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">
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
<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>
==Writing guidelines==
#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).
==New features==
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.


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


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


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''


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


=== Abreviation Pages ===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
 
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
I feel this should be added for begginers. I am proposing that abreviations commonly used in this Wiki should have their own page. It took me 2 months to find out what NPC means. If this does not happen, then I propose instead that we change all abreviations not used in games to be changed to what they really mean.
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User:Jaffffey/sig}} <br>
'''Deadline:''' January 24, 2008, 17:00


====Support====
====Support====
#[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] I agree, because I'm new! I want to be able to learn things like that.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} But only as redirects to their entries on the glossary, 'k?
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Stumpers.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per the one who Stumps.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User:Time Q/sig}} This is Super Mario Wiki, not Abbreviation Wiki. <s>There may be people who do not know what "NPC" means, but we cannot explain everything (which we would have to do if we made articles on abbreviations). And where's the problem in searching Wikipedia for NPC? It does not take 2 months, it takes 2 seconds.</s> Er, per Cobold. (I didn't know about that Glossary page, which is indeed a good place for explaining these abbreviations.)
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - That's exactly what the [[Glossary]] is for.
#{{User:ChaosNinji/sig}} - Per Cobold.
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Per Cobold
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} Per Cobold


====Comments====
====Comments====
Don't forget to vote on your owm proposal! Anyway, abreviations are annoying but I disagree with your secondary suggestion to cut them out if this translation-page proposal doesn't fly. One major problem people might have will be "canon vs. fanon" slang, but the page could always be divided into those respective sections... I dunno, I have to think about this one. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)


<s>What's about a List of Abreviations used on the Mariowiki?</s> Ah, didn't see the Glossary. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 17:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
===Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork===
This proposal will address the bloat some image categories have and make them easier to navigate.


[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] That would work too! I just want someplace to learn the abbreveations. By the way, what does NPC mean?
Why is this useful? It makes adding to galleries or finding images to replace much easier. If you want to retake screenshots from a game, you can go to the screenshots category to find them. If you have sprite rips to replace, there's a category for that. The same goes for finding images from a game that aren't on the gallery already and being able to sort them more efficiently. This is also how we divide up character galleries already, such as [[Gallery:Mario (2010-2019)]].
:Non Player Character, Characters that appear in a game, but that you can't play as. Those are mainly enemies or generic towns-people in the RPG games. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 18:19, 17 January 2008 (EST)


Can't we do what Stumpers suggested and redirect abrieviations to their glossary entries?{{User:Knife/sig}} 16:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Now, I can see a few edge cases, like when games have screenshots of themselves for credits images (i.e. ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)]]''). I would still classify these as assets, since they are ripped from the game. Artwork that is used in smaller forms in-game, such as in ''[[Super Mario Maker 2]]'', would be classified as artwork if externally released or an asset if it was ripped from the game files. Edge cases shouldn't be too common and they're easy to work out: it's not too different from how we license images or put them in character or subject galleries.
:Would be possible if they had entries in the glossary in the first place, which is currently not the case. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:17, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::Cobold: I can help there.  So, what abbreviations are we talking about?  Just list 'em out and then I can take care of 'em all at once. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::Well, NPC for starters. I guess RPG is we wanna be thorough. What other abbreviations do we use a lot (besides things like SMB for [[Super Mario Bros.]] 'cuz those can simply be redirected to the actual game pages)? - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
::::They should be in the glossary as well, but I would redirect 'em to the actual game page, because the glossary will just say, "An achronym for ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', usually the game rather than the movie." {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)
[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] 16:56, 20 January 2008 (EST) Cobold is right. "NPC" isn't in the glossary. I wouldn't know what it means unless Blitzwing told me.


'''''STUMPERS' LIST OF ABREVIATIONS TO ADD:''''' NPC, RPG, Bros. ''(everyone: feel free to add more!)''
I think the name "assets" would be more useful in shorthand than "sprites and models," in addition to covering textures, so I propose for the category to be called that, but I can change it if there's opposition. The global images category can still exist in the case there's scans, merchandise, video screenshots, or such images that cannot be further categorized.


== Removals ==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


''None at the moment''
====Support====
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I support this in principle, as long as there's room for discretion on what gets split and what gets left alone. A game with only ten or so pieces of artwork doesn't need a separate category for them, they can just stay in the main images category for that game. Otherwise, this seems useful, I just don't want users to go overboard by purely following the letter of this proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I've tried to see if an image I wanted to use was already uploaded via the category, which would encourage me to make the text and get the article up. Due to the sheer number of images, this is a bad idea. This proposal will make that less of a bad idea for cases where an asset or artwork is being searched for.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} hell yea


==Splits & Merges==
====Oppose====


===Merge the different colored Yoshi articles===
====Comments====
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.
This is already being done (e.g. [[:Category:Mario Kart Tour item icons]]). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 11:02, December 23, 2024 (EST)


'''Proposer''': [[User:King Boo|King Boo]]
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


'''Deadline''': January 23, 2008, 17:00
==Changes==
===Broaden the scope of the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template and its variations===
With the [[Template talk:Unreferenced#Delete or be more specific|previous proposal]] having passed with being more specific as the most voted, I've come up with a proposal about the possibility to make the {{tem|rewrite}}, {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, and {{tem|rewrite-remove}} templates more specific. As you can see, these templates are missing some smaller text. As such, I am just wondering if there is a possibility to have the smaller text added to the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki>, and <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> templates.


====Support====
First of all, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - Per myself.
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


====Oppose, each color should have it's own article====
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}I don't see what the problem is. The articles aren't stubs, why should we merge them?
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten'''.
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} As it stands, I'm gonna say no b/c of differences in ''[[Super Mario World]]''. I could change easily, though.
</div>
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per all. We touched on this subject in that old [[Green Bird|Isle]] [[Yellow Bird|Delfino]] [[Red Bird|Birds]] [[Blue Bird|proposal]] (which hasn't been fulfilled yet...) and decided these Yoshi pages stay... However inconveniant it is to flick through them all.
----
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|THE YOSHI ARTICLES HAVE TO STAY APART. per all.}}
However, once the proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template will read as follows:
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] Per all.
----
#[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] Yeah, I thought about it, and they each have enough info to stay seperate. I agree with everyone.. and, there'd be no Orange Yoshi article (no article of me!)
<pre>
#[[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] Per all except for the last 2 comments of Orangeyoshi.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>
</pre>


====Comments====
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
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)
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}}.</small>
</div>
----
And another thing—the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


We had this proposal before, it did not pass. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 01:41, 17 January 2008 (EST)
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


BlueYoshter, I don't understand what you mean by "THEY MUST STAY." Could you elaborate, please? {{User:ChaosNinji/sig}} This did fail before.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
----
Lastly, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


===Merge of the same stages/courses into one article and split the the different ones===
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
I propose to merge the various courses from the spin-off series that have their own articles. This also goes for those who have appeared in main games before, and ''only'' have changed layouts, with (almost) identical names. One great example of this is [[Bowser's Castle]] from the main-games which has individual pages for [[Bowser Castle|the stages named Bowser('s) Castle in ''Mario Kart'']] and even [[Bowser Castle (Mario Superstar Baseball)|the Bowser Castle stadium in ''Mario Superstar Baseball'']] while the Bowser Castle-stage for ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'' is STILL in the main-game's article of Bowser's Castle.
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have <u>content</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): ???
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s):{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


I also propose to split the pages that have two or more entirely different stages in the same article, mostly the [[Super Smash Bros. (series)|''Super Smash Bros.'' stages]], such as the article with [[Super Smash Bros.|the original's]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Melee|''Melee's'']] [[Mushroom Kingdom (stage)|Mushroom Kingdom]], two ENTIRELY different stages. Well, you may think "But they have the same name and design!" No, they don't. All stages based on ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' would have that design and the Melee versions is called Mushroom''':''' Kingdom, with "'''Mushroom'''" being the stage location and "'''Kingdom'''" the name.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have content '''removed''' for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
----
That will be a perfect idea to make the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template and its variations as more specific as the {{tem|media missing}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} templates. That way, we'll be able to add smaller text to the remaining [[:Category:Notice templates|notice templates]] in the future.


(BTW, I is not neutral to English and this is the first time I porposes so if anything is spelled wrong or wrong in any other way, feel free to edit this.)
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to December 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': [[User:KingMario|KingMario]]
====Support====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal


'''Deadline''': January 26, 2008, 20:00
====Oppose====
#{{User|Altendo}} As far as I can tell, the proposal that was linked added parameters that allowed what was supposed to be referenced to be referenced. This one simply adds a subtitle to the bottom of each template. "Be more specific" does not mean saying general information and helpful links, but rather exactly what needs to be done; in terms of that, the existing templates not only all already have parameters, but [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Discourage drive-by templating|filling them out is enforced]]. As [[User:Nightwicked Bowser|Nightwicked Bowser]] said, "Be more specific - Similar to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Discourage drive-by templating|this proposal]], what exactly needs references must be specified in the template when putting it in the article. A parameter for this will still need to be added." This only adds a subtitle and does not make this "more specific". As for the changes, this is actually harmful in some way, as the <nowiki>(tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})</nowiki> tag will be added to the subtitle, rather than the main body, which could make it more confusing in my opinion. Feel free to update this and add in what "more specific" actually means, or just change this to "add subtitles" and change the location of <nowiki>(tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})</nowiki> to the main body, but until then, my vote is staying here.
#{{User|Mario}} Best to keep things simple with these improvement templates.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Mario.


'''EDIT 20/01''': Looks like i forgot the idea to add a category in which users can support one idea only.
====Comments====


====Support====
Here's how I would fix some things:
#[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] Per KingMario.
#{{User:Xluidi/sig|per KingM}}
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] Per King Mario.


====Oppose====
First of all, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|i have to oppose cause those are '''''completley''''' different places.}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} I like your second idea, not so much the first.  I wouldn't think you'd want to combine an article about a race track in a city and the city itself, would you?  Bowser's Castle is larger than most cities in the Mario series, so...  I wouldn't think that you'd want to combine these based on the fact that they have the same name.  Oh, and remember that we have articles on individual rooms in Luigi's Mansion?  We've already combined the clearly different racetracks, so at this point it'd be like making the article about the individual Toad a sub-portion of the article about his species.  Remember, we even split the [[Mr. E]] article (two minor subjects w/ same name = two articles). Merging is only applicable when you have minor subjects with different names, not major subjects with the same name.
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten'''.
#[[User:huntercrunch|huntercrunch]] Per Stumpers.
</div>
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per Stumpers. Bowser's Castle isn't the same castle in most games, anyway. It is a place in ''Super Mario World'', a flying building in ''Paper Mario'' and a Bowser-Statue-formed Battleship in ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga''.
----
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Stumpers.
However, once the proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template will read as follows:
#Nay to the First, Yea to the second. Per Stupers, in other words. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
----
====Supporting ''one'' idea====
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>
</pre>


====Comments====
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
Are you gonna vote, KM? {{User:Dodoman/sig}}
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' for the following reasons:<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}}.</small>
:I'm split. No to the first, yes to the second. Where do I put my vote? O_o {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
</div>
::If we're merging areas in the spin-off games with the main games, than shouldn't the same be done for ''Super Smash Bros.'' stages? Your argument about how they're different places is valid, however the same could be said for al the other spin-off places (i.e. [[Bowser Castle (Mario Superstar Baseball)|MSB's Bowser Castle stadium]] is certainly not the same as the [[Bowser's Castle|Castle]] he actually ''lives'' in). Also, the individual stages of most games (except more obscure games like the Japanese-only ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'') already have articles and not all of them have corresponding main-game areas, so it's going to be difficult acting on this Proposal. Then there's the other option of cramming all these odd-ball stages together into lists of stages for each game, which would also have links to the main-game artciles for the stages that were merged in that fashion. It's a very big and daunting undertaking, but I still don't want to vote against it, since if it's done right it ''could'' be beneficial... [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
----
And another thing—the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


InfectedShroom, you may want to put your vote in oppose so that the proposal doesn't go through?  If you don't you might lose both of your arguments. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 13:02, 21 January 2008 (EST)
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:I think we should split this proposal into two different ones, people's votes shouldn't be influenced by only offering one rating on two different issues. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:05, 21 January 2008 (EST)
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.
:Stumpers: You have a point. Thank you. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


=== Snifit or Snufit? ===
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
''Note: Message is edited from [[Talk:Snufit]]''
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information for the following reasons:<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
----
Lastly, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


So, um, according to TMK, these guys' Japanese names are exactly the same as a normal Snifit's. On top of that, i and u are right next to each other on most English keyboards. They look nearly identical (especially in the remake, which makes almost all enemies look more like their traditional forms), and, floating aside, act identical as well--and the originals could jump and hover for a short time anyway. And this very wiki says that they were "accidentally" referred to as Snifits in one of the MPs anyway.... Considering all that, can we really say that they're intended to be different enemies? I'd suggest a merge.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
 
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have <u>content</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): ???
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] and [[User:Knife|Knife]]<br>
</div>
'''Deadline:''' 26 January, 2008, 20:00
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed''' {{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reasons:{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


==== Keep as Snufit ====
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - See comment below.
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have content '''removed''' for the following reason(s):<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per below.
</div>
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|PER ALL. A snifit has ''legs''. A snufit is like a ghost snifit, but theyre different :P}}
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per everyone.


==== Merge to Snifit ====
This should fix some things, and I also recommend you change the title or at least context of this proposal. If so, then I might change my vote. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 19:58, December 9, 2024 (EST)
#[[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] - Per above.  Per below.  Per common sense.  Per logic.  And, most importantly, per the designers' own designation!
:I {{plain link|https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=4457576|fixed this problem}} for you. How does it look? {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 09:40, December 10, 2024 (EST)
#[[user:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] - The fact that they were refered to as Snifit in Mario Party kind ofp oint out to the fact that those things are infact Snifit. I think the proposer could be more polite and reasonable, thought.


==== Comments ====
===Decide what to do with Template:Move infobox===
They're different species, but I do see what you're getting at with your arguments on the talk page. I agree that it's strange how Koopa Troopas started out quardrupedial and are now totally different but retain the same name. If it were up to me, the 4-legged ones would be called [[Shellcreeper]]s and only the anthropormorphic turtles would be Troopas, but it's not up to me, it's up to ''Nintendo'', and they say they're all Koopa Troopas. It's the same case with the [[Paratroopa]]s: they're just [[Koopa Troopa]]s with wings, but they've been given different names so we have to say they're different species, and the same goes for [[Snifit]]s and [[Snufit]]s. Of course, I'd still want to list Paratroopas as their own species (or at least sub-species) anyway, since they look and act different from Koopa Troopas, which are the main criteria for determining species in biology (aside from genetics, which doesn't really apply here as this is the '''fictional''' ''[[Marioverse]]'' where DNA means squat and anything can happen, including a species getting its wings knocked off and ''magically'' turning into another species). Maybe Snifits and Snufits ''were'' meant to be the same thing, but they're not. They act and look different, just like the two kinds of Koopa Troopas, and just like Paratroopas and Troopas; but like the latter, they got seperate names. It doesn't matter if it was a typo, ''Nintendo'' has spoken and we're obligated to follow it. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
A while ago (November 4th, specifically), I created [[Template:Move infobox]]. After all, we had templates for essentially all the Browse tabs on the wiki sidebar, except for moves. There WERE templates about specific types of moves, such as [[Template:M&L attack infobox]], but no general template in the same vein as items, characters, species, games, locations, etc.  


I just want to point out that if this proposal pass, we should also perhap split the [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Goomba&action=edit&section=5 Super Mario World Goomba] from the [[Goomba]] article since they act differently and haves a different name in the Japanese localisation, which is kinda the opposite of this "Snifit = Snufit?" deal. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:22, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I discussed it on the Discord briefly, nobody said no, and a bit of feedback later about how it should look and what it should have, I created it. It has since been applied to exactly four pages at the time of writing, half of which I was the one to apply it to. In hindsight, this could've used with a proposal instead of me just making it, so here's a belated one.


Should we keep '''Template:Move infobox''' around? If we do keep it, is it good as is, or does it need changes?


Exactly.  Whether NoA screwed up the localization or not, they were designed as the same characters (Snifit example) and different characters (Goomba example), and we should respect that.  I mean, come on--Bloopers were known as Bloobers in a few games, but we aren't rushing to make new pages for those!  You say it's up to Nintendo, Walkazo--well, Nintendo says they're the same.  Just because NoA typoed doesn't change that fact.  [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 13:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
:Your Blooper example doesn't work: Blooper and Blooper look and act '''exactly''' the same way. Snufit and Snifit are obliviously different (If similar) creature, beside, we are an english-speaking wiki, I think it make sense to follow the American localisation. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 13:17, 20 January 2008 (EST)
'''Deadline''': January 1st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


::Come on. The Japanese creators of a Japanese game say they're the same species.  The American translators change one easily-typoed letter, be it by accident or otherwise, and redesign them even less drastically than others that remain the same species. They then proceed to call them by the "other species"'s name even in American publications. Where's the logic in saying they're different? There is not a single argument for keeping it Snufit that doesn't apply to dozens of other changes you never questioned. The American localization has screwed up in the past.  We don't follow those mistakes.  What makes this one different?  [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 13:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
====Keep Move infobox, as is====
:::The difference between this case and [[Pakkun Flower]] (which is a half-translated Piranha Plant), is that Snufits actually ''look different'' and have ''different abilities'' (flying). So as there is already an official name for this sub-species, we should use it. Because these are a sub-species, not regular Snifits. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:26, 20 January 2008 (EST)
#{{User|Sparks}} I can see this template working really well for moves that aren't in every ''Mario'' game, like [[Spin]]. This has lots of potential!
::::NoJ says otherwise. [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 15:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
:::::I was not referring to the name, but the appearance. Check again. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 08:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We don't see why not--having a dedicated Moves infobox could come in handy, especially if we get any more Mario RPGs in the wake of the weird little renaissance period we've been getting with the back-to-back-to-back SMRPG remake, TTYD remake, and release of Brothership. Per proposal.
::::::And your point is?  NoJ says they're the same species.  NoJ designed them.  NoA may have said they're the same species with a minor typo, or they may have been foolish enough to try to make a new species out of something that's clearly not supposed to be so.  Either way, what's the point?  Every single creature in 64 that I can think of except the goombas changed in some major way from their previous selves.  "It isn't like the old snifits" is NOT a valid argument unless you're completely blind to all forms of common sense and pattern recognition.  There is not a single reason to say it's different--except for a ONE-KEY-OVER LETTER, which was later corrected anyway!  You people are being completely irrational! [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 14:26, 21 January 2008 (EST)
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It would bring more attention to our move pages. I'm down for that.


:::::::Keep a cool head. Anyway, do they fix this typo in SM64DS? If not, then they were meant to be a separate species. If they did, then they are Snifits. Either way, I think their official name in SM64DS should be the deciding factor here.{{User:Knife/sig}} 15:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
====Keep Move infobox, but with changes====


::::::It should be noted that, even when they are called Snifits, the "Snufits" are a sub-species nethertheless. They just have features regular Snifits don't, or better the other way round, they are lacking Snifit bodies. They are a subspecies, it is just the question whether they have an ''official name''. The Bloober <-> Blooper example doesn't really fit here because of that. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:09, 21 January 2008 (EST)
====Delete Move infobox====


:::::::Cobold, you're entirely missing my point. Every enemy in SM64 has features they didn't before, so that is NOT a valid argument. Knife, are they ever even named ingame?  And I'd keep a cool head if these people would stop acting so ridiculously dense. -_- But hey, what do I know? I'm only following the original creators' obvious-as-hell intentions, after all. Sheesh... [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 19:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
====Move infobox Comments====
Considering the nature of the attack infoboxes, wouldn't it be weird to have moves all in purple but a Mario & Luigi attack use yellow and green and a Paper Mario attack use white and green? Should there be variants of the Move infobox to match the color schemes of existing templates? If an article is covering multiple related moves, how will the infobox work? (ex. [[Handstand]], [[Cap Throw]], [[Roll]], [[Slide Kick]]... there's more of these than I thought). What happens when a move is referenced in somewhat less "move-y" ways? Okay, that last one is kinda strange, but basically I mean "dashing" in Super Mario Run is just a fancy animation, Mario & Luigi Dream Team has an animation where Giant Luigi crouches (with posing and skidding clearly meant to be a platformer callback), to slide under an attack. Do these instances get incorporated into the infobox? Continuing the train of thought, what about sports games? Yoshi can Flutter Jump as his special action on Mario & Sonic games. Does that count as a method of input for a Flutter Jump? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)
:that's a lot of very interesting questions!
:*i went with purple to set it apart from the already taken light red (game), green and white (character), blue (level), pink (location), grey (item) and navy/grey (species) infoboxes. changing the color could be a good idea.
:*as for sorting which moves "count" or not, we have to decide these things for other types of subject too, after all, and they get infoboxes. it's a valid concern, though! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 15:09, December 20, 2024 (EST)


==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.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} I'm down with everything everyone said.
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} It's a big job but it needs to be done.
#[[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] 22:47, 18 January 2008 (EST) See comment below.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per All.


==== Use not ====
===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
#{{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.
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?
#{{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.
#{{User:Mewtwo49/sig}} Per Glitchman.


==== Comments ====
Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.
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)


I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. [[User:Alphaclaw11|Alphaclaw11]] 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.
: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
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
:Of course. That's what this is about. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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)
====Blank support====
: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)
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
#{{User|PopitTart}} <small>(This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)</small>
#{{User|Altendo}} <small>(Look at the code for my reasoning)</small><!---It might not seem annoying, but over time, or answering multiple proposals at once, it can start putting stress. Copy-pasting can be done, but it is just much easier to not type anything at all.---->
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}}
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really ''are'' just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at ''all.'' <small>(Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)</small> <!---Silent per all.---->
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
#{{user|TheDarkStar}} - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
#{{user|Ninja Squid}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.


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)
====Blank Oppose====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
#{{User|Technetium}} I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone ''does'' provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} {{color|white|Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type ''two words''.}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all <small>(is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)</small>
#{{User|Axii}} Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides ''some'' insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
#{{user|DesaMatt}} Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.


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]]
====Blank Comments====
: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)
I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::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)
:I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:::My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::::My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the  odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:{{@|Mario}} I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)


<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}}
Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)
: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)
:Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:13, December 18, 2024 (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)
I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring ''a'' written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)
: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)


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)
===Set Vector-2010 to the default wiki skin===
This proposal is about setting the 2010 [[mw:Skin:Vector|Vector]] as the default wiki skin ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160207064154/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/44/Logo_new-vector_screenshot.png screenshot here]) for desktop users, with the focus being on people who are new to wikis in particular, while obviously keeping the existing MonoBook skin as an option. What made me think to create this proposal is when I made a [[Talk:Main Page]] proposal about the to-do list tasks and how they are more accessible than clicking the "Wiki maintenance" on the sidebar, I had to uncomfortably squint to find "Wiki maintenance" on the wiki sidebar. But Vector-2010 has the sidebar links slightly larger and a bit more spaced out. With the existing interface, there could be some who may struggle to find options listed on the sidebar.


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}}
While we're clearly different from Wikipedia (that's why I'm not Vector-2022, since it'd be too much of a departure and likely uncomfortable for several), I do want to refer to [http://web.archive.org/web/20180213165624/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/05/13/a-new-look-for-wikipedia/ this page], which summarizes why Wikipedia transitioned to it. Though it is vague, they cite accessibility as the reason, which I think this wiki has been taking steps toward doing.
:A "reference" isn't necessarily a link. It may as well be simply a text string which reads "Nintendo Power Official Super Mario *enter game name here* Guide, page XX". At least, that is what Wikipedia's reference system allows perfectly well. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)


Well, probably we could do like what Geographers do when the map maps.  They write "Field Work" so just replace it with "Own Source" or something... {{User:MarioBros777/sig}} Could work...
I'll cite my reasons for preferring Vector and applying this to possible people who are visiting a wiki for the first time. The text is larger, which is especially important for larger screen monitors, some of the lesser used tabs are collapsible on the sidebar, summarizing the most commonly used options, and the user links at the top right are also more noticeable and less close to the body of the article where the content is read.


:We need to know where we get our info. Before I posted a message on the talk page of shrowser, I didn't know the name was official because it didn't say where the name came from. If we don't give our sources, a lot of questions will be asked like mine. [[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] 22:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Though it could take time getting used to the Edit button being on the right (not to mention the search button), the button is at least larger, making it more usable on even lower quality screen monitors, and I like how it's separate from the Page and discussion options, meaning that options that involve viewing articles are on the left while options that involve editing or changing the page in some form are on the right.
::I've done that a lot, too.  Right now I'm trying to find where the term "Earth" was used to describe the "Real World" from the cartoon shows.  Could have saved me a lot of time if someone noted that. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 16:47, 19 January 2008 (EST)


== Miscellaneous ==
If this proposal passes and others don't like the change, they can always return to the MonoBook option in their [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering|preferences]].
===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>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' January 22, 2008, 17:00
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support, we are the Super ''Mario'' wiki====
====Support====
#{{user:Crypt Raider/sig}} I get sick of this SBB being Marfio 100%  crap.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Forgot this... Per myself.
#{{User:NintendoExpert89}} Mixing Mario with something else does not make it Mario related. Please see my "comment" below.


====Oppose====
====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|Camwoodstock}} Admittedly, this vote is largely a matter of preference--we just don't like Vector that much--but we can't think of any real reason to switch to Vector 2010 as the default over the current Monobook beyond the mentioned text spacing; while that is a nice boon, we personally find the weird gradient buttons for the various tabs up top a little grating looking, and we're a fan of the more compact design that Monobook provides--though, this is likely a byproduct of our personal preference for more neatly packed web design. And uh, the less said about the other two options (Vector 2022, and. Timeless. <s>Which is the most dated theme possible, namely to mid-2010s mobile web design.</s>), the better. If you like Vector 2010, that's great, and we're fine with that! Heck, if anyone likes Vector 2022 or Timeless, that's cool too, and more power to them! Variety is the spice of life, after all. But switching it to the default is something that should not be taken lightly, and the reasons for a switch in this proposal feel a little too loosey-goosey for us, we're sorry.
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} Per DP.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per Camwoodstock.
#[[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|Nintendo101}} I like how MonoBook looks a little more than Vector. It is what I am comfortable with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
#{{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}}Per PDP
#{{User|Drago}} Per Nintendo101. I actually prefer the smaller text of Monobook since you can see more of the page at once. I also want to point out that although logged-in users like us can change the skin in preferences, we'd still be forcing the change on logged-out users.
#{{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|Ahemtoday}} Per Drago.
#{{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|Technetium}} Per Nintendo101 and Drago. I just don't see any reason to make this change.
#[[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|Altendo}} I'm saying this as a Vector-2010 skin user, and I'll say that people have their preferences. I live Vector-2010 because that is how Wikipedia at least used to look before they switched to Vector (2022); On Wikipedia, Vector was renamed to Vector legacy (2010), while Vector 2022 is named Vector (2022). Although I do prefer Vector-2010, I know a lot of people that prefer Monobook, and even if not, this can be changed in the preferences. No need to change the default skin. I get that IPs can't change their appearance, but aside from that, users can, and what they see doesn't have to be default on the wiki. Everyone can change what they specifically see.
#{{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.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Super Mario Wiki we are, but who cares if we have SSB articles? Per all.
#{{User:Glitchman/sig2}} Per Booster and Walkazo.
#[[Image:Paperjorgesp.png]] [[User:Paper Jorge|Paper Jorge]] [[Image:Paperjorgesp.png]] Per all, specially Cobold.
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} Per all. We MUST keep all this.


====Comments====
====Comments====
{{@|Camwoodstock}} That is true that it's a major change. It's based mainly upon impression from newcomers from them seeing a more prominent edit tab, slightly larger text size, and other minor details like tab names that are easier to read (including a collapsible feature for the lesser used tab). The skin change was based on old Wikipedia research at the time (like how WikiLove was a result of their research). I have no strong feelings whether this passes or not. Although it's vague, since there's no way to tell the statistics (and the wiki's already successful at the moment), I still have a feeling it could help some, but to each their own. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:32, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:We feel like if anybody would be capable of providing any statistics on skin usage, it'd be Porple, but even then, we don't actually know if that's one of the things he tracks, and it feels a little silly to pester him over this of all things... ;p {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:55, December 18, 2024 (EST)


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}}
I'm okay with opposition, but in case of misunderstanding, this proposal isn't about personal preferences so much as what I believe to be a more ergonomic interface to a wider audience. I know we're not Wikipedia, but there's also the consideration that they've used the Vector skin longer than they had for MonoBook. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 13:45, December 19, 2024 (EST)
: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.
:If it's what "you believe", then it ultimately (and probably unavoidably) is about personal preferences. Anyway, another consideration is the fact that people often prefer what they're used to. I feel like how long this wiki has used its skin is more relevant than how long Wikipedia has. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:39, December 19, 2024 (EST)
::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.
::{{@|Hewer}} I suppose I'm overthinking the ergonomic interface. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:19, December 20, 2024 (EST)
:::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)
:::Too true, makes me think of that old expression: "leave well-enough alone." - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
 
----
I think that these connections being made between series is getting a little far-fetched. I myself believe the amount of Smash content should be limited, and I have a reason why. I may have a tough time explaining (I might be sounding like I'm being contradicting here and there), so please don't fret if you cannot understand.
 
Alright, the Smash Bros series is closely related to Mario, as some of you argue. But "closely" is not the same as "directly": Smash series did not come straight from Mario. Smash is more like a salad of different Nintendo (and other) series blended together. Mario being mixed with everybody else does not make them all related to Mario. The Yoshi, Wario, and DK series are Mario related, because they stemmed directly from the Mario universe. Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and everyone else there is Mario related, because they are part of the DK series (stemming from Mario). But, characters like Conker and Banjo did not stem out from Mario, but from DK and thus became a whole different franchise altogether. From this we can conclude we should only cover characters and whatnot that are within the Mario universe  and those that stemmed directly from it. But now you all must be thinking "what about Sonic? He and Mario are in a game together!" ''Mario & Sonic'' is a Mario game to begin with but had allowed Sonic, a completely different character, to be a guest in the universe. So the Sonic characters that appeared there should be covered on the Wiki as they were directly put within or extremely near the Mario universe for at least a while. The Smash series differs from this situation in that it is several video game universes in one big collage, rather than a direct implementation of one universe into another. It doesn't focus directly at Mario, Sonic, Pokemon, or at Pikmin. All of them are in for it.


So, back my first point: the Smash series is a big (mostly Nintendo) video game collage; the series doesn't solely take place in the Mario universe. Several franchises meet together, but doesn't make them related as they didn't originate from one another. Zelda did not come from Mario, and neither did Pokemon, Metroid, Star Fox, etc. Therefore the Mario Wiki is being cluttered with many articles that not even related to Mario: only because Mario is in the game. Sonic is a very loose exception, as he and Mario were the direct focus of the game mentioned earlier-- Well... look, I'm not saying we should simply throw out all things non-Mario, I'm saying that they should be controlled. I myself suggest that we do directly focus on primarily on the Mario components and gameplay of Brawl and Melee while giving mention to the other franchises within. I suggest links to non-Mario Smash articles (Link, Final Cutter, Smashville, End of Day) be replaced with links to those at Smash Wiki's. This way, I believe it does not ignore the majority of Smash itself, but rather lets more appropriate sources fill that void. I hope at least many of you were able to see what I'm saying. --[[User:NintendoExpert89|NintendoExpert89]] 02:07, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==Miscellaneous==
:I cannot follow your reasons about ''Mario and Sonic'' being different to Smash Bros. Also, we will stay independent from SmashWiki, it's something completely different and not written in a neutral style. It does have nothing to do with the MarioWiki and will stay that way in the future. Same goes for "the Userpedia" and all that stuff. Second, it was initially decided to feature the Smash Bros. series on the wiki because the ''majority'' (not absolute, but relative) of its content is indeed featuring the Mario universe. Currently, removing the Smash Bros. content from the Wiki again would look like a foolish attempt which, in my opinion, is only triggered because the articles have been expanded that much. Long articles on Smash Bros. are not to be discriminated against by Mario articles of the same length, as per the [[MarioWiki:Importance Policy|Importance Policy]]. The Smash Bros. series is related to the Mario series enough to be featured in here, as are other crossovers like ''Mario & Sonic''. And this still doesn't mean that we should include Banjo or Conker or games were Mario made a cameo in. My vote is mainly because I don't want to lose all the work I put into the articles, that's true as well. In my opinion, if we hadn't wanted Smash on the Wiki, we should have decided it earlier, now you're too late. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 15:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)
''None at the moment.''
::Wouldn't Smash Bros fall into the same category as the Wario & DK games in that they all stem back to the Mario series - Kamicciolo
[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] 17:18, 20 January 2008 (EST) Super Smash Bros. articles are fine. But I don't think those games should be considered part of the main Mario series. They're not even really Mario spin-offs-- they're more like general Nintendo character games. When I read the [[ESRB]] article, it said no Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, or Yoshi game had ever been rated EC, M, or AO. That made me curious about what game was rated T. When I found out it was SSB Melee, I was like, "Oh, THAT game." On this wiki, it's considered to much as part of the series. The articles are fine. But that's what I have to say about this matter.

Latest revision as of 23:51, December 25, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, December 28th, 13:32 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

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

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

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

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)
Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 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)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

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

Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork

This proposal will address the bloat some image categories have and make them easier to navigate.

Why is this useful? It makes adding to galleries or finding images to replace much easier. If you want to retake screenshots from a game, you can go to the screenshots category to find them. If you have sprite rips to replace, there's a category for that. The same goes for finding images from a game that aren't on the gallery already and being able to sort them more efficiently. This is also how we divide up character galleries already, such as Gallery:Mario (2010-2019).

Now, I can see a few edge cases, like when games have screenshots of themselves for credits images (i.e. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)). I would still classify these as assets, since they are ripped from the game. Artwork that is used in smaller forms in-game, such as in Super Mario Maker 2, would be classified as artwork if externally released or an asset if it was ripped from the game files. Edge cases shouldn't be too common and they're easy to work out: it's not too different from how we license images or put them in character or subject galleries.

I think the name "assets" would be more useful in shorthand than "sprites and models," in addition to covering textures, so I propose for the category to be called that, but I can change it if there's opposition. The global images category can still exist in the case there's scans, merchandise, video screenshots, or such images that cannot be further categorized.

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) I support this in principle, as long as there's room for discretion on what gets split and what gets left alone. A game with only ten or so pieces of artwork doesn't need a separate category for them, they can just stay in the main images category for that game. Otherwise, this seems useful, I just don't want users to go overboard by purely following the letter of this proposal.
  3. Salmancer (talk) I've tried to see if an image I wanted to use was already uploaded via the category, which would encourage me to make the text and get the article up. Due to the sheer number of images, this is a bad idea. This proposal will make that less of a bad idea for cases where an asset or artwork is being searched for.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) hell yea

Oppose

Comments

This is already being done (e.g. Category:Mario Kart Tour item icons). Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:02, December 23, 2024 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Broaden the scope of the {{rewrite}} template and its variations

With the previous proposal having passed with being more specific as the most voted, I've come up with a proposal about the possibility to make the {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite-expand}}, and {{rewrite-remove}} templates more specific. As you can see, these templates are missing some smaller text. As such, I am just wondering if there is a possibility to have the smaller text added to the {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite-expand}}, and {{rewrite-remove}} templates.

First of all, the {{rewrite}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

However, once the proposal passes, the {{rewrite}} template will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article.

And another thing—the {{rewrite-expand}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information.

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-expand}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by filling in the missing details.

Lastly, the {{rewrite-remove}} currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): ???

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-remove}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s):{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by removing the unnecessary details.

That will be a perfect idea to make the {{rewrite}} template and its variations as more specific as the {{media missing}} and {{unreferenced}} templates. That way, we'll be able to add smaller text to the remaining notice templates in the future.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to December 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Altendo (talk) As far as I can tell, the proposal that was linked added parameters that allowed what was supposed to be referenced to be referenced. This one simply adds a subtitle to the bottom of each template. "Be more specific" does not mean saying general information and helpful links, but rather exactly what needs to be done; in terms of that, the existing templates not only all already have parameters, but filling them out is enforced. As Nightwicked Bowser said, "Be more specific - Similar to this proposal, what exactly needs references must be specified in the template when putting it in the article. A parameter for this will still need to be added." This only adds a subtitle and does not make this "more specific". As for the changes, this is actually harmful in some way, as the (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}}) tag will be added to the subtitle, rather than the main body, which could make it more confusing in my opinion. Feel free to update this and add in what "more specific" actually means, or just change this to "add subtitles" and change the location of (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}}) to the main body, but until then, my vote is staying here.
  2. Mario (talk) Best to keep things simple with these improvement templates.
  3. Technetium (talk) Per Mario.

Comments

Here's how I would fix some things:

First of all, the {{rewrite}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

However, once the proposal passes, the {{rewrite}} template will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten for the following reasons:
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article.

And another thing—the {{rewrite-expand}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information.

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-expand}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information for the following reasons:
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by filling in the missing details.

Lastly, the {{rewrite-remove}} currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): ???

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-remove}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed''' {{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reasons:{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s):
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by removing the unnecessary details.

This should fix some things, and I also recommend you change the title or at least context of this proposal. If so, then I might change my vote. Altendo 19:58, December 9, 2024 (EST)

I fixed this problem for you. How does it look? GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 09:40, December 10, 2024 (EST)

Decide what to do with Template:Move infobox

A while ago (November 4th, specifically), I created Template:Move infobox. After all, we had templates for essentially all the Browse tabs on the wiki sidebar, except for moves. There WERE templates about specific types of moves, such as Template:M&L attack infobox, but no general template in the same vein as items, characters, species, games, locations, etc.

I discussed it on the Discord briefly, nobody said no, and a bit of feedback later about how it should look and what it should have, I created it. It has since been applied to exactly four pages at the time of writing, half of which I was the one to apply it to. In hindsight, this could've used with a proposal instead of me just making it, so here's a belated one.

Should we keep Template:Move infobox around? If we do keep it, is it good as is, or does it need changes?

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: January 1st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Keep Move infobox, as is

  1. Sparks (talk) I can see this template working really well for moves that aren't in every Mario game, like Spin. This has lots of potential!
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We don't see why not--having a dedicated Moves infobox could come in handy, especially if we get any more Mario RPGs in the wake of the weird little renaissance period we've been getting with the back-to-back-to-back SMRPG remake, TTYD remake, and release of Brothership. Per proposal.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Salmancer (talk) It would bring more attention to our move pages. I'm down for that.

Keep Move infobox, but with changes

Delete Move infobox

Move infobox Comments

Considering the nature of the attack infoboxes, wouldn't it be weird to have moves all in purple but a Mario & Luigi attack use yellow and green and a Paper Mario attack use white and green? Should there be variants of the Move infobox to match the color schemes of existing templates? If an article is covering multiple related moves, how will the infobox work? (ex. Handstand, Cap Throw, Roll, Slide Kick... there's more of these than I thought). What happens when a move is referenced in somewhat less "move-y" ways? Okay, that last one is kinda strange, but basically I mean "dashing" in Super Mario Run is just a fancy animation, Mario & Luigi Dream Team has an animation where Giant Luigi crouches (with posing and skidding clearly meant to be a platformer callback), to slide under an attack. Do these instances get incorporated into the infobox? Continuing the train of thought, what about sports games? Yoshi can Flutter Jump as his special action on Mario & Sonic games. Does that count as a method of input for a Flutter Jump? Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

that's a lot of very interesting questions!
  • i went with purple to set it apart from the already taken light red (game), green and white (character), blue (level), pink (location), grey (item) and navy/grey (species) infoboxes. changing the color could be a good idea.
  • as for sorting which moves "count" or not, we have to decide these things for other types of subject too, after all, and they get infoboxes. it's a valid concern, though! eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 15:09, December 20, 2024 (EST)



Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?

Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.

This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Blank support

  1. Mario (talk) Per all.
  2. Ray Trace (talk) Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
  3. PopitTart (talk) (This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)
  4. Altendo (talk) (Look at the code for my reasoning)
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk)
  6. OmegaRuby (talk) While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really are just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at all. (Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)
  7. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
  8. TheDarkStar (talk) - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
  9. Ninja Squid (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Tails777 (talk) It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.

Blank Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
  2. Technetium (talk) I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone does provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type two words.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all (is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)
  6. Axii (talk) Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
  7. Pseudo (talk) Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
  8. Hooded Pitohui (talk) I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides some insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
  9. Mister Wu (talk) Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
  10. DesaMatt (talk) Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.

Blank Comments

I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)

I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
@Mario I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)

Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)

Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. Technetium (talk) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring a written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

Set Vector-2010 to the default wiki skin

This proposal is about setting the 2010 Vector as the default wiki skin (screenshot here) for desktop users, with the focus being on people who are new to wikis in particular, while obviously keeping the existing MonoBook skin as an option. What made me think to create this proposal is when I made a Talk:Main Page proposal about the to-do list tasks and how they are more accessible than clicking the "Wiki maintenance" on the sidebar, I had to uncomfortably squint to find "Wiki maintenance" on the wiki sidebar. But Vector-2010 has the sidebar links slightly larger and a bit more spaced out. With the existing interface, there could be some who may struggle to find options listed on the sidebar.

While we're clearly different from Wikipedia (that's why I'm not Vector-2022, since it'd be too much of a departure and likely uncomfortable for several), I do want to refer to this page, which summarizes why Wikipedia transitioned to it. Though it is vague, they cite accessibility as the reason, which I think this wiki has been taking steps toward doing.

I'll cite my reasons for preferring Vector and applying this to possible people who are visiting a wiki for the first time. The text is larger, which is especially important for larger screen monitors, some of the lesser used tabs are collapsible on the sidebar, summarizing the most commonly used options, and the user links at the top right are also more noticeable and less close to the body of the article where the content is read.

Though it could take time getting used to the Edit button being on the right (not to mention the search button), the button is at least larger, making it more usable on even lower quality screen monitors, and I like how it's separate from the Page and discussion options, meaning that options that involve viewing articles are on the left while options that involve editing or changing the page in some form are on the right.

If this proposal passes and others don't like the change, they can always return to the MonoBook option in their preferences.

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

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.

Oppose

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Admittedly, this vote is largely a matter of preference--we just don't like Vector that much--but we can't think of any real reason to switch to Vector 2010 as the default over the current Monobook beyond the mentioned text spacing; while that is a nice boon, we personally find the weird gradient buttons for the various tabs up top a little grating looking, and we're a fan of the more compact design that Monobook provides--though, this is likely a byproduct of our personal preference for more neatly packed web design. And uh, the less said about the other two options (Vector 2022, and. Timeless. Which is the most dated theme possible, namely to mid-2010s mobile web design.), the better. If you like Vector 2010, that's great, and we're fine with that! Heck, if anyone likes Vector 2022 or Timeless, that's cool too, and more power to them! Variety is the spice of life, after all. But switching it to the default is something that should not be taken lightly, and the reasons for a switch in this proposal feel a little too loosey-goosey for us, we're sorry.
  2. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) I like how MonoBook looks a little more than Vector. It is what I am comfortable with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  4. Drago (talk) Per Nintendo101. I actually prefer the smaller text of Monobook since you can see more of the page at once. I also want to point out that although logged-in users like us can change the skin in preferences, we'd still be forcing the change on logged-out users.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Drago.
  6. Technetium (talk) Per Nintendo101 and Drago. I just don't see any reason to make this change.
  7. Altendo (talk) I'm saying this as a Vector-2010 skin user, and I'll say that people have their preferences. I live Vector-2010 because that is how Wikipedia at least used to look before they switched to Vector (2022); On Wikipedia, Vector was renamed to Vector legacy (2010), while Vector 2022 is named Vector (2022). Although I do prefer Vector-2010, I know a lot of people that prefer Monobook, and even if not, this can be changed in the preferences. No need to change the default skin. I get that IPs can't change their appearance, but aside from that, users can, and what they see doesn't have to be default on the wiki. Everyone can change what they specifically see.

Comments

@Camwoodstock That is true that it's a major change. It's based mainly upon impression from newcomers from them seeing a more prominent edit tab, slightly larger text size, and other minor details like tab names that are easier to read (including a collapsible feature for the lesser used tab). The skin change was based on old Wikipedia research at the time (like how WikiLove was a result of their research). I have no strong feelings whether this passes or not. Although it's vague, since there's no way to tell the statistics (and the wiki's already successful at the moment), I still have a feeling it could help some, but to each their own. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:32, December 18, 2024 (EST)

We feel like if anybody would be capable of providing any statistics on skin usage, it'd be Porple, but even then, we don't actually know if that's one of the things he tracks, and it feels a little silly to pester him over this of all things... ;p ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:55, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm okay with opposition, but in case of misunderstanding, this proposal isn't about personal preferences so much as what I believe to be a more ergonomic interface to a wider audience. I know we're not Wikipedia, but there's also the consideration that they've used the Vector skin longer than they had for MonoBook. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:45, December 19, 2024 (EST)

If it's what "you believe", then it ultimately (and probably unavoidably) is about personal preferences. Anyway, another consideration is the fact that people often prefer what they're used to. I feel like how long this wiki has used its skin is more relevant than how long Wikipedia has. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:39, December 19, 2024 (EST)
@Hewer I suppose I'm overthinking the ergonomic interface. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:19, December 20, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4472551"