MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Saturday, February 1st, 01:53 GMT

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

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{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

• Split F-Zero X (discuss) Deadline: January 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles (discuss) Deadline: January 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split Warupīchi (KC Mario) (discuss) Deadline: January 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Swap the spots of the To Do List and the Mushroom World Encyclopedia boxes on the main page (discuss) Deadline: February 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename NES Classics (Flash game) to NES Classics (Macromedia program) (discuss) Deadline: February 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Robo Kikki to "Robo Monchee" (discuss) Deadline: February 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Add VisualEditor (discuss) Deadline: February 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split Dr. Luigi (character) from History of Luigi (discuss) Deadline: February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Poochy Dash into Poochy & Yoshi's Woolly World and Poochy Hut (discuss) Deadline: February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split Waluigi (Super Mario Land 2: 6-tsu no Kinka 2) (discuss) Deadline: February 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split and rework the "partial conjecture" mode of Template:Conjecture (discuss) Deadline: February 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy (discuss) Deadline: February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Move Kutlass to Kutlass (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: February 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split the high-ranking members of the Tiki Tak Tribe into their own pages (discuss) Deadline: February 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• What to do about the unresolved identity of Worlds A-C human (discuss) Deadline: February 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Gallery:Donkey Kong Country (television series) trading cards to Gallery:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards) (discuss) Deadline: February 11, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Allow BJAODN comments to be made collapsible (discuss) Deadline: February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split Best Fitness Friends (form) (discuss) Deadline: February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split Animal Crossing (game) (discuss) Deadline: February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Fix the Donkey Kong identity chaos (discuss) Deadline: February 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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)

Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork, Scrooge200 (ended January 5, 2025)

Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)

Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)

Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)

Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)

Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)

Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)

Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)

Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)

Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)

Merge Hurricane (move) into Gale Force, EvieMaybe (ended January 30, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3

This was spurred by the introduction of the to-do bar. Thanks, to-do bar! Anyways, if you look at Special:WantedCategories, at the moment, it's all entries with 3 or fewer items each; this makes sense, given we have a policy that suggests categories are kept to only 4 or more items. However, for a good portion of the 3-itemers, these are all fairly featured images from sources like various short flash advergames, or more niche subjects like the MediaBrowser which came in a series of, well, 3 web browsers. In comparison to the 1-or-2 entry, well, entries, these have a bit more substance to them, basically waiting for a fourth image to be taken at some point; and while in some cases, that image can come up, in others... Well, what are the odds a fourth MediaBrowser is releasing when they went bust back in 2001, y'know?

While we don't feel strongly about what happens to the 1 or 2 entry categories, we do think there is just enough to these 3-entry categories to warrant a closer look our current policies are not providing. Should we lower the cutoff to 3? Or is 4 the magical number for categories?

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves, of course. We don't see any particular harm in this when, as of submitting this proposal, this would only create, what, 10 categories?
2. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me, especially because, if an individual is uploading images to the wiki for a source that currently has no images, there's a solid chance that that person will upload three images. It's a popular number!
3. Nintendo101 (talk) Three is a magic number.

Keep at 4 (forced to four!)

1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple in the comments, image categories don't have this restriction so the proposal seems moot otherwise. I don't see a benefit to reducing this limit across the board, and I'm very hesitant to support without a clearer picture of the implications. (The assertion in the comments that this wouldn't have immediate impact was based on the list on Special:WantedCategories - there weren't any categories there besides image ones because that would require mainspace articles to have redlinked categories that would go against policy if you made them. Obviously, that wouldn't fly.)
2. Sparks (talk) Per Porplemontage and Waluigi Time.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Honestly, five would be a better restriction so that it's a well rounded number.
5. Jdtendo (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Waluigi Time.

Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)

The intent of that restriction is that, for example, if there aren't four articles for Category:Super Paper Mario characters then the couple characters would just go in Category:Super Paper Mario rather than create the subcategory. Image categories are different since moving up the tree in the same way would be undesirable (there would be a bunch of random images at the bottom of Category:Game images rather than those categories being redlinked). We can create image categories with as few as one entry; I updated MarioWiki:Categories. If you still want to change the number needed for articles, up to you. --Steve (talk) 22:38, January 21, 2025 (EST)

Oh! We didn't know that, good to know! We'd like to proceed with the proposal, even if we don't think it'd have any immediate impact under these rules--all the 3-item categories have to do with images at the moment. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)

New features

Split Mario & Luigi Badges & Remaining Accessories

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 1, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

We realize this is a bit presumptuous given the proposal to split the clothing is, as of writing this, the oldest unimplemented Talk Page Proposal, and it isn't even close (it's the only proposal on that list from 2021!). However, we're a little surprised the badges and accessories weren't included in that proposal! Like clothing, there are multiple badges that appear across multiple games (such as remakes, but also the various Bangles from Dream Team/Brothership, Scarves and Statues in Dream Team/Paper Jam) and things different between them (did you know the base Mush Badge isn't in the Super Star remake? Only Mush Badges A and AA. you'd only know this comparing the two lists.)

In addition, a few of the accessories are already split; namely, the special items from the Starbeans Cafe, like the Greed Wallet or Great Force. We don't know what exactly to do if this split doesn't happen, so we've added an extra option to retain those articles but keep things to their lists, and one that just merges everything back to the lists.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split 'em all (fire up that button pin maker!)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, of course. There's enough recurrence and differences here that we feel like this has ample reason to exist beyond just consistency's sake.
2. Arend (talk) Might as well do it. Heck, maybe it will incentivize someone to actually do something about that clothes proposal.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
4. Sparks (talk) Per all.
5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
6. Hewer (talk) Huh, this wasn't included in the clothing proposal?
7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
8. Jdtendo (talk) If this is just a confirmation of the scope of an already passed proposal, then why not (provided it actually gets implemented).
9. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Comments (splittin' badges/accessories)

I almost want to oppose this proposal until the clothing articles gets actually split. I tried cancelling that one six month ago (to no avail) and I'd really rather not want to have another proposal like it just waiting for someone to implement. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 14:43, January 25, 2025 (EST)

The original proposal was "split everything here." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:06, January 26, 2025 (EST)

The wording is a bit vague, admittedly. The way the proposal was archived says only clothing, but the actual article suggests all gear. Which, hey, it'd be nice to at least confirm it. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 01:10, January 26, 2025 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the Super Mario franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what happened here. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, like here, and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.

If this proposal passes, only the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.

This proposal falls directly in line with MarioWiki:Courtesy, which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
2. Shadow2 (talk) Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally any other platform that has ever existed gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
3. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per Shadow2's comment.
4. Waluigi Time (talk) IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) per WT
6. Camwoodstock (talk) If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove any conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal and Waluigi Time. No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
8. LinkTheLefty (talk) Agreed with N101.
9. Paper Plumm (talk) While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
10. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
11. Daisy4Days (talk) Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.

Oppose

1. Ray Trace (talk) This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
3. Sparks (talk) Friend requests are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
4. Jdtendo (talk) I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
5. Technetium (talk) No one even does friend requests nowadays.
6. Mario (talk) Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it must be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
7. Tails777 (talk) I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
8. Mushroom Head (talk) It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
10. Arend (talk) On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
11. MCD (talk) This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you really don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
12. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
13. Green Star (talk) Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.

Nintendo101 (talk) It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.

Comments

@Nintendo101 Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)

I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — Nintendo101 (talk) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)

@Nintendo101 The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, not others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)

Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. Technetium (talk) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)

I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)

My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Technetium (talk) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)

Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you are allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings. So why is it so much more locked-down here? Shadow2 (talk) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)

"I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?"

It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)

...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from removing it if they should so choose. Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)

That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is still there, even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." Shadow2 (talk) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I want to make something clear: under the current policy for user talk pages, "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? Jdtendo^(T|C) 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)

No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)

@Super Mario RPG receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)

It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)

No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." Shadow2 (talk) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I believe users should have some fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. Sparks (talk) 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)

@Shadow2 What are some specific examples? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Examples of what? Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they don't want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. Shadow2 (talk) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)

@Technetium That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by @Mario) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)

@Mario So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do not fall under "unimportant fluff". Shadow2 (talk) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)

@Shadow2 have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)

(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)

"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they don't want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. Shadow2 (talk) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)

That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? Shadow2 (talk) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Shadow2 (talk) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)

This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ MH:) at 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Merge the Tortes

Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:

• Apprentice (Torte)
• Chef Torte
• Torte

The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the Jellyfish Sisters, or Cork and Cask--and given they are the only Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct articles.

In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move Apprentice (Snifit) over to Apprentice, and give it the {{about}} template.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of Superstar Saga.
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
3. Sparks (talk) Merge!
4. Blinker (talk) Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.

Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.

Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least have unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins.
4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
5. Paper Plumm (talk) Per all.
6. Nintendo101 (talk) I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
7. Technetium (talk) Per all.

Comments (It's... Alive???)

This can easily be four birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an {{about}}. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)

Good observation, actually! Went and added this. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)

@Doc: On that note, because of once and only once, that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)

I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)

By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against MarioWiki:Minor NPCs? -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)

Not any more than Cork and Cask does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, @Camwoodstock, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. Blinker (talk) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)

We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)

Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of Snifsters are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? Blinker (talk) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)

Rename Trivia section to "Notes" and allow broader coverage in their contents

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 2, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Trivia sections are a contentious part of the wiki. Lengthy trivia sections with wrong/stupid/pointless content were an issue in the early years of the site and while there’s been a successful effort to clean them up, they’ve retained a stigma as a dumping ground for low-effort writing. As part of it, there’s been a drive to gently discourage such sections and instead steer people toward “incorporating” trivia content in other parts of the article. It’s not a bad notiom, but I do think it’s had some unhappy results (more on that later) even if it would be absurd to suggest it is an equivalent problem

Somewhat counter to common wisdom, I think the problem with Trivia sections is that not that they’re not narrow and curated enough, but rather than they’re not broad enough.

What I’ve noticed is that many wikis out there don’t have Trivia sections. They however, have Notes section. So say, the Transformers Wiki, might have a Notes section on their comic pages and besides the obvious Trivia fodder like “This is the only issue of the Marvel comic Optimus Prime doesn’t appear in”, they also list other information about the production or substance of the subject. Things like

• Cultural references (in case where they’re not prevalent enough to sustain a whole section

• Stylistic elements (characters being drawn differently or an episode having a different animation style)

• Mentioning things that don't fit neatly in List of appearances (Stuff like "In a cereal commercial, Mario mentions having a pet chicken)

• Narrative elements (a character behaving differently for a single installment or having some speech quirk they only have in that specific installment. Pointing out that a comic issue was the introduction of some plot element that would become prominent in further installments of the franchise, etc etc. That kind of thing)

If you need a clearer idea, https://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Transformers_(issue)#Notes is an example of what Notes sections are used for. It's not a perfect comparison because TFWiki is a different wiki that does things differently, and some of the thing they put in their notes we would put in more specialized sections like Appearances, Personality, Development etc on here. Still, I think it gives an idea of where I'm going at. There are noteworthy things that can’t be smoothly inserted into plot and content descriptions. I think covering such content is an area the wiki is currently weak in. I also feel it would lead to better flow.

A few years ago, I tested the waters and put Notes sections on a bunch of a pages I created. Most editors didn’t get what I was going for and either renamed them to Trivia or tried to incorporate them somewhere in the rest of the article. I’ll bring up La nuit des vivants-morts as an example: it’s a skit from the funny French Donkey Kong variety show, and since that show loves its hack comedy, there’s a running gag where the zombie characters draw out the “aaaaaaa”s in their speech. It's a noteworthy element of the skit’s humour, but it’s not relevant to the “plot” of it. I made a notes section to describe it, but another editor removed the section and instead stuck the bit at the end of the lead, which just looks awkward as hell: it’s worth a mention, but is not something so vital and unique that it warrants being on there.

So yeah, I propose to blanket rename all Trivia sections to “Notes” and tolerate a wider variety of content on them. Another potential benefit I see is that it could potentially reduce the amount of stereotypical bad Trivia content: it just seems to me that in some people, the word “Trivia” activates the monke brain of us that wants to just Say Stuff no matter how overspecific and uninteresting, where “Notes” is more boring and stuffy and might not encourage such urges.

Proposer: Glowsquid (talk)
Deadline: February 9, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (change trivia to notes)

1. Glowsquid (talk) I think this "Glowsquid" guy has the right idea!
2. Waluigi Time (talk) I think this is a good idea that will give us a healthier relationship with these sections.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) A thousand times yes! A trivia rework has been long overdue, and we think a shift in scope is just what we need to keep the article's flow intact, while providing a proper space for information that doesn't fit snugly into other parts of the articles.
4. Sparks (talk) Definitely the right idea!
5. Mario (talk) I do like to see a solid guidelines for what should entail in these notes sections. I do think they're great places for information that isn't handled in existing spots in our articles. I'd like to see more examples being done, but I can try to help here. For recurring characters, section such a section can deal with trivia found in promotional events or merchandise, such as a hypothetical commercial that reveals Mario being a cockatiel owner. The Lily Franky stuff that I'm not going to go into detail, for instance, describes a shocking depiction Mario and friends (reenacted with plushies it seems) that cannot be covered in Mario's history page due to not being a game installment nor can it be in his personality section due to it clearly being off-color and one-note (not even a bullet point; this sort of thing is so minor it's so much better off as, well, a trivia point. For smaller articles like the La nuit des vivants-morts, this is definitely where such a section should be useful without taking undue prominence in the lead summary of the page. I'm hoping this doesn't lead to these just being souped up trivia sections like in some wikias (god forbid we have a bullet point that's like "Dark Samus is the only character in Smash Bros who is an evil echo of an existing character who has a pink alt and floats during an idle animation.") but we should at least try this first.
6. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all, especially Mario. Note: SolemnStormcloud is the first user in this proposal to use the phrase "Per all" as their reasoning.
7. Winstein (talk) Looks like a good idea, and I am for it.
8. Nintendo101 (talk) I still worry about drive-by edits - there are legitimate pieces of information that work better within the body paragrpahs. But this seems like an improvement and more critically well-defined.
9. Tails777 (talk) I personally have always seen the Trivia section as a "fun facts" kind of section where the information there doesn't fit into any other sections. And I feel this could also help prevent drawing out sections with random details that just end up starting their own paragraphs, especially opening sections. I'm willing to give this idea a solid shot.
10. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per everyone. Never liked the "trivia" title.
11. EvieMaybe (talk) this is the kind of forward-thinking, wide-reaching proposals i like to see. per all!
12. LinkTheLefty (talk) As long as it doesn't become a dumping ground of a barely-coherent string of consciousness like some fandom wikis treat their trivia sections, I like this idea. And might I say, it's good to see a familiar purple-name glowing again.
13. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Nice to see a proposal that singlehandedly fixes my two biggest gripes with the Trivia section. This would keep users from feeling obligated to move every point from there to other places where they don't belong, and the new name stops readers from dismissing the points that remain as minutia.
14. Pseudo (talk) Rehabilitating trivia sections genuinely sounds like a great idea, since there's often information that doesn't cleanly fit into any section. I'm all for this!
15. Ray Trace (talk) I've made a Marioboards topic about this all the way back if you want my choice thoughts on this.
16. TheFlameChomp (talk) I agree that Trivia needs reworking, particularly the part about encouraging that information be incorporated into parts of articles where it doesn't properly fit, and I think this proposal offers a good solution.

Comments

A concern of mine is that in several places on this wiki — particularly the Mario Kart (series) article, since I used to edit those tables frequently back in the day — the "notes" header is used for footnotes put on a table. I'm a little concerned about the shared terminology there. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:28, January 26, 2025 (EST)

Renaming those sections "footnotes" should solve that. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:51, January 26, 2025 (EST)

I'm also concerned about it. Why rename it "notes" when pretty much all game wikis have a trivia section? What strikes me as odd- as OP has also pointed out- is that the Mario Wiki seems to have a negative bias towards the word "trivia" and the very use of the section (lots of characters who would have a lot of trivia points because of their particular characteristics that distinguish them from others have the section practically unused. I am also an Inkipedia user, and while I do feel that sometimes trivia can be a bit too crowded, at least the section is used for the purpose I (and everyone else in the wiki) think is right. In my opinion, calling trivia "notes" and notes "footnotes" is confusing since the sections have been called "trivia" and "notes" in this wiki since more than a decade. The only thing we should do is to avoid associating the word "trivia" with a negative connotation, especially since the phenomenon of overly crowded trivia sections is way long gone.--Wallowigi (talk) 09:25, January 31, 2025 (EST)

@Mario: "that cannot be covered in Mario's history page due to not being a game installment" - huh? Plenty of non-game content is covered in history sections, from cartoons to movies to manga. Why should this be an exception? Is it for being obscure? If so, why should that matter? I disagree with the idea that we should be deeming appearances "major" or "minor" and giving the "minor" information less prominence, that's just asking for subjectivity and bias to come into play. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:39, January 26, 2025 (EST)

What I mean is that the Lily Franky thing isn't a game, movie, or a cartoon. It's supplementary promotional material, a virtual magazine akin to Nintendo Power. We don't really cover it in Mario's history page due to information from a magazine simply not being appropriate for history that focuses on narrative works (we don't have merchandise in the history section); the same goes for, say, a guidebook 4-koma where Luigi "size" shames Mario. I provided additional context for my argument using the "pet cockatiel from a commercial" sort of example, which wouldn't really fit anywhere in Mario's page except in a trivia section. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:57, January 26, 2025 (EST)

It is a narrative work though, crude as that narrative may be, and it's not tied to a particular game like a guidebook would be (so we can't just cover it in another game's section). If it can have its own page on the wiki, I don't see why it can't get a section in a history page. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:37, January 27, 2025 (EST)

Agreed with Hewer that Lily Franky giving Mario an "off-color" depiction and being "too obscure to be noted" are not proper reasons to omit coverage on Mario's article. Those broadcasts have some narrative qualities to them and are part of the character's history in media licensed by Nintendo, so I'd rather the wiki abstain from relegating those into a Trivia Notes section. Besides, there's some precedent of covering things related to neither gameplay nor story as part of a character's history: the "History of Wario" page runs over a host of appearances of Wario in promotional web content, which were explicitly brought up (and unchallenged) at the parent article's feature nomination. Make of that what you will. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:54, January 28, 2025 (EST)

I wouldn't oppose broader coverage of trivia (look at Shedinja's dedicated trivia section, which is already very long), but I am a bit wary of changing the title to "notes" as the name "trivia" indicates fun, unimportant facts that wouldn't fit into the page proper, while "notes" feel more like formal stuff that could be added into pages proper.

I would also be fine adding a secondary "notes" or "development" (games)/"behind the scenes" (films) section to pages, on top of keeping the Trivia section. This could be added separately, or in the Trivia section, like the origin/name origin in the Pokémon pages in Bulbapedia. Altendo 20:40, January 26, 2025 (EST)

Lots of games already have "development" sections. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:37, January 27, 2025 (EST)

All my joking aside, I remember when Cackletta's article was a Spotlight focus in Issue 203 of The 'Shroom for having an overly long trivia section. A trivia point on the final battle with Cackletta's soul bearing similarities to the final boss from AlphaDream's first game, Koto Battle: Tengai no Moribito, was integrated into the boss section proper, but it feels very inelegant to suddenly start describing a boss from a different, non-Super Mario game in the middle of the article. Is it fine to move that point back once this proposal passes? — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 12:08, January 28, 2025 (EST)

Oh yeah. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm pushing for. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:54, January 28, 2025 (EST)

How about game-specific details that don't go into prose well? Like the fact that in Paper Mario, Goomba (and Spiked Goomba?) is the only enemy with a specific "electrocuted" sprite? Would that call for a different "notes" subsection under the Paper Mario section? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:35, January 30, 2025 (EST)

Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)

Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:

• List of implied species
• Hoohoo civilization
• Soybean civilization
• Hooroglyphs

Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue Hoohooros, but also Hooroglyphs and Beanstones. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in March 2007, actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, Squirpina XIV or the Flora Kingdom royalty, at most serving as the origin for Hoohooros.

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The glyphs are actually seen, though.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.