MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
==Writing guidelines==
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
''None at the moment.''
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.
 
<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 
The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
 
So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
 
Also,
<br><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:30px;line-height:30px;font-weight:900;">NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES</span> -The Management.
 
__TOC__
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>


==New Features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
==Removals==
=== Speculative Relationships ===
''None at the moment.''
OK, so, I've gone through many articles and noticed a lot of speculative relationships in the Relationships section. [[Baby Daisy]] and [[Princess Daisy]] are HUGE offenders. While some relationships, like [[Mario]]'s relationship with [[Luigi]], are fine, others, like Princess Daisy's relationship with [[Waluigi]], are overly speculative, and have no place on this Wiki. I propose to remove any relationship that has no real proof and is merely complete speculation. I mean, c'mon, [[Diddy Kong]] was on Mario's relationships list at one point! DIDDY KONG!!!


And an added idea by [[User:Time Q|Time Q]], we could move unsure relationships, like [[Baby Daisy]] and [[Baby Luigi]], to the Trivia sections of the article.
==Changes==
 
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
'''Proposer:''' {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}<br>
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].
'''Deadline:''' May 5, 2008, 17:00
 
==== Remove overly speculative relationships ====
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above. Or possibly below, assuming some Users decide to argue. =|
#{{User:Time Q/sig}}: Per DP, the relationships section is not the right place for speculation. Uncertain relationships could be mentioned in the trivia section though.
#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} per suggestions by DP and Time Q.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per Time Q.
#{{User:Blitzwing/sig}} - 'Big duh here. It's like saying "Rewrite Poorly Written articles"
#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} Per Ghost Jam.
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; Per all. Come on, babies aren't supposed to have romantic relationships.
#Per all. I had done this, but Fixitup got a section made again. {{User:Toadette 4evur/sig}}
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per all. Those sections are ridiculous. And people, from my view, the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi example was just an '''example'''. There are more relationships like theirs that are speculative.
#{{User:Stooben Rooben/sig|Speculation is a big no-no around here.}}
#{{USer:Garlic Man/sig}} Indeed. I removed the Baby Daisy section several times, but got re-added by Fixit several times... gr...
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} Speculation has no place on a Wiki that even suspects the official alternate forms of media as being alternate canon.
#{{User:CrystalYoshi/sig}} If what we're talking about is baseless fan made-up stuff, I'm supporting this, since this is an encyclopedia; no reason to keep random theories.
#[[User: Coincollector|&euro;zlo]] The speculative content of the relationships sections come from the opinions from the masses (I mean, people)...
#Per all. The relationships between Daisy and other characters are uncertain. [[Image:Don Pianta2.PNG|50px]][[User:Nothing444]]<sup>[[user talk:Nothing444|sup?]]</sup> 01:27, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
 
==== Keep the relationships in question ====
1. [[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]]- At this point there's no support for the relationship section anymore. But it is worth mentioning. I think a trivia section would suffice though.
 
==== Comments ====
I agree to remove those relationships from the section. However, I think putting them as Trivia items would be okay (that is, if it's not complete speculation, but if there is some indication that it might be true (as seems to be the case with Babies Daisy and Luigi)). Anyway. When you say "remove any relationship [...]", do you mean from the relationships section or altogether? {{User:Time Q/sig}} 05:30, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 
That Trivia idea is kinda good... I'm on board with that. And, when I say "remove any relationship", I mean to remove the certain character relationship section, not the whole Relationships section as a whole. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
:Yup, I got that, what I meant was whether you only want to remove the "possible relation" from the relationships section or not mention it in the article at all. But if you say you're on board with the trivia section, I think I can support :P {{User:Time Q/sig}} 06:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 
First of all, this was unneeded as we already had solved this issue. Nice job, hur. Secondly, this is worded in a way that is completely wrong. You're making it sound like all relationship sections on the Daisy and Baby Daisy pages have no meaning and as you said are "baseless", That's your opinion, and saying that misleads any users into thinking there really is something bad about the sections. There's nothing more "baseless" about these sections than there are to any other pages. This was solved, you're bringing it back up, and you're not doing so correctly. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
:The purpose behind the proposal is allowing each user to review the facts, discuss the matter and draw their own conclusions, so no real misleading is taking place. Beyond that, the war continued well past repeated protections, so the problem is obviously not solved. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 08:25, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 
I don't give a [[Rat Funk]]'s squeek about what you think of this Proposal being "pointless", Fixitup. Cos' your little edit war with [[User:Toadette 4evur|Toadette 4evur]] sure proved that the problem WAS NOT resolved. I am not at all saying that everything on their pages is baseless speculation. For example, [[Princess Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Luigi]] is valid, since [[Nintendo]] is purposely hinting that relationship in basically every game the two have appeared in together. Stuff like Princess Daisy's relationship with [[Waluigi]], and [[Mario]]'s relationship with [[Diddy Kong]] should be removed... That last one is the most "WTF" of them all. This has been a delightful message from: {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} - And don't you forget it!
:I suggest you calm down. You're starting to sound like you're going off on me again. Anyway, I don't see how you couldn't have explained that already. Also, sections like that don't necessarily need to be removed. They just need to be reworded. Like the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Obviously that has enough information to back it up (meaning it's not baseless) same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship. (obviously not as much, but still doesn't need to be completely removed or even thrown to a trivia section) Also, the Daisy/Waluigi relationship is backed up by their team names in Mario Party, their chemistry with one another, and their rivalry in Mario Strikers Charged. How is that baseless? I can understand a relationship like Toad/Mario being baseless in some manner, but as long as two people have a history in any manner, there should be a relationship section. Why are proposals always about removing, never fixing? Also, the edit war was over as you saw booster was the last one to revert Toadette4evur's final part in the edit war. He even asked them what reasoning they had, and they disregarded it until a while after. (Hm) [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
:Wow great, the information is now two times in the article, once in the relationship section and once in the trivia. What happened to our compromise? - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 
 
It went in one ear, and out the other, Cobold. ;) {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
WaYoshi... the section wasn't about romance, it was just about a relationship. Regardless, they're not real. Real babies don't talk or drive. I fail to see how an infant having a crush on another infant is impossible, especially under the circumstances. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
 
First off, I just see this proposal as a selfish way to get rid of the Baby Daisy section...again. I NEVER would have written the section in the first place if I knew it would spontaneously ignite edit wars and then lead to the deletion of all the other speculated relationships. Going by your definition, anything that is a possibility is merely speculation and should go. All in all, thats EVERY relationship section. Take the Daisy & Luigi relationship section. Clearly Nintendo is hinting at a relationship between the two, but it hasn't been OUTRIGHT CONFIRMED. But still, everyone still thinks of them as a couple. The same can be said with any other relationship, Nintendo hasn't confirmed that Luigi is jealous of some of Mario's abilities, and yet no attention is brought to that about being speculation (you even refer to this section as being fine). The Baby Daisy section was deleted quite literally for having the word "May" in it, and thus being unconfirmed. While yes, it's not confirmed, neither is the regular Daisy and Luigi section, but still it's hinted at. You can't just delete SOME articles for being mere speculation and keep the others while they too are speculation. While yes, other sections might be a little more supported than than others, but Proof is proof and you can't just deny it. -[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]]
 
All these proposals just because of the Baby Daisy page! Anyway, my position here depends on exactly what you mean by "speculation". Is this about all ideas that haven't  been confirmed by Nintendo, or just ones that seem unlikely and have no official evidence? {{User:CrystalYoshi/sig}}


You DO know who is the cause of all these [[Baby Daisy]]-related problems, right? What I mean is relationships that are complete fan-made BS, like [[Princess Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Waluigi]], or [[Mario]]'s relationship with [[Diddy Kong]], or [[Princess Peach]]'s relationship with [[Wario]]. Stuff like Mario's relationship with [[Luigi]], or Peach's relationship with [[Bowser]] are fine, since they do have backgrounds worth calling official/notable. And Daisy's relationship with Luigi, I do believe that IS official/notable, seeing as Nintendo is purposely implying that in almost every game they appear in together. Even their bios in these games says stuff relating to them being in love with each other. Stuff like [[Baby Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Baby Luigi]], that should be moved to the Trivia section. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:Are you honestly blaming this on me? You're the one that brought this back up when it had finally settled down again, not me. I already told you how I backed that up, also, if you are referring to specific relationships, maybe you should actually try to fix them yourself before making a big proposal about it? We just had a proposal of someone wanting to remove trivia, and since no one supported it, we decided we should try our best to integrate any information into the article. We don't put things in trivia because someone doesn't find them important enough, we put them there because there is NO place to put them in the article. At the most, the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship should be changed, not the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Why do you think they would be in two GIANT GOLDEN STATUES with each other if they weren't meant to have chemistry? Also, like I said before, sections like Daisy/Waluigi DO have information to back it up. Just because there are sections like Diddy/Mario doesn't mean you have to make a proposal saying we should remove anything considerably speculative. Everyone should know that we would have to consider most sections speculative, and that includes Mario and Peach! This proposal is useless when we could go through articles and fix such things like we had before you made it. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] - Peace


The situation was resolved? Ha... HA... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That was the best joke I've heard all week, Fixit. The situation was clearly not resolved. And, what do you do with a big situation like this? You start a Proposal! I can't just remove it all without getting everyone's opinion on the situation. That's what Proposals are for. And regardless of what you think, relationships like Daisy/Waluigi are meaningless, something 11 other Users have agreed on. Even if you think this Proposal is pointless, it doesn't matter. For, you see, I actually MAKE a Proposal to see what OTHERS think, instead of going ahead and getting in an edit war to try and get MY way. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Hmph, fine.
====Support====
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer


:Wow, I'm not going to start calling you immature names or anything, but I can say if I wasn't holding myself back I would. If you refer to booster's talk page, you can see that the edit war was resolved. Also, I didn't start that edit war, I was simply a part of it, and a small part at that. Just because people agree with you, doesn't mean anything. What's their reasoning, that it's speculative? How is stating their past experience with each other to back up a point speculative? That's exactly what the Mario/Peach relationship does. I don't care if people agree with you, I still haven't received any feedback with reasoning that proves how it is more speculative than other relationship sections. Do you realize the Japaneses wikipedia even has a relationship for them? That means it's world-wide common knowledge.[[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] 
====Oppose====
::I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. You think it was resolved 'cause you got your way. Sorry if I sounded rude to you here, but DP's got a good point. {{User:Toadette 4evur/sig}}
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
 
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
:::Wow, if you're going to change your comments to make yourself look better, then so will I. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
::::I would say that he has more room than you.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
 
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
::::Stop pointing fingers and discuss the issue at hand. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
 
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
Do we have evidence of any kind that these freaken babies have a relationship of any kind? And I mean direct, documented proof, not conjecture, not fan crap, not 'Oh, look! They are next to each other on a menu screen! OBVIOUSLY they are bestest frends4leif!!!!!!!'. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 00:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
 
Well, [[Baby Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Baby Peach]] seems kinda... Fan-made to me. Her relationship with [[Baby Luigi]] has SOME proof; a statue of the two dancing in the [[Daisy Circuit]] stage. That said, its hardly enough to merit its own section, or even be considered truly official. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
I don't see why the regular statue of Daisy and Luigi get acknowledged to further their relationship, while the one of the Babies get swept under the rug. If people take the one of the adults as a sign of a relationship, why does no one do the same for the babies? [[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]]
:Because when people meet, they become best friends forever, with no exceptions, right? -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 19:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::That is totally irrelevant. Again, I don't see why this is getting flamed. It is NOT baseless, a giant statue of the two babies dancing has to mean ''something''.  Sure her relationship with Baby Peach might be cutting it, but the Baby Luigi one is certainly not. -[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]]
:::It is not irrelevant. Your first point was that just because the adults are friends (which is also debatable) the babies should be too. Secondly, you're suggesting that a state of two characters stands for this and that. Can you show me text confirming that? Can you show me pictorial evidence of this, besides one stinking statue?    Please don't mistake a heated discussion for a flame war. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 17:34, 30 April 2008 (EDT) 
::::How come no one is responding to the points being made here? I think you all know why. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
 
::::I know that the Baby Peach one was overly speculative, but the Baby Luigi one is not. I can't prove that Baby Daisy has a crush on Baby Luigi, but nor can I do the same for half the OTHER relationships mentioned in the wiki. Proof is proof, even if it's just one little statue. Just because this isn't as supported as others doesn't mean it should be completely dismissed.[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]]
 
Because we have ''lives''. Anyway, while lots of these relationships (i.e. Daisy/Waluigi) have been hinted at by Nintedno (or at least thrown out there by some cheeky team name, or whatever), speculative aspects of any article are best relegated to the Trivia sections; just to clean things up and make us look more professional. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
:Oh you're cool. Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's baseless speculation. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
 
 
Agreed with Walkazo. And lol at your "we have lives" comment. BTW, how come you haven't voted, Fixit? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
:I haven't voted because this proposal isn't worthy of my vote. I'm not going to cast my vote in a section you labeled as supporting baseless speculation when that's not what I am supporting. Also, we don't have to remove anything. You see how the Waluigi/Daisy relationship might say something like, "But their true relationship is unkown". That's what we should be removing, not, "And as shown in Mario Strikers, they have a disliking of eahcother". The second example shouldn't be considered speculation, and you're showing it off as if it was. For example, we could keep the Baby Luigi/Baby Daisy relationship, just take out the part where it suggests that they have more of a relationship then shown with the trophy, same with Baby Peach and the picture. Using factual information isn't speculation as long as you're not speculating anything while using it as back up. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
 
That's kinda arrogant of you, but, OK! I don't care if you ''think'' it's not worthless speculation, half the people around here believe it is. I see no point in making a section about Princess Daisy's hatred of Waluigi based on gameplay elements. It doesn't make sense. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
 
:That didn't go off as correctly as I thought it would. I don't think I'm too good to vote on this, I think I shouldn't vote on something that doesn't give me an option to support my opinion. Hatred? That's a going pretty far. Also, I haven't actually seen anyone else say they agree with you about the Waluigi/Daisy relationship. And anyway, what does the fact it's a bad relationship have to do with anything? Luigi/Daisy and Mario/Peach's relationships are based on gameplay too. You're not giving any reasoning behind the fact you think it's speculation. How does it not make sense? Elaborate, please. I don't see how facts don't make sense. Also, even if this does end up going through, do you honestly think that means that gives you the right to just get rid of any information like this? You're not allowed to remove information that isn't speculation, regardless of the outcome of this proposal. So far, no one has proven to anyone how the Waluigi sections is baseless speculaiton, same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi section. Everyone knows that there is information to be used, we just won't be able to come to any conclusions with them. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
 
::What we're taling about here ''is'' speculation, Fixitup :|  You haven't given any good examples of proof that Daisy hates Waluigi, because there aren't any. {{User:Glitchman/sig}}
:::I just said to DP that I don't think Daisy hates Waluigi, and that the section doesn't say she hates him. It was shown in Mario Strikers Charged that they had a rivalry. They have bad chemistry in MarioSBB. Their team names often explain a bad relationship. What more do you need to provide the foundation for a relationship at the least? HUH?... [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
 
Can we at least agree that the Baby Daisy & Baby Luigi can remain in the form of a trivia section like time q suggested?-[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]]
:You know what I like to do in these situations is this: peel back the speculation and post the fact: Baby Daisy does have a fountain/statue/whatever of her with Baby Luigi, just as their older selves do. Period.  You don't have to write any more.  Let the reader come up with his or her own theories.  Remember: as an encyclopedia, we can, and should, just post the facts.  Don't stress yourself trying to think of what Nintendo is saying, just report the hints, and don't conclude. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 20:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, at least someone can get at the truth here. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
:::Thanks.  So, I guess what you could say on the article would be to mention the hint in a section about Mario Kart Wii, or maybe just a section on... I dunno... influence on Mushroom World culture? It's a toughie. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 00:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
 
That was very rude, Fixitup. I'm-a go now before I get scolded, though... {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
:What are you referring to? Also, why haven't you responded to the fact I gave you reasoning as to why the Waluigi/Daisy relationship isn't baseless?  [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
 
I was thinking of creating a page dedicated to the characters' relationships. I took the idea from this [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/PokéShipping page], where users can put their evidences about the topic. Why not make such a page, something similar to the [[MarioWiki:BJAODN|BJAODN]] article? {{User:Coincollector/sig}} 23:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 
==Splits & Merges==
===Subspace Army Enemies===
So, I've been going through the Wiki, and I've noticed a lot of articles being made on the the [[Subspace Army]] enemies. IMO, these articles are worthless. Yes, I know, it's amazing that I have a limit to the Smash Bros. content on the Wiki, but I believe the Subspace Army enemies are too minor to have their own articles. I propose we merge them all with the Subspace Army article.
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' May 8, 2008, 17:00
 
====Merge with [[Subspace Army]]====
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I am the proposer, and... Blah blah blah.
#{{User:RAP/sig}} Per DP.
#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} Per DP.
#{{User:Stooben Rooben/sig|Per DP. The less stublets, the better.}}
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per DP.
#{{User:Garlic Man/sig}} Per DP - I already redirected a whole bunch of the enemies before, but now it's starting again... D:
#{{User:Storm Yoshi/sig}} Per DP but...
#{{User:Green Guy/sig|Per DP, Stooben, and the Grarlic Guy}}
#[[User:1337Yoshi|1337Yoshi]] Per everyone else.
 
====Keep 'em split====
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Those are just as notable as Melee Adventure mode enemies, who all have articles undebated last time I checked.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Per Cobold


====Comments====
====Comments====
Eh, to be fair, they're more major than [[Condor]]. At least they have a '''name'''. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 06:38, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


And I didn't want that article made. My point being, THERE IS A LIMIT! <_< {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
===Merge introduction/ending sections for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section===
:Blitzwing, this proposal could be what you're looking for. I'm sure you've noticed this before, but sometimes one proposal dominoes into another, with the new proposals being supported by the results of the previous one. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
{{Early notice|March 1}}
Back in 2013, there was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Get_rid_of_pointless_Mario_Party_Minigames_beginnings_and_endings|a proposal]] to cut intro/ending descriptions for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles the proposer deemed pointless, which was rejected by the community. However, with over ten years passing since the original proposal and some discussion I had with some staff on the Discord server regarding the sections/descriptions, I would like to revisit the idea of addressing these sections and the issues that commonly plague them.


At least have one on Primid, please? {{User:MegaMario9910/sig}}
TL;DR: This proposal, if passed, would merge the Introduction and Ending sections of articles for ''Mario Party'' minigames into the Gameplay section, which itself may be renamed to Overview to reflect a more all-encompassing coverage of the minigames if the community supports such an idea. For explanations and more, read on.
:Yeah, having a Primid one ''would'' be nice, IMO. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
::There's always room in lists for a main article template, right? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)


Perhaps Primid could be an exception... Ehhhhhhh... That's debatable, I think. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
While the descriptions for the intros and outros of the minigames can help our readers who need tools like screen readers, many of said descriptions are often riddled with issues, some common problems including, but not being limited to:
:But articles like [[Octorok]], [[ReDead]] and [[Polar Bear]] are okay? I don't see them being any different to Subspace Army enemy articles. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 09:22, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
*Excessive descriptions of minor details or other forms of filler/content bloat that do not meaningfully contribute to the article: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Eyebrawl&oldid=4500992 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sugar%20Rush%20(minigame)&oldid=4509228 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Flip_the_Chimp&oldid=4715460 3]
*Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=On-Again,_Off-Again&oldid=4744643 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Chain_Event&oldid=4513579 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Blazing%20Lassos&oldid=4746544 3]
*Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sick_and_Twisted&oldid=4504726 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Platform_Peril&oldid=4744623 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Burnstile&oldid=4494938 3]


Those articles should be merged into their own page as well... {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
One of the most important rules of keeping readers interested is to keep one's writings as concise as possible, and it goes without saying that including details that are insignificant to what defines the minigame like what characters, enemies etc. are in the background or the exact angles or motions or positions the camera is in will clutter information that is actually relevant and important to the minigame, thus reducing the quality of the pages for readers. Even if all the filler were to be cleaned up, the descriptions, especially ones of the aforementioned "the winners/losers do their respective animations" type, tend to be so short that it does beg the question as to whether the minigames really need dedicated sections for their intros and outros. Plus, a lot of people who read the minigame articles are more likely to do so for information like how it plays or what game it appears in, not what happens to the winners or losers in a minigame like [[Glacial Meltdown]].
:Which would have a conjectural name. Or simply "List of enemies". I don't think we can put all those Subspace Emissary enemies into the Subspace Army article, I'm not quite sure where they all belong. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 09:54, 2 May 2008 (EDT)


Seeing as all the SSE enemies are members of the Subspace Army, they DO fit in that article... And, making a list of enemies... How's that bad? Dude, you make articles on simple ENEMIES, then we'll have to make articles on Assist Trophies and Pokémon... =| {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
This is where I propose we merge the contents of the Introduction and Ending sections back into the Gameplay section of the minigame articles, of course cleaning them up of filler and other unnotable details where needed. The Introduction sections can be repurposed to serve as the opening line of the Gameplay section while the Ending sections can serve as the conclusion.
:Yeah, things are debatable around here, and there's no clear line. In my opinion, we should have enemy articles. Thus I am voting for keeping them. This doesn't mean I would support Assist Trophy/Pokémon articles either. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 11:34, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::IMO, we should have a page titled "List of Enemies and stage hazard in the Smash. Bros." series. I don't understand why we have articles on completly random things like [[Tingle]], [[Ultimate Chimera]] and the guys Cobold listed above. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 11:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)


Agreed, Blitzwing. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
On the Discord server for the wiki, @Mario has also suggested the idea of renaming the Gameplay section to Overview to satiate any concerns or other desires from our userbase to keep the Gameplay section being, well, about the gameplay of the minigames. This will be provided as an alternate option for those who favor that option more than the mere section merge. If you do not agree with either proposal, a "No change" option (Option C) has additionally been provided.
:Enemies have always had more importance than things like trophies.  I'm with the merge side I think just because of the stubbiness factor. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 01:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)


===Super Mario Galaxy signposts merge===
If you have any other ideas on how to address the issues I’ve listed or have any questions, criticisms, comments or concerns, feel free to suggest or otherwise fire away.
For a long time now, I have been considering a merge of four articles, [[Gil Board]], [[Phil Board]], [[Bill Board]], and [[Jill Board]]. All of these are very similar talking signposts that appear as minor characters in Super Mario Galaxy that provide hints hints to the player, such as how to perform a wall kick or control Mario's Boo suit. As these articles are all very short and the characters playing only miniscule roles in the game and essentially non-existant roles in the Mario universe as a whole, I suggest these four articles be merged into a new one entitled "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)".


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Snack/Sig}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|ToxBoxity64}}<br/>
'''Deadline:''' May 12, 2008, 17:00
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Merge into "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)"====
====Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section====


#{{User:Snack/Sig}} (As said above)
====Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"====
#{{User:Blitzwing/sig}} Per Snack.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Mario5 (opening) - MP6.png|18px]] These sections have always suffered from poor writing and serve mostly to pad the article (why are there such egregious descriptions of how the camera behaves in these articles?). There is some utility in these to contextualize the minigames, so this information should be kept in many instances (though ones with the standard win/lose endings shouldn't be mentioned, only the ones where a funny consequence happens like Wario getting his butt destroyed in [[Piranha's Pursuit]]), but they don't need to be in their own section. I think overview is a better broader way to name these sections.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Mario.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} The intro/outro sections are long overdue for some merging. Mentioning them is all fine and good, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to exactly one sentence that amounts to "the camera zooms in and the winner does a funny dance" on articles like [[Burnstile]]?
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't agree that "minor" or "uninteresting" information should be removed (like, if we did remove all of the "they do their victory animations" descriptions, that would leave us with some minigame articles that describe the endings while others don't, which is not helpful to readers at communicating the information and just makes it look like information is missing). But merging the sections is fine, they can be very short.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per everyone.
#{{User|BMfan08}} But who could forget such classics as "the winning player attempts to do a winning pose as the player wins" or "the other team is sad that they lost the game"? Ahem. Anyway, per all.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.


====Keep them Seperate====
====Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)====


====Comments====
====Comments====
I dunno. The sections are pretty poorly done, but part of ''Mario Party 8''{{'}}s brand of humor is having humorous endings to minigames so a header calling them out makes a certain kind of sense. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 15:28, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of [[Crops 'n' Robbers]] was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]] and [[Photo Finish]] from Mario Party 4; [[Merry Poppings]] and [[Head Waiter]] from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like [[Picture Perfect (minigame)]] or [[Flip the Chimp]]. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)


==Changes==
===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
''None at the moment.''
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.


==Miscellaneous==
If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.
===Coconut Mall Department Stores===
In ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'', the [[Coconut Mall]] course has many little stores, advertisements, and other things like that. I think we should make articles for each of these, such as the one I already made, [[Coco Burger]]. If a store exists in the game and we can give the article enough information, I think we should go for it. What do you guys think?


Or we could do another idea that I just thought of and make an article with a list of all the stores and ads, instead of one article for each.
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.<br>The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.</blockquote>


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Tiptup_Jr./sig}}<br>
In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: '''fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion.''' The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at [[Stretch_Shroom#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.
'''Deadline:''' May 9, 2008, 20:00


====Make them/Make a list!====
I noticed that some users prefer to '''instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced'''. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.
#{{User:Tiptup_Jr./sig}} So... yeah. I'm the proposer and all. Reasons stated above.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - A LIST. Not seperate artciles; they'd be stumps and a waste of space. However, since we have that Sponsor list, we might-as-well have one for the stores too. It's all valid information, even if it's just a bunch of easter-eggs.
#{{User:Blitzwing/sig}} - What Walkazo said.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per Blitz. :P
#[[User:Yoshitheawesome|Yoshitheawesome]] Yeah, what Stumpers said.


====Oppose!====
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen. They are merely stores and posters; No REAL information is EVER given. They are just easter eggs/minor additions, nothing more. And, Stumpers, play the game first before you assume the stores and posters have information... Uh-oh, that sounded kinda impolite. D= On that note, quite a bit of the information shown on the example given by Tiptup Jr. is kinda false... I don't remember seeing any menus or anything of the sort. X|
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
#[[User:Supertroopa|Supertroopa]] Per DP. This way can't work because we can't have seperate articles of every single insignificant easter eggs as said before by DP. This has to be a wiki of more important information rather than more articles about shops that are advertised on a course of like Coconut Mall.
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>
#The main the you see of the stores is a poster that says stuff you can't read. Like DP said, WHAT info is given about them: nothing. This is just plain stupid. {{User:Toadette 4evur/sig}}
#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} Another stub article we don't need. Just merge into [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]].
#{{User:Green Guy/sig}} Per DP. Plus it's rather futile to have articles on things that don't even effect game play.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT) Merge into List of Mario Kart Sponsors and move that to [[Mario Kart Advertisements]] (since the ads themselves aren't sponsors).
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} In my defense it was assuming good faith.  Whatever though. Per Ghost Jam.


====Comments====
<references/>
I think making these articles would make the Mario Wiki a more complete guide to Mario's world and would help people find as much information as possible about Mario Kart Wii. We could also put what type of Miis appear in each advertisement, like a female for a certain store, and a male for another. Just a thought. {{unsigned|Tiptup Jr.}}


Tiptup Jr., please always add a reason next to your vote, otherwise it's invalid. Even if you're the proposer. :/ {{User:Time Q/sig}} 05:53, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Since there is no actual information given on any of the stores and posters in this circuit, any information added to the article will be speculation and fan junk... {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
====Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.


====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.


What's about putting info of these things on the [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]]? --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 07:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Club Nintendo Classic SMB2 01.png|70px]] Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.


Seems like a good idea, Blitzwing. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
====Don't make a standard====


Technically, the stores in Coconut Mall are ''not'' sponsors of Mario Kart, they're just... there. Maybe we could make a separate article with a list of Coconut Mall stores, instead of one article for each store? {{User:Tiptup Jr./sig}}
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production here], they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|other non-numeric parts of a source}} that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)


I 99.9% want to say oppose because this seems like a waste of time if theses stores are just random easter eggs in a Mario Kart course-- but I haven't ever played the game yet, which is the 0.1% holding me back from voting. {{User:CrystalYoshi/sig}} 09:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
===Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section===
{{Early notice|March 6}}
I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.


Add them to the [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]]. <u>'''THIS I COMMAND!!!'''</u> {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
Some subjects ([[Taily]], for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely {{iw|pikipedia|Pikmin_family#Naming|Pikipedia}}, {{iw|inkipedia|Inkling#Etymology|Inkipedia}} and {{iw|bulbapedia|Bulbasaur_(Pokémon)#Name_origin|Bulbapedia}}, and push this a step further?


{{quote|This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen.|User:Pokemon DP}}
This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:
*The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
*The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call [[Blooper]] by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
*Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of [[Mario & Luigi: Brothership|''Brothership'']]'s translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
*Internal name table, if applicable
*The "names in other languages" table


Obviously, you've forgotten a little thing called Pie (otherwise known as Proof there is a God). Also, they can't be merged with [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]] since they aren't sponsors. I think they should be added to List of Mario Kart Sponsors, but only if the page is then moved to Mario Kart Advertisements. {{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Agreed with Plumber. The Pie Proposal was at least funny. :( {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
====Retool====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section <small>(we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon.")</small>, so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
#{{User|Fakename123}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
#{{User|PopitTart}} As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I like this idea.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Better organization of naming info. Can we [[Template_talk:Foreign_names#Retitle|retitle]] the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per ałł.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Hm.


Really, only if there really is enough information. If not, then consider merging it. [[Image:Don Pianta2.PNG|70px]][[User:Nothing444]]<sup>[[user talk:Nothing444|sup?]]</sup> 00:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
====Do not retool (status quo)====


DP, are you saying that all the information on the article example given by the proposer was false fanon?  That would change things quite a bit, really. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 01:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
====Comments in other languages====
I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:::yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::::I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)
:::::...an example is literally linked in the proposal body... {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:21, March 1, 2025 (EST)
::::::I just get a weird pop-up when I try to follow it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:35, March 1, 2025 (EST)


All that information is false, yes. I don't remember any menus or anything of the sort. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:So why haven't we deleted/removed false data from that article than? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 01:16, 5 May 2008 (EDT)


For evidence, perhaps? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
==Miscellaneous==
:Well, you're heading the opposition so do as you wish, but can you at least make a note of that so people don't get confused? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 07:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 14:40, March 1, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, March 1st, 21:21 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species, Camwoodstock (ended February 13, 2025)
Make Dark Mode available to everyone, Pizza Master (ended February 20, 2025)
Make about templates on New Super Mario Bros. U courses and New Super Luigi U courses link to each other instead of a disambiguation page, but keep the disambiguation page, Salmancer (ended February 21, 2025)
Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes, PaperSplash (ended February 23, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Rename Dark Horse Comics to "Dark Horse Books", Nintendo101 (ended February 26, 2025)
Tighten Category:Power-ups and its subcategories, SolemnStormcloud (ended February 27, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Merge introduction/ending sections for Mario Party minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 1 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Back in 2013, there was a proposal to cut intro/ending descriptions for Mario Party minigame articles the proposer deemed pointless, which was rejected by the community. However, with over ten years passing since the original proposal and some discussion I had with some staff on the Discord server regarding the sections/descriptions, I would like to revisit the idea of addressing these sections and the issues that commonly plague them.

TL;DR: This proposal, if passed, would merge the Introduction and Ending sections of articles for Mario Party minigames into the Gameplay section, which itself may be renamed to Overview to reflect a more all-encompassing coverage of the minigames if the community supports such an idea. For explanations and more, read on.

While the descriptions for the intros and outros of the minigames can help our readers who need tools like screen readers, many of said descriptions are often riddled with issues, some common problems including, but not being limited to:

  • Excessive descriptions of minor details or other forms of filler/content bloat that do not meaningfully contribute to the article: 1 • 2 • 3
  • Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: 1 • 2 • 3
  • Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": 1 • 2 • 3

One of the most important rules of keeping readers interested is to keep one's writings as concise as possible, and it goes without saying that including details that are insignificant to what defines the minigame like what characters, enemies etc. are in the background or the exact angles or motions or positions the camera is in will clutter information that is actually relevant and important to the minigame, thus reducing the quality of the pages for readers. Even if all the filler were to be cleaned up, the descriptions, especially ones of the aforementioned "the winners/losers do their respective animations" type, tend to be so short that it does beg the question as to whether the minigames really need dedicated sections for their intros and outros. Plus, a lot of people who read the minigame articles are more likely to do so for information like how it plays or what game it appears in, not what happens to the winners or losers in a minigame like Glacial Meltdown.

This is where I propose we merge the contents of the Introduction and Ending sections back into the Gameplay section of the minigame articles, of course cleaning them up of filler and other unnotable details where needed. The Introduction sections can be repurposed to serve as the opening line of the Gameplay section while the Ending sections can serve as the conclusion.

On the Discord server for the wiki, @Mario has also suggested the idea of renaming the Gameplay section to Overview to satiate any concerns or other desires from our userbase to keep the Gameplay section being, well, about the gameplay of the minigames. This will be provided as an alternate option for those who favor that option more than the mere section merge. If you do not agree with either proposal, a "No change" option (Option C) has additionally been provided.

If you have any other ideas on how to address the issues I’ve listed or have any questions, criticisms, comments or concerns, feel free to suggest or otherwise fire away.

Proposer: ToxBoxity64 (talk)
Deadline: March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section

Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"

  1. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
  2. Mario (talk) Mario from the opening cutscene of Mario Party 6 These sections have always suffered from poor writing and serve mostly to pad the article (why are there such egregious descriptions of how the camera behaves in these articles?). There is some utility in these to contextualize the minigames, so this information should be kept in many instances (though ones with the standard win/lose endings shouldn't be mentioned, only the ones where a funny consequence happens like Wario getting his butt destroyed in Piranha's Pursuit), but they don't need to be in their own section. I think overview is a better broader way to name these sections.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer and Mario.
  4. Power Flotzo (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) The intro/outro sections are long overdue for some merging. Mentioning them is all fine and good, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to exactly one sentence that amounts to "the camera zooms in and the winner does a funny dance" on articles like Burnstile?
  6. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  7. Technetium (talk) Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
  9. Hewer (talk) I don't agree that "minor" or "uninteresting" information should be removed (like, if we did remove all of the "they do their victory animations" descriptions, that would leave us with some minigame articles that describe the endings while others don't, which is not helpful to readers at communicating the information and just makes it look like information is missing). But merging the sections is fine, they can be very short.
  10. Nintendo101 (talk) Per everyone.
  11. BMfan08 (talk) But who could forget such classics as "the winning player attempts to do a winning pose as the player wins" or "the other team is sad that they lost the game"? Ahem. Anyway, per all.
  12. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)

Comments

I dunno. The sections are pretty poorly done, but part of Mario Party 8's brand of humor is having humorous endings to minigames so a header calling them out makes a certain kind of sense. Salmancer (talk) 15:28, February 22, 2025 (EST)

It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of Crops 'n' Robbers was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in Avalanche! (Mario Party 4) and Photo Finish from Mario Party 4; Merry Poppings and Head Waiter from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like Picture Perfect (minigame) or Flip the Chimp. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)

Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at MarioWiki:Citations

The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.

If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.

I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. These were my observations:

I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found this (studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd)) for MLA and this (libguides.up.edu) for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.
The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.

In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion. The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at Stretch Shroom and Big Penguin. The template {{cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.

I noticed that some users prefer to instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.

Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system, per Nintendo101 (talk)'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:

  • one instance[1]:18
  • another instance[1]:20
  1. ^ a b Smith, John (1985). Super Mario Bros. Official Guide. McPublisher Publishing ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.

Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my suggestion below.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) makes sense!
  6. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
  7. Mario (talk) Mario in Club Nintendo Classic. Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
  8. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

On Wikipedia, as demonstrated here, they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)

I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even other non-numeric parts of a source that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)

Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 6 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.

Some subjects (Taily, for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely Pikipedia, Inkipedia and Bulbapedia, and push this a step further?

This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:

  • The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
  • The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call Blooper by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
  • Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of Brothership's translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
  • Internal name table, if applicable
  • The "names in other languages" table

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Retool

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section (we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon."), so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
  5. Fakename123 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
  7. PopitTart (talk) As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me!
  9. Nintendo101 (talk) I like this idea.
  10. Power Flotzo (talk) Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
  11. Super Mario RPG (talk) Better organization of naming info. Can we retitle the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
  12. Mushroom Head (talk) Per ałł.
  13. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  14. Mario (talk) Hm.

Do not retool (status quo)

Comments in other languages

I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)

considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)
...an example is literally linked in the proposal body... — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:21, March 1, 2025 (EST)
I just get a weird pop-up when I try to follow it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:35, March 1, 2025 (EST)

Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4763273"