MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
==Writing guidelines==
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
''None at the moment.''
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All 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.
''None at the moment.''
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<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.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]"
#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 a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.


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).
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


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.
==Changes==
 
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
__TOC__
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.
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
 
== New Features ==


=== Conker and Banjo ===
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.


At first clance, this would seem stupid, but hear me out. Considering we feature things [[Donkey Kong (series)|Not actually part of the Mario series]] (in the sense that no Mario characters aside from DK characters appear) I was thinking we should have [[Banjo]] and [[Conker]] games as well, as they are spinoffs of the DK series, just like DK is a spinoff of Mario. Thoughts?
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:HyperToad|HyperToad]] <br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' January 17, 2008, 17:00
'''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


====Support====
====Support====
 
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] See comments above.
#{{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.
#Per HyperToad [[User:Fly Guy 2|FG2]]
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
 
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#[[User:Glitchman|Glitchman]] I don't really think Conker and Banjo have anything to do with the Marioverse, and these games were just cheap copies of the DK series.  I don't think these should be added to the Wiki.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - They're too far removed.
#{{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:InfectedShroom/sig}} See my comment below.
#{{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:Ghost_Jam/sig}} - We've been over this many times before. Banjo and Conker have nothing to do with the Marioverse besides a far removed role.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - For the nth time, they are not related enough.
#{{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:Time Q/sig}} Per previous proposal. And as an aside, why the heck would it matter that there is an "inappropriate" game? I don't remember the guidelines saying that everything has to be appropriate for children. In fact, that would go against one of the major principles of an encyclopedia.
#{{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.
#http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif '''[[User:Paper Jorge|Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back!]]''' http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif A long time ago, before lots of users joined, Banjo and Conker articles were allowed. Seriously. There was a Tooty article, a Gruntilda one and others. However we soon stopped making them, and after talking about it cancelled everything and destroyed everything Banjo and Conker. So in the end I say: Not related to the Mario series enough. They were just guest appearances. Let's not make articles on the Itadaki Street series, or Final Fantasy or Sonic.
#{{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:Jdrowlands/sig}} Per Time Q
#{{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:Macewindu|Macewindu]] 13:11, 15 January 2008 (EST),sorry dude, Mariowiki is for mario alone...
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} we've already had a proposal like this.
#{{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:Mr. Guy/sig}} Go to the Rare Wiki: Per all
#{{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.
====Comments====
<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>
Actually, we had '''two''' proposal on this matter and infact, we used to have article on Banjo and Conker subject. The overal concensus was that Banjo and Conker only had very marginal link to the Marioverse (Not my opinion, thought) and that Conker was too scary for little kids. Just so you know.
--[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:36, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::In all fairness, same for [[Donkey Kong]]. [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] Also, uh, what's the big deal about Conker, if we are worried about that, let's get rid of [[Bob Hoskins]]. :)
::: Well, Mario made a cameo in DKC2 and the [[Donkey Kong Land]] instruction manual imply that [[Big Ape City]] may be where the original Donkey Kong took place. That, and a lot of DKC characters have been appearing in the sport games. About the Bob Hoskins stuff, I brought that up on the proposal, but no one listened.
--[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::I listened, we ''should'' censor that page. Anyway, since ''Donkey Kong'' is a spin-off of ''Mario'' that'd make Banjo and Conker spin-spin-offs, which is a degree too removed from Mario. You could argue that ''Mario'' comes from [[Donkey Kong (game)| Donkey Kong (the game)]] and is therefore the spin-off, but in the older proposals it was agreed that the game was more of a '''''Mario''''' game than a ''Donkey Kong'' game (except for its title). The opinion that ''Donkey Kong'' is the spin off is further supported by the fact that [[Donkey Kong Country]] (as the first of the bonefied ''Donkey Kong'' franchise) didn't show up until '''way''' after ''Mario'' was established as a franchise. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
:::I already did. - {{User:Glitchman/sig}}
Wait... shouldn't we be making our decisions based on continuity and connection of game universes rather than personal throughts on how far removed a character can be before his series isn't covered by our Wiki?  That line of reasoning is a little close to conjecturally determining canon for me. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:00, 10 January 2008 (EST)
 
Hey, Glitchman, Banjo-Kazooie was in fact an incredible game, and a completely new series made by Rare. However, we already tried adding both those series to this wiki. Everyone remember this summer? They were removed again in about a month. Plus, most of Conker's games are pretty... Innappropriate. I don't want to see that stuff around this wiki. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
 
True, I don't think we should bother posting them again when they're just going to be deleted...AGAIN.  Per everyone else. {{User:Glitchman/sig}}
 
== Removals ==
 
=== The [[Cheese]] article ===
 
I think we should get rid of this article, but before I explain my reasons for deleting this article, (In my flaming wreck of an opinion, of course) I will explain a few things to those that are new to the Mariowiki lore, because, let's face it, this article only exist because of a fad.
 
During February 2007, two users (Don't remmember who exactly) discussed how tasty cheese is, eventually, other users started putting like "CHESSE IS SO AWESOME! LOL." on their userpages. This eventually culminated in the creation of a mainspace article called "The Cheese Craze of '07", which was nothing more than a thinly veiled place for spam. The Cheese Craze of '07 was deleted and the Cheese fad started to die down, a few months after, this article was created. That's about it for the backstory.
 
Now, why this article should be deleted?:
 
First, the '''Importance of the item to the Marioverse is dubious''': Let's see... it appear in [[Donkey Kong 64]] as something you can climb on. Some places in [[Super Mario World]] and the Mario Kart have "Cheese" in their name. It's mentioned in the [[Paper Mario]] series and appear as one of the generic [[food]] item in the Super Smash Bros. Series. It's only claim to fame is that it might boost (The article write it like you can only see one if you expect a piece of cheese, but that's untrue) the chance of seeing a [[Gold Mouse]] in [[Luigi's Mansion]], and I am not even sure it's true, it's said in the Prima Guide, but those aren't official and full of bogus info. An actually notable item called the [[Sacred Cylinder of Cheese]] play a major role in  one of the Valiant comic story, but I don't think it help Cheese in any case. Look at the [[Toy Time Galaxy]], it's the galaxy as a whole that is notable, we don't have an article on the individual toy-like surface that are in it, the same thing should apply to the Cylinder.
 
Second, '''If we allow Cheese to have an article, we should also allow a crapload of generic real world items to have their own articles''': Let's take the Baozi-like meal found in [[Young Cricket]] story in [[WarioWare: Smooth Moves]] as an example. It play a major role in Young Cricket story since he's racing to grab some while they're still fresh. They also affect the gameplay, since they also act as a life counter. Lost all of them and it's game over. The Baozi's do everything the Cheese do and more, so why we don't have an article on it?
 
Seriously: If we allow Cheese to have it's own article, we should also allow other generic items to have their articles such as Television, Bridge or the afro-mentioned baozi, why Cheese should have a priority over those other items?
 
I hate when community stuff creep in the encyclopedia, this article is the perfect example of it.
 
'''Proposer''': [[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 08:02, 10 January 2008 (EST)
<br>
'''Deadline''': January 17th, 2008, 17:00
 
==== Delete it ====
#[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 08:02, 10 January 2008 (EST) To make a long story short, this article only exist because of a short lived fad and it's importance in the Marioverse is rather dubious.
#{{User:Xzelion/Signature}} Per Blitzwing
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Blitzwing.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} - I'm so sick of that fad, as well! Its ridiculous! Per Blitzwing!
# {{User:Ghost_Jam/sig}} - Per Blitzwing.
#{{User:Smiddle/sig}} &ndash; Per Blitzwing.
#{{User:Knife/sig}} 19:25, 11 January 2008 (EST) It does affect gameplay, but not enough. It affects gameplay as much as maybe a platform.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Per all.
#{{User:ChaosNinji/sig}} - This is like making a "Head Asplosion" article. It just doesn't fit. It's just based on some fad.
#{{User:3dejong/sig|suuuuure, call me a hypocrite. This is pretty much useless; I can't believe that it was even made. Stupid fad that I perpetuated in. >.<}}
#{{User:Storm Yoshi/sig}} Per Blitzwing
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} Per all.
#[[User:freakatone]] I agree
#{{User:Phoenix Rider/sig}} I've been wanting to see it gone since Day One it was created. Per all.
 
==== Keep it ====
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] As a Mariowiki, we should have articles on everything, maybe [[List of Real World Foods Appearing in the Mario Series]]?
#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} That proposal wasn't long enough...:P  Per HyperToad.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Hmmm... This decision was hard... But the Cheese does in fact have a role in gameplay. I think that the cheese in Luigi's Mansion is enough to keep the article. And yes, it's a stupid fad.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - The Luigi's Mansion cheese should be there. Per InfectedShroom. Also, the wording of this proposal doesn't give me the option of actually voting for what I want. Because "If we allow Cheese to have an article, we should also allow a crapload of generic real world items to have their own articles:" - it is still not like that. The Cheese should be only kept for the Luigi's Mansion part, in which it can be interacted with. We don't need an article on "floor" and "Mario's house's door".
#[[User:Master Crash|Master Crash]] Per All.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 20:30, 11 January 2008 (EST) Luigi's Mansion thing saves it.
#{{User:Crypt Raider/sig}} Per everyone
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} It has appearences and a role, so it must stay
#[[User:huntercrunch|huntercrunch]] Per Mr. Guy.
#It's important. Keep or I destroy the deletor. [[User:Fly_Guy_2|FG2]]
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} Ugh... I'm being bipolar.  I'm sorry.  It's been mentioned too many times for me.  I don't care if it has a real world counterpart: so does [[Peach (item)]].  To me, it's not a matter of having to create articles like the Snifit Ball, it's about deleting items like Peaches and other things to that extent.  I'm sorry Walkazo and Blitzwing.
#[[User:Girrrtacos|Girrrtacos]] If its in the Mario series, why delete it? Its one more thing, shouldn't we have more than less?
#{{User:Dodoman/sig}} Per all y'alls.
#{{User:Mewtwo49/sig}} Guys, it is an important aspect of Luigi's Mainsion.  I mean, it was the entrance to a secret room.  I think that's notable.
#--[[User:Luigifan14|Luigifan14]] 21:40, 14 January 2008 (EST) The page is pretty detailed.
#{{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}}Keep it, but get rid of the parts that have no point. The parts that have a point are longer than some articles, so you can't say we should just put it in part of it's game's article.
#[[user:macewindu|macewindu]], yeah its stupid, lets keep it anyway...
#[[User:PaperStriker|PaperStriker]], if we delete it, we have to delete all those Paper Mario items, too, because they're also minor items.
 
==== Comments ====
 
 
HyperToad: [[List of weapons in Super Mario RPG |No]], [[List of Boos in Luigi's Mansion|we]] [[List of Implied Characters|don't]] [[List of Cartoon Voice Actors|have]] [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors|an]] [[List of Catch Cards|article]] [[List of Sammer Guys|on]] [[List of Cameos|everything]]. There is nothing special about Cheese, it's only a real world object that sometimes get referenced in the Marioverse, what make it more worthy of it's own article than other generic objects? Some guy here just thought it was tasty and started a fad around it. About your idea of making a list.... it could work, althought I think it would get pretty crowded.
[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]]
 
Although I agree about it's actual purpose, reworking the article is still an option. It appears in 2 games (at least) and the comics. Are we going to get rid off things that only appear in [[Wart|only one game]] or take out things that [[King Toadstool|''only'' appear in the comics]]. Honestly, notabilty arguements could go on forever. [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]
:Unlike Cheese, Wart and King Toadstool actually have some importance (Plus, you are wrong on both only appearing in a certain medium, Wart have appeared in a few comics and King Toadstool was mentioned in the instuction manual of the first Mario Bros.).The plot of SMB2 was about Wart invasion of the [[Subcon]] and he was the final boss of the game. A lot of the Valiant comic stories were centered on King Toadstool and his goofy atics. Wart and King Toadstool have '''revalance''' to the Marioverse, Cheese does not. The problem with Cheese isn't the article, it's that the subject is way too freaking minor, if it wasn't for that "Cheese Lover" fad, that page wouldn't exist. I remmember we used to have an article on "Snufit Ball", (The grey ball shot by the [[Snufit]] enemy in [[Super Mario 64]]... seriously, we had a page on that.) but it got deleted because the subject was too minor. Snufit Ball is exactly the same as Cheese, really, it's generic, very minor, and only have a marginal effect on the Gameplay (It hurt Mario), it just hadn't the luck of having a fad centered around it.
[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]]
 
Glitchman: What do you mean by "That proposal wasn't long enough."? If you mean that the opening thing is huge... well, I acknowledge I have difficulties abreviaitng my writting. But to make it short, Cheese as of now is too minor of a subject and we don't have "articles on everything" (See my comment.)
[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]]
 
Blitzy: Cheese does effect gameplay, as confirmed by guidebooks (Prima among others).  Yeah, they're not official, but they still are sources that are superior to observations from an individual user, not to put you down or anything.  Could you have simply turned on the lights in the room before the mouse appears?  I've gone through runs of that game where I haven't seen any mice and others where they appear every time I enter particular rooms.  All of this says to me that you'd want to put cheese as a subsection on the Gold Mouse page though, don't you think?  To flat out delete the information would be crazy, plus, ''every edit that every user makes on a Wiki is influenced by his past, sometimes including gags and fads''.  So... to say that an article shouldn't exist because the user who created it was involved in a running gag that you happened to severely dislike seems very strange to me.  Should an article I made about Minor Characters from the Movie be deleted because I happen to love the fact that everyone seems to hate the Mario movie?  In other words, because I was interested in the movie because of the "running gag" of mocking the movie, and because I get into the mocking as well, should any edits I do on minor subjects from the movie be removed?
 
But you'll notice that the article example I gave would be a list, right?  I'm not advocating the cheese article to be its own necesarily, but that information should remain on the Wiki in some way, shape, or form.  No, the types of platforms in Toy Time Galaxy should not have individual articles, but they should be mentioned in the Toy Time Galaxy article, yes?  So, what I would do would be to make a list of Real World Subjects that have showed up in the Mario continuity (such as television, for example) and include Cheese in there... and include all of its cross-overs into the Mushroom World.
 
The Real World is as important to the Mario series as someplace like the [[Land of Ice]]... actually, it's more important.  You'll notice, however, that the Real World is still different from our own (in other worlds, there is no Blitzwing in the Mario interpretation, no?) and so I would say it's important that we note what does exist there, just as we talk about what exists in the Mushroom World.  So, cheese should be mentioned, just like everything else from the Real World, right?
 
I usually tend to diviate during my arguments, so please feel free to ask for clarification.  But I am on your side that we're probably giving too much relavence to a topic that can be looked up somewhere else... like Wikipedia. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:While the Prima guide is a superior source of information, it still is not official and can contain a lot of bogus info (see [[Kasplat]] and [[King Kut Out]] articles, among other), infact just search "Prima" in the search engine and you will find a lot of articles  pointing out mistakes in the Prima Guide. I will pull out that example again: We had an article on Snufit Ball, the projectile thrown by the Snufit enemy in SM64, if we keep Cheese, we should also recreate Snufit Ball since they both affect the gameplay in very minor ways.
 
The problem with the "It affect Gameplay!" reasoning is, that when you think about it, pretty much everything 'cept for the Mario Kart Sponsor affect gameplay. The bush and other objects you can shake in the [[Paper Mario]] series contain valuable items and you kinda interact with them. In the WarioWare series, you have to use a variety of object to get the task done... ect. While affecting the gameplay is a good argument, an article shouldn't be kept merely because it affect a very minor part of the game.
 
About the list idea, while it could work, I think it would just end up as a gigantic list of "(Insert Generic item here) is a real-word object that sometimes appear in the Marioverse, it appear in (Insert Game Name here)" style entries without much info.
 
About the "You only want to delete this because you hate that fad" thing, yes, I hate that fad and want to see it dissapear. However, even if a part of me hate the fad, I still think Cheese isn't worthy of it's own article, maybe as a mention in a list or something. The problem isn't that Cheese have a cult centered around it, it's that Cheese was '''only''' created because of it. Do I have to start a fad centered about Snufit Ball to recreate it? Geez.
[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]]
:Thank you for clarifying.  I was thinking about this some more, so how about this: we cut the article up and put it's little sections as mentions in each game.  We also mention cheese in Mouser and Gold Mouse's articles.  Then, we start the list on the "Real World" article, even if it is just a list without any "entry".  Sound good? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:: I wouldn't be against that. That way, we still keep revalant info but we don't allow a very minor object to have a mainspace article.
[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]]
:::I'll also support these actions, but as it would still require in the deletion of the Cheese Article shouldn't you move your vote Stumpers? - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
::::I wanted to make sure that the information would still be on the Wiki first.  I'd rather have bad formatting than missing information. :)  Here was my vote, btw, for anyone interested, "Not to be tounge in cheek here, but I hate it when users let their prejudices for an article's past control whether or not it should be deleted.  Sounds sort of like the arguement that we should delete video game stub articles to me.  I really like HyperToads ideas, but I'd like to expand on that an propose a "List of Real World Subjects" instead.  See my comments below..." {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 15:05, 12 January 2008 (EST)
 
Fly_Guy_2: Was that a joke or are you threatening? - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:35, 13 January 2008 (EST)
:[http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMaster_Crash%2FArchive_17&diff=309076&oldid=309065 Npot the first time he threaten another user.]
[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]]
 
If the Cheese article stays then why not make an article about a chair or a coach!{{User:Storm Yoshi/sig}}
 
Stumpers: You don't need to appologise for changing your mind (at least, you don't need to appologise to ''me''). However, I disagree about your [[Peach (item)]] example. The part about its role in ''[[Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]'' could easily be merged into the [[Peach Kingdom]] article (like we've been saying about the bits of the Cheese article), but the fact that it's a ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' item makes it "neccesary" for it to have an article, since all the other items do. I personaly don't whole-heartedly agree with that policy, since it ''does'' make people wonder why other random items don't get articles if ''SSB'' items do. I dunno, I don't really care about this anymore. I'd ''rather'' see the Cheese Article gone and thereby set a standard for all random item articles (or lack thereof), but it's never bothered me before, and it won't in the future... I hope. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
:For me it's mainly the fact that cheese ''could have'' played a role in ''[[Luigi's Mansion]]''.  If it weren't for that I probably wouldn't have voted that way.  I'd be happy to see cheese merged in a page titled, "Random Items" or something like that, by the way.  Thank you for being so gracious abou this.  {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 19:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)
 
==Splits & Merges==
 
===Merge the different colored Yoshi articles===
I propose that we merge [[Green Yoshi]], [[Cyan Yoshi]], [[Orange Yoshi]], etc. into one article. I find it unnessacarry to have seperate articles on each color. We can easily merge each color and it's abilities into one article.
 
'''Proposer''': [[User:King Boo|King Boo]]
 
'''Deadline''': January 23, 2008, 17:00
 
====Support====
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - Per myself.
 
====Oppose, each color should have it's own article====
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}I don't see what the problem is. The articles aren't stubs, why should we merge them?
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} As it stands, I'm gonna say no b/c of differences in ''[[Super Mario World]]''.  I could change easily, though.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Can you expand on your reasoning a little more? I'm not sure which way I want to go yet. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)
{{@|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)


We had this proposal before, it did not pass. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 01:41, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)


===Split up the Quote Sections===
: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)
As I'm looking around the wiki, I see '''''HUGE''''' quote sections on certain pages (mostly pages on big characters like [[Mario]] and [[Princess Peach]]). I think that we should remove the quotes altogether from these pages and make an entire page devoted simply to quotes from the Marioverse. Yes, it will be a long page, but I think it will be better. What are your thoughts on the matter?
::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)


*We could also make seperate "Quote Pages" for each game or character, which would serve the same purpose, and make quotes easier to find.  
{{@|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)


'''Proposer''': {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} 22:29, 10 January 2008 (EST)<br>
{{@|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)
'''Deadline''': January 17, 2008, 17:00
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)


====Split The Quotes!====
===Merge the Tortes===
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}  My thoughts are above.
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} Having them on the page detracts from the analysis, and the pages are getting way beyond that 32MB guideline or whatever it is.  I'd rather have the multiple pages.
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} Ghost Jam does have a point, but as long as the patrollers kept an eye on the page it would be a more complete and less destracting way of posting gaming quotes on the Wiki.
* [[Chef Torte]]
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - I'm only supporting the creation of seperate quotes pages for the various games divided up into sections for individual characters.
* [[Torte]]
#--[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 14:01, 12 January 2008 (EST) Per everyone. Some of these quotes section are gigatarnacious.
#-[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] 20:40, 13 January 2008 (EST) Yes, but we should have one article for each character's quotes. And, we might not need a seperate quote page for minor characters. But I like the idea.
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST) - Per Walkazo.
#{{User:Smiddle/sig}} Per InfectedShroom and Stumpers.


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


# {{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} - Seems like a license for spam.
In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move [[Apprentice (Snifit)]] over to [[Apprentice]], and give it the <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template.
#Quotes are fun! Keep them. Or else. [[User:Fly Guy 2|FG2]]


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
GhostJam, how so? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 00:54, 11 January 2008 (EST)
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
I think we used to have a page about a list of Quotes found in [[Super Mario 64]] and [[Super Mario 64 DS|it's remake]], althought I can't find it now.... was it deleted?
[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]]
 
What's the point of this proposal? I mean, we just had a proposal regarding quotes, and we decided to remove those quote sections. Someone just would have to take action. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 10:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
We JUST had this SAME proposal. Urgh! [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]
:Not true. The other one was different: completely removing certain quotes from the pages. I say we keep them all, but on a different page. I WANT SOMETHING DONE ABOUT QUOTES. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
::On the last proposal I said we should make quotes pages for individual characters (or for groups like all the Koopalings). However, now I prefer Blitzwing's suggestion of quotes divided up into individual games (and for the TV series' and movies). I've seen it done on other sites and it makes finding individual quotes a bit easier, especially if each page is divided up into sections for the different people speaking (but with the minor characters grouped together to minimize cluttered headlining). - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
:::Hmmm... I thought of doing that... I thought the other way would be easier. Oh well. I will add your comment to the main part. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
::::Splended! - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
Hmmm... I'm gonna need help making the pages if this proposal makes it... {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
 
I just thought of something. And it's not good. Splitting the quotes by game would be good for newer games, like Super Mario 64 or Galaxy. But what about games with almost no quotes, like Super Mario Bros.? That would make some pages ''very'' small. I think that we should make quote pages for individual characters ''and then'' make sections in that character-quote page for individual games/TV series/Movies. This would also make it easier for me in ''making'' these quote pages, as all the quotes I need are on one page, so I can easily transfer them to a new one. It could also make it moderatly easier to look for certain quotes. Sooo... your thoughts? {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Meh, forgot the last ~
:Hmmm, the question is, are most people going to be looking for quotes from specific games or quotes from specific characters? People do both, but I think dividing it up by games first and pputting links to the individual characters' sections in those pages on their main pages will make it easier for everyone to navigate. Also, we could group the games without many quotes together to eliminate short pages. Anyway, homework takes up a lot of my time but I'll still try to help with this project. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
::Hmmm... sounds good. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
 
==Changes==
===Citing Sources===
Around the wiki, we have always been quite lazy citing our sources. We do not have any system of giving references like at Wikipedia, and everyone just adds information he has taken from a random site. The best example for this is ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', which got flooded with information from questionable sites, or the name of the site was not given at all. In order to save our credibility, I suggest that we start to quote our sources, as long as they are not the game (/comic/TV episode/Brawl Dojo) itself, either, if we can get it, by Wikipedia's reference system or by simply by adding an external link like this: [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals]. This should prevent further unsourced speculation in the articles, and also prevent random questionable Trivia items like on [[Princess Rosalina]], as currently, to quote the user, there is "no need to source".
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User:Cobold/sig}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' January 22nd, 17:00 (EDT)
 
====Use Reference System====
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per above.
#{{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}} - Per Cobold and it is illegal to get info from someone/where else and not say who/where you got it from.
#[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] I thought of doing a proposal about this matter, but Cobold beat me to it. Per Cobold.
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} I'm loving this.  Can we also start using the image infobox template to show which site we got it from in the "source" section rather than the game it is from?
#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} Haha, I always thought we had a reference system...we just didn't use it. But, yeah, it's needed.
#{{User:Knife/sig}} 17:35, 15 January 2008 (EST) A lot of effort but a lot of reward. Our wiki's credibility is  important.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}}I certainly don't see why not, and it's not like it's very hard to cite sources.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Per Cobold. I'm so sick of this unsourced crap! We need to know WHERE you found the information.
#{{User:RAP/sig}} Per all. Does it include the images in this database that needed cite sources too?
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Per DP, wait that's per-ing Cobold
#[[User:King Boo|That Guy]] We should definitely cite the sources.
#{{User:MarioBros777/sig}}Of course we should have this, it has helped on many occasions when doing so on Wikipedia. Per all.
 
==== Use not ====
#{{User:Peachycakes 3.14/sig}} Not only is it annoying for everyone to always have to cite they're sources, but why should your edits be reversed because of it. Yes, some of it might be spam, but most of it isn't, and if it looks suspicious you could ask them where they found it. Or even wait for the game to come out.
#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} That's not a very good example, most if not all of the information on Brawl's page is from Dojo!, and there's already a link for that.  Peachycakes also has a point.


==== Comments ====
====Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)====
Alphaclaw11: It's only illegal when the author holds the right on it. For information about Nintendo video games, you may always use it as a part of press freedom (when new game), and because Nintendo does not mind (obviously). The sites like IGN don't own the right on Brawl information, for example. Only when you copy a text 1:1 (e.g. GameFAQs walkthrough), it's possibly a copyright violation without naming the author. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of ''Superstar Saga''.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
#{{User|Sparks}} Merge!
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.</s>
====Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least ''have'' unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with [[Talk:Iron_Cleft#Merge_with_The_Iron_Adonis_Twins|last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins]].
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Waluigi Time.


I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. [[User:Alphaclaw11|Alphaclaw11]] 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
====Do nothing (It's gourmet!)====
:IGN is an unofficial site. As long as the content we take from unofficial sites is about a Nintendo game, it's Nintendo's intellectual property, not the site's. And Nintendo game information/images are used on the whole wiki already under Nintendo's terms:
{{LLquote|All content on this website, including articles, artwork, screen shots, graphics, logos, digital downloads and other files, '''may not be used''' on any other web site, in any publications, in public performances, in connection with any product or service that is not Nintendo's, '''in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, in any manner that disparages or discredits Nintendo, or in any manner that is otherwise exploitative for any commercial purpose or that otherwise infringes Nintendo's intellectual property rights'''.|Nintendo|[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]}}
:So as long as these criteria are met and we quote or rephrase other sites, it's perfectly legal to take their information. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)


Okay[[User:Alphaclaw11|Alphaclaw11]] 12:20, 15 January 2008 (EST) but still, if it is from a non-offical site then you need to say where you got it in cause it was wrong
====Comments (It's... Alive???)====
:Of course. That's what this is about. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)
This can easily be ''four'' birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki>. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)
:Good observation, actually! Went and added this. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)


Citation extensions literally cover MediaWiki.com on sub-pages galore, which I assume is Wikipedia's shortcut <nowiki><references></nowiki>. If we really want to go that far, it can be done. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 15:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)
@Doc: On that note, because of [[MarioWiki:once and only once|once and only once]], that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)
:That would be great, clears the article from the links but also explains the page without the user having to click it. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)
:I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)


Stumpers: The current rules of the {{tem|aboutfile}} template say that the source website should indeed be listed as "source". The problem is more that currently, older files didn't get the update, and we don't have a section for the game any more. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)
By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs]]? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:Not any more than [[Cork and Cask]] does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, {{@|Camwoodstock}}, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
::We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:::Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of [[Snifster]]s are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)
::::Well they don't really have names, they have numbers. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:51, February 2, 2025 (EST)
:::::Well, by that logic, the Tortes don't really have names, they have job titles. Point is, they're identical-looking characters with identical in-battle names, but distinct out-of-battle names and personalities. (even if No. 1 and 2 don't seem particularly different in English, I'm trusting the Legends of Localization playthrough) [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]])


What if we're drawing from our personal experiences, do we cite the games themselves? Cuz that might seem a bit redundant, ex: ''"In [[Super Paper Mario]], [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], [[Peach]] and [[Bowser]] are on a quest to stop [[Count Bleck]] from destroying all the dimensions [Super Paper Mario, 2007]."'' (I know it's not a  proper citation, but you get the point). Also, what if you see screenshots of a game on a website, which to you cite? - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
:IMO, what we should do is this: don't bother with siting a game on its own page and only site it once in its section in a bibliography.  If you mention an event from the game in relationships, you should site it as well.  But, let's see what the people who actually know what they're talking about think. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
::Read above, I've mentioned it, of course you don't have to cite the games! This is mostly about unreleased games or other statements drawn from the internet. And even then, you don't have to mention the Smash Bros. Dojo 100,000 times in the Brawl article, it's okay when it is linked to only at the top. But [[Bob Hoskins]] could get a link to the Guardian interview which is avaiable on their website. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)
*[[List of implied species]]
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
*[[Soybean civilization]]
*[[Hooroglyphs]]


<nowiki>*</nowiki>AHEM* I have one problem with this proposal... Everyone looks at citing sources as just like on Wikipedia, but it's not really, we're about a series of video games, so the source could be the actual game itself. Everyone says things like "We need to know WHERE you FOUND the information" as if the internet is the only thing we have to find information about a ''series of video games''. I don't really see it being easy to just say "I played the game itself" on this place, seeing as how people seem to LOVE arguing about that kind of stuff, and it could be used to back up conjectural information for more minor video games. Of course, I don't really see how this would majorly effect citing sources much, since conjectural information is rarely placed on articles anyway... But, it may still cause conflicts, especially when it comes to obscure games. </pointless rant> {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
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.
:I thought you could site non-internet sources, though?  Maybe we could ask for people to say which chapter or something (for Paper Mario) or level (for SMG) they got the information from when they site their sources?  I dunno. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 22:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)


I think the sourcing system here (If this proposal pass) should perhap be less strict than Wikipedia. There, every bit of cretinous informations like "X organisation is the bad guy of the game" or "X character return from the previous game" require to be sourced, even if the information can be found in the game itself. I think only really obscure info (Like [[Nastasia]] having a crush on [[Count Bleck]]) or things like the crap about Rosalina being related to Peach in SMG beta should be sourced. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 06:55, 16 January 2008 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
:You're right, we shouldn't get on Wikipedia level. It's mostly about speculation here. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Peachycakes 3. 14:You know, we can alway use the (in)famous "citation needed" tag of Wikipedia if the information isn unsourced.  For what we know, the information added could be one of those "I heard somewhere that..." deal whose original meaning get warped over time. Sourcing mean we can verify the credibility of the infos. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 18:16, 16 January 2008 (EST)
====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]].


Alright, I too think we should cite. HOWEVER: I have done many things here that I just pulled out my DS and started looking for info. How the heck are we supposed to cite that? I never even go to other websites for info. I just look it up in the game or the guide. Another thing: how are we supposed to quote Official Guides? it's a bit hard... {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.


== Miscellaneous ==
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====
===Outside Info===
Recently, I've seen a very large amount of Super Smash Bros. content all over the wiki, which includes stages, items, and all sorts of other junk taken from all kinds of other series'. I'll put it plain and simple, I believe that we should removed this immense amount of uneeded Super Smash Bros. series stuff(Including cutting down on the insane page for the game, [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]), since we are the ''Super 'Mario' Wiki'', not the ''Super Smash Bros. Wiki'', and with the amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl content we could even be the ''Super Smash Bros. 'Brawl' Wiki''. I know that this is the exact opposite of a proposal I previously made, but things like this just seem totally wrong how we're doing it... Everyone said no to my last proposal, but after it was archived, the immense amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl info continued to flow in, mostly about the stages, items, and character that where shown on ''Smash Bros DOJO!!'', and it almost seemed like everyone would have liked my proposal if it had instead been "Add more '''Super Smash Bros''' content to the wiki". If you havn't noticed from this whole thing, I am proposing that we shorten, merge, and delete pages relating only to the Super Smash Bros. series, or other series' that where introduced to the Mario Wiki through Super Smash Bros.


'''Proposer:''' [[User:Uniju :D|Uniju :D]]<br>
====Merge none (do nothing)====
'''Deadline:''' January 22nd (EDT)


====Support, we are the Super ''Mario'' wiki====
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====
#{{user:Crypt Raider/sig}} I get sick of this SBB being Marfio 100%  crap.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Forgot this... Per myself.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} It features several Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario characters as major playable characters, and has several Mario-based items and stages, moreso than any other series, at least. I think it is worthy to be part of the extended Mario series.
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} Per DP.
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - What if people want to know other stuff BESIDES the Mario content? We should cover EVERYTHING. It wouldn't be fair to only cover Mario content, in such an important series. I oppose this proposal. I am 100% against it.
#{{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}}Per PDP
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Let's have everything SSB related, but let's keep it below information from other series (The trophy info is fine)
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} Uniju, didn't you previously want a page for everything?  Merging is unpredictable: you do it once and more stuff follows.  Will the Yoshi and DK series be next if we do this?
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]Per DP! Although this is a MarioWiki, let's not pull a Wikipedia and cut down articles that give usefull infomation.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per all. Considering that your argument is that the Brawl article is too long, I wonder whether this is even a reason to qualify as a vote. Also, I've removed the tag of the "Oppose" header because while Smash Bros. can stay, it still doesn't mean that we need an article on NBA Street V3 which had Mario, Luigi and Peach as guest characters. That's a place for [[Game Sightings]] still.
#{{User:Xluidi/sig}} - Per all. And Uniju you're so inmature that you're leaving.
#[[User:huntercrunch|huntercrunch]] Per all. Also, might I add, SSB IS closely related to the Mario series.
#[[User:Booster|Booster]] Keep, but see my comment.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - See below comment.
 
====Comments====


DP & Crash(and the rest of the hoard coming to per him): I see where your coming from, but just because there's Mario stuff in it, that doesn't mean we should cover the whole thing. Do we cover all about the TV shows Mario cameos in? And, KingBoo, that's not what everyone said last time, everyone said that we should just link to other sites. Which I now see is the better way to do it. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
==Miscellaneous==
:That's a cameo, its just minor, and has no significance. Smash Bros. features a major role for Mario and his friends. In fact, there's more Mario content in the game than any other series. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I'm just saying, Mario and his allies play a major role in Smash Bros.
''None at the moment.''
::Putting it that way, scroll up. Look at Banjo and Conker, who both have a large connection to the Mario Series are both being kicked off the wiki. It seems to me that your all simply biased towards Super Smash Bros. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}} I expect the only response to be "Your biased against it", so please give a VALID argument.
:::I'm not gonna say that, Uni, so stop being so immature. Banjo and Conker only made minor appearances in one game, with them being kicked out in the remake. After that, their respective series never got linked to the Mario series again, or Donkey Kong, for that matter. They became their own unique series with no relation to DK or Mario, whereas Smash Bros. brings in attributes from the Mario, Yoshi, DK and Wario series. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - You just said it yourself, Uniju. We are the MARIO wiki. Therefore we should completely cover every game that has MARIO content.
::::If Super Smash Bros. has content from Mario, then we should cover the content from Mario. I don't see why we need to cover EVERYTHING ELSE. And I don't see why all the stages and such can't just be tossed into a table like a lot of things can. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
:::::Ya see, here's the problem. If we ONLY cover the Mario-based information from Smash Bros., then the Smash Bros. articles are worthless. What's the point of covering one side of the game, but not covering the other side? If it has Mario in it, we should at least mention it, right? But, the Smash Bros. articles would have no use if it did not tell you EVERYTHING that's in the game. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} If you get rid of Smash Bros., you must get rid of the Final Fantasy articles as well.
::::::On a related note, I DO think that the items don't deserve articles, or the moves. [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]
:::::::Could you explain why? Especially about the [[Final Smash]]es we have a lot to say, more than about [[Flutter Jump]]. Of course we shouldn't have articles on A attacks, but Special Moves and Items pages are created for the mainstream Mario articles as well, so I don't see a reason why not Smash Bros. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:24, 16 January 2008 (EST)
The proposal is right about one thing. A LOT of emphasis (too much?) goes into the Smash Bros. articles. If something appeared, or is going to appear in a Smash game, it's guaranteed to have proper coverage, and will never be in danger of being a poorly-written stub. Looking at the front page right now, all three news articles are about Brawl. The featured article? Melee. We ''do'' look like the Smash Wiki just from glancing at the front page. Too much attention is being given to the Smash Bros. games. I know they're uber popular and everything, but they shouldn't be the center of attention on the ''Mario'' Wiki. I'm not saying that we can't have all these articles, but that the people who write them should dip into other subjects when they get the chance. Look at [[Super Mario Bros.]] or [[Super Mario Bros. 3]]. Landmark games with lousy articles for what they are. -- [[User: Booster|Booster]]
:It wouldn't be got not to feature Super Smash Bros. Melee but instead Super Mario Bros. 3, simply because Super Mario Bros. 3 is quite a bad article. That's also something, and if you want to change it, you'd have to sit down yourself and work on the article. It's possible, most of the work on the Melee article was done by myself. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 17:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)
As long as we only give a brief background on non-Mario things like in the [[Link]] article these articles are fine (because it's still relevant to ''Mario''). As others have said already, these games are ''Mario'' games, just like ''[[Mario Hoops 3-on-3]]'', only instead of one crossover series there's several. The very name ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' is homage to ''Mario'' and Mario being a playable character could make it more of a ''Mario'' game in some peoples' eyes than things like ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'' or ''[[Wario Land 4]]'' that have no sign of Mario at all. Yes, ''Smash Bros.'' is a bit over-hyped, but its a good series and with a new instalation about to come out it's bound to get lots of attention. Step back and wait for the game to be released and all the information digested into the Wiki before deciding what should stay and what should be merged... But the proposal probably won't fly then either. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
::Kind of in line with what you were saying, we cover what we do on the Wiki because of the relation to the main Mario video games.  The movie wasn't in the same world or with the same characters (just the same names and general roles), but we still have it there because it's part of the history of the Mario series.  Smash Bros. is the same, so the question shouldn't be "Should we limit SSB articles" but "Should we limit articles on subjects that follow alternate storylines?" And then you get into a whole crudload of speculation. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Latest revision as of 23:41, February 5, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, February 6th, 13:29 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Merge Hurricane (move) into Gale Force, EvieMaybe (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Split Best Fitness Friends (form), Pizza Master (ended February 5, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge the Tortes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

Do nothing (It's gourmet!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The glyphs are actually seen, though.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4722735"