MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}
 
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==New features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?


==Removals==
I have several pitches for you.
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
<big>'''''OPTION ZERO'''''</big><br>
===Create a ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article and/or a "Related series" category===
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. <s>It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.</s>
This proposal is a follow-up to my ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' proposal below and possibly a fallback option in the event that ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' does not get its own article. Currently, it and other non-''Mario'' franchises exist in the form of a category (such as [[:Category:The Legend of Zelda series]]), especially if they have been featured within the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games. None of these categories fall under "Related series," which list the franchises and/or series that have crossed over with ''Mario'' before but are otherwise not a part of the overall [[Mario (franchise)|''Mario'' franchise]] (perhaps Porple can make a distinction for Related series categories and articles for like ''Super Smash Bros.'' series respectively). If Related series isn't created but ''The Legend of Zelda'' series is (I'll still leave the option below, as Related series would apply to more series/franchises), then it would go under [[:Category:Game series]] as if it were part of the main ''Mario'' franchise when it is actually not.


''The Legend of Zelda'' is a specific case, given how many times it has featured ''Mario''-related elements within its games (like ''Mario'' enemies having guest appearances within ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening''), often shares a development team with those creating a [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]] title around the same time (e.g. ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' and ''The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'', although this does not signify any relation to ''Mario'' but just adds to my point of how ''Zelda'' is often developed concurrently with ''Mario''), or even a complimentary release (such as how ''Game & Watch: The Legend of Zelda'' released a year after ''[[Game & Watch: Super Mario Bros.]]'' and is parallel in how it is created).
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''


The degree of how ''The Legend of Zelda''-related media is connected to ''Mario'' has varied; for instance, the [[The Legend of Zelda (television series)|television series]] has some direct connection to the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'', particularly in the form of advertisements and mentions within the ''Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'', but is made clear that the two are separate, whereas [[Nintendo Cereal System]] has both ''Mario'' and ''The Legend of Zelda'' within the same box. Some publications, such as ''[[Nintendo Adventure Books]]'' and the ''[[Game Boy Advance (book series)|Game Boy Advance]]'' book series, while they are not ''Mario''-specific, feature both ''Mario'' and ''Zelda'' books within the series, so both franchises have often been outsourced together (perhaps most famously, the [[Philips CD-i]] games or the aforementioned [[DiC Entertainment]] cartoons of ''Zelda'' and ''Super Show!''). I'll get to describing some of the game-specifics in another paragraph, but the short explanation to this paragraph is that ''Mario'' and ''Zelda'' have been outsourced to third-parties on different occasions, especially in the 1980s & 1990s.
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)


It would be convenient to have a History section in a ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article that lists every time when ''The Legend of Zelda'' has been outsourced alongside ''Mario'' or when ideas from ''Mario'' games were reused/used instead in ''Zelda'' and vice versa, although the finer details to the ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article can be worked out if this proposal were to pass (and yes, per the ZD Wiki/Triforce Wiki External links proposal, we'd add link for both of those alongside the usual ZW link in the NIWA box as well as in ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' article, provided that proposal passes), as there are several ideas and ways of how one could go about it and would probably require a group effort to really put the article all together.
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later


''Link's Awakening'' aside, there are other instances of guest appearances within the ''Mario'' franchise, as early as the first ''The Legend of Zelda'' itself (with Manhandla), especially with enemies and sometimes even hazardous objects (like [[Fire bar]]s). However, creating an article for every ''The Legend of Zelda'' game with a guest appearance and/or derivative would be possibly going overboard (at least for the time being), so they would fall under ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article itself (particularly under a Games section or something). Again, finer details can be worked out after this proposal, but we could possibly have infoboxes for some of the other ''Zelda'' games with guest appearances (like ''The Minish Cap'') to reflect that these are still games with a guest appearance whereas if a Zelda game only consists of cameos (''Ocarina of Time'' comes to mind) it would not have an infobox, possibly as distinction between cameo & guest appearance, but again, the details can be worked out later. I probably mentioned this in the ''Link's Awakening'' proposal, but Capcom games (''Oracle of Seasons''/''Ages'', ''Four Swords'', and ''The Minish Cap'') have had a tendency to reuse ''Mario'' enemies or even introduce them (such as [[Lakitu]] in ''The Minish Cap''). ''Hyrule Warriors'', which is not a part of the main ''The Legend of Zelda'' series, features a derivative of the Ball & Chain item that features Chain Chomp). In this case, should we call the article ''The Legend of Zelda'' (franchise)? This can also be decided after the proposal.
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.


Oh, before I forget, ''[[Mario & Zelda Big Band Live]]'' also features both ''Mario'' and ''Zelda'' like the Nintendo Cereal System.
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.
'''Deadline''': April 21, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Create both====
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
#{{user|Results May Vary}} Per reasons listed above.
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.


====Create only ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article====
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.


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


====Create neither====
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.


====Comments====
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.
 
===Determine ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its ''Mario''-related subjects===
Hi, so recently I've revamped the [[Thwomp#The Legend of Zelda series|Thwomp]] and [[Spiny#The Legend of Zelda|Spiny]] article's ''The Legend of Zelda'' series sections to provide in-depth information on the article. Also following how ''Pinball'' and ''Art Style Pictobits'' are being reclassified as guest appearance/related titles and seeing as [[Densetsu no Starfy 3]] has its own article, this had me thinking back to how earlier handheld ''The Legend of Zelda'' titles have their share of ''Mario'' content, with ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' having the most of them. A handful of the enemies are even ''Mario'' ones, and are some of their earlier appearance in games in general (as several have returned directly from ''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' and ''[[Super Mario World]]'', which shared similar development teams). There's even [https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Iwata-Asks/Iwata-Asks-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Spirit-Tracks/Iwata-Asks-Zelda-Handheld-History-/2-Kirby-and-Chomps-in-Zelda/2-Kirby-and-Chomps-in-Zelda-233781.html developer commentary] on the ''Mario''-related subjects, which I'll list below:
 
Perhaps the most notable inclusion are [[Blooper]]s, [[Bob-omb]]s, [[Boo]]s, [[Cheep Cheep]]s, [[Goomba]]s, [[Piranha Plant]]s, [[Pokey]]s, [[Shy Guy]]s, [[Thwimp]]s, and [[Thwomp]]s. Developmental assets (see TCRF) even show a [[Bullet Bill]] and [[Fighter Fly]]. Thwomps in particular have a variant unique to ''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise, Spiked Thwomp, and a relative named Stone Elevator. Currently, they are covered within the Thwomp article itself, but seeing as they are derivatives of a ''Mario'' enemy (just in a different series, like how [[Giga Bowser]] is unique to the ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' series). These enemies usually have a consistent role within the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]] to completely different behavior (Shy Guys, aka Masked-Mimics, and Thwomps in particular). There's also [[zeldawiki:Madame MeowMeow|Madame MeowMeow]]'s pet [[zeldawiki:Bow Wow|Bow Wow]], who is a notable Chain Chomp who only appears in ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' and its reissues. [[Wart]] makes an appearance (though is known by his Japanese name, Mamu) but has a non-antagonistic role unlike in the ''Mario'' games. The same developers of the ''Super Mario'' series of games elaborate upon some ''Mario''-related characters specifically for ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' (but are retained in some of [[Capcom]]'s handheld ''Zelda'' titles), so the game intentionally included subjects from other games, mostly the ''Mario'' franchise, to be guest appearances.  


The first item of the game's [[zeldawiki:Trading sequence|trading sequence]] is a doll of Yoshi, the {{fake link|Yoshi doll}}, adding to my point of ''Mario''-related subjects within a non-''Mario'' game.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT


In [[zeldawiki:Christine|Christine]]'s love letter to [[zeldawiki:Mr. Write|Mr. Write]] is a photograph of [[Princess Peach|Princess Toadstool]]; while this is a cameo, it adds to the list of ''Mario''-related content within the game. Although they are specific to ''Zelda'', [[zeldawiki:Tarin|Tarin]] and the [[zeldawiki:Cucco Keeper|Cucco Keeper]] are designed after Mario and Luigi respectively. In one part, Tarin becomes a Raccoon after touching a Mushroom (as opposed to the similar [[Tanooki Suit]] from ''Super Mario Bros. 3'').
====Option Zero====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
#{{User|Arend}} Per Porple.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per porplemontage.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.  


The remake somewhat elaborates upon the ''Mario''-related content included within. I remember an advertising point was that it features content from the ''Super Mario'' games ([https://www.nintendo.com/my/switch/ar3n/index.html Nintendo.com] comes to mind) and it adds figurines of ''Mario''-related enemies.
====Option One====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
#{{User|Salmancer}} There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.


There are some people who are more knowledgeable than me on this, so hopefully this proposal is presented okay. Feel free to add further information/corrections in the comments section if there are any facts that I've missed or gotten wrong. If the proposal passes, we can figure out how to handle these subjects. Perhaps a later proposal can determine whether to create a ''The Legend of Zelda'' series page for the other ''The Legend of Zelda'' games that have ''Mario'' enemies making guest appearances (as it might seem excessive to give every ''Zelda'' game with Mario guest appearances an article, but ''Link's Awakening'' features the most notable inclusions).
====Option Two====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
====Option Three====
'''Deadline''': April 20, 2022, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.


====Create both====
====Option Four====
#{{User|Results May Vary}} Per my reasons stated above
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, I've always been confused as to how this is less eligible than ''[[Captain Rainbow]]'' or ''[[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|Punch-Out!!]]''.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal, but I think subjects should be put through a case-by-case trial: for instance, I would oppose individually covering characters like Tarin just because a ''Mario'' character is reflected in their design, but an interactable element like the Yoshi doll most definitely deserves a page of its own.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
 
====Create only ''{{fake link|The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening}}''====
#{{User|Wikiboy10}} I always wanted to make this proposal and I even made one before being autoconfirmed because I was an idiot. Jokes aside, I feel since these games by ''Mario'' context are the same, I feel just one article is fine as it creates too much redundant information. On that note, the reason for the article's existence is because [[Wart|Mamu]] plays a main role in this game to help [[Link]]. The enemies would normally constitute a cameo for me but this one role from Wart is enough for me.
 
====Create only the ''Mario''-related subjects====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} My preference. What particularly bothers me with the current sitch is that ''Zelda'' games in general have had exclusive elaborations of ''Mario'' elements such as Podoboo Tower and Manhandla, but we can't ever cover them adequately. This approach seems pretty reasonable and would at least take a big step towards having that coverage. I'd say we can possibly even add stuff like Bombite and <s>Arm-Mimic</s> Hollow Mimic since they're so similar to the ''Mario'' elements.
 
====Create neither====


====Comments====
====Comments====
To users who voted on this article, just to be more clear, the ''Mario''-related subjects option applies to all games, not just ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' (the "its" in the proposal name was supposed to refer to ''The Legend of Zelda'' series itself, and LinkTheLefty appears to be keen to make articles on ''Mario''-related subjects outside of ''Link's Awakening'', such as with Podoboo Tower and Manhandla, rather than just ones that have made an appearance within ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'', but the proposal primarily being about ''Link's Awakening'' may have made it slightly unclear that I meant ''Mario''-related subjects/derivatives within ALL ''The Legend of Zelda'' games). [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 13:53, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)


===Allow articles on non-''Mario'' subjects to link to their main Fandom wiki in their External links section===
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Hi Mario Wiki, this is an unexpected proposal from me, considering my involvement with Triforce Wiki. It's somewhat of a follow-up to my proposal allowing for Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki articles in the external links section of ''The Legend of Zelda''-related articles on this wiki. Zeldapedia is closed, so it was not part of that proposal.
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)


Basically, I think the Zelda proposal has set a precedent in that it acknowledges the other two wiki options for Zelda coverage. I for one do not like Fandom at all, but my main reason for creating this proposal is because of Wikitroid, which has about [https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Statistics three times] more articles (6,497 articles at the time of typing) than NIWA's [https://www.metroidwiki.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Metroid Wiki] (1,743 articles at the time of typing) while not prioritizing it over the other wikis (seeing as it's standard of us to prioritize interwiki links to other NIWA wikis). Although the main community here dislikes Fandom (me being one of them ofc), a lot of the readers are probably neutral to Fandom and the idea of having a Fandom wiki to click on. I know for a fact that [[Sonic the Hedgehog]]-related articles link to both Sonic News Network and Sonic Retro wiki, prob because the former has a lot more content, so in that regard, part of this proposal is already in effect in that the existence of the different main wikis covering Sonic are acknowledged. It's also partially in effect in that NIWA's main founding member, Zelda Wiki, has been owned by Fandom since December 2018 and, being a NIWA member, even has its interwiki updated to reflect its domain name change from zelda.gamepedia.com to zelda.fandom.com. This proposal would also eliminate the double standard of allowing one Nintendo-related wiki on Fandom to be linked to (Zelda Wiki) but not the others, although it would not affect the Zelda Wiki interwiki links (or any NIWA wikis, for that matter) or their priority, particularly in the article text. Again, this proposal is only to allow a link to the Fandom wiki in the External links section of non-''Mario'' articles (such as Kirby, Samus, etc.). We already have a [[Template:Wikia|template]] that could be put to use in this regard.
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)


I did not count ''Mario''-related articles within this proposal because it would be pointless to link to a Fandom wiki covering the same thing as the Mario Wiki (20,000+ articles to possibly add external link to as well), even though it appears to conflict with my point of acknowledging the other wikis providing main source of information. Seeing as ''Smash Bros.'' is a gray area within [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], I'm not sure if its Smash Bros.-specific articles (such as [[Smash Ball]]) would count as not being allowed to link to its Fandom counterpart. Perhaps it can become an option later on.
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


Edit: To be clear, the main Fandom wikis are those with the franchise listed as the subdomain (e.g. minecraft.fandom.com or sonic.fandom.com).
==Changes==
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': April 20, 2022, 23:59 GMT


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


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I understand carefully selecting a handful if they pass community consensus/standards, but I would not abide by such a broad application for...several reasons to say the least.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per LTL, implementing these on a case-by-case basis would be much better for quality control. I'm also skeptical that simply picking the wiki that gets the franchise name first in every case is the best idea, as they may not always be the best quality just because of that (or, they might be the only one, but be so low quality it's not worth linking to).
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per LTL and Waluigi Time. I definitely think that it is fair to choose to link to certain Fandom Wikis, but I would prefer that such decisions were made on a case-by-case basis. Allowing for careful consideration of individual wikis rather than applying them immediately would be better for quality control, and I agree with Waluigi Time's point that the wiki that recieves the franchise name is not always necessarily the best one on that subject.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per my comments below: wikis should be approved individually through a proposal for each one.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per all. Certain Fandom wikis are indeed superior in coverage and quality to the NIWA wikis (heck, [https://zelda-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Zeldapedia at least one Fandom] even merged with its NIWA counterpart because, to put it bluntly, the former was so much more comprehensive and useful), but by and large Fandom standards are a bit poorer than what the Super Mario Wiki should enable. Each Fandom should be examined individually.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Pertendo101.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{user|wildgoosespeeder}} Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon <nowiki>[[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']]</nowiki>, unless you mean to use <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}</nowiki>, which does work on the category page.
#{{user|Fun With Despair}} Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
#{{User|Arend}} I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki>, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced  by the system to be displayed in italics when they're ''redirects'' (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were ''all'' displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I think users should make a proposal first before linking to a certain wiki so that the community can decide whether this specific wiki is acceptable. Fandom is known to have many... questionable at best wikis, many unmaintained, others allow fan content pages. As an example, while the ''[[Minecraft]]'' wiki is very well maintained and has good coverage of the ''Minecraft'' series, there are also many other ''Minecraft'' wikis on Fandom, most of which are just bad. Users should decide which wikis can be linked to on this wiki. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 12:20, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:In the title, I did say the '''MAIN''' wiki (e.g. metroid.fandom.com) or, in your case, minecraft.fandom.com would be the main one. I don't mean like zeldagazette.fandom.com for example. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 12:25, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::That's the thing: how do you define a main wiki? I think the community consensus is needed. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 12:36, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::The franchise name being the subdomain [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 12:38, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::Some "main" wikis may not have the same simple name as the subdomain. I still believe a proposal is needed for each wiki (or in bulk) to have them approved. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 14:36, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
Color me confused. Is this proposal meant to allow it to be possible for the future, or will Fandom links be applied immediately? I am open to the former since there is room for discussion depending on the wiki, but disagree with the latter since this is probably best decided on a case-by-case basis. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:56, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:Yeah I know, it's an unexpected proposal. The proposal talks about applying them immediately (for example, an External links section at the bottom of [[Samus Aran]] article that says "{{wikia|metroid|Samus}} on Wikitroid" like how [[Link]] has "Link on ZD Wiki" and "Link on Triforce Wiki" listed in External links section). [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 20:01, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


===Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)===
@wildgoosespeeder: The intention of the proposal is just to add italic titles to the category pages themselves.<br>@Fun With Despair: I don't see how copy-pasting a template onto a bunch of categories is such a big ordeal? We've certainly had proposals that'd take [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Require citations for names in other languages|way more work]] that have passed, I don't think it's a good reason for opposing something.<br>@Arend: Everything you said about categories not displaying the italics in certain contexts or only displaying them if they're redirects also applies to articles, and yet those are allowed to have italic titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:51, March 11, 2025 (EDT)
The current rule no quorum proposals is vague, flawed, and counterproductive. Per rule 8, if a proposal has three votes or less at deadline, it NQs, ending with no action taken. In other words it needs at least four votes overall to pass. I have two major problems with this.


'''Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually ''cause'' a proposal to pass.'''
===Introducing the crossover article===
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:
#'''See the publication of the drafted ''Zelda'' article''' discussed in this proposal, titled "{{Fake link|crossovers with ''The Legend of Zelda''}}." (The draft can be viewed [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|here]].)
#'''Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to ''Zelda'' on the wiki to the published ''Zelda'' article''' (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like [[Link]] would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future ''Mario Tennis'' or something like that).
#'''Move details pertaining to ''Zelda'' from list articles on the site to this one''' (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|list of fighters debuting in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'']] article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. ''Zelda'' info on the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published ''Zelda'' one when they reach that section of the list article).
#'''Establish a navbox for crossover articles''' (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
#'''Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the ''Super Mario'' franchise has crossed-over.'''
#'''Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]]''' that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
#'''Note that this framework exists on the the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|crossover section of our coverage policy]]''', and provide a link directing readers to it.


Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.
The ''Super Mario'' franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, ''Super Mario'' as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. ''Duck Hunt'', ''Punch-Out!!'', ''Exictebike'', ''Metroid'', ''F-ZERO'', ''Animal Crossing'', ''Pikmin'', ''Splatoon'', etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s ''EarthBound'', HAL Laboratory's ''Kirby'', Game Freak's ''Pokémon'', etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.
*Proposal A reaches its deadline with 3 support and 0 oppose votes. That's a total of 3, exactly one shy of the minimum 4. Therefore, the proposal NQs.
*Proposal B reaches its deadline with 3 support and 2 oppose votes. That's a total of 5, enough to avoid NQ. Since there are too few votes for rule 10 to apply, and there's more support than opposition, the proposal passes.


See the problem here? Proposal B has the same amount of support as Proposal A, but ''more'' opposition, yet Proposal B passes while Proposal A does not. If Proposal B did not have those oppose votes, it wouldn't have enough votes to avoid NQ. Therefore, the opposition actually ''causes'' the proposal to pass. This should ''not'' be possible. Proposals should only ever pass in ''spite'' of opposition, never ''because'' of it.
A lot of coverage of ''Super Mario'' references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of [[Super Mario Bros.#Notes|dedicated game articles]], or in ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|are not wholly about ''Super Smash Bros.'' anyways]]. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that ''Super Mario'' has made references and ''is'' referenced in many other franchises outside of ''Smash Bros.'' contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how ''Mario'' has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where ''Splatoon'' and ''Mario'' have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.


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


'''Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so ''at least one option'' must have a minimum of 4 votes.'''
''Zelda'' is uniquely related to ''Mario'' and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with ''Super Mario'' within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to ''Super Mario'' or have elements inspired by it, such as ''Celeste'', ''Gears of War'', or ''Astro Bot''.


This retains the current minimum number of supports necessary to pass a proposal where no other options receive votes, but eliminates the "opposition backfire" issue mentioned above. Under this new rule, Proposal B would NQ, just like Proposal A. This rule would also apply to proposals with three or more options - at least one option would need at least 4 votes to avoid NQ.
I offer three options:
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''


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


'''Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.'''
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Imagine the frustration. Your TPP has three supports and no opposition. If just one more person would vote, you'd be golden. But before it can happen, that deadline comes. Your proposal's over. You waited two weeks for nothing. Hey, at least you have "the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion", even though that's an extremely vague statement that is not clear at all about what it actually means. I guess it just means "redo the proposal from scratch", but why should you have to do that?
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. death to the smash bros lists
#{{User|Mario}} Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.


'''Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.'''
====Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave ''Smash Bros.'' lists alone====
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Sophie.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per Soph
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
#{{User|Arend}} Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per Sophie.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Second opinion.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering ''Zelda'' subjects had ''[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|Link's Awakening]]'' failed!
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Hmm, so I'm going to do this because technically each of a character's special moves gets a sentence to itself on their article/Smash list entry and those just aren't going to fit in a crossover article
#{{User|Pseudo}} Secondary choice.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} Yes.


Why do no quorum proposals have to end right then and there? Why not just extend them, like we do with proposals that do not reach a consensus by deadline? This would help give vote-starved proposals more of a chance to gain attention and reduce the number of frustrating NQs. I'm not sure if we should apply the four-week waiting period for proposals that ''do'' NQ under this new rule, but I'm leaning towards no. If you think it should, feel free to comment on it.
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====


'''Proposer''': {{User|7feetunder}}<br>
====Crossover comments====
'''Deadline''': April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT
I also happened to start a [[User:PopitTart/Sandbox#Pikmin (franchise)|draft for a Pikmin series article]] the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... '''much''' rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)


====Apply both solutions====
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} thank you for the kind words! - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|7feetunder}} Preferred option.
:[[File:LinkCN.jpg|50px]] {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal; I especially support enacting the first problem's solution since it would sew a blatant policy loophole.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal. I think both solutions can work. I do support the idea of the first solution, but the second solution is also a good idea, especially if it concerns a topic that's easy to miss or can easily duck under the radar.
#{{User|Somethingone}} After thinking a bit more, I might've misinterpreted what solution 1 would do.
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} Per. Also, yes, I do feel that the four-week moratorium rule need only be applied to proposals that have several votes but remain without a clear majority.


====Apply problem #1's solution====
Question: One of the proposed points is to "''Move'' details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be ''cleared''". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?<br>Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through ''Smash Bros.'', such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|7feetunder}} Second option.
:I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within ''Smash Bros.'' have only crossed-over with ''Mario'' within ''Smash Bros.'', and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ''ARMS'' is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, {{@|Arend}}? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in ''Smash'', but it would be strange to do with ''ARMS'' considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ''ARMS'' regardless, considering how most of the ''ARMS'' development team is basically ''Mario Kart 8'' alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with ''Kingdom Hearts''. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.<br>Anyway {{@|Nintendo101}}, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for ''Mario'', one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular ''Smash Bros.'' info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about ''Zelda'' in ''Smash Bros.'' and less about ''Zelda'' with ''Mario'' in ''Smash Bros.'', but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of ''Smash Bros.'', would be retained.) For example, in my ''Zelda'' draft, [[User:Nintendo101/community garden#Ganon|Ganon]] is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Mario Artist: Paint Studio'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant ''Zelda'' info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)
So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my ''Zelda'' draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how ''Zelda'' engages with ''Mario'' in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular ''Smash Bros.'' info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.<br>Another thing I just thought of: we already have [[Pushmo (series)]] and [[Just Dance (series)]] as guest appearances, and [[Talk:List of references in Nintendo video games#Split Animal Crossing|this proposal]] passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe {{@|Kaptain Skurvy}}, {{@|Nelsonic}}, and {{@|Mushzoom}} can provide their two cents. Would you want the ''Pushmo'', ''Just Dance'', and ''Animal Crossing'' articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:<br>Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, {{iw|rhythmheaven|WarioWare (series)|Rhythm Heaven}}, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe [[Balloon Fighter|Balloon Fight]], maybe [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Clu Clu Land]], maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would [[Minecraft|probably be redundant to split]]<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken<br>No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts<br>I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::Forgot about [[Starfy|The Legendary Starfy]], that would qualify. There's also [[I Choose You!]] from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Nintendo101}} Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of ''Super Mario'' content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] or the [[list of references in third-party video games]]. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. ''{{wp|Drill Dozer}}'' or ''{{wp|Borderlands 2}}''), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'']] or ''[[Mobile Golf]]''). [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)


====Apply problem #2's solution====
This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|7feetunder}} Better than nothing.
:Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Hewer}} I'm neutral about the other point, but per proposal on this one (I was actually thinking of this problem recently after [[Talk:Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64)#Merge to Crocodile Isle|this proposal]]).
#{{User|Spectrogram}} While I disagree on some points in problem #1, namely the proposed solution, I do believe extending the NQ proposals is better than relisting them.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm not sure if the first proposed solution is great in how it would affect proposals with more than two choices, but the second seems fair enough to me.
<s>#{{User|Somethingone}} I feel like a better solution to problem #1 would be to modify rule 10 so that it applies to all proposals, not just ones with >10 votes, and/or maybe reduce its margin from 3 to 2. That said, I do think solution #2 is a good idea.</s>


====Leave the rule as is====
===Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one===
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} I'm admittedly working from vague memories at the moment, so I apologize if anything I say is flat-out wrong, but my understanding is the portion of the rule about relisting NQ proposals is there because there isn't always enough information in them for users to make an informed decision and cast a vote. Other times, what information is there might be at odds with the stated goal. Maybe a proposed solution wouldn't adequately address a problem raised. Maybe someone points out (or realizes) the problem itself is larger in scope than originally outlined or an entirely different problem altogether. Since these sorts of discussions tend to happen after the deadline for editing the proposal has passed, it's an opportunity to incorporate whatever comes out of those into the next iteration of the proposal (in part because of rule 5). The initial deadline is usually enough time for those sorts of discussions to take place, and there are ways of getting people to weigh in if the specific issue is a lack of attention (an ever-present one regardless of what the deadline is). That said, sometimes, unfortunately, there aren't a significant number of people concerned about/invested in a particular thing, and I think the proposed more-votes-per-option solution could therefore result in more NQs or failed proposals.
{{early notice|March 17, 2025}}
#{{User|SmokedChili}} This sounds too convoluted just to get rid of a loophole; I'd prefer keeping NQs and applying the 4-vote minimum condition to rule 9 so that if a proposal with three votes, all for one option, gets the fourth vote for an opposing option, it will be extended until consensus is reached or not.
When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for [[Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards)]].
It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.


====Comments====
To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one.
Another problem with no quorum is that it also means that the proposal is treated as failed, as if it was a clear opposed result. I disagree; I think it should be treated as if the proposal didn't happen, opening the door for resolution to occur via discussion. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 10:32, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.


@Somethingone: I'm not going to say I'm against a rule 10 modification, but such a thing would require a separate proposal, since it would need different options for reducing the voting margin or not reducing it (or only reducing it for proposals with ten votes or less). Additionally, rule 10 only applies to two-option proposals, so it would not solve problem #1 for proposals with more than two options like the one I linked. I would also like the know the issue with implementing my solution so I can improve it or come up with an alternative.
The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion.
If this proposal passes, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Gallery_talk:Donkey_Kong_Card_Game_(trading_cards)&oldid=4730155 the aforementioned page] would look [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Jdtendo/Bacassab&oldid=4776920 like this].


@Mario4Ever: You completely misunderstand the purpose of NQs. It is merely to prevent proposals from passing with too few votes. That's it. It is not a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals as you seem to be claiming. The proper response to such proposals is inform the proposer in the comments why their proposal is flawed so they can either improve it, or in the event a complete overhaul is needed, cancel it and make a new one (or request an admin cancel it if 3/6 days have already passed). Plenty of proposals that NQ don't have issues at all, they just aren't getting the attention they need, and extending them would help with that. Additionally, proposals with the issues you mentioned don't always fail to obtain votes - depending on what the issue is, voters may just outright oppose it until their problems are addressed. Alternatively, the proposal might gain support ''before'' the issues with it are fully realized ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Stop listing reused artwork as a reference to an older game|example]]), so the idea of NQs as a defense against flawed proposals is a flimsy excuse at best.  {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 13:50, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
:I'm not saying that NQs are a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals. I was just explaining that a lack of attention isn't necessarily why the minimum vote threshold isn't met, since that's one of your main points of contention. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 15:36, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT
::The vast majority of proposals that end with no quorum only do so because they don't get enough attention, and there are plenty of poorly written proposals that don't get no quorum. Besides, I don't really see how your argument relates to the proposed rule changes, as waiting for flawed proposals to NQ isn't really how you're meant to deal with them anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:45, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
:::I think part of the disconnect is that the proposal references and directly links to TPPs, which do tend to get less attention than proposals on this page (or at least, they did). Most of the proposals I've weighed in on have been in the latter category, where the things I've mentioned are (were?) more likely to come up. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 00:57, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::Your point? The majority of proposals made nowadays are TPPs, and issue of whether or not the proposal is on a talk page is irrelevant. You have yet to justify your opposition in any way. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::It's relevant to my argument to the extent that it informs my perception of proposals, but getting to the point, I don't see the proposal's problem #1 as such (and don't believe effectively redefining what constitutes a quorum would benefit them if it were). I also don't think more time would necessarily give TPPs more attention because my general approach involved prioritizing things like the scope or the information I had/needed over the deadline. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 14:41, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::How can you possibly think that problem #1 isn't an issue? You're saying that oppose votes actually ''causing'' proposals to pass is entirely logical. It's not. Imagine you oppose a proposal. It has 3 supports and 1 oppose - namely, you - near the deadline. This encourages you to game the system by removing your oppose vote at the last minute to stop the proposal from passing. How is that not completely asinine? {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:44, April 9, 2022 (EDT) 
:::::::Let's say the proposed solution to problem #1 is implemented. You create a proposal that's set to pass with four votes to one. At the last minute, the fourth supporter decides they're ambivalent toward the outcome and removes their vote, or maybe they get blocked for some reason, and their vote is removed.  Now, let's say the extension solution is also in effect, so the proposal doesn't get relisted. In the worst case scenario, another three weeks go by with no additional votes to give either option the four-vote minimum, so at the final deadline, it fails with a 3-1 ratio. Is having your proposal not go into effect at all preferable to the scenario of it getting potentially overturned later? {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 22:09, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::You're missing the point. Let's take your hypothetical proposal, but remove that one oppose vote. What happens under the current rules? It NQs, since it doesn't have enough votes. Meanwhile, your version of the proposal would pass because it does, despite having the ''exact same amount of support''. Why should that happen? Why should it be possible for opposing a proposal be counterproductive to actually stopping a proposal from passing? Like I just said, this encourages the opposer to game the system by removing their oppose vote at the last minute so the proposal will NQ and therefore not pass, which is ridiculous. Simply put, if a 3-0 proposal doesn't pass, then a 3-1 or 3-2 shouldn't pass either. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 22:38, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it's counterproductive to vote in opposition to something even if it's not likely to (or doesn't) prevent the proposal from passing. My hypothetical scenario demonstrates that "gaming the system" is technically possible under the proposed new system. Since that's therefore not the problem being solved, I don't think it's a relevant justification. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 23:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::Your hypothetical scenario demonstrates nothing of the sort. A supporter removing their vote because they changed their mind isn't gaming the system, it's normal. An opposer ''removing their oppose vote'' at the last minute to deliberately cause an NQ for a proposal that would otherwise pass is absolutely gaming the system - a form of which my proposed solution would render unnecessary. Opposition not preventing a proposal from passing is ''not'' the problem, it's opposition ''actively causing'' a proposal to pass because of the current NQ rule. Stop misinterpreting my posts. I'm still waiting for you to justify why a 3-0 proposal shouldn't pass, but a 3-1 or 3-2 should. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 13:04, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::Community input is as or more important than a proposal's outcome, the impact of which is neither permanent nor irreparable. Ignoring that I never encountered a single instance of someone doing what you describe in 12 years, I think, depending on the proposal, four or five votes is an adequate reflection of that input. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 14:19, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::That's just flat out wrong. Community input is what ''causes'' a proposal's outcome. You can't just lump supporters and opposers together under the banner of "community input" like they're the same thing. When someone opposes a proposal, it's because they ''don't want it to pass''. Therefore, it should never ''result'' in it passing for any reason, ever. While proposals can be overturned, it requires another successful proposal, which means just one or two people wanting the overturning aren't going to cut it. If a proposal with those one or two opposers should pass, then a proposal without those opposers should also pass. If a proposal with three supporters shouldn't pass, then a proposal with three supporters and one or two opposers shouldn't pass either. I don't get why that's so hard for you to understand. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 15:39, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::I haven't been following the discussion too closely but I think the idea is that a proposal with five votes, even if some of them are opposition, has had adequate community participation to move forward. Honestly, I think you're focusing way too hard on the issue of people potentially "gaming the system" by not opposing to deliberately force a no quorum. I've never seen that happen and it seems like assuming bad faith to me. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:53, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I don't think concern over a potential issue equates with assuming bad faith in the userbase. It's still a loophole and the system's better off without it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:47, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Precisely. It doesn't matter if this loophole isn't exploited regularly, the mere fact that it's possible to exploit it warrants fixing it. It doesn't matter if you've seen it happen, not voting is a non-action, so you can't produce evidence of it happening or not happening. There's no reason ''not'' to fix this; I should never have to consider not voting on a proposal I actively oppose (or removing my existing oppose vote) just because of this loophole. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 17:15, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
@LinkTheLefty: I don't understand what the problem is with how it would affect proposals with more than two choices. Be more specific so I can maybe improve it or come up with a better solution. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:I feel like an issue one might have with solution 1 is that it could result in situations where proposals with many options could have many votes but still NQ because no option has >3 votes. Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that. [[User:Somethingone|Somethingone]] ([[User talk:Somethingone|talk]]) 13:31, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::Basically. It just makes it needlessly harder for multiple-choice proposals to pass, also considering option results sometimes overlap with each other. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:21, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::"Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that." Not necessarily. A proposal with 5 options may have accrued only 4 total votes and still pass, provided all those votes are for one option in particular. If not one option has more than 3 votes, it's a NQ period, regardless of how many available options there are. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:22, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::That still doesn't factor when choices overlap, which more often than not do in multiple-choice proposals. Say this hypothetical proposal: 1) do X only, 2) do Y only, 3) do Z only, 4) do X & Y, 5) do X & Z, 6) do Y & Z, 7) do X, Y & Z, and 8) don't do anything. Let's say the X & Y options are generally unpopular, but votes are accrued for options involving Z. Let's say #3 gets 3 votes, and #s5, 6 & 7 get two votes each. And for the sake of argument, let's say that all the votes are from different users. That's at least nine total, with the remaining options having zero-to-two votes. Under the current system, #3 passes, and everyone walks away somewhat pleased because they at least agreed to do Z. Under the first proposed solution, the proposal becomes a no quorum, despite the fact that virtually everyone had Z in mind, making no one happy. That's another reason why I think no quorums should be considered non-proposals rather than opposed/failed ones. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:50, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::You seem to have forgotten about rule 9, which would force an extension on your hypothetical proposal anyway. If there were nine voters, three votes wouldn't be enough for the option to win. It would need more than half, in other words, at least five. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 17:26, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Then that might be another technicality with the system, but I digress. Fudge the specifics a bit if you like; the bottom line is 100% support on one action minimal (Z) and a lot of multiple-choice proposals are structured this way. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::Are you saying that you oppose rule 9 or want it changed? Because that's what would get in the way of your hypothetical proposal. It doesn't matter how many votes there are, if the voters are spread across four voting options and they're too close, rule 9 won't let it pass. Anyway, a simple solution to the "overlapping options" issue is, once you've established that everyone wants to do Z, make Z a standalone proposal. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:28, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::That seems cumbersome. You could just note in the above proposal that overlapping choices (e.g. "Z", "X&Z", and "X&Y&Z") will count votes together towards the common goal "Z". I agree with LTL insofar as it doesn't make much sense to treat these as mutually exclusive. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:51, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::Is that allowed? There isn't anything about it in the proposal rules, and I've never heard of such a thing happening. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:58, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::Rule 14 states: "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation". I assume "rewritten" implies you can bring in any modifications, including additions--I've done it before in my proposals and nobody minded. [[Special:Diff/3595274|It's been 2 days and ~6 hours since the proposal was published]], so I think changing it as of this comment's writing is still ok. ''If'' your question refers to the matter of overlapping options, I'd say that, since the proposal at hand already sets out to amend the rules, you may indeed add any further stipulations if you see it fit. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:18, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::I wasn't talking about my own proposal, I was asking if a rule about the overlapping options thing ''already existed'' (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't). {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 19:32, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::It doesn't, that's why I was suggesting it's offhandedly taken care of in the current proposal. Adding such a rule could and should have been made through a separate proposal, but what the current proposal advocates makes way to the issues described above by LTL (although I still support the amendment per se), so I was thinking you could kill two birds with one stone by taking care of it in the same proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:49, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem with deciding on the addition of such a rule here is that this proposal already has four options, and that would require adding additional variants of those options that include adding the new rule. If there turned out to be disagreement on whether it should be added or not, this would cause division amongst the current options' votes (which are already rather close between two of them), thus increasing the risk of this proposal stalemating. Anyway, I already mentioned that the issue described in LTL's hypothetical proposal ''is already present'' due to rule 9, so as long as rule 9 exists, problem #1's solution doesn't cause any issues that don't already exist. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 20:07, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Yeah, ultimately, it might be better to address that matter in a future proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:19, April 9, 2022 (EDT)


@SmokedChili: If I understand correctly, what you have described is precisely what this proposal is trying to implement. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:12, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
====Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one====
:No, the difference is that with the solution 2 in effect NQs will be null because the rule will be altered from the less-than-4-votes proposals getting cancelled by NQ to them being extended instead; I want to keep the NQ condition as-is. If a proposal can't gather enough votes before the deadline, I see no point to drag it on. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 12:13, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal
::Solution 2 will not render NQs null, just make them take longer to happen. I'm only proposing that NQ proposals be extended for up to three weeks, not indefinitely. If a proposal is 3-0 by deadline and just needs that one more vote, there's a good chance it will get that one more vote if it's given that extra time, so yes, there ''is'' a point. Even if it ''isn't'' just on the verge of reaching quorum and never does, there's no ''harm'' in extending it; it's not like we're constantly having a problem with too many ongoing proposals at once. AFAIK, we've never ''once'' had it. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:51, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
#{{User|Technetium}} Good idea
:::NQ is specifically a proposal not meeting the minimum number of votes required before deadline. You're mixing it up with no consensus. So yes, solution 2 will render NQs full. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 14:45, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
::::I'm not mixing anything up. Solution 2 is specifically applying the same three-week extension rule to NQs that we do proposals with no consensus, as stated right there in the proposal text. Meaning an NQ is still possible if three extensions go by and the proposal still does not have enough votes. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 22:49, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems useful for navigation!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all! very good idea
#{{User|LadySophie17}} per all. That has always bothered me.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Very good to establish consistency.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all. Finally consistency.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} The fact there are no headings on the first topics of talk pages annoys me so much 😤


===''[[Pinball (game)|Pinball]]'' (1984): full coverage or guest appearance?===
====Oppose: don't add headings to topics====
Should ''Pinball'', an NES game released in 1984, be classified as a guest appearance or a part of the ''Mario'' series? This proposal was created following [[User:Mario jc]]'s comment [[Template_talk:Pinball|here]].


I believe this game features enough Mario-related content to justify full coverage of this game on this wiki. 1 out of 3 scenes is dedicated to Mario. In the scene C the player is controlling Mario to save Pauline, Mario is also heavily used in promotional material, including being on the cover-art for this game.
====Comments (first topic heading)====
 
Alternatively, we can '''only''' allow coverage for the scene C, which features Mario as a playable character and Pauline.
 
'''Affected pages:'''
* [[Template:Pinball]]
* [[Card (Pinball)]]
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT
 
====Allow full coverage====
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per proposal.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - if [[Alleyway]] can get full coverage, so can this.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I feel like this is one of the loosest games you can consider part of the franchise (and Mario is not referenced or advertised at all on the Famicom box), but Lady/Pauline is mentioned in the manual's "plot"/objective, so you can say it barely counts.
#{{User|Jacklavin}} Perhaps this is a crossover between the Mario series and the game of pinball.  We have full coverage of the Mario & Sonic series.  I'd argue that this game fits into the Donkey Kong/DK Jr./Donkey Kong GB line of games and would suggest adding it in the "related games" section of that series, if it's not already there.
 
====Classify as a guest appearance (prohibit full coverage)====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} As I understand it, this removes ''Pinball''-exclusive articles while keeping the main game article intact. If it must be considered a guest appearance, I'd rather go for this approach, since the main article is short enough that I don't feel it's worth trimming. Either way, "penguin" does irk me a bit under the SM64 one.
 
====Allow coverage for the Mario scene (scene C) only (and classify as a guest appearance)====
#{{User|Spectrogram}} Second option.
 
====Comments====
I do want to add something. I was reminded of pages 238-255 of ''Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.'' earlier which, while "not an exhaustive list", is nonetheless a fairly big one. It contains a bar showing Mario's involvement with each entry: four stars is "Main ''Super Mario'' series games", three stars is "Mario is a major character", two stars is "Mario plays a small part", one star is "Mario's likeness appears", and no star is "A member of the Mario family appears". Obviously, this can vary depending on if it counts ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', or ''Wario'' franchises, or one-off character spinoffs like ''Super Princess Peach'' (two stars), but ''Pinball'' is decidedly none of those (for the record, the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games are two stars, though the wiki deems them a special exception). ''Pinball'' and ''Alleyway'' are given the same two-star status as things like ''Tennis'', ''Tetris'', ''Qix'', and "Famicom Disk System (boot-up screen)". For reference, ''Famicom Grand Prix II: 3D Hot Rally'' has three stars even though ''Famicom Grand Prix: F1 Race'' has two stars, and ''Golf'' isn't mentioned. Granted, this is mainly referring to the involvement of character Mario rather than necessarily being indicative of ''Mario'' games, so make of this what you will. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:14, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
 
===Classify Art Style: PiCTOBiTS as a guest appearance and give it its own page===
The DSiWare game Art Style: PiCTOBiTS is a block-falling game where you try to make various sprites.  A good number of these sprites are from the NES Super Mario Bros., while a couple come from NES Wrecking Crew.  While it's certainly a crossover between different franchises, the main franchise of the game is Mario, since 12 of its 30 stages focus on the franchise.  The game also includes, as part of its main mechanics, coins (using their Super Mario Bros. sprites) and the POW Block; no other franchise is referenced in the main mechanics.  I'd argue that it deserves coverage, just like [[Super Smash Bros.]] and [[NES Remix]].  Let's make a page for it, rather than just including it in the list of Mario references in Nintendo games.  I've written something up in https://www.mariowiki.com/User:Jacklavin/Sandbox.  (I've been playing the game on my 3DS, and I used No$GBA to take the screenshot.)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Jacklavin}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2022, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Jacklavin}} This is my proposal.
#{{User|Spectrogram}} This game has a significant amount of Mario-related content to be classified as a guest appearance.
#{{User|PanchamBro}} Per Spectrogram
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
While this game appears on page 250 of the Super Mario Bros. encyclopedia, it's clear from the information provided that the writer only learned about the first stage of the game; its information is actually incorrect. --[[User:Jacklavin|Jacklavin]] ([[User talk:Jacklavin|talk]]) 12:39, April 12, 2022 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

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

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, March 14th, 10:09 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

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

I have several pitches for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option Zero

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

Option One

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

Option Two

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

Option Three

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

Option Four

Comments

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

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

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Introducing the crossover article

The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

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

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

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

frog man!
green lad!

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

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

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

I offer three options:

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

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

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

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

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

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

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

Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles

Crossover comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose: don't add headings to topics

Comments (first topic heading)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

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