "website article" is like the [[Smash Bros. DOJO!!]] article, with the statistics and informatipn about the ''website''. [[Wario's Warehouse]] is about information released on a website ''about Wario and Waluigi'', so I don't think it really counts as a "website article" and therefore wouldn't be deleted. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]


==Changes==
====Merge none (do nothing)====


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


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


===Deleting stubs===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
It seems we have a rule that any new Stub articles are to be deleted. However I think that instead the rewrite template should be placed on the article, and if it isn't rewritten in a certain amount of time, it will be deleted, as simply deleting new Stub articles may discourage some newer users, also having SOME info should be better then having NONE, right?
:'''Proposer''': [[User:Uniju :D|Uniju :D]]
:'''Deadline''': 20:00, Oct. 15


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}}I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] Stub may eb created because the editor don't have much time or there isn't much to say to begin with, I saw perfectly sized and well written articles deleted because of that retarded rule, I still say that one-liner (X is a character in a game, Pirate Goomba is a Pirate Goomba.) should be deleted, thought.
#{{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]] - Per Uniju and most of what Glowsquid said.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User:Peachycakes 3.14/sig}} Some info is better than none.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User:MarioBros777/sig}} Deleting stubs should not be brought up because it makes it unfair to other people who can't find information and need more time to do this. Also people can't think of anything to do and my conclusion is in one word which some people would agree to me, time, it is not enough and therefore stubs should not be deleted because of this. This is per to Glowsquid. "Some info is better than none." Peachycakes 3.14 is quite correct. Info is valuable and should not be judged on how little it is. If there is some information, as long as it is worthy information, as long as it is true, it is information and should not be deleted. Therefore, stubs should not be deleted because of the reasons above.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#[[User:Caith_Sith|Caith_Sith]] - Per Peachycakes
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}-Per Uniju. We can expand on it anyway. What is maintenance for?


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Stub articles should not be made, full stop. We need a lot of information on the subject, not one or two sentences.
#{{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:Plumber/Pignature}} You can always find at least five things to say about something, what game it is, what it looks like, etc.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User:Moogle/sig}} Per Plumber
#{{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:Mr. Guy/sig}} [[Wario Land 3]] is labled as an stub, should it get delelted?
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User:Xzelion/Signature}} Per all


====Comments====
====Comments====
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)


DP, what if its something small that doesn't have a lot of info to put? Should we make some kind of list, "''Articles that aren't big enough to be articles''"? {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
===Split the image quality category===
:I am highly against all Stub articles, articles that don't have much information should NOT get their own articles. Unless it is from an unreleased game. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
'''Issue 1:''' [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]] is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. '''Issue 2:''' All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:
::Having SOME info is much better then having NONE. Without these articles our encyclopedia is incomplete, who cares if there isn't much info, it still exists, and deserves an encyclopedia entry. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
*'''Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
:::I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the Wiki, I'm just saying they should NOT get their own article. Articles that have very little information to offer should not be made into an article, but rather be merged into something that is very closely related. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
*'''Assets to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as [[:File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png]].
::::Say its a Mini-Game article, all other mini-games get articles, so why not? Should we have some big list "All mini-game articles that where too small", "All item articles that where too small"? Thats not what encyclopedias should do, we should simply have an entry for everything, no matter how little info there is. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
Additionally, [[Template:Image-quality]] will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.
:::::The Mini-Game articles are of decent size. And, remember, we said to delete NEW Stubs, not the Stubs already made! {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Also, those list names are pathetic.
::::::They may be pathetic, but their what we would wind up needing. "NEW Stubs" we should be able to make them, as many Mini-Games or Micro-Games would wind up having stub articles. We are an encyclopedia, and should have an entry for everything, no matter how little info there is. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}


:::::::However, this also encourages laziness.  People can just increase the number of articles they make without putting any actual content in.  And then other users are less likely to put that information in, as the article is already created.  The problem is not that articles don't have enough information, it's that users are too lazy too research the subject in question, thus producing tiny, informationless articles.  Anyone can say a mini-game is from a certain game.  But should that article be allowed, when someone later might actually write everything about the subject?  -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT


::::::::Like I said, IF the article doesn't contain enough information, then a rewrite template should be placed on it, not a deletion tag. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
====Split both====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense


:::::::::That doesn't solve the problem.  Users are more likely to create a new article than expand an old one.  So it may be better to allow someone to create an already expanded new article than create one with no information that no one will expand in the future. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
====Only split screenshots====


::::::::::We are a wiki, there shouldn't be such thing as an article no one will expand, theres a lot more editing then creating new articles going on, or will your idea change that eventually? {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
====Only split assets====


I'm just pointing out what I have observed after over a year at this wiki.  For example, a lot of Super Paper Mario article stubs are still stubs.  No one has expanded them.  And I do know a lot of users feel special when they create an article.  It becomes like a child.  You made that before anyone else could!  All this shouldn't be the case on the wiki.  It's sad that is how people act - any article should be expanded because of an expand tag.  But I think a lot of users are attracted to the prospect of creating an article without actually putting the effort into expanding it.  Therefore, by deleting new stubs, users will be forced to actually put effort into creating a new article and find a new appreciation for the research needed to create a new article, not the opiate of simply creating a new article. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
====Leave image quality alone====


:Or it could discourage a newer user from creating new articles, this idea can, and often WILL back fire. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
====Comments on image quality proposal====
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
<gallery>
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)


::I think that's the point. Discourage bad new articles.  If new users know they cannot create high quality articles, they can work on other things, not the creation of articles. That's not a bad thing. Discouraging users from doing things they are not ready for is not wrong, but forces them in the long run to improve the quality of their edits or work in other spheres.  -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
===Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'', ''[[Donkey Kong Jr. (game)|Donkey Kong Jr.]]'' and ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]''===
:::SoS has a very good point. If we do NOT delete New Stub articles, it WILL promote laziness, and encourage others to make incredibly crummy articles. If we delete the New stub articles, then Users will know they CANNOT make crummy articles, and thus, will work hard to make a GOOD article with a lot of information. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Uniju, is it also possible that you, and all the people who voted to keep New Stub articles, are also lazy and don't want to make good quality articles?
I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games ''Donkey Kong'', ''Donkey Kong Jr.'' and ''Mario Bros''. There's already a [[Donkey Kong (Game & Watch)|Game]] [[Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch)|and]] [[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|Watch]] game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "''Donkey Kong''" is the name of various other games too! There's [[Donkey Kong (tabletop arcade game)|the tabletop game]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|the Game Boy game]], [[Donkey Kong (Nelsonic Game Watch)|the Nelsonic Game Watch game]] and [[Donkey Kong (slot machine)|the slot machine]]. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for ''Donkey Kong''. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Nintendo DS)]].


For me, the problem is not the concept of delleting the stub itself, but rather the "standart" for a stub size. For example, [[Do-Drop]] describe the appearance of the creature, it's behavior and where it's found, and yet, it's tagged as a stub. I saw quite a few good article delleted because they were shorter than the average size. However, I agree that one-liner like "Pirate Goomba is a pirate Goomba" or "Elder is a character in Super Mario Rpg: Legend of the Sevens Stars" should be delleted.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]
:I agree that Stub Articles shouldn't be deleted just because they don't have as much information pertaining to their subject matter as most articles. As many other users have said before, some info's better than none. However, I don't feel simple one-liners should be deleted. The "Pirate Goomba" artcile can easily be expanded to include what games the character was found in, a picture and/or a description of a Pirate Goomba, etc. Many people oppose letting these one-liners be created because it will supposedly stop other users creating bigger articles, but I doubt this is the case for all users. I.e. before I joined up it'd always drive me crazy to come across stub articles on stuff I knew about and could expand upon. However, when I discovered there was no article on another subject I knew, it didn't get me as riled up: I just figured all the info was part of already-existing articles and didn't warrant getting its own article, and left it at that (though I know better now). I don't know if anyone else shares my (old) way of thinking, but I just thought I'd put it out there. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
::...Like Glowsquid said, everyone is thinking of stubs as "One-liners" when almost all stubs have a lot more info then that, if an article does not state what game its from, it means that the user who made it most likely never played the game, and only made the article because he/she was browsing the "Wanted Articles List", and say it on there, which almost no one will do. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
 
===Mario Info===
It seems we have a rule that we cannot have Non-Mario info on pages for characters/places/items from other series', like [[Super Sonic]] or [[Zelda]]. However, we should be able to give at least a short back story of what happened in other games, doing so would make a lot of the articles make a lot more sense to viewers who are not fans of that series. I propose that we should be able to do this, AND include some images from previous Non-Mario games where the Place/Item/Character appeared(This may include some articles for things that would not get an article because they are from another series, even if they are shown/implied in a Mario game).
:'''Proposer''': [[User:Uniju :D|Uniju :D]]
:'''Deadline''': 20:00, Oct. 32


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}}I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Were not allowed at first, so I agree with the old rule
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} We already provide a brief backstory on the character. VERY brief summaries are allowed, and have already been used. Also, we should only provide Images from Mario-based games (The Cameos articles excluded).
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
# {{User:Xzelion/Signature}} Per DP
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - We should only provide info that appears in Mario games.  We don't want this becoming a general Nintendo/video game wiki.  Links should be provided to Wikipedia and other video game wikis so users can find more info about a non-Mario subject.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per ThePowerPlayer's comment.
#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} Non-Mario related character articles should only list information that is relevant to said character being included in the Mario Wiki. Other information, such as a brief rundown of Zelda's history, would be out of place. Please see further comments below.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - For Smash Bros. characters, the trophies of them and trophies of other elements of their series should provide enough story to put together.


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


Mr. Guy, you don't agree because an existing rule says otherwise? Thats the reason this is a proposal, and I don't think thats a valid reason. -_-' {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
What about [[Dr. Mario (game)|''Dr. Mario'']]? That game also has a [[Dr. Mario (Gamewatch Boy)|separate release also called ''Dr. Mario'']].--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:And DP: Like I said in the proposal, most people who are NOT fans of that series will need to haunt down info from other places to understand any of it. So we should be able to show more info than we do, and theres nothing about Sonic Adventure on the Sonic article, or Ocarina of Time on the Zelda article, its against the rules to add that info. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
::The reason why the games ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Dr. Mario'' should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from ''Donkey Kong'' on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "''Dr. Mario'' (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)


I see Sonic as an exception to the rule. Sonic and Mario have a non-game rivalry that started way back in 1992. That might be something to place an article about. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 04:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
===Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes===
So far, the use of "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes on this wiki has been rather inconsistent and arbitrary, to say the least. While Nintendo is typically known for providing distinct English localizations for the United States (and other English-speaking territories in the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and other territories where Commonwealth English is standard, apart from Canada), the actual differences between them, if any, have varied over time.


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


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


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


==== Split ====
'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
{{User:Luigibros2/sig}} They are two seperate enemies and thus desrve seperate articles.
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==== Keep the same ====
====Option 1: List largely identical American English localizations only as "English (United States)"====
#[[User:Dimenzio|Dimenzio]] They are the same so let's merge the informations. But which name shall we take and which name shall we redirect?
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.


====Comments====
====Option 2: List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English"====
Whoever proposed this really needs to include some information and proper formatting. There wasn't even a "Comment" section for crying out loud! - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.


To late Dimenzio cause I heard that Barecue Guy is more profesional and less conjectural {{User:Mr, Guy/sig}} Also this proposal doesn't make much sense...
====Option 3: List both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if distinguished in internal data, otherwise simply list "English"====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it ''could'' make sense to follow suit...


LugiBros2: Uhhh... Actually, both article are about the same subject, but with a different name. The problem is we dunno which name we should use.
====Option 4: Do nothing====
[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]]


Okay, so you say who Barbecue guy is, but what's the difference between him and Fire Guy?  Who is Fire Guy even? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 19:15, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
====Comments====
 
For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)
===Ashley 'n' Red===
 
The page [[Ashley and Red]] deal about these two WarioWare character, however I think the page should be split. Unlike say, [[Macho Grubba]] who is simply [[Grubba]] with a new alias and powers, Ashley and Red are two completly different characters. I say that the page should be split in two, one for Ashley, and one for Red (Demon).
 
'''Proposer''' [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] <br>
'''Deadline''' Oct 19 21:00 EDT
 
==== Split ====
#[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] - I am the proposer and my reasosn are given above.
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - Surely you can guess.  Anything officially named deserves an article in my book.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Yep. Seperate characters, seperate articles. And while we're at it, [[Dribble and Spitz]] and [[Kat and Ana]] should be split up too.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I don't play WarioWare, so I don't know much about those two, but still, I say we should split them into their own articles. Also, Dribble and Spitz and Kat and Ana should be split as well, as Walkazo said.


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


==== Comments ====
I'm a bit confused what this proposal is trying to change. Is it just about terminology used in game infoboxes? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:31, February 9, 2025 (EST)


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


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

Latest revision as of 16:05, February 9, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, February 9th, 21:05 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Introduce a new type of proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
  3. PopitTart (talk) For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
  4. Rykitu (talk) Neat idea, per all.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  7. 1468z (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments on proposal proposal

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

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

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

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

Oppose

  1. Ray Trace (talk) This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
  3. Sparks (talk) Friend requests are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
  5. Technetium (talk) No one even does friend requests nowadays.
  6. Mario (talk) Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it must be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
  7. Tails777 (talk) I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
  8. Mushroom Head (talk) It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
  9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
  10. Arend (talk) On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
  11. MCD (talk) This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you really don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
  12. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  13. Green Star (talk) Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
  14. Rykitu (talk) Per Green Star.
  15. Cadrega86 (talk) per Green Star.

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

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

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (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)

Split the image quality category

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

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

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

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

Split both

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

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

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

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

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

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

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.

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

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it could make sense to follow suit...

Option 4: Do nothing

Comments

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4726980"