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.''
===Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"===
 
Currently, the way our proposals are set up, there are two deadlines. On the main proposals page, they last for 1 week. On talk pages, or for writing guidelines proposals, 2 weeks. Now, this is ''fine.'' We're not going to claim this is like, some total deal-breaker or nothing. However, lately, [[MarioWiki talk:Proposals#Why the inconsistency?|there have been a few concerns raised about this inconsistency]], and we figured, what the hey, why not put it up to vote?
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
 
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
A few concerns we've seen, both from others and from us, in no particular order;
===Create a ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article and/or a "Related series" category===
* The largest one to us is just that, unless a proposal is really specific, it's just not worth it to make a talk page proposal over a main page proposal, since it'll end faster. The only thing immune to this are writing guidelines proposals.
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.
* While the proposals themselves are different lengths, the duration before you can make a second proposal on them remains the same.  Thusly, if you want to set a policy in stone, you would actually want to make it a writing guidelines/talk page proposal over an ordinary one, as that means it will last for, at least, 6 weeks (4 weeks for the cooldown, and 2 weeks to put it to proposal again.)
* Lastly, talk page proposals just inherently take longer to happen. This can be an issue if their changes are, overall, quite small (like a simple merge/split or rename), or the consensus is reached very quickly; this stings when an ordinary proposal would happen twice as fast with the exact same amount of votes!


''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).
Now, there's a few ways you can go about this, but there's one in particular we've taken a liking to: uh, just make all proposals take '''2''' weeks, lmao.


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.
"BUT CAM & TORI!", we hear you shout, "BUT YOU SAID 2 WEEKS PROPOSALS TAKE TOO LONG??? WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THEM TO SOMETHING YOU HATE???", and to that we say... No! We actually like the 2 weeks proposals! They have a distinct benefit to them! The problem is that they're juxtaposed with the 1 week proposals. Let's run through those same bullet points.
* If all proposals were 2 weeks, well, there's no real loss to making a talk page proposal over a main proposal page proposal, as they'll all last 2 weeks anyways. (Sure, a proposal can take longer if there's a tie, but that just happens for all proposals anyways.)
* There's also no incentive to make a talk page proposal/writing guideline proposal if you particularly want your porposal to stick around, as again, now ''every'' proposal is guaranteed to last for, at the very least, 6 weeks.
* Now. While it's annoying that all proposals will take 2 weeks, despite the inherent risk of some coming to their consensuses much faster than the deadlines, for one, [[Talk:Alien (Club Nintendo)#ANTI-ALIEN ALARM!!! (Delete this article)|this is also an issue with talk page proposals as-is]]. For two, the extra time can offer extra time for new information to come to light or for particularly close votes to make their cases and form a proper consensus, without needing a tiebreaker. Lastly, if it's really ''that'' big of an issue, we could perhaps create a rule that if a proposal comes to a particularly large consensus a week in, it'll pass early (the finer details would be created as necessary).


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.
There is, of course, the alternative of making all proposals '''1''' week. While we realize this does also resolve a lot of things, it does also necessarily mean that some proposals that would want to happen slower, now don't have that time, and are rushed. Even making only talk page proposals take only 1 week means that Writing Guideline proposals will be at a unique disadvantage for how long they take/an advantage for how long they last if they pass. (And of course, we could just leave everything as they are, but that goes without saying.) That being said, we ''have'' provided options for these, and you're free to make your case for these.


''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.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT


Oh, before I forget, ''[[Mario & Zelda Big Band Live]]'' also features both ''Mario'' and ''Zelda'' like the Nintendo Cereal System.
====Make all proposals last for 2 weeks====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If it's not obvious, this is our primary option; we're a big fan of the idea of global 2 week proposals!. Even with their caveats, in the worst-case scenario, we could make a clause to prevent proposals for lasting too long if they reach their consensus early, or we could simply revert back to the current system. We think the added consistency and preventing of shenanigans is very potent, and it also means that you have to put a bit more thought into your proposal as you make it. Patience fans will be eating ''good'' if this passes.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal and what was said [[MarioWiki talk:Proposals#Why the inconsistency?|here]]. However, I'd also be fine with an option to just shorten writing guidelines proposals to be one week. I don't really understand the third option here, writing guidelines proposals being two weeks felt to me like the worst inconsistency of the bunch. I still don't see what about "writing guidelines" specifically means they inherently need more time than the other categories on this page.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Regular proposals and TPPs are just as visible as one another and should be treated equally, ''especially'' when regular page proposals can be the home of very important decisions (such as this one!) and are just given 1 week. Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} 1 week proposals have always felt a little short to me. I'd rather err on the side of some proposals running a little longer than needed than not having enough discussion time (I don't like banking on a controversial proposal tying). Having to wait an extra week to implement a proposal isn't the end of the world anyway - proposals are rarely, if ever, urgent enough that an extra week with no change would be detrimental to the wiki (and if that were the case, the change should probably come immediately from wiki staff).
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. Giving an extra week to discuss and vote on proposals is a good thing.
#{{User|Drago}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per, I never got why sitewide ones always got ''less'' time to discuss.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal and the talk page discussion.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I feel like the inconsistency is not justified, and one week may be too short to make an informed decision.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. I was one of the people who participated in the conversation that sparked this proposal, and my reasons are stated there.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I think that the reason site-wide proposals still get only 1 week is to necessitate engagement so that a decision can be reached, due to their importance compared to talk page proposals. However, that logic is flawed since it incentivizes discussion which is quick and not well thought out, so I think the consistency of 2 weeks for every proposal would be better here.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
====Make all proposals last for 1 week====
'''Deadline''': April 21, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Create both====
====Make all proposals except for writing guidelines proposals last for 1 week====
#{{user|Results May Vary}} Per reasons listed above.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option. While we like this much less, we do see the merit of making Talk Page Proposals 1 week, and it's not exactly the end-all-be-all. However, we would ''vastly'' prefer 2-week proposals, and keeping Writing Guidelines proposals 2-week is kind of a necessary evil to prevent them from being too rushed for their own good. However, compared to truly ''all'' 1-week proposals, this is better... though, not as good as all 2-week proposals.
#{{user|7feetunder}} For me, it's either this or bust. [[Talk:Ankoopa#What_to_do_with_this_article|New information coming to light can still invalidate a proposal's entire premise too late and require a counterproposal even with a 2 week deadline]], so extending the deadline of main page props to 2 weeks won't stop that from happening from time to time. Most proposals that don't reach a consensus in a week will probably require extensions anyway. TPPs being less "visible" than main page proposals was more of an issue back when no quorums were immediate, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Overhaul_the_no_quorum_proposal_rule_.28.238.29|but that's no longer the case]].
#{{User|Axii}} Voting for this just so the first option doesn't win.


====Create only ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article====
====Do nothing====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} We know that the developers exchanged a fair amount of concepts between projects in the early days, such as Fire Bars and Chain Chomps [https://web.archive.org/web/20110530101120/http://www.glitterberri.com/a-link-to-the-past/the-men-who-made-zelda/ originally] being designed for ''Zelda'' but ending up in ''Mario'' games first, and while the latter is more recognizably ''Mario'', the former became just as much of a ''Zelda'' element. As this is/was a recurrent practice, having one general article makes much more sense to me than a particular game.
#{{User|7feetunder}} If making TPPs last 1 week isn't desirable, I say just keep the status quo. While the current system ''does'' encourage making main page proposals over TPPs when possible if one wants their prop to pass faster, I'm fine with that. A controversial prop is not going to end in a week, and a prop with unanimous or near-unanimous support probably doesn't need that extra time in the oven. I'd be more open to global 2 weekers if a "early consensus = early pass" sub-rule was already in effect, but it isn't, and there's no guarantee that such a rule would be accepted by the community.
 
#{{User|Axii}} The solution isn't solving anything. There was never a problem with inconsistency. Talk page proposals last for two weeks because they're far less visible to people. Mainspace proposals page is frequently visited by many, having proposals last for 2 weeks instead of one doesn't change anything. It doesn't help the community settle on anything, one week is more than enough. Proposals that are tied already get extended automatically, if anything, I would argue writing guidelines proposals should last a week instead. I proposed a different solution on the talk page as well. If a user making a proposal (or an admin) feel like one week wouldn't be enough, they should be able to extend it to two. (I specifically added "or an admin", because most users don't want a proposal to last for two weeks.) Either way, the fact that users often choose mainspace proposals over talk page is perfectly fine as well. It's not about the time in the oven but the visibility of the proposal to the wiki community. Writing guidelines (if they remain at two weeks) could instead be clarified. Right now it is unclear what writing guidelines proposals even are, I think this is the main problem that should be looked at.
====Create only the Related series category====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Secondary choice. The inconsistency isn't that bad and I prefer that to all proposals being shortened.
 
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Second choice.
====Create neither====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think it is worth scrutinizing our proposal policies and the issues people brought up are valid, but I do not think setting the same time for everything is necessarily the best solution. I will elaborate on my thoughts below.
#{{User|Somethingone}} No offense, but this is going a teensy tiny massive amount of distance too far. The "Related Series" category you're proposing just sounds like an attempt to stretch our coverage barrier as thin as it can. Where does the line of "Related Series" and "Mario Element cameos in it" end under this proposed idea? Same Development Team? Uses elements from Mario? Some sort of dialogue hinting at it? It can be stretched as far thin as it can under these circumstances, and I feel like our current "List of Mario References in X_MEDIA_SUBGENRE" pages handle this situation better than any supposed "Related Series" category could. Also, how is the SMO point valid? Nintendo EPD just makes anything Major Nintendo, and I feel like us making pages for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_Planning_%26_Development every non-Mario thing they made] would just be a million miles overboard. And besides this, I feel like this is the start(or heck even mid-start considering recent proposals) of a super slippery slope; if we make articles for ''everything'' that's even 0.00000001% Mario related, '''''why don't we make articles for everything ever?''''' Making pages for the LOZ series for crossing over with Mario and having some ideas from it would lead to us doing the same for things like Sonic, which has a closer connection to Mario during the 90's "war" and shares a spin-off with Mario, and we'd just be pushing and pushing the border of "what qualifies as Mario?" until it breaks. Why not make articles for all the series that are costumes in SMM? or all the franchises in SSB? Or on other series that have similar scenrios to Zelda but a lesser extent(ex. Desentsu no Stafy with its assets in SPP and Wario in one of its games, Rhythm Heaven for being more and more prominent in the Warioware series, Duck Hunt for being grouped with SMB back in the NES days, and so on)? And why not franchises related to those related franchises? Why not make articles for every series Mario cameos in? It goes on far too long. <big>'''We don't need to make full-fledged articles for everything with nods to Mario in it.'''</big>
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I understand that a "''The Legend of Zelda'' (franchise)" article would detail convergent points in the developments of both it and the ''Mario'' franchise, but what distinction would there be between a "Related franchises" page, as delineated by the proposal, and the current [[List of Mario references in Nintendo video games]]? I don't recall there being as much overlap in the development histories of ''Mario'' and other franchises as much as there is between ''Mario'' and ''Zelda'' (both have largely been the responsibility of a few internal divisions), and outward, fictional references (e.g. DK barrels appear in whatever ''Kirby'' game) are already covered by the aforementioned list. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:22, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
Something that occurred to me: The time allowed to edit TPPs was originally 3 like main page proposals, but [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48#Double_the_amount_of_time_a_proposer_can_edit_their_talk_page_proposals|eventually doubled to 6 to go with their extended duration]]. If TPPs are shortened to 1 week, would the time allotted to edit them be reverted? {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 19:30, October 2, 2024 (EDT)
:Very good point. The way I imagined it is like, with ''Legend of Zelda'', the cameos are specifically listed on List of Mario references in Nintendo video games, the guest appearances moved to the ''Zelda'' franchise article, and <nowiki>{{main|The Legend of Zelda (series)}}</nowiki> being added directly beneath the ''The Legend of Zelda'' series section on that references page. The distinction would be "what makes a cameo and what makes a guest appearance," so if Mario only ever cameoed in a game or its series, it would not count as "Related series/franchise." [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 14:32, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
:That seems only fair to put them back to 3 days if that option passes--after all, it would be a glaring oversight to retain that and effectively allow for proposals that were en route to pass suddenly being hijacked on the last day, and pivoting from the original purpose, while ''still retaining the vote''. The plan here is to de-jank the proposal time-lengths and make them more consistent--not to introduce ''even more shenanigans''! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:18, October 2, 2024 (EDT)
:To Somethingone, I know we don't need article for everything with slight nod to Mario (makes me think of [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects]] as well), but I was noting how ''The Legend of Zelda'' series has GUEST APPEARANCES of ''Mario'' enemies within their games (not to be confused with CAMEOS), and doing a series approach rather than individual games (for time being) could concentrate/organize the information better. Related series in NO WAY implies that ''Zelda'' is a part of Mario -- it just highlights the ''Mario''-related aspects, primarily the guest appearances, whereas cameos,while also mentioned, are an added bonus (as the References page is for that). [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 14:39, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
Side note, I also seem to recall that one of the early games (I'm thinking ''The Legend of Zelda'' or ''The Adventure of Link'') was tentatively pitched as "Mario Adventure" (not the [https://web.archive.org/web/20040925210737/http://oni.skr.jp/terui.html "Death Mountain"] working title), but I can't seem to find that info at the moment. If true, that must've been very early on in development, when Shigeru Miyamoto wanted Mario to be his signature "Mr. Video Game" character and before the themes got finalized. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:47, April 14, 2022 (EDT)


===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===
@7feetunder: Of course there's still a chance for new information to come too late with any proposal length, but longer proposals mean the chance is lower. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:44, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
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.
@7feetunder: On your reasoning under ''Do nothing'', the idea of an early-consensus-early-conclusion rule for proposals is intriguing... I feel as if we have 2-week proposals that can end early if everyone has a near unanimous consensus on what to do with the proposal, we'd have an ideal middle ground. --[[User:OmegaRuby|OmegaRuby]] ([[User talk:OmegaRuby|talk]]) 08:55, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


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.
While finding the discussions where this first took place have not been successful (with the closest approximate being tracked down by retired staff [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals here], which alludes to this issue), there was wisdom in having longer time for talk page proposals, because they would often would get overlooked and fail simply due to lack of engagement, not because there was anything wrong with them. That may not be the case today, but I see a different set issues that this proposal does not address.


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'').
Personally, I think certain proposals - regardless of whether they are on the main page or a talk page - are very niche and entail a very granular change that probably does not need two weeks of discussion or even one to be implemented. Proposals that have wide and systematic changes for the site, such as a policy revision or something that would change many pages, do benefit from longer discussion time because the impact would be significant and affect a lot of people. Whether a proposal has narrow or broad impact has nothing to do with whether it is on an article's talk page or this main page.


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.
Additionally, while it may seem like there should be some sort of rule that allows proposals that gain consensus quickly to be implemented, there have been concerns among staff that users have raised similar proposals to ones that had failed in the past with the hope of getting the attention of a different pool of users who may agree with them. (To clarify, there is a difference between raising a new proposal based on one that had previously failed using new information and arguments, versus one using essentially the same argument). If we had some sort of rule that allowed the passing of a proposal due to quick engagement and support, I can see it being abused in such cases and resulting in proposals passing that people at large may not have agreed with.


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).
I don't like complicated rules. I believe the best policies and rules are straight forward, clear, and unambiguous. There is not use in having rules that people cannot easily understand and follow, imo. However, in this case, I think applying a blanket term policy for all proposals (be it two weeks or one) is too broad and does not address the issues I have observed, or even some of the ones raised by other folks on the main proposal page's talk page. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:18, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:If you ask me, "talk page proposals are two weeks, but the ones on the main page are one week, except writing guidelines which are also two weeks for some reason" is an overly complicated rule. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form|Every now]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66#Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages|and then]], confusion about the "writing guidelines are two weeks" stipulation arises in proposal comments, which I think is telling. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:54, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
I think my main issue is the difference with writing guideline proposals specifically. Mostly because it's hard to determine what a writing guideline even means, or which proposal should fall under which category. I'm not sure where I'll place a vote yet, but I do at least think there should be consistency between all main proposal types. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 16:22, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': April 20, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Create both====
If this passes, will it immedately affect all ongoing proposals, or just new ones going forward? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:31, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
#{{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}}''====
Not voting because I think the current setup is "don't fix what isn't broken", but I'll be willing to try something new. I'll just wait and see. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:52, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
#{{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====
===Clarify coverage of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series===
#{{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.
I've pitched this before, and it got a lot of approval (particularly in favor of one-at-a-time small proposals), so I'm making it a full proposal:<br>
I have thought long and hard about the "proper" way for us to cover ''Super Smash Bros.'' in a way that both respects the desire to focus primarily on ''Super Mario'' elements while also respecting the desire to not leave anything uncovered. As such, the main way to do this is to '''give pages only to ''Super Mario'' elements, whilst covering everything else on the pages for the individual ''Super Smash Bros.'' games; unless otherwise stated, they will instead link to other wikis, be if the base series' wiki or SmashWiki'''. For instance, Link will remain an internal link (no pun intended) because he's crossed over otherwise, Ganondorf will link to Zeldawiki because he hasn't. Link's moves (originating from the ''Legend of Zelda'' series) will link to Zeldawiki, while Ganondorf's moves (original moves due to being based on Captain Falcon's moves) will link to Smashwiki.<br>
Other specific aspects of this, which for the most part make the game pages' internal coverage be more consistent with how we handle other games':
#Structure the "List of items in Smash" to how {{user|Super Mario RPG}} had it in [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=List_of_Super_Smash_Bros._series_items&oldid=4364118 this] edit, albeit with the remaining broken formatting fixed. That page always bothered me, and that version is a definite improvement.
#Merge the "enemies" pages to their respective game - they're already structured like any other game's enemy tables anyway. These pages ''also'' always bothered me.
#Merge the "Subspace Army" and "Subspace Stages" lists to each other to recreate a watered-down version of the Subspace Emissary page (to split from the Brawl page due to length and being exclusive to that campaign); it would also include a table for characters describing their role in said campaign, as well as objects/items found exclusively in it (Trophy Stands, the funny boxes, the metallic barrel cannons, etc... a lot of things from the deleted "List of Super Smash Bros. series objects" page, actually) - once again, all except ''Mario''-derived things will link elsewhere (mostly to Smashwiki in this case).
#Section each game akin to how I had the SSB64 page as of [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Smash_Bros.&oldid=4340069 this] edit, ''including'' sections for Pokemon, Assist Trophies, Bosses, etc., and links to other wikis for subjects that we don't need pages on. Other sections can be added as needed, and table structure is not specifically set, so further info can be added.
#Leave the lists for fighters, stages, and (series-wide) bosses alone (for now at least), as they make sense to have a series-wide representation on here in some capacity. Also, you never know when one of them is going to cross over otherwise, like Villager, Isabelle, and Inkling suddenly joining ''Mario Kart'', so it's good to keep that around in case a split is deemed necessary from something like that happening down the line.
#Have image galleries cover ''everything'' that can reasonably be included in an image gallery for the game, regardless of origin. This includes artwork, sprites, models, screenshots, etc, for any subject - yes, including Pokemon, so that will undo [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Remove lists of Poké Ball and stage-exclusive Pokémon on ''Smash Bros.'' game pages and allow each Poké Ball Pokémon only one representative artwork/screenshot|that one proposal from a month ago]]. Just like on the game pages, the labels will link to other sites as needed.
#Leave Stickers and Spirits alone (for now at least), their pages are too large to merge and are fine as they are for the reasons that opposition to deleting them historically has brought up.
#Include the "minigame" stages (Break the Targets, Board the Platforms, Race to the Finish, Snag Trophies, Home Run Contest, Trophy Tussle, the Melee Adventure Mode stages) in the "list of stages debuting in [game]" articles. For ones like Targets, it would just explain how it worked and then have a gallery for the different layouts rather than describing each in detail (and if we later want to split the ''Mario''-based ones into their own articles, I guess we can at some point). Said minigame pages should be merged to a section in the SSB series article covering the series' minigames. The Subspace Emissary stages will get a section with a {{tem|main}} to the stage section of the Subspace Emissary article (detailed in an above point).
#Keep trophy, assist trophy, challenge, and soundtrack pages covering only ''Mario'' things, leave the remainder of the images in the game gallery (fun fact: Smashwiki does not have game galleries, nor does their community want them; we can base what we ''could'' do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we ''cannot'' do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that).


====Create neither====
People may wonder, "What about Nintendo Land and Saturday Supercade? Why don't they get this level of coverage?" It's simple, really: In ''Smash'', you can have Mario throw a Deku Nut at Ridley in Lumiose City and nobody bats an eye at how absurd that situation is. In those other games, the different representations are very much split apart; all ''Mario''-related stuff is within a few minigames that do not overlap whatsoever with any of the other ones. In ''Nintendo Land'', you cannot have Mario fighting Ridley in the Lost Woods, despite (representations of) all of those things appearing in the game. In ''Smash'', anyone can interact with anything, regardless of origin, so '''''Mario'' characters can interact with anything, and anyone can interact with ''Mario'' things'''. That's why ''Smash'', the melting pot it is, gets more focus than ''Nintendo Land'', where everything's more of a side dish.


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
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)
'''Deadline''': October 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT


===Allow articles on non-''Mario'' subjects to link to their main Fandom wiki in their External links section===
====Support - clarify it like this====
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.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Axii}} Even though I disagree with points 6, 7, and especially 8 (''Mario''-themed minigames should be covered separately), I feel like this is the solution most would agree to compromise on.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} While we would like to do some stuff of our own (cough cough, maybe a proper solution to Smash redirects clogging categories), this is a good start, we feel. If push comes to shove, we could always revert some of these changes in another proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This is a great framework for our coverage of the series. I still would like a better handling of smaller things like trophies, stickers, spirits, and music, but I'm not sure what that would look like and we could always make that change later.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, this is a good step towards cleaning up our Smash coverage.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per proposal
#{{User|Tails777}} I’d like to see where this goes. Per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I've reconsidered my hardline stance since the previous proposal, and I can now agree with most of the points listed here. However, like others have said, I do want to revisit the coverage of massive lists like those for stickers and spirits in the future.
#{{User|Superchao}} Per the proposal. Hving the itemized list will allow for simpler debate and discussion in the future, rather than our ad-hoc coverage status built over time. Lay the groundwork, then discuss the details.
#{{User|Arend}} Per proposal.


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.
====Oppose - don't clarify it like this====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} We might actually need to reduce the Smash coverage a bit more. We especially can't undo that proposal that reduced Pokémon. And those sticker and spirits list really should have been reduced to Mario subjects like the trophy list. The fact that the [[List of spirits in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (501–1000)|middle spirit list]] doesn't have a single Mario spirit is absurd. And maybe those fighter lists should be split back into their own character pages again. Most of them had appeared in Super Mario Maker. I have a different idea of how we should handle Smash.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} This wiki really doesn't need to cover every series that appears in Smash Bros. extensively. Would be better to limit full coverage to both Mario itself and Smash since that's the host series while minimizing exposure to others if there's some connection to Mario, like, which stickers boost tail damage for Yoshi. General info on all of the modes (Classic, collections, settings), that's fine. Characters, stages, items, Assist Trophy spawns etc., just list the Mario content, mention the totals and the proportions from Mario, and include screenshots of full selections if possible.


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.
====Comments - clarify the clarification?====
<small>(I was gonna name the options "Smash" and "Pass," but I thought that might be too dirty)</small> - [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:38, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


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).
{{@|Axii}} - I wouldn't say any of the minigames are really innately ''Mario''-themed, though. If any were, I'd have them stay separate. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:02, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:As I mentioned on your talk page, Break the Targets and Board the Platforms have ''Mario''-themed stages [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 23:57, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
::Yes, and as I mentioned in the proposal, those can be separately split later if it is determined to be acceptable. The minigames themselves, however, are not ''Mario''-themed. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:19, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
:::Why not leave them out of this proposal though. Why should we merge ''Mario'' content? [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 09:29, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
::::The current articles don't actually describe the individual stages anyway, just an overview of the mode. Also, those list pages ''already'' include the ''Mario'' stages, just with a "main article" template. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:56, October 4, 2024 (EDT)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I know you are familiar with my [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|crossover article draft using ''Zelda'' as a base]], but I do not think I clarified some of the intents I had with it, which I shared [[User talk:Nintendo101#In regards to Smash and crossovers|here]] with Mushzoom. I do not think it intersects with what you layout above, but I just wanted to let you know. (I also welcome other folks to check it out.) - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:45, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': April 20, 2022, 23:59 GMT
:I think both can coexist dandily. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:56, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


====Support====
@SeanWheeler: Though the middle spirit list has no spirits of Mario characters, it's not irrelevant to Mario because Mario characters, stages, items, etc. appear in many spirit battles. In fact, the very first spirit on that page (Jirachi) has Mario relevance (you need Luma and Starlow to summon it). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:09, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Results May Vary}} Per my comments above.


====Oppose====
{{@|SmokedChili}} - What about non-''Mario'' characters that we cover anyway due to them crossing over outside of Smash, like Link, Isabelle, and Banjo? Surely their presence in another crossover deserves to be acknowledged. That's one of the main issues that arises with the "nuclear" mindset. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:32, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
#{{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.
:What ''about'' those? Them crossing over in Mario isn't the same thing as crossing over in Smash. That's where the complete selection screenshots come in, make them image maps where crossover subjects with Mario Wiki articles get image map links with necessary notes. That way lists don't have to bleed over to include anything else but Mario.
#{{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).
:On another note, shouldn't you have just waited four more weeks? You posted [[Talk:Super Smash Bros.#Oppose|here]] your concern over those two proposals stalling you further with this if they passed, but that's not how rule 7 works. It says 'any decision'. That means voting to keep status quo is also what can't be overturned for 4 weeks. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 09:28, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
#{{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.
::My understanding is that, because those two proposals failed, neither of this proposal's outcomes would contradict that. The coverage that they were trying to remove is kept either way here. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:25, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per my comments below: wikis should be approved individually through a proposal for each one.
#{{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.


====Comments====
:::Honestly, I think all those points should be in their own separate proposals. I would support #1 if it was a talk page proposal for [[Talk:List of Super Smash Bros. series items]], but combined in a wiki proposal with other things I don't want, I had to oppose. {{@|Axii}} is that month really worth having #6, #7 and #8? {{@|Camwoodstock}}, sure we can revert some of these changes with another proposal, but the proposal rules state we have to wait four weeks before we have a counterproposal to a part of this proposal. And if Hewer is right about failed proposals not counting, then would opposing this be the better choice of action when you disagree with just one thing? Oh, and {{@|Hewer}}, if I make a proposal to reduce the Spirit List, I would definitely want to keep the Spirit Battles that involve Mario fighters and stages. And with stickers, I would get rid of the non-Mario stickers that don't specifically boost Mario characters. And, I definitely do not want Smash 64's page in that way. It should be as focused on Mario like how {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros.|Bulbapedia's}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. Melee|''Super Smash Bros.''}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. Brawl|series}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS/Wii U|game}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. Ultimate|pages}} focus on the Pokémon content, and how the Sonic Wiki Zone's page on {{fandom|sonic|Super Smash Bros. Brawl}} was more about Sonic. #4 is going to make our Smash game pages more comprehensive than Smash Wiki's game pages. If we're really that worried about losing stuff in our reduction of Smash coverage, why don't we talk to Smash Wiki's admins about merging the pages we don't need into Smash Wiki's articles? There's got to be some cross-wiki communication if the Donkey Kong Wiki merged into us. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 01:11, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
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)
::::My long term goal is only having non-''Mario'' Smash content on the game page itself. If it means compromising to get more people on board, I'm all for it. I'm going to make a prediction that in 5 years the idea to cover Smash like a guest appearance won't be much controversial [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 02:04, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
: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)
::::As I said in the proposal, "we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that." Also Sonic is a bad example since he was only introduced in the third game, while Bulbapedia is built around the very rigid structure of the main Pokemon games anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:12, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
::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)
:::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)
::::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)
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)
: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)


===Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)===
==New features==
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.
''None at the moment.''


'''Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually ''cause'' a proposal to pass.'''
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.
==Changes==
*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.
===Overturn the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/55#Delete_Category:User_eo|proposal]] that resulted in the deletion of [[:Category:User eo]] (category for speakers of {{wp|Esperanto}})===
*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.
Myself, I don't care about this language, and needless to say, neither do most people on the planet, but I take issue with the proposal that had it removed in the first place for a few reasons.
*The proposal argues that this language "is not a real language", that "nobody really picked it up", and likens it to the fictional language of Klingon. Despite its status as a constructed language, it is, in fact, very much a real language intended and created to be functional. It has a(n admittedly small) number of speakers across the planet, some of whom may well be potential editors on this wiki for all we know. The comparison to Klingon, which was created with an artistic purpose, is misleading.
*The proposer [[User talk:Doomhiker#Woah|was outed as an extremist]] (read up on the details at your own risk) who seemingly was planning to have other language-based user categories removed, as he followed up with another [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/55#Delete_Category:User_ka|proposal targeting the Georgian user category]]. The wiki's policies outline that we shouldn't assume bad faith in users, but given the circumstances here, I hope you'll allow me the assumption that this user had ulterior motives in their little curatorial project, namely in altering the wiki ever so slightly according to their outlooks. Proposal failed and the user was banned for their concerning behavior, preventing further such proposals from being made.


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.
Now, as you'd expect, the Esperanto user category certainly never saw much use--in fact, [https://web.archive.org/web/20140712133001/http://www.mariowiki.com/Category:User_eo only one user employed it as of 2014] <small>(archive.org)</small> and even then [https://web.archive.org/web/20140711152028/http://www.mariowiki.com/User:Pakkun only listed Esperanto as a second language] <small>(archive.org)</small> (though, the very point of Esperanto was to be an auxillary language between people who don't speak the same native language). That user, who goes by {{user|Pakkun}}, has since taken the category off their page, so you could argue that this proposal lacks a tangible purpose as "User eo" would be dead on arrival should it be recreated.


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.
The point of this proposal, however, isn't to recreate this language immediately; it is to negate the proposal that currently prevents its creation if someone ever considers they'd derive some use from it. '''This community should be open to anyone regardless of their cultural background.''' The previous proposal is contrary to that.


'''Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so ''at least one option'' must have a minimum of 4 votes.'''
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT


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.
====Support====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly, we would be down for ''more'' Conlangs to have user categories. We can't imagine the overlap of, say, Vötgil speakers to Mario Wiki users is very large, but like, in regards to a strictly English wiki, the Conlang categories in particular are just for-fun categories at the end of the day, and who the hey are we to ''expressly prohibit'' other people's fun? And even in the most generous reading of the events, it still feels like a bit of warped priorities when some categories have been in need of reforms for awhile now <small>(sorry about the Thieves category thing, we're still thinking of that and honestly at this point we wouldn't mind someone else chipping in with that)</small> and haven't gotten them, but we have an entire proposal dedicated to... Deleting a category for Esperanto speakers??? (And for the record, this was back when [[:Category:Canines]] was called Dogs--something something, obligatory mention of [[Penkoon]].)
#{{User|Shadow2}} We DID this? wtf??
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} With the provided context, something about Trig Jegman's proposals rubs me the wrong way. If it's true that he was trying to gradually remove other languages, where would he stop? He stated that Esperanto and Gregorian are languages not supported by Nintendo (a weak argument IMO, as Nintendo =/= this wiki), and not widely spoken, so would he first try to get all small-spoken languages removed? Would he eventually try to get larger languages removed just because Nintendo doesn't support these languages? Would he eventually go even further and get even languages that ''are'' supported by Nintendo removed because they're not as widely spoken as other languages? Would he eventually make it so that English is the ''only'' language remaining? Would he then remove that category too because if that's the only language category for users, then what's the point of keeping it? Or worse, is this a ploy to recognize who is native to other languages and would he try to get non-English users banned so only English-speaking users have access to the wiki (and ''then'' remove the English category)? ...Uh...fearmongering aside, per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} No harm having it if people want to use it.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} The more the Marior. That older proposal was dumb.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} I'm not a fan of banning users for off-site drama, especially when it's political. But if his proposal was bigoted, then maybe it should be overturned.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all, especially Sean. This proposal was asinine at best, in retrospect, and harmful at worst. And that's coming from a man who doesn't have full context as to what happened.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. That category never hurt nobody.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all. This is a really gross thing to delete.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. That was just mean to delete a language category. People still speak this language, so we should represent it!


Now for the other problem.
====Oppose====


'''Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.'''
====Comments====
The real question is if we can have a Klingon category (as [[User:Alex95|a certain other editor who is no longer with us due to concerning behavior]] mentioned on that proposal). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:11, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:Up for debate whether user categories can have some basis in fiction. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:16, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:We think that Conlangs in general should just be allowed, just because it both feels really, really weird to try to police ''what'' Conlangs "count" as languages, and because the idea of focusing even more proposals on such a for-fun topic feels.... A little too much, when that effort is best used elsewhere. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:14, September 28, 2024 (EDT)


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?
<s>We should be open for Inklingese and Smurf.</s> {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:24, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:<s>Per Arend.</s> --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 05:50, September 30, 2024 (EDT)


'''Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.'''
{{@|FanOfRosalina2007}}'s vote reminded me of a point I wanted to add to the proposal within its first three days, but forgot: there is a [[:Category:User la|''category for speakers of Latin'']], a dead language, so that old proposal's argument that "Esperanto is spoken by too few people to be relevant" is bust as long as the wiki supports Latin. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:29, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
:Should we add an Occitan category, perhaps? It's a near-dead language that has actual historical significance in certain areas, unlike Esperanto's status as a conlang with "official" linguistic status. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:56, October 5, 2024 (EDT)


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.
===Lower the requirement for a disambiguation page from 5 to 4===
As of now, the requirement for a disambiguation page's creation is five pages:
:''"If there are five or more pages which could be reasonably associated with a given name, then a disambiguation page must be created"'' ([[MarioWiki:Naming]])
This rule feels needlessly restrictive, considering the amount of clutter links make at the very top of the page. "For a minigame in the ''WarioWare'' series, see X. For an object in ''Super Mario Odyssey'' found in the Luncheon Kingdom, see Y. For an underwater enemy from...", you get the idea. If this proposal passes, the threshold on MarioWiki:Naming will be lowered from 5 to 4.  


'''Proposer''': {{User|7feetunder}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Axii}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Apply both solutions====
====Support====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Preferred option.
#{{User|Axii}} ^
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal; I especially support enacting the first problem's solution since it would sew a blatant policy loophole.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} One or two other articles are fine, but having three separate articles in the <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template at the top of the page is the point where a disambiguation page is ideal.
#{{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|SeanWheeler}} We don't need to clutter the {{tem|About}} template.
#{{User|Somethingone}} After thinking a bit more, I might've misinterpreted what solution 1 would do.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{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.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Frankly, I'd support bringing the requirement as low as 3. Per proposal.
#{{User|Mariuigi Khed}} I too I'd go with 3. Per proposal
#{{User|Dine2017}} Per proposal.


====Apply problem #1's solution====
====Oppose====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Second option.
 
====Apply problem #2's solution====
#{{User|7feetunder}} Better than nothing.
#{{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====
#{{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.
#{{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.


====Comments====
====Comments====
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)
Do you have any examples of how many subjects would be affected by this change? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 10:52, September 29, 2024 (EDT)
 
:I don't think there's an easy way to tell, but I can't imagine it being too many. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 12:05, September 29, 2024 (EDT)
@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.
 
@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)
: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)
::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)
: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)
::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)
:::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)
::::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)


===''[[Pinball (game)|Pinball]]'' (1984): full coverage or guest appearance?===
===Shorten the disambiguation identifier for ''Yoshi's Island'' pages with the subtitle only - take two===
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]].
Last season, I had to cancel [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Yoshi's Island pages|my last proposal]] since I was caught plagiarizing [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages|someone else's proposal]]. This time, I've come up with another proposal that is not plagiarized.


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.  
Take the "Choose a Game" screen and the main game's title screen in ''Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3'' for example. As you see, the logo for the main game on both screens ONLY reads ''Yoshi's Island'', not ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island''.


Alternatively, we can '''only''' allow coverage for the scene C, which features Mario as a playable character and Pauline.
The following pages will be affected:


'''Affected pages:'''
{| class="wikitable"
* [[Template:Pinball]]
! Current name
* [[Card (Pinball)]]
! Will be moved to
|-
| [[Fuzzy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|Fuzzy (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|Fuzzy (''Yoshi's Island'')|Fuzzy (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[King Bowser's Castle (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|King Bowser's Castle (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|King Bowser's Castle (''Yoshi's Island'')|King Bowser's Castle (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[Magnifying Glass (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|Magnifying Glass (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|Magnifying Glass (''Yoshi's Island'')|Magnifying Glass (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[Spiked Fun Guy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|Spiked Fun Guy (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|Spiked Fun Guy (''Yoshi's Island'')|Spiked Fun Guy (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 1 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 1 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 1 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 1 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 2 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 2 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 2 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 2 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 3 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 3 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 3 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 3 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 4 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 4 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 4 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 4 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 5 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 5 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 5 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 5 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 6 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 6 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 6 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 6 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|}


'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br>
Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to use the shorter disambiguation identifier with ONLY the subtitle for the ''Yoshi's Island'' pages.
'''Deadline''': April 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Allow full coverage====
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per proposal.
'''Deadline''': October 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{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)====
====Support (''Yoshi's Island'')====
#{{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.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} You know what? I'm actually going to agree with this. One reason is because, according to [[Talk:Collector (Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle)|this]], [[Talk:Stretch (Shy Guy)|''this'']] has to move, and there were concerns raised with the overly long identifier that I agree with. The other reason is because ''Yoshi's Island'' is a perfectly valid shorter name for this game. Look at any of the ''Super Mario Advance 3'' materials: the ''Super Mario World 2'' portion was removed. Also, outside of ''Super Mario Advance 3'', ''Yoshi's Island'' has been used as the shorter title [[list of Wiggler profiles and statistics#Super Smash Bros. Brawl|on]] [[list of Baby Mario profiles and statistics#Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS|occasion]]. This is in keeping with other proposals about using shorter identifier titles where applicable, and it will not conflict with "(''Yoshi's Island'' series)".
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per LTL. I personally prefer to shorten it to ''Super Mario World 2'', but that's clearly not Nintendo's own preference, so that is moot.


====Allow coverage for the Mario scene (scene C) only (and classify as a guest appearance)====
====Oppose (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')====
#{{User|Spectrogram}} Second option.
#{{User|Hewer}} Reusing my oppose vote from last time: the remake replaces (and reorders) the subtitle rather than just removing it, so we've never had a game just called Yoshi's Island, and I don't know of any other time we've used a title for a game identifier that isn't actually a title for a game. "[[Yoshi's Island]]" also isn't quite as immediately obvious what it refers to compared to "Super Mario RPG", "Donkey Kong Country 2", or "Donkey Kong Country 3". I think this is going a bit too far and ends up a little more confusing than helpful.
 
#{{User|Axii}} Per Hewer
====Comments====
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Hewer.
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)
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per Hewer.
 
#{{User|Shadow2}} Long titles are not a problem.
===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====
====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)
{{@|Hewer}} I respectfully disagree. "''Yoshi's Island''" is actually short for both "''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island''" and "''Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3''", so I think there's a possibility to use the "''Yoshi's Island''" disambiguation identifier for ''Yoshi's Island'' pages, even if it is confusing. {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 08:39, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
:Why do it if it could be confusing? [[MarioWiki:Naming]] advises: "When naming an article, do '''not''' use game abbreviations. (e.g. use [[Bully (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)|Bully (''Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time'')]] as opposed to {{fake link|Bully (''M&L:PIT'')}})." {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:59, October 4, 2024 (EDT)


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

Latest revision as of 02:13, October 6, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, October 6th, 06:13 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.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • 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.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have 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 the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. 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}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (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 one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. 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.
  9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  10. 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 the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  11. 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 can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
  12. 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.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for writing guidelines and talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. 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.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add 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 just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

  • Merge categories for Donkey Kong Country remakes with their base game's categories (discuss) Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Refer to "King Bill" as "Bull's-Eye Banzai" for coverage in New Super Mario Bros. Wii (discuss) Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Rename Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia to Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten (discuss) Deadline: October 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Split the References in other media section on Super Mario Bros. to its own article (discuss) Deadline: October 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Split Luigi's Twin from Luigi (discuss) Deadline: October 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Create an article for secret exits and merge Goal Pole (secret) with both it and Goal Pole (discuss) Deadline: October 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Remove "(series)" identifier from titles that don't need it (discuss) Deadline: October 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Reinstate The Wizard (1989) (discuss) Deadline: October 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge Bunker to Lab (Luigi's Mansion 3) (discuss) Deadline: October 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
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 New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)
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)
Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)
Create MarioWiki:WikiLove and WikiLove templates, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Merge pages into List of Play Nintendo secret messages, Axii (ended October 4, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"

Currently, the way our proposals are set up, there are two deadlines. On the main proposals page, they last for 1 week. On talk pages, or for writing guidelines proposals, 2 weeks. Now, this is fine. We're not going to claim this is like, some total deal-breaker or nothing. However, lately, there have been a few concerns raised about this inconsistency, and we figured, what the hey, why not put it up to vote?

A few concerns we've seen, both from others and from us, in no particular order;

  • The largest one to us is just that, unless a proposal is really specific, it's just not worth it to make a talk page proposal over a main page proposal, since it'll end faster. The only thing immune to this are writing guidelines proposals.
  • While the proposals themselves are different lengths, the duration before you can make a second proposal on them remains the same. Thusly, if you want to set a policy in stone, you would actually want to make it a writing guidelines/talk page proposal over an ordinary one, as that means it will last for, at least, 6 weeks (4 weeks for the cooldown, and 2 weeks to put it to proposal again.)
  • Lastly, talk page proposals just inherently take longer to happen. This can be an issue if their changes are, overall, quite small (like a simple merge/split or rename), or the consensus is reached very quickly; this stings when an ordinary proposal would happen twice as fast with the exact same amount of votes!

Now, there's a few ways you can go about this, but there's one in particular we've taken a liking to: uh, just make all proposals take 2 weeks, lmao.

"BUT CAM & TORI!", we hear you shout, "BUT YOU SAID 2 WEEKS PROPOSALS TAKE TOO LONG??? WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THEM TO SOMETHING YOU HATE???", and to that we say... No! We actually like the 2 weeks proposals! They have a distinct benefit to them! The problem is that they're juxtaposed with the 1 week proposals. Let's run through those same bullet points.

  • If all proposals were 2 weeks, well, there's no real loss to making a talk page proposal over a main proposal page proposal, as they'll all last 2 weeks anyways. (Sure, a proposal can take longer if there's a tie, but that just happens for all proposals anyways.)
  • There's also no incentive to make a talk page proposal/writing guideline proposal if you particularly want your porposal to stick around, as again, now every proposal is guaranteed to last for, at the very least, 6 weeks.
  • Now. While it's annoying that all proposals will take 2 weeks, despite the inherent risk of some coming to their consensuses much faster than the deadlines, for one, this is also an issue with talk page proposals as-is. For two, the extra time can offer extra time for new information to come to light or for particularly close votes to make their cases and form a proper consensus, without needing a tiebreaker. Lastly, if it's really that big of an issue, we could perhaps create a rule that if a proposal comes to a particularly large consensus a week in, it'll pass early (the finer details would be created as necessary).

There is, of course, the alternative of making all proposals 1 week. While we realize this does also resolve a lot of things, it does also necessarily mean that some proposals that would want to happen slower, now don't have that time, and are rushed. Even making only talk page proposals take only 1 week means that Writing Guideline proposals will be at a unique disadvantage for how long they take/an advantage for how long they last if they pass. (And of course, we could just leave everything as they are, but that goes without saying.) That being said, we have provided options for these, and you're free to make your case for these.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: October 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Make all proposals last for 2 weeks

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) If it's not obvious, this is our primary option; we're a big fan of the idea of global 2 week proposals!. Even with their caveats, in the worst-case scenario, we could make a clause to prevent proposals for lasting too long if they reach their consensus early, or we could simply revert back to the current system. We think the added consistency and preventing of shenanigans is very potent, and it also means that you have to put a bit more thought into your proposal as you make it. Patience fans will be eating good if this passes.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per proposal and what was said here. However, I'd also be fine with an option to just shorten writing guidelines proposals to be one week. I don't really understand the third option here, writing guidelines proposals being two weeks felt to me like the worst inconsistency of the bunch. I still don't see what about "writing guidelines" specifically means they inherently need more time than the other categories on this page.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) Regular proposals and TPPs are just as visible as one another and should be treated equally, especially when regular page proposals can be the home of very important decisions (such as this one!) and are just given 1 week. Per all.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) 1 week proposals have always felt a little short to me. I'd rather err on the side of some proposals running a little longer than needed than not having enough discussion time (I don't like banking on a controversial proposal tying). Having to wait an extra week to implement a proposal isn't the end of the world anyway - proposals are rarely, if ever, urgent enough that an extra week with no change would be detrimental to the wiki (and if that were the case, the change should probably come immediately from wiki staff).
  5. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Giving an extra week to discuss and vote on proposals is a good thing.
  6. Drago (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  7. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per, I never got why sitewide ones always got less time to discuss.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal and the talk page discussion.
  9. Tails777 (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Jdtendo (talk) I feel like the inconsistency is not justified, and one week may be too short to make an informed decision.
  11. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. I was one of the people who participated in the conversation that sparked this proposal, and my reasons are stated there.
  12. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all.
  13. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I think that the reason site-wide proposals still get only 1 week is to necessitate engagement so that a decision can be reached, due to their importance compared to talk page proposals. However, that logic is flawed since it incentivizes discussion which is quick and not well thought out, so I think the consistency of 2 weeks for every proposal would be better here.

Make all proposals last for 1 week

Make all proposals except for writing guidelines proposals last for 1 week

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. While we like this much less, we do see the merit of making Talk Page Proposals 1 week, and it's not exactly the end-all-be-all. However, we would vastly prefer 2-week proposals, and keeping Writing Guidelines proposals 2-week is kind of a necessary evil to prevent them from being too rushed for their own good. However, compared to truly all 1-week proposals, this is better... though, not as good as all 2-week proposals.
  2. 7feetunder (talk) For me, it's either this or bust. New information coming to light can still invalidate a proposal's entire premise too late and require a counterproposal even with a 2 week deadline, so extending the deadline of main page props to 2 weeks won't stop that from happening from time to time. Most proposals that don't reach a consensus in a week will probably require extensions anyway. TPPs being less "visible" than main page proposals was more of an issue back when no quorums were immediate, but that's no longer the case.
  3. Axii (talk) Voting for this just so the first option doesn't win.

Do nothing

  1. 7feetunder (talk) If making TPPs last 1 week isn't desirable, I say just keep the status quo. While the current system does encourage making main page proposals over TPPs when possible if one wants their prop to pass faster, I'm fine with that. A controversial prop is not going to end in a week, and a prop with unanimous or near-unanimous support probably doesn't need that extra time in the oven. I'd be more open to global 2 weekers if a "early consensus = early pass" sub-rule was already in effect, but it isn't, and there's no guarantee that such a rule would be accepted by the community.
  2. Axii (talk) The solution isn't solving anything. There was never a problem with inconsistency. Talk page proposals last for two weeks because they're far less visible to people. Mainspace proposals page is frequently visited by many, having proposals last for 2 weeks instead of one doesn't change anything. It doesn't help the community settle on anything, one week is more than enough. Proposals that are tied already get extended automatically, if anything, I would argue writing guidelines proposals should last a week instead. I proposed a different solution on the talk page as well. If a user making a proposal (or an admin) feel like one week wouldn't be enough, they should be able to extend it to two. (I specifically added "or an admin", because most users don't want a proposal to last for two weeks.) Either way, the fact that users often choose mainspace proposals over talk page is perfectly fine as well. It's not about the time in the oven but the visibility of the proposal to the wiki community. Writing guidelines (if they remain at two weeks) could instead be clarified. Right now it is unclear what writing guidelines proposals even are, I think this is the main problem that should be looked at.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Secondary choice. The inconsistency isn't that bad and I prefer that to all proposals being shortened.
  4. Killer Moth (talk) Second choice.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is worth scrutinizing our proposal policies and the issues people brought up are valid, but I do not think setting the same time for everything is necessarily the best solution. I will elaborate on my thoughts below.
  6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
  7. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

Something that occurred to me: The time allowed to edit TPPs was originally 3 like main page proposals, but eventually doubled to 6 to go with their extended duration. If TPPs are shortened to 1 week, would the time allotted to edit them be reverted? Dark BonesSig.png 19:30, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

That seems only fair to put them back to 3 days if that option passes--after all, it would be a glaring oversight to retain that and effectively allow for proposals that were en route to pass suddenly being hijacked on the last day, and pivoting from the original purpose, while still retaining the vote. The plan here is to de-jank the proposal time-lengths and make them more consistent--not to introduce even more shenanigans! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:18, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

@7feetunder: Of course there's still a chance for new information to come too late with any proposal length, but longer proposals mean the chance is lower. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:44, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@7feetunder: On your reasoning under Do nothing, the idea of an early-consensus-early-conclusion rule for proposals is intriguing... I feel as if we have 2-week proposals that can end early if everyone has a near unanimous consensus on what to do with the proposal, we'd have an ideal middle ground. --OmegaRuby (talk) 08:55, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

While finding the discussions where this first took place have not been successful (with the closest approximate being tracked down by retired staff here, which alludes to this issue), there was wisdom in having longer time for talk page proposals, because they would often would get overlooked and fail simply due to lack of engagement, not because there was anything wrong with them. That may not be the case today, but I see a different set issues that this proposal does not address.

Personally, I think certain proposals - regardless of whether they are on the main page or a talk page - are very niche and entail a very granular change that probably does not need two weeks of discussion or even one to be implemented. Proposals that have wide and systematic changes for the site, such as a policy revision or something that would change many pages, do benefit from longer discussion time because the impact would be significant and affect a lot of people. Whether a proposal has narrow or broad impact has nothing to do with whether it is on an article's talk page or this main page.

Additionally, while it may seem like there should be some sort of rule that allows proposals that gain consensus quickly to be implemented, there have been concerns among staff that users have raised similar proposals to ones that had failed in the past with the hope of getting the attention of a different pool of users who may agree with them. (To clarify, there is a difference between raising a new proposal based on one that had previously failed using new information and arguments, versus one using essentially the same argument). If we had some sort of rule that allowed the passing of a proposal due to quick engagement and support, I can see it being abused in such cases and resulting in proposals passing that people at large may not have agreed with.

I don't like complicated rules. I believe the best policies and rules are straight forward, clear, and unambiguous. There is not use in having rules that people cannot easily understand and follow, imo. However, in this case, I think applying a blanket term policy for all proposals (be it two weeks or one) is too broad and does not address the issues I have observed, or even some of the ones raised by other folks on the main proposal page's talk page. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:18, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

If you ask me, "talk page proposals are two weeks, but the ones on the main page are one week, except writing guidelines which are also two weeks for some reason" is an overly complicated rule. Every now and then, confusion about the "writing guidelines are two weeks" stipulation arises in proposal comments, which I think is telling. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:54, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

I think my main issue is the difference with writing guideline proposals specifically. Mostly because it's hard to determine what a writing guideline even means, or which proposal should fall under which category. I'm not sure where I'll place a vote yet, but I do at least think there should be consistency between all main proposal types. Technetium (talk) 16:22, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

If this passes, will it immedately affect all ongoing proposals, or just new ones going forward? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:31, October 5, 2024 (EDT)

Not voting because I think the current setup is "don't fix what isn't broken", but I'll be willing to try something new. I'll just wait and see. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, October 5, 2024 (EDT)

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series

I've pitched this before, and it got a lot of approval (particularly in favor of one-at-a-time small proposals), so I'm making it a full proposal:
I have thought long and hard about the "proper" way for us to cover Super Smash Bros. in a way that both respects the desire to focus primarily on Super Mario elements while also respecting the desire to not leave anything uncovered. As such, the main way to do this is to give pages only to Super Mario elements, whilst covering everything else on the pages for the individual Super Smash Bros. games; unless otherwise stated, they will instead link to other wikis, be if the base series' wiki or SmashWiki. For instance, Link will remain an internal link (no pun intended) because he's crossed over otherwise, Ganondorf will link to Zeldawiki because he hasn't. Link's moves (originating from the Legend of Zelda series) will link to Zeldawiki, while Ganondorf's moves (original moves due to being based on Captain Falcon's moves) will link to Smashwiki.
Other specific aspects of this, which for the most part make the game pages' internal coverage be more consistent with how we handle other games':

  1. Structure the "List of items in Smash" to how Super Mario RPG (talk) had it in this edit, albeit with the remaining broken formatting fixed. That page always bothered me, and that version is a definite improvement.
  2. Merge the "enemies" pages to their respective game - they're already structured like any other game's enemy tables anyway. These pages also always bothered me.
  3. Merge the "Subspace Army" and "Subspace Stages" lists to each other to recreate a watered-down version of the Subspace Emissary page (to split from the Brawl page due to length and being exclusive to that campaign); it would also include a table for characters describing their role in said campaign, as well as objects/items found exclusively in it (Trophy Stands, the funny boxes, the metallic barrel cannons, etc... a lot of things from the deleted "List of Super Smash Bros. series objects" page, actually) - once again, all except Mario-derived things will link elsewhere (mostly to Smashwiki in this case).
  4. Section each game akin to how I had the SSB64 page as of this edit, including sections for Pokemon, Assist Trophies, Bosses, etc., and links to other wikis for subjects that we don't need pages on. Other sections can be added as needed, and table structure is not specifically set, so further info can be added.
  5. Leave the lists for fighters, stages, and (series-wide) bosses alone (for now at least), as they make sense to have a series-wide representation on here in some capacity. Also, you never know when one of them is going to cross over otherwise, like Villager, Isabelle, and Inkling suddenly joining Mario Kart, so it's good to keep that around in case a split is deemed necessary from something like that happening down the line.
  6. Have image galleries cover everything that can reasonably be included in an image gallery for the game, regardless of origin. This includes artwork, sprites, models, screenshots, etc, for any subject - yes, including Pokemon, so that will undo that one proposal from a month ago. Just like on the game pages, the labels will link to other sites as needed.
  7. Leave Stickers and Spirits alone (for now at least), their pages are too large to merge and are fine as they are for the reasons that opposition to deleting them historically has brought up.
  8. Include the "minigame" stages (Break the Targets, Board the Platforms, Race to the Finish, Snag Trophies, Home Run Contest, Trophy Tussle, the Melee Adventure Mode stages) in the "list of stages debuting in [game]" articles. For ones like Targets, it would just explain how it worked and then have a gallery for the different layouts rather than describing each in detail (and if we later want to split the Mario-based ones into their own articles, I guess we can at some point). Said minigame pages should be merged to a section in the SSB series article covering the series' minigames. The Subspace Emissary stages will get a section with a {{main}} to the stage section of the Subspace Emissary article (detailed in an above point).
  9. Keep trophy, assist trophy, challenge, and soundtrack pages covering only Mario things, leave the remainder of the images in the game gallery (fun fact: Smashwiki does not have game galleries, nor does their community want them; we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that).

People may wonder, "What about Nintendo Land and Saturday Supercade? Why don't they get this level of coverage?" It's simple, really: In Smash, you can have Mario throw a Deku Nut at Ridley in Lumiose City and nobody bats an eye at how absurd that situation is. In those other games, the different representations are very much split apart; all Mario-related stuff is within a few minigames that do not overlap whatsoever with any of the other ones. In Nintendo Land, you cannot have Mario fighting Ridley in the Lost Woods, despite (representations of) all of those things appearing in the game. In Smash, anyone can interact with anything, regardless of origin, so Mario characters can interact with anything, and anyone can interact with Mario things. That's why Smash, the melting pot it is, gets more focus than Nintendo Land, where everything's more of a side dish.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support - clarify it like this

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Axii (talk) Even though I disagree with points 6, 7, and especially 8 (Mario-themed minigames should be covered separately), I feel like this is the solution most would agree to compromise on.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) While we would like to do some stuff of our own (cough cough, maybe a proper solution to Smash redirects clogging categories), this is a good start, we feel. If push comes to shove, we could always revert some of these changes in another proposal.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) This is a great framework for our coverage of the series. I still would like a better handling of smaller things like trophies, stickers, spirits, and music, but I'm not sure what that would look like and we could always make that change later.
  5. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, this is a good step towards cleaning up our Smash coverage.
  6. Metalex123 (talk) Per proposal
  7. Tails777 (talk) I’d like to see where this goes. Per proposal.
  8. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I've reconsidered my hardline stance since the previous proposal, and I can now agree with most of the points listed here. However, like others have said, I do want to revisit the coverage of massive lists like those for stickers and spirits in the future.
  10. Superchao (talk) Per the proposal. Hving the itemized list will allow for simpler debate and discussion in the future, rather than our ad-hoc coverage status built over time. Lay the groundwork, then discuss the details.
  11. Arend (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose - don't clarify it like this

  1. SeanWheeler (talk) We might actually need to reduce the Smash coverage a bit more. We especially can't undo that proposal that reduced Pokémon. And those sticker and spirits list really should have been reduced to Mario subjects like the trophy list. The fact that the middle spirit list doesn't have a single Mario spirit is absurd. And maybe those fighter lists should be split back into their own character pages again. Most of them had appeared in Super Mario Maker. I have a different idea of how we should handle Smash.
  2. SmokedChili (talk) This wiki really doesn't need to cover every series that appears in Smash Bros. extensively. Would be better to limit full coverage to both Mario itself and Smash since that's the host series while minimizing exposure to others if there's some connection to Mario, like, which stickers boost tail damage for Yoshi. General info on all of the modes (Classic, collections, settings), that's fine. Characters, stages, items, Assist Trophy spawns etc., just list the Mario content, mention the totals and the proportions from Mario, and include screenshots of full selections if possible.

Comments - clarify the clarification?

(I was gonna name the options "Smash" and "Pass," but I thought that might be too dirty) - Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:38, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@Axii - I wouldn't say any of the minigames are really innately Mario-themed, though. If any were, I'd have them stay separate. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:02, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

As I mentioned on your talk page, Break the Targets and Board the Platforms have Mario-themed stages Axii (talk) 23:57, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
Yes, and as I mentioned in the proposal, those can be separately split later if it is determined to be acceptable. The minigames themselves, however, are not Mario-themed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:19, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
Why not leave them out of this proposal though. Why should we merge Mario content? Axii (talk) 09:29, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
The current articles don't actually describe the individual stages anyway, just an overview of the mode. Also, those list pages already include the Mario stages, just with a "main article" template. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:56, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick I know you are familiar with my crossover article draft using Zelda as a base, but I do not think I clarified some of the intents I had with it, which I shared here with Mushzoom. I do not think it intersects with what you layout above, but I just wanted to let you know. (I also welcome other folks to check it out.) - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:45, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

I think both can coexist dandily. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:56, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: Though the middle spirit list has no spirits of Mario characters, it's not irrelevant to Mario because Mario characters, stages, items, etc. appear in many spirit battles. In fact, the very first spirit on that page (Jirachi) has Mario relevance (you need Luma and Starlow to summon it). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:09, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@SmokedChili - What about non-Mario characters that we cover anyway due to them crossing over outside of Smash, like Link, Isabelle, and Banjo? Surely their presence in another crossover deserves to be acknowledged. That's one of the main issues that arises with the "nuclear" mindset. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:32, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

What about those? Them crossing over in Mario isn't the same thing as crossing over in Smash. That's where the complete selection screenshots come in, make them image maps where crossover subjects with Mario Wiki articles get image map links with necessary notes. That way lists don't have to bleed over to include anything else but Mario.
On another note, shouldn't you have just waited four more weeks? You posted here your concern over those two proposals stalling you further with this if they passed, but that's not how rule 7 works. It says 'any decision'. That means voting to keep status quo is also what can't be overturned for 4 weeks. SmokedChili (talk) 09:28, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
My understanding is that, because those two proposals failed, neither of this proposal's outcomes would contradict that. The coverage that they were trying to remove is kept either way here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:25, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
Honestly, I think all those points should be in their own separate proposals. I would support #1 if it was a talk page proposal for Talk:List of Super Smash Bros. series items, but combined in a wiki proposal with other things I don't want, I had to oppose. @Axii is that month really worth having #6, #7 and #8? @Camwoodstock, sure we can revert some of these changes with another proposal, but the proposal rules state we have to wait four weeks before we have a counterproposal to a part of this proposal. And if Hewer is right about failed proposals not counting, then would opposing this be the better choice of action when you disagree with just one thing? Oh, and @Hewer, if I make a proposal to reduce the Spirit List, I would definitely want to keep the Spirit Battles that involve Mario fighters and stages. And with stickers, I would get rid of the non-Mario stickers that don't specifically boost Mario characters. And, I definitely do not want Smash 64's page in that way. It should be as focused on Mario like how Bulbapedia's Super Smash Bros. series game pages focus on the Pokémon content, and how the Sonic Wiki Zone's page on Super Smash Bros. Brawl was more about Sonic. #4 is going to make our Smash game pages more comprehensive than Smash Wiki's game pages. If we're really that worried about losing stuff in our reduction of Smash coverage, why don't we talk to Smash Wiki's admins about merging the pages we don't need into Smash Wiki's articles? There's got to be some cross-wiki communication if the Donkey Kong Wiki merged into us. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:11, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
My long term goal is only having non-Mario Smash content on the game page itself. If it means compromising to get more people on board, I'm all for it. I'm going to make a prediction that in 5 years the idea to cover Smash like a guest appearance won't be much controversial Axii (talk) 02:04, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
As I said in the proposal, "we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that." Also Sonic is a bad example since he was only introduced in the third game, while Bulbapedia is built around the very rigid structure of the main Pokemon games anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:12, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Overturn the proposal that resulted in the deletion of Category:User eo (category for speakers of Esperanto)

Myself, I don't care about this language, and needless to say, neither do most people on the planet, but I take issue with the proposal that had it removed in the first place for a few reasons.

  • The proposal argues that this language "is not a real language", that "nobody really picked it up", and likens it to the fictional language of Klingon. Despite its status as a constructed language, it is, in fact, very much a real language intended and created to be functional. It has a(n admittedly small) number of speakers across the planet, some of whom may well be potential editors on this wiki for all we know. The comparison to Klingon, which was created with an artistic purpose, is misleading.
  • The proposer was outed as an extremist (read up on the details at your own risk) who seemingly was planning to have other language-based user categories removed, as he followed up with another proposal targeting the Georgian user category. The wiki's policies outline that we shouldn't assume bad faith in users, but given the circumstances here, I hope you'll allow me the assumption that this user had ulterior motives in their little curatorial project, namely in altering the wiki ever so slightly according to their outlooks. Proposal failed and the user was banned for their concerning behavior, preventing further such proposals from being made.

Now, as you'd expect, the Esperanto user category certainly never saw much use--in fact, only one user employed it as of 2014 (archive.org) and even then only listed Esperanto as a second language (archive.org) (though, the very point of Esperanto was to be an auxillary language between people who don't speak the same native language). That user, who goes by Pakkun (talk), has since taken the category off their page, so you could argue that this proposal lacks a tangible purpose as "User eo" would be dead on arrival should it be recreated.

The point of this proposal, however, isn't to recreate this language immediately; it is to negate the proposal that currently prevents its creation if someone ever considers they'd derive some use from it. This community should be open to anyone regardless of their cultural background. The previous proposal is contrary to that.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) per proposal.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, we would be down for more Conlangs to have user categories. We can't imagine the overlap of, say, Vötgil speakers to Mario Wiki users is very large, but like, in regards to a strictly English wiki, the Conlang categories in particular are just for-fun categories at the end of the day, and who the hey are we to expressly prohibit other people's fun? And even in the most generous reading of the events, it still feels like a bit of warped priorities when some categories have been in need of reforms for awhile now (sorry about the Thieves category thing, we're still thinking of that and honestly at this point we wouldn't mind someone else chipping in with that) and haven't gotten them, but we have an entire proposal dedicated to... Deleting a category for Esperanto speakers??? (And for the record, this was back when Category:Canines was called Dogs--something something, obligatory mention of Penkoon.)
  4. Shadow2 (talk) We DID this? wtf??
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
  8. Arend (talk) With the provided context, something about Trig Jegman's proposals rubs me the wrong way. If it's true that he was trying to gradually remove other languages, where would he stop? He stated that Esperanto and Gregorian are languages not supported by Nintendo (a weak argument IMO, as Nintendo =/= this wiki), and not widely spoken, so would he first try to get all small-spoken languages removed? Would he eventually try to get larger languages removed just because Nintendo doesn't support these languages? Would he eventually go even further and get even languages that are supported by Nintendo removed because they're not as widely spoken as other languages? Would he eventually make it so that English is the only language remaining? Would he then remove that category too because if that's the only language category for users, then what's the point of keeping it? Or worse, is this a ploy to recognize who is native to other languages and would he try to get non-English users banned so only English-speaking users have access to the wiki (and then remove the English category)? ...Uh...fearmongering aside, per all.
  9. Waluigi Time (talk) No harm having it if people want to use it.
  10. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  12. Axii (talk) Per all.
  13. Mario (talk) The more the Marior. That older proposal was dumb.
  14. Jazama (talk) Per all
  15. SeanWheeler (talk) I'm not a fan of banning users for off-site drama, especially when it's political. But if his proposal was bigoted, then maybe it should be overturned.
  16. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all, especially Sean. This proposal was asinine at best, in retrospect, and harmful at worst. And that's coming from a man who doesn't have full context as to what happened.
  17. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. That category never hurt nobody.
  18. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  19. Pseudo (talk) Per all. This is a really gross thing to delete.
  20. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. That was just mean to delete a language category. People still speak this language, so we should represent it!

Oppose

Comments

The real question is if we can have a Klingon category (as a certain other editor who is no longer with us due to concerning behavior mentioned on that proposal). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:11, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Up for debate whether user categories can have some basis in fiction. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:16, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
We think that Conlangs in general should just be allowed, just because it both feels really, really weird to try to police what Conlangs "count" as languages, and because the idea of focusing even more proposals on such a for-fun topic feels.... A little too much, when that effort is best used elsewhere. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:14, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

We should be open for Inklingese and Smurf. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:24, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Per Arend. --A Boo hiding and revealing itself. FanOfYoshi Splunkin model from New Super Mario Bros. 05:50, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

@FanOfRosalina2007's vote reminded me of a point I wanted to add to the proposal within its first three days, but forgot: there is a category for speakers of Latin, a dead language, so that old proposal's argument that "Esperanto is spoken by too few people to be relevant" is bust as long as the wiki supports Latin. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:29, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

Should we add an Occitan category, perhaps? It's a near-dead language that has actual historical significance in certain areas, unlike Esperanto's status as a conlang with "official" linguistic status. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:56, October 5, 2024 (EDT)

Lower the requirement for a disambiguation page from 5 to 4

As of now, the requirement for a disambiguation page's creation is five pages:

"If there are five or more pages which could be reasonably associated with a given name, then a disambiguation page must be created" (MarioWiki:Naming)

This rule feels needlessly restrictive, considering the amount of clutter links make at the very top of the page. "For a minigame in the WarioWare series, see X. For an object in Super Mario Odyssey found in the Luncheon Kingdom, see Y. For an underwater enemy from...", you get the idea. If this proposal passes, the threshold on MarioWiki:Naming will be lowered from 5 to 4.

Proposer: Axii (talk)
Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Axii (talk) ^
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) One or two other articles are fine, but having three separate articles in the {{about}} template at the top of the page is the point where a disambiguation page is ideal.
  3. SeanWheeler (talk) We don't need to clutter the {{About}} template.
  4. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Pseudo (talk) Frankly, I'd support bringing the requirement as low as 3. Per proposal.
  6. Mariuigi Khed (talk) I too I'd go with 3. Per proposal
  7. Dine2017 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Do you have any examples of how many subjects would be affected by this change? — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 10:52, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think there's an easy way to tell, but I can't imagine it being too many. Axii (talk) 12:05, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

Shorten the disambiguation identifier for Yoshi's Island pages with the subtitle only - take two

Last season, I had to cancel my last proposal since I was caught plagiarizing someone else's proposal. This time, I've come up with another proposal that is not plagiarized.

Take the "Choose a Game" screen and the main game's title screen in Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 for example. As you see, the logo for the main game on both screens ONLY reads Yoshi's Island, not Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island.

The following pages will be affected:

Current name Will be moved to
Fuzzy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) Fuzzy (Yoshi's Island)
King Bowser's Castle (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) King Bowser's Castle (Yoshi's Island)
Magnifying Glass (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) Magnifying Glass (Yoshi's Island)
Spiked Fun Guy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) Spiked Fun Guy (Yoshi's Island)
World 1 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) World 1 (Yoshi's Island)
World 2 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) World 2 (Yoshi's Island)
World 3 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) World 3 (Yoshi's Island)
World 4 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) World 4 (Yoshi's Island)
World 5 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) World 5 (Yoshi's Island)
World 6 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) World 6 (Yoshi's Island)

Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to use the shorter disambiguation identifier with ONLY the subtitle for the Yoshi's Island pages.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: October 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support (Yoshi's Island)

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) You know what? I'm actually going to agree with this. One reason is because, according to this, this has to move, and there were concerns raised with the overly long identifier that I agree with. The other reason is because Yoshi's Island is a perfectly valid shorter name for this game. Look at any of the Super Mario Advance 3 materials: the Super Mario World 2 portion was removed. Also, outside of Super Mario Advance 3, Yoshi's Island has been used as the shorter title on occasion. This is in keeping with other proposals about using shorter identifier titles where applicable, and it will not conflict with "(Yoshi's Island series)".
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per LTL. I personally prefer to shorten it to Super Mario World 2, but that's clearly not Nintendo's own preference, so that is moot.

Oppose (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)

  1. Hewer (talk) Reusing my oppose vote from last time: the remake replaces (and reorders) the subtitle rather than just removing it, so we've never had a game just called Yoshi's Island, and I don't know of any other time we've used a title for a game identifier that isn't actually a title for a game. "Yoshi's Island" also isn't quite as immediately obvious what it refers to compared to "Super Mario RPG", "Donkey Kong Country 2", or "Donkey Kong Country 3". I think this is going a bit too far and ends up a little more confusing than helpful.
  2. Axii (talk) Per Hewer
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Hewer.
  4. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per Hewer.
  5. Shadow2 (talk) Long titles are not a problem.

Comments

@Hewer I respectfully disagree. "Yoshi's Island" is actually short for both "Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island" and "Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3", so I think there's a possibility to use the "Yoshi's Island" disambiguation identifier for Yoshi's Island pages, even if it is confusing. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 08:39, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

Why do it if it could be confusing? MarioWiki:Naming advises: "When naming an article, do not use game abbreviations. (e.g. use Bully (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time) as opposed to Bully (M&L:PIT))." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:59, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4388815"