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">
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{user|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. '''Signing with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki> is not allowed''' due to technical issues.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==Writing guidelines==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
''None at the moment.''
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
==New features==
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.
#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.
Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.
#"<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.
For example, let's say for [[Luigi]] in his appearance in ''[[Mario Sports Superstars]]'', there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:
#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).
:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''


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


Also,
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
<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.
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT


__TOC__
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
====Oppose====


==New Features==
====Comments====
===Featured Article Voting Modification===
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)
Browsing the current FAs Nominations on this Wiki, I have noticed users complaining about two types of votes.  (1) Support votes cast because of personal favor to the subject of the article, aka "fan votes", ie "Peach deserves the nomination." as opposed to, "Well written article about a notable character." (2) Oppose votes that do not specify enough information for supporters to fix the problem, ie "This article has poor structure." as opposed to, "The Mario Kart information should be placed in one section."  I am proposing that, in light of votes such as these, we give the users power to remove votes on Featured Article nomination pages in the same way users have power to remove votes from the Proposals section (see the top of this page for more information) with a few modifications to prevent the posibility of three users teaming up.


Briefly, this would mean that if three users believe a support vote is a fan vote or an oppose vote is  is impossible to appease without further comment from the opposer, the vote could be removed.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THREE SUPPORTERS/OPPOSERS CAN REMOVE RIVAL VOTES BASED SOLELY ON OPINION!  ONLY FAN VOTES WITHOUT FURTHER REASONING OR OPPOSE VOTES THAT ARE NOT CLARIFIED CAN BE REMOVED!  IF AN USER IS DISCUSSING HIS/HER VOTE ON THE NOMINATION PAGE, THE VOTE CANNOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THREE SYSOPS AND/OR USERS OF HIGHER RANK.
===Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork===
This proposal will address the bloat some image categories have and make them easier to navigate.


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


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br>
Now, I can see a few edge cases, like when games have screenshots of themselves for credits images (i.e. ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)]]''). I would still classify these as assets, since they are ripped from the game. Artwork that is used in smaller forms in-game, such as in ''[[Super Mario Maker 2]]'', would be classified as artwork if externally released or an asset if it was ripped from the game files. Edge cases shouldn't be too common and they're easy to work out: it's not too different from how we license images or put them in character or subject galleries.
'''Deadline:''' May 26, 2008, 17:00


====Support (Give Users This Power)====
I think the name "assets" would be more useful in shorthand than "sprites and models," in addition to covering textures, so I propose for the category to be called that, but I can change it if there's opposition. The global images category can still exist in the case there's scans, merchandise, video screenshots, or such images that cannot be further categorized.
#{{User|Stumpers}} This would prevent an article from being supported on the basis of the subject rather than the article.  Additionally, oppose votes that do not enable the improvement of the article could be removed, both of would allow the FA process to more effectively serve its purpose of improving articles and celebrating good editing.  It would also prevent users who have opposed and now left the page from bringing the process to a halt.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Stumpers. This will also probably decrease the likelihood of flaming on FA pages. It just clears things up for everyone, making it a lot simpler than it was.}}
#{{User|Glitchman}} - You're not going to remove my opposed vote are you? XD No, I think this is just common sense, if someone doesn't think an article is good enough to be featured, they HAVE to explain WHY it isn't so someone can DO something about it!
#{{User|Xzelion}} - Per all
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} Per Xze
#{{User|Purple Yoshi}} - Per all. I am sick of votes like that.
#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - Per all. SoS always said that Fan Votes have just as much relevance as a serious vote. What a bunch of crap. Fan Votes mean the person likes the ''Subject'', not the ''Content''. -_-
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Fanatic opinions don't really support the article itself, and sometimes users sign for opposing the article to be featured, because the articles can't be featured without any reason.
#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per all I agree. (It might prevent flaming.)
#{{User|EnPeached}}Per all


====Oppose (No Modifications to the Current System)====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
#{{User|Time Q}}: No. Sorry, but giving users the power to remove ''support'' votes is a ''very bad idea''. SoS is absolutely correct here, they won't change anything if there is just one oppose vote, so we really shouldn't care about them. And SoS had another really good point: if a supporter says "B0wzA r000lzz!!!1111!one!!1", how do we know that he really refers to the character, not the article? Why should we force supporters to give a reason for their vote, when all they can really say is "good article", "looks good to me", "I like it"; basically, how can one give reasons for support, without mentioning every criteria the article has to meet in order to become a FA? Sorry, I know I'm talking like SoS, but that doesn't make sense to me.
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#Per Time Q, plus, with regards to oppose votes that aren't specific enough, there must surely be a better solution than what Stumpers is suggesting. --[[User:Pikax|Pikax]] 15:34, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 
#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Time Q and Cobold in the comments. Removing the "fan-votes" is purposeless since the supporter might aswell say "Per X", and if anything, this new rule will creates a lot of pointless flame war in the FA Nomination page comments.
====Support====
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per all. Don't get me wrong, I hat fan votes. I do believe, however, that this is not the system that is necessary for removing them. If any three users can remove any vote (essentially), then that means that there could be unnecessary conflict. And a user may not be in the discussion any more simply because (s)he is on vacation, grounded, on hiatus, forgot about the vote, etc. Perhaps if there were a warning system, I would be more likely to support this idea. ;)
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I support this in principle, as long as there's room for discretion on what gets split and what gets left alone. A game with only ten or so pieces of artwork doesn't need a separate category for them, they can just stay in the main images category for that game. Otherwise, this seems useful, I just don't want users to go overboard by purely following the letter of this proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I've tried to see if an image I wanted to use was already uploaded via the category, which would encourage me to make the text and get the article up. Due to the sheer number of images, this is a bad idea. This proposal will make that less of a bad idea for cases where an asset or artwork is being searched for.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} hell yea
 
====Oppose====


====Comments====
====Comments====
I know this vote gives more power to sysops under rare circumstances. Supporters are free to specify that every sysop except me should have this power, just so that you know this proposal is not a ploy to give me more power. {{User|Stumpers}} 23:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
This is already being done (e.g. [[:Category:Mario Kart Tour item icons]]). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 11:02, December 23, 2024 (EST)
 
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
 
==Changes==
===Broaden the scope of the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template and its variations===
With the [[Template talk:Unreferenced#Delete or be more specific|previous proposal]] having passed with being more specific as the most voted, I've come up with a proposal about the possibility to make the {{tem|rewrite}}, {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, and {{tem|rewrite-remove}} templates more specific. As you can see, these templates are missing some smaller text. As such, I am just wondering if there is a possibility to have the smaller text added to the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki>, and <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> templates.


I'd also like to mention this: The vast majority of support votes, especially for articles such as [[Mario]], consists of what seem to be "fan votes". Now, wouldn't it make things really complicated if for any of these votes we required three users (btw, what does "higher rank" mean...?) to support the removal of the vote? Not only it would make things complicated (and the comments section really long and unclear), it also serves no purpose, because as said above, FA support votes basically change nothing. Sure, there is the tiny possibility of five "fan votes" being collected for a bad article, without any other users noticing that, making it featured after a week. But I guess that won't ever happen, because, well, first we need five votes (there are several users observing the Recent Changes, including me - if I noticed such a case I would try and find a valid oppose in order to let the article stay unfeatured), and then there's still one week left to oppose. So this possibility practically can be excluded. Now, there's no reason left to worry about so-called "fan votes", right? {{User|Time Q}} 05:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
First of all, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
:But what about the other half of the proposal? About oppose votes that aren't specific? --[[User:Pikax|Pikax]] 11:45, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
----
::If I disagree with one part of the proposal, I necessarily disagree with the whole proposal. Still, I think the "unspecific oppose votes" part is reasonable. Users should have the power to remove such votes. I just wonder whether this needs to be proposed, or whether it goes without saying. Current rules state: <blockquote>[...] Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources). Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied. [...]</blockquote> To be very exact, it isn't mentioned explicitly that opposers need to give ''specific'' reasons (''where'' in the article is something wrong?), so Stumpers' proposal probably has a point. Sometimes it's better to lay down rules officially than to assume them tacitly. Still, I think the proposal will have very bad consequences, if it goes through in its current form. Unlike oppose votes, deciding on the validity of support votes is just biased and pointless. {{User|Time Q}} 15:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


I'm sorry...but Son of Suns himself said that fan votes were just as important as well-reasoned votes? When the heck was that? {{User|Wayoshi}} 17:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:Yeah, I remember that someone, probably him, said that fan votes don't matter because a thousand fan votes can be ruled out by a single opposing vote - as long as there is one, the article can't get featured. There would not be much difference when forcing fan votes to get removed - a single user would make an acceptable point, the rest goes "per XXX", as here in the proposals. - {{User|Cobold}} 17:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten'''.
::True. Besides, I still wonder what such an "acceptable" point would be. What makes a support acceptable? What more can you say than "The article is FA worthy"? {{User|Time Q}}
</div>
----
However, once the proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>
</pre>


Stooben Rooben and Princess Grapes Butterfly argue that the rules Stumpers is proposing could help prevent flame wars. But Blitzwing has an interesting point - arguing about whether a vote should be removed or not is much more likely to ''cause'' flame wars rather than to prevent them. Sure, arguing about the validity of oppose votes already happens, and there's nothing bad about that. But allowing to decide on (and, before that, discuss) the validity of ''support'' votes will open the door to useless and long discussions - and possibly flame wars! - which, at the end of the day, would be based solely on opinion. {{User|Time Q}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:Time Q, I know you can tell the difference between a valid support and a fan vote.  Can you tell the difference between these real votes? "She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!" vs. "Stooben Rooben  Okay, the article isn't as bad as I thought. It was just that first part, which I fixed."  Now, the policy you quoted above looks good, doesn't it?  The problem is confronting a user who has not followed the guideline, standing by an oppose that dose not specify what should be done.  This came up on the Princess Peach nomination the other day.  "Page still contains much speculation, misplaced information, etc. When I'm done COMPLETELY reviewing the page, I will support."  You look at this and it's pretty good.  It points out what is wrong.  The problem is that it makes generalizations (often speculation isn't viewed as such by the writers; misplaced information is something that needs to be discussed, but cannot be if information isn't specified; what does etc. pertain?  Again, can't be discussed).  Then, there's the solution: for the specific opposer (not the Wiki as a whole) to fix the problem.  In other words, the problem cannot be solved by supporters and the FA process is halted.  There's validity in your concerns about needing a rule like this, but even with the policy Time Q quoted, there is no way of enforcing it if the user doesn't see that his/her oppose doesn't help the process. {{User|Stumpers}}
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}}.</small>
::I don't really have concerns about the "oppose vote" part of your proposal. As I said above, I'm not sure if it's really necessary, but it certainly doesn't hurt. All my concerns are about the "suppose vote" part. You gave an example for a "fan vote" in your proposal discription: ''Peach deserves the nomination.'' Perhaps that was just a bad example, but ''Peach'' might refer to the article just as well as to the character. Now imagine a situation when three users stumble upon this ambiguous sentence and interpret it as: >Peach as a character deserves the nomination. [I don't care what the article looks like.]< According to the rule you're proposing, they were allowed to remove this - possibly perfectly valid - vote. Obviously that's unfair. So I think I proved that the "support vote" part of your proposal might have bad consequences. What about good ones? Well, I certainly can't see any, and you didn't mention any either. Your only point seems to be that there are some people whining about those "useless fan votes". I agree that so-called "fan votes" are useless. But 1) there's the problem of telling whether or not a vote really is a "fan vote" (sure, sometimes it seems obvious, like your example ''She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!'' shows. But how do you know that the voter doesn't actually care about the article? Why should (s)he explain his-/herself for thinking an article is good? How can one give reasons for that?), and 2) caring about those "fan votes" would be even more useless than the votes themselves. ''They don't hurt anybody.'' In short, seeing no advantages in limiting support votes, actually seeing several dangers, I ask you to remove the "fan vote" part of the proposal. {{User|Time Q}}
</div>
:::Unfortunately neither of us can remove the fan votes part of the proposal without removing the entire proposal altogether, as set forth by the precedent the latest censorship proposal, which fell appart when the proposer removed/edited the content of the proposal after people voted.  While I see your point, I'd like to challenge your argement: do you have any specific instances in which a user has used a subject's name to refer to the article rather than the subject?  Also, I'm not following the logic of your comment.  You took the quote I gave and used it out of context, which defeats your purpose.  The first part without the second part does sound... sort of... ''maybe'' like it could be a very vague support, but the second part is what clarifies it (you admit that later).  But, the FA pages always have the votes in context.  I'd like you to do me a favor and test your theory out about the subject/article thing being a problem by looking at a real nomination's support votes... let's stick with Princess Peach:
----
And another thing—the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


#Kamicciolo, good article with lots of details and no glaring ommisions
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
#Javier12345 Now its better than the last time.
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.
#If Princess Daisy is nominated, Princess Peach deserves it also.
</div>
#She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!
----
#Per everybody, it's a greatly written article for a great character
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
#Peach deserves it
----
#Peach is the greatest she deserves a page right next to Daisy!
<pre>
#G0 Featured Articles/N/Princess Peach I think Peach is great as both a regular non-playable character and as a playable on in RPGs and sports games. She's also a HECK of a lot better than Daisy or K. Rool for that matter.  
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
#I say yes to peachy nomination
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
#10 Nitendo has done so much with Peach in the last couple years. Making her such a strong character in Melee and Brawl and releasing Super Princess Peach. She really is working her way up!
</div>
#Peach needs to be nominated always being kidnapped and all...
</pre>
#Okay, the article isn't as bad as I thought. It was just that first part, which I fixed.  
#Per all.
#Not bad. I added a bit to the SMB2 part, but otherwise, it looks great.


:::I've removed the names, but nothing else is changed. Which of these would you call fan votes? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 17:52, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
----
Lastly, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


==Removals==
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
===Site Logos===
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have <u>content</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): ???
I have always had this huge pet peeve on any wikipedia site, especially this one, over how bad images look when they contain a site logo. This includes character artworks, screen shots, and any other images that are not for a users personal use. Sometimes they're not really THAT noticeable, but when you resort to using imagery just because you don't have it in spite of it having a sites logo stamped on it, it's depressing to see articles get featured or even nominated when they contain low quality imagery such as this. On a side note, a lot of these logos can be digitally removed which in the case of editing an image before upload is completely harmless. If you don't know how, then make a note of it when you upload the image, or better yet, in the images description. It's not hard, it's quick, and it makes a big difference. Regardless, I don't feel images containing site logos should be permitted for upload on the supermariowiki unless it is for user purposes (talk pages etc.) If you oppose this, you support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki. If you support, you agree to make it so that no images with site logos may be allowed on our wiki without at the very least having them edited out of site.  
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s):{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
</pre>
 
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have content '''removed''' for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
----
That will be a perfect idea to make the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template and its variations as more specific as the {{tem|media missing}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} templates. That way, we'll be able to add smaller text to the remaining [[:Category:Notice templates|notice templates]] in the future.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' May 27, 2008, 15:45
'''Deadline''': <s>December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to December 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support (Remove+Refuse Imagery With Logos)====
====Support====
#{{User|ForeverDaisy09}} - Images as suggested lower the quality of any page they are associated with, and are simply put, an eyesore.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|Glitchman}} - FINALLY someone notices this problem!!  I agree with ForeverDaisy09 in all aspects, it's an annoying and pointless problem that can be fixed.  How could you say no to this?
#Per all. -[[user:Canama|Canama]]


====Oppose (Continue Accepting Images Containing Website Logos)====
====Oppose====
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - As you said: people can edit the logo out. But not all people. Microsoft Paint makes it very difficult, and it's not easy in Photoshop. And as Wayo said: it's a very hard rule to enforce.
#{{User|Altendo}} As far as I can tell, the proposal that was linked added parameters that allowed what was supposed to be referenced to be referenced. This one simply adds a subtitle to the bottom of each template. "Be more specific" does not mean saying general information and helpful links, but rather exactly what needs to be done; in terms of that, the existing templates not only all already have parameters, but [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Discourage drive-by templating|filling them out is enforced]]. As [[User:Nightwicked Bowser|Nightwicked Bowser]] said, "Be more specific - Similar to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Discourage drive-by templating|this proposal]], what exactly needs references must be specified in the template when putting it in the article. A parameter for this will still need to be added." This only adds a subtitle and does not make this "more specific". As for the changes, this is actually harmful in some way, as the <nowiki>(tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})</nowiki> tag will be added to the subtitle, rather than the main body, which could make it more confusing in my opinion. Feel free to update this and add in what "more specific" actually means, or just change this to "add subtitles" and change the location of <nowiki>(tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})</nowiki> to the main body, but until then, my vote is staying here.
#{{user|Tykyle}} - Per my comment below.
#{{User|Mario}} Best to keep things simple with these improvement templates.
#{{user|Blitzwing}} - Per Tykyle.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Mario.
#{{user|Shroobario}} - Per Tykyle.
#{{user|RAP}} - Per Tykyle.
#{{user|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Tykyle. I also want to note that just because we oppose this proposal, '''does not''' mean that support the lessening of quality on this wiki. It could just be that we think an image is an image, regardless of a small logo.
#{{User|Stumpers}} With images on any Wiki, here's how it goes: you get an image you can legally use that illustrates what you're looking for, no matter how cruddy.  Then, the low quality image serves the purpose of being an informational aid AND a request for someone to upload a higher quality image (like one w/o a site logo).  Because we're here to provide information rather than be an art show, anyone who says that information in picture form should be removed just because it doesn't "look good" is lowering the quality of the Wiki.
#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - While they are annoying, they shouldn't be removed completely. What if no better image can be found? While I'd prefer no logos, sometimes, there is no other choice.
#{{User|EnPeached}}Per Tykyle and DP
#{{user|Bob-omb buddy}}-They may be the only option,and if left up a user can edit it out by copy and paste


====Comments====
====Comments====
All I can say is good luck trying to enforce this, and fix it now... {{User|Wayoshi}} 17:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
:Images with low quality or site logos are merely tolerated, but definitely not encouraged. I don't see any policy change in this proposal. See [[:Category:Quality requested]]. - {{User|Cobold}} 17:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
::Well, I think FD09 is proposing to get rid of these images, i.e. to introduce a policy which forbids uploading such images. That would be different from "merely tolerating" them. Did I get that right? {{User|Time Q}}
:::Basically, I think that sounds right. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}


FD09: I do not "support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki." That would be ridiculous. Most people do not support that, as it would be stupid. I believe that if an image can show more than text, even if that image is lower quality, it is beneficial to the wiki. This is probably the mentality of other users. {{user|InfectedShroom}} <s>And we should have a list or something of all the images like that, as I can easily edit them. :/</s> OOps. Cobold's Category is what I wanted. ;)
Here's how I would fix some things:
::The main point is to prevent such imagery from being used on our wiki. The point is an image is meant to visually show something, and when that purpose is interrupted with an ugly site logo, it's purpose is no where near an acceptable standard. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
 
First of all, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


I fully oppose this proposal. Images with a website logo or a water-mark should only be removed if an appropriate alternative can be found. In other words, these offending images should be replaced, not removed; furthermore, images such as these should not be immediately refused, especially if the article in question lacks any images at all.  --[[User:Tykyle|Tykyle]] 18:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
::Like I said right above, bad images take away the purpose of imagery at all. I already suggested an alternative just to make it that much easier. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten'''.
:::A small, 75 x 25 px watermark does not take away from the imagery. And that alternative (of digitally editing) is not great, as many users are probably unable to edit the mark out. {{user|InfectedShroom}}
</div>
::::Just for the sake of argument, I'll point out that if we have a member with the time and a reasonably new copy of Photoshop the watermark can be removed. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} 22:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
----
However, once the proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>
</pre>


Regardless of weather or not this goes through, we all still have the ability to edit site logos out of images. You don't always need to be good with the computer, or even have a good art program to edit out logos. I use paint more than photoshop to edit out site logos. Don't act like everyone is helpless just because they don't have photoshop. Also, it is still my opinion that these images (with site logos) do lower the quality of pages, regardless of what information they provide. A good example would be a screen shots section. It's not there to show you a crappy image of a character from the specified game, it's there to show off the quality of their appearance in that game. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:I wasn't acting "like everyone is helpless just because they don't have photoshop." I was saying that some users may not have the skill to professionally remove a web logo. And not all screenshots are meant to show off the quality of a certain game. As Nintendo doesn't always make good graphics, screenshots aren't always meant to show the quality of the game. Ah, well, I'm done with this conversation. {{user|InfectedShroom}}
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' for the following reasons:<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}}.</small>
</div>
----
And another thing—the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


==Splits & Merges==
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
===Merge Super Mushroom to Mushroom===
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.
I think we should merge the [[Super Mushroom]] article to the [[Mushroom]] article. Why? They're almost THE SAME! I mean, look at the beginning phrase of the Super Mushroom article. It says: "A Super Mushroom is a red Mushroom that allows whoever eats it to grow to an enormous size". The normal Mushroom is also red and also will you grow. However, the Mushroom have some other effects in other series. But, notice the images on the Super Mushroom article. You'll see an artwork of ''[[Mario Kart Super Circuit]]''. But in other Mario Kart games, it's called Mushroom. Also, the [[Golden Mushroom]] was sometimes called Super Mushroom. In SSB series, they are called Super Mushrooms, but they are still the same.
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


I also readed on the Super Mushroom article that a Super Mushroom appeared in ''[[Super Mario 64 DS]]'' that will let you grow. But on the Mushroom article, there stands information that has the same meaning. And there was only ONE red-capped Mushroom in that game! So both articles has information about the same item.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information for the following reasons:<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
----
Lastly, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


So, now I told enough information from why we should merge the Super Mushroom Article to the Mushroom Article. When we have merged, we can maybe (I say "Maybe") make a Disambiguestion page with the name "Super Mushroom" (I told that the Golden Mushroom also sometimes was called Super Mushroom).
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have <u>content</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): ???
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed''' {{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reasons:{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


Sooo...
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have content '''removed''' for the following reason(s):<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>


Do you also think that the Super Mushroom article should be merged to the Mushroom article? Or do you think of NOT?
This should fix some things, and I also recommend you change the title or at least context of this proposal. If so, then I might change my vote. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 19:58, December 9, 2024 (EST)
:I {{plain link|https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=4457576|fixed this problem}} for you. How does it look? {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 09:40, December 10, 2024 (EST)


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Arend}}<br>
===Decide what to do with Template:Move infobox===
'''Deadline:''' May 23, 2008, 20:00
A while ago (November 4th, specifically), I created [[Template:Move infobox]]. After all, we had templates for essentially all the Browse tabs on the wiki sidebar, except for moves. There WERE templates about specific types of moves, such as [[Template:M&L attack infobox]], but no general template in the same vein as items, characters, species, games, locations, etc.


==== Merge the Super Mushroom Article! ====
I discussed it on the Discord briefly, nobody said no, and a bit of feedback later about how it should look and what it should have, I created it. It has since been applied to exactly four pages at the time of writing, half of which I was the one to apply it to. In hindsight, this could've used with a proposal instead of me just making it, so here's a belated one.
#{{User|Arend}} What do you think? I'm the proposer!


==== Don't Merge it! ====
Should we keep '''Template:Move infobox''' around? If we do keep it, is it good as is, or does it need changes?
#{{User|Stumpers}} I'm opposing because "Super Mushroom" and "Mushroom" are two distinct items in many (all?) Mario RPGs.  You bring up a very good point which made question my oppose: the two articles do need clean-up.  How to go about doing that for an item that is the same in the platformers but different in the RPGs is a tough question.
#While I do think some things should be moved from one page to the other, I think that they are things that should have independant articles. Also per Stumpers. -[[user:Canama|Canama]]
# {{User|Ninjayoshi}} - Per all.
# To follow on from what Stumpers said, the Mushroom and Super Mushroom are distinct items in the Mario Kart series as well. --[[User:Pikax|Pikax]] 06:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - Per Stumpers.
#{{User|CrystalYoshi}} Per Stumpers. I have some issues with those two pages, actually. The main picture on the Mushroom page is actually a Super Mushroom (It's from New Super Mario Bros.). Plus the Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about all Mushrooms in general, and the Super Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about it in platformers.
#{{User|EnPeached}} Per all. They're not stubs, so why be merged?
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} Per all. I'd say more, but everyone else has me covered.
#{{user|Glitchman}} Normally I'd agree with Arend here, but they both aren't stubs, have images, and are officially named, so....yeah.
#{{User|Paper Jorge}} I'm agreeing with Stumpers. Those articles need clean-up, that's all.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Stumpers.
#{{User|Bob-omb buddy}}-Mushroom talks about ALL of them but super mushroom is a  type and offical name.
#{{User|Princess Strawberry Butterfly}} Are they two different articles with detail and no stubs.


==== Comments ====
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
I thought we solved this problem long ago by combining all mushrooms into the main mushroom article. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} 21:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': January 1st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Pikax, in Mario Kart series, there ia an item called Golden Mushroom, who is SOMETIMES known as Super Mushroom. You didn't really readed the proposal fully. {{User|Arend}}
====Keep Move infobox, as is====
:Can you give us an example of the Golden Mushroom being called a Super Mushroom? - {{User|Walkazo}}
#{{User|Sparks}} I can see this template working really well for moves that aren't in every ''Mario'' game, like [[Spin]]. This has lots of potential!
::I'm pretty sure that MK64 is the only place it could be. Someone should check. {{User|Stumpers}} 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
:::Check the Europese Mario Kart DS site for example. {{User|Arend}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We don't see why not--having a dedicated Moves infobox could come in handy, especially if we get any more Mario RPGs in the wake of the weird little renaissance period we've been getting with the back-to-back-to-back SMRPG remake, TTYD remake, and release of Brothership. Per proposal.
::::Thanks, Arend.  Europese! {{User|Stumpers}}
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It would bring more attention to our move pages. I'm down for that.


==Changes==
====Keep Move infobox, but with changes====
''None at the moment.''
 
====Delete Move infobox====
 
====Move infobox Comments====
Considering the nature of the attack infoboxes, wouldn't it be weird to have moves all in purple but a Mario & Luigi attack use yellow and green and a Paper Mario attack use white and green? Should there be variants of the Move infobox to match the color schemes of existing templates? If an article is covering multiple related moves, how will the infobox work? (ex. [[Handstand]], [[Cap Throw]], [[Roll]], [[Slide Kick]]... there's more of these than I thought). What happens when a move is referenced in somewhat less "move-y" ways? Okay, that last one is kinda strange, but basically I mean "dashing" in Super Mario Run is just a fancy animation, Mario & Luigi Dream Team has an animation where Giant Luigi crouches (with posing and skidding clearly meant to be a platformer callback), to slide under an attack. Do these instances get incorporated into the infobox? Continuing the train of thought, what about sports games? Yoshi can Flutter Jump as his special action on Mario & Sonic games. Does that count as a method of input for a Flutter Jump? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)
:that's a lot of very interesting questions!
:*i went with purple to set it apart from the already taken light red (game), green and white (character), blue (level), pink (location), grey (item) and navy/grey (species) infoboxes. changing the color could be a good idea.
:*as for sorting which moves "count" or not, we have to decide these things for other types of subject too, after all, and they get infoboxes. it's a valid concern, though! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 15:09, December 20, 2024 (EST)
 
 
 
 
===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?
 
Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.
 
This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Blank support====
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
#{{User|PopitTart}} <small>(This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)</small>
#{{User|Altendo}} <small>(Look at the code for my reasoning)</small><!---It might not seem annoying, but over time, or answering multiple proposals at once, it can start putting stress. Copy-pasting can be done, but it is just much easier to not type anything at all.---->
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}}
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really ''are'' just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at ''all.'' <small>(Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)</small> <!---Silent per all.---->
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
#{{user|TheDarkStar}} - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
#{{user|Ninja Squid}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
 
====Blank Oppose====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
#{{User|Technetium}} I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone ''does'' provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} {{color|white|Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type ''two words''.}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all <small>(is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)</small>
#{{User|Axii}} Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides ''some'' insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
#{{user|DesaMatt}} Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
 
====Blank Comments====
I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:::My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::::My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the  odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:{{@|Mario}} I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)
 
Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)
 
I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring ''a'' written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)
 
===Set Vector-2010 to the default wiki skin===
This proposal is about setting the 2010 [[mw:Skin:Vector|Vector]] as the default wiki skin ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160207064154/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/44/Logo_new-vector_screenshot.png screenshot here]) for desktop users, with the focus being on people who are new to wikis in particular, while obviously keeping the existing MonoBook skin as an option. What made me think to create this proposal is when I made a [[Talk:Main Page]] proposal about the to-do list tasks and how they are more accessible than clicking the "Wiki maintenance" on the sidebar, I had to uncomfortably squint to find "Wiki maintenance" on the wiki sidebar. But Vector-2010 has the sidebar links slightly larger and a bit more spaced out. With the existing interface, there could be some who may struggle to find options listed on the sidebar.
 
While we're clearly different from Wikipedia (that's why I'm not Vector-2022, since it'd be too much of a departure and likely uncomfortable for several), I do want to refer to [http://web.archive.org/web/20180213165624/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/05/13/a-new-look-for-wikipedia/ this page], which summarizes why Wikipedia transitioned to it. Though it is vague, they cite accessibility as the reason, which I think this wiki has been taking steps toward doing.
 
I'll cite my reasons for preferring Vector and applying this to possible people who are visiting a wiki for the first time. The text is larger, which is especially important for larger screen monitors, some of the lesser used tabs are collapsible on the sidebar, summarizing the most commonly used options, and the user links at the top right are also more noticeable and less close to the body of the article where the content is read.
 
Though it could take time getting used to the Edit button being on the right (not to mention the search button), the button is at least larger, making it more usable on even lower quality screen monitors, and I like how it's separate from the Page and discussion options, meaning that options that involve viewing articles are on the left while options that involve editing or changing the page in some form are on the right.
 
If this proposal passes and others don't like the change, they can always return to the MonoBook option in their [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering|preferences]].
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Admittedly, this vote is largely a matter of preference--we just don't like Vector that much--but we can't think of any real reason to switch to Vector 2010 as the default over the current Monobook beyond the mentioned text spacing; while that is a nice boon, we personally find the weird gradient buttons for the various tabs up top a little grating looking, and we're a fan of the more compact design that Monobook provides--though, this is likely a byproduct of our personal preference for more neatly packed web design. And uh, the less said about the other two options (Vector 2022, and. Timeless. <s>Which is the most dated theme possible, namely to mid-2010s mobile web design.</s>), the better. If you like Vector 2010, that's great, and we're fine with that! Heck, if anyone likes Vector 2022 or Timeless, that's cool too, and more power to them! Variety is the spice of life, after all. But switching it to the default is something that should not be taken lightly, and the reasons for a switch in this proposal feel a little too loosey-goosey for us, we're sorry.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I like how MonoBook looks a little more than Vector. It is what I am comfortable with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
#{{User|Drago}} Per Nintendo101. I actually prefer the smaller text of Monobook since you can see more of the page at once. I also want to point out that although logged-in users like us can change the skin in preferences, we'd still be forcing the change on logged-out users.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Drago.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Nintendo101 and Drago. I just don't see any reason to make this change.
#{{User|Altendo}} I'm saying this as a Vector-2010 skin user, and I'll say that people have their preferences. I live Vector-2010 because that is how Wikipedia at least used to look before they switched to Vector (2022); On Wikipedia, Vector was renamed to Vector legacy (2010), while Vector 2022 is named Vector (2022). Although I do prefer Vector-2010, I know a lot of people that prefer Monobook, and even if not, this can be changed in the preferences. No need to change the default skin. I get that IPs can't change their appearance, but aside from that, users can, and what they see doesn't have to be default on the wiki. Everyone can change what they specifically see.
 
====Comments====
{{@|Camwoodstock}} That is true that it's a major change. It's based mainly upon impression from newcomers from them seeing a more prominent edit tab, slightly larger text size, and other minor details like tab names that are easier to read (including a collapsible feature for the lesser used tab). The skin change was based on old Wikipedia research at the time (like how WikiLove was a result of their research). I have no strong feelings whether this passes or not. Although it's vague, since there's no way to tell the statistics (and the wiki's already successful at the moment), I still have a feeling it could help some, but to each their own. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:32, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:We feel like if anybody would be capable of providing any statistics on skin usage, it'd be Porple, but even then, we don't actually know if that's one of the things he tracks, and it feels a little silly to pester him over this of all things... ;p {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:55, December 18, 2024 (EST)
 
I'm okay with opposition, but in case of misunderstanding, this proposal isn't about personal preferences so much as what I believe to be a more ergonomic interface to a wider audience. I know we're not Wikipedia, but there's also the consideration that they've used the Vector skin longer than they had for MonoBook. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 13:45, December 19, 2024 (EST)
:If it's what "you believe", then it ultimately (and probably unavoidably) is about personal preferences. Anyway, another consideration is the fact that people often prefer what they're used to. I feel like how long this wiki has used its skin is more relevant than how long Wikipedia has. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:39, December 19, 2024 (EST)
::{{@|Hewer}} I suppose I'm overthinking the ergonomic interface. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:19, December 20, 2024 (EST)


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

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

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, December 28th, 19:01 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)
Tighten Category:Deceased characters, Nightwicked Bowser (ended December 27, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

Comments

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

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

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

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

Comments

Here's how I would fix some things:

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

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

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decide what to do with Template:Move infobox

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

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

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

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

Keep Move infobox, as is

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

Keep Move infobox, but with changes

Delete Move infobox

Move infobox Comments

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

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



Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

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

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

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

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

Blank support

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

Blank Oppose

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

Blank Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Set Vector-2010 to the default wiki skin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

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