MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tag: Mobile edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages===
===Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3===
Recently, a (completely undiscussed) amendment was made to the [[Mariowiki:Naming#derived names|naming]] system making it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese). While allowing said "derived names" as conjecture makes sense, it comes with several pitfalls, and my main concern is it is turning into a slippery slope. Much of it is discussed on the talk page for the so-called "[[Talk:Hefty Goombrat|Hefty Goombrat]]," which is a sterling example of why this was not a good idea. I have also been recently seeing cases of people moving to subjects based on objects sharing some adjective with a random obscure object in the same game, as demonstrated [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Linking_Bull%27s-Eye_Bill&curid=429765&diff=4195153&oldid=4111331 here]. To be blunt, this was a short-sighted idea (and more than likely, simply a failed experiment) and needs cut back to a reasonable level before it gets out of hand. For the record, I am favor of letting it stay when the only indications in other languages or file names or what-have-you are generic terms rather than clear "names," for instance when the only confirmed name for [[Shoot]] was just "jugador de futbol," as well as rewording clunky generic descriptors like "[[surfboard vehicle|vehicle with surfboard]]."
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 [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope|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?
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, these names are conjectural and shouldn't be unduly given more weight than their fellow conjectural names.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Might just be me but I'd rather not have a policy that specifically states "if you don't like this official name, just completely ignore it and make up something wacky instead" because that's ''not what this site is even remotely about''
#{{User|Axis}} Per all.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. While some of these derived names are fine and it's sensible to have this as an option, it shouldn't take priority over an official name when one exists.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} ...Okay, yeah, KCC makes a good point we didn't think of, so, surprise! We're changing our vote! Conjectural names have their place, but we really shouldn't prioritize them over ''actual names'' if they exist.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm pretty sure this all started [[Talk:Mame-san#Name source|here]], and...yeah, in practice, conjectural exceptions bloat the elegant naming policy. Plus, this is practically begging to have more "Fire Nipper Plant"-esque situations.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all.
#{{User|Somethingone}} Per the arguments raised above.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Official names are official, whether it's English, Japanese, Spanish, and so forth.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Actually, my position didn't make much sense. If some enemies are OK to have their Japanese name, then why not all enemies without a proper English name? And KCC brought up a good point about redirects. I wouldn't be opposed to using derived names as just redirects, since redirects show up in the search bar alongside actual articles, basically removing the "searchability" issue.
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Doc in the comments. If there's an official name, there's an official name, and we shouldn't just ignore it.


====Oppose====
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?
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} While I agree that some discussions may need to be made on what counts as derived conjecture and what doesn't, a flat-out repeal is '''not''' the way to go about this. Plus, some of these derived conjecture names are completely straightforward (such as "[[Fire Spike]]" or "[[Wonder Hoppycat]]"), as in we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} The only problem with this policy is that it's being applied in cases and/or ways that it shouldn't be (I personally think Hefty Goombrat was a step too far). If it's kept to reasonable use like the examples Archivist Toadette gave, it's fine. No need to repeal the entire thing.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per opposition.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per Archivist Toadette, really. To me, it does seem greater caution and discussion on these derived names is warranted, but a case-by-case approach seems more useful here than a flat-out repeal. I'd be worried about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here, tossing away something that's generally beneficial to readers in the process of correcting a few cases where this has been misapplied.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall (collectively)
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Not a good idea.
<s>#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We really ought to be handling poor names born from this policy on a case-by-case basis, rather than nixing the policy altogether and potentially causing more harm than good.</s>
<br><s>#{{User|DrippingYellow}} I seriously fail to see how this is a problem. If you have a Japanese noun that has had a direct, consistent translation across ''multiple'' pieces of English ''Mario'' media (i.e. ''gabon'' to Spike, ''kakibo'' to Goombrat, ''deka'' to "Big" enemies, admittedly ''kodeka'' for "Hefty" enemies is pushing it since we really only have [[Hefty Goomba]]s as an official translation), then the way I see it this replacement of terms is no different than how we've been treating internal names. We already have a rule on not "partially translating" names, so I'd maybe expand on that to prohibit creating translations for words that don't have a consistent translation across games, but I wouldn't get rid of the derived name rule altogether. (i.e. [[Sensuikan Heihō]] does not become "Submarine Shy Guy" or even "Sensuikan Shy Guy")</s>


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
@Opposition I did say in the last sentence that this isn't removing it completely, just changing its position in the "acceptable naming" hierarchy. The reason I said "repeal" is an incarnation of it existed before for generic-borne titles and I am trying to go back to that as - unlike the current iteration - it isn't just ''begging'' to be misused.  [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


I guess the best way to put it is this: if an official name ''that is a name'' exists, period, there is no excuse whatsoever for there to be a "conjecture" template of any sort. That's not hypothesizing, that's ignoring, and to be frank is a grotesque perversion of the policies this site has had for decades that have not caused any harm whatsoever - meanwhile, ''these'' have plenty of potential for misleading people. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
====Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)====
:Then what about the examples I brought up? {{User:Archivist Toadette/sig}} 07:30, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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?
::What about them? They have official names, but the wiki opts to give them ''explicitly'' conjectural ones because apparently a couple of sysops thought so. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 07:33, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Pseudo}} 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. {{wp|Rule of three (writing)|It's a popular number}}!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Three is a magic number.


I still find the idea that these names are "conjectural" to be kind of weird, if that's the big hang-up here. If we can [[MarioWiki:Naming#Japanese|already take some liberties with Japanese titles]] I don't see why we can't just look at something and say "oh, this is literally Goomba's Japanese name, let's just call it Goomba", especially when the name is partially English already. That's just doing some simple translation, not really making conjectural names? I'm speaking as someone with no background in translation, mind you, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:19, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
====Keep at 4 (forced to four!)====
:Conjecture occurs when you're presuming something to be the case in the absence of hard facts. Archive Toadette states in his vote that "we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject". "'''Assume'''". That's the thrust of this policy: assumption. Which is pretty much synonymous with conjecture, and some editors are taking issue with prioritizing that over official names. Regarding the liberties on Japanese names, there's nothing conjectural about adapting something like [[Sniper|Sunaipā]] to "Sniper", because it's literally the word's Japanese transliteration--the romanization reflects how the word sounds when converted to Japanese writing. Note how that policy states that instances of "Kuppa" should be adapted to "[[Koopa (species)|Koopa]]", and not "Bowser", even though that's his Japanese name. "Kuribo" wouldn't be adapted to "Goomba" in article titles because that's not a transliteration, that a compound of actual Japanese morphemes. The basis of the Japanese naming policy isn't the same as that of the conjectural naming policy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:43, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} 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.)
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Porplemontage and Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Honestly, five would be a better restriction so that it's a well rounded number.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.


@Hooded Pitohui: Could you be more specific on what is or isn't acceptable? Because I'm kind of struggling to picture any time these conjectural names should have priority over an actual official name, or what would make that case different to others (note that they'd still take priority over filenames per the proposal). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:01, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
====Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)====
:I think it may be helpful to start with a disclaimer and an acknowledgement of where I'm coming from in casting a vote. I'm a very infrequent, casual editor on the wiki side of things, so when I do wade into these proposals on the intricacies of the wiki's policies on naming or classification or scope of coverage, I don't often have a large repository of examples to draw upon, and rarely am I able (or attempting to) make any kind of case or argument. Generally, I'm entering these discussions from the perspective of a reader/user of the wiki first, and casual contributor second, and generally my votes are going to be informed by that perspective, so I apologize if this seems a bit broad and dealing in hypotheticals. For me, I'd think anything that's a straight localization of a recurring, official enemy/item/what have you is acceptable, and more adjectival/descriptive parts of a name or a name of something that hasn't really had a localization established is not. To use the cited Hefty Goombrat example, "Hefty" probably shouldn't have been conjecturally localized, but a Goombrat is pretty clearly a Goombrat, so conjecturally localizing that part seems fine to me. If, I don't know, Nintendo introduces a Lakitu that throws fireballs down that become Firesnakes, and it's called "[something] Jugem" officially in Japanese material, again, I think we leave the descriptive part as-is because there's no clear precedent, but we know a "Jugem/Jugemu" is consistently localized as Lakitu, so we might as well localize that because an average reader will recognize "Lakitu" quickly. Meanwhile, if we just got, say, a generic cloud spitting fireballs with the same behavior, I'd say we'd be wise not to do a conjectural localization because there's not clear precedent for what that'd get localized as. Of course, even always following really clear, solid precedent, we might get it wrong occasionally, especially if Nintendo decides to rename a recurring enemy at some point, but it's a wiki, information is constantly getting updated, renamed, and reevaluated anyway. Hope that helps explain my reasoning a bit better! [[User:Hooded Pitohui|Hooded Pitohui]] ([[User talk:Hooded Pitohui|talk]]) 13:26, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
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. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 22:38, January 21, 2025 (EST)
::Slippiest of slippery slopes. Just use redirects if you expect casual readers to look up for a thing more intuitively than how it's been officially presented. There's no need to compromise encyclopedic integrity to cater to what readers expect to see. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:06, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
: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. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)
 
For the record, this isn't a talk page proposal, so I think the deadline for this proposal should be May 6. Unless there was a statement of "you can make the proposals two weeks long if you want" that I missed in the rules, which is entirely possible. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:21, May 1, 2024 (EDT)
:Writing Guideline proposals also last two weeks, like TPPs. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
::Oh, I didn't notice that in the rules. I guess that makes sense. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:30, May 2, 2024 (EDT)


==New features==
==New features==
Line 60: Line 31:


==Removals==
==Removals==
===Trim Mario Kart course galleries of excess ''Tour'' stuff===
''None at the moment.''
Take a look at the gallery section of any Mario Kart race course that has been featured in [[Mario Kart Tour]], and you will find the majority of the gallery is filled with a ton of mostly-identical images of the course "icons" with various playable characters superimposed on them. Why? Why is this necessary, what positive purpose does this provide to the reader? Take [[Wii Mushroom Gorge]] for example. The gallery contains '''''seventeen''''' duplicates of the same three screenshots of the course, each with a different stock artwork of a character on top of it. [[SNES Mario Circuit 1]] has '''''thirty''''' of them. [[Tour New York Minute]] has '''''forty-five''''', which probably contributed to the page lagging as it loaded for me. This is really excessive and they don't need to be there. Nothing is gained by the reader from seeing the same screenshot with a different stock artwork over them. I propose we remove these and only leave ONE version of each icon. (IE for Mushroom Gorge, only <s>three</s> four icons would remain)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Shadow2}}<br>
'''Deadline''': ''May 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT''
 
====Support====
#{{User|Shadow2}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Unpopular, but I'm backing this. I really don't see what these images accomplish that, say, a textual list of characters that have been pictured on the course icon couldn't. And when I say that out loud, it sounds like unusefully nitpicky information to include, so I'm ''really'' not sure why we're dedicating swathes of the gallery to it. To be honest, if we can get the course icons with no character on them whatsoever, I'd rather put those on the pages than just picking one of the character course icons.
<s>#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal--these icons are already on the tour articles where they're relevant, so having all of these variations on the courses' galleries is a bit overkill. It'd be one thing if they were in a gallery subpage, but just on the articles itself...?</s>
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} What? It's relevant information that has every reason to be there, it not being that interesting to most is a very bad reason to single it out and remove it at the expense of the wiki's comprehensiveness, and I have no idea what the problem is with galleries having all the relevant images. Removing stuff just because you aren't interested in it feels short-sighted and way too slippery a slope.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} They're relevant to their pages. I don't think it's the fan encyclopedia that should take the blame for their excessiveness.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. If there's too many images in the gallery, that's what making a gallery subpage is for.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I don't see any reason why the images shouldn't stay.
#{{User|Arend}} A gallery is the best place for preserving images like these. That Nintendo made an excessive amount of course icon variants that each feature a different (compatible) character, is not our fault.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Axis}} Per Hewer
#{{User|ExoRosalina}} Per all, but that was a very bad idea for that.
 
====Comments====
Changing our vote to an abstain, and figure we should ask--would it be too much to ask for a move to make gallery subpages/split these off to those over a full removal from the galleries? We don't think these should be anywhere ''near'' the main article, but we do think that a gallery subpage is a perfect fit. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:58, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
:What's wrong with them being on the main page, exactly? I feel like separate gallery pages for them would probably be a bit too small to be tenable, and I'm unsure what harm they're doing being treated like all the other images. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:44, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
::Mainly performance, as the original proposal briefly mentioned--[[Tour New York Minute]]'s excessive number of these icons caused our Firefox to genuinely lag upon loading that article. When it gets to the point where an article starts to have a noticeable pause in loading in because of the size of the gallery, we think it's only fair to at least ''consider'' moving the bulk of the images to a gallery subpage.  {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:59, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
:::Fair enough, but it ought to still be on a case-by-case basis. New York Minute could be argued to have a problem, but that's probably more because of how many variants it's got (between 1, 2, 3, 4, and the R, T, and R/T versions of each, plus B), and other courses seem to have more reasonable numbers, like [[GBA Peach Circuit]]'s eight. So I don't think they all need to get their galleries split necessarily (not sure what the cutoff point would be though). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:21, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
::::Yeah, some articles definitely don't have it as bad when it comes to these icons causing loading problems. Still, we should probably be less afraid to split off track galleries if they get quite that large in the future--though, that statement is bordering on being unrelated to this proposal entirely, so... Make of that what you will, we suppose? ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 21:02, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
 
"(IE for Mushroom Gorge, only '''three''' icons would remain)"<br>Why only ''three''? Doesn't Mushroom Gorge have ''four'' versions (normal, R, T, and R/T), like (almost) ''every other course in Mario Kart Tour''? And I wouldn't know which one you want to leave out: we've got to keep at least one version of the normal variant, R versions and T versions are somewhat on the same level, and not only is R/T the most different out of all of them, but ''there's only one icon for that one too''. {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:01, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
:Oh, I may have made a mistake there. But yes, the point would be for one icon for each course. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 21:30, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
:As {{User|Arend}} said, I am inclined to agree with the proposal if it is changed so that we keep one icon for each version of a course. Additionally, I'd like some clarification on where the cut images would go, as I don't want them to just be lost in the depths of the Wiki. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 20:49, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
 
@Hewer @Koopa con Carne , what exactly is the "relevant information" being presented to the reader? "This image has Mario on it, this one is the exact same but it has Luigi on it." Okay? What's the point? To me, this is on a similar level to uploading every individual sprite in Mario's walk cycle. They're different, they're from the game, but they're not important enough on their own to convey any useful information to the reader, compared to actual screenshots which DO present useful information. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 21:30, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
:That's still information, and as I said in my vote, "I don't like this information and find it boring so let's just remove it" is an extremely slippery slope and goes against the point of the site as being a comprehensive encyclopedia about the franchise. Who are we to decide what's "useful information to the reader"? Someone might well be curious to know what characters were used for Yoshi Circuit's icons, I don't think it's ''that'' unreasonable. For the Mario walking sprite thing, [[Gallery:Mario sprites and models|we've got GIFs to accomplish that]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:The Mushroom Gorge icons are relevant to the Mushroom Gorge article because they are Mushroom Gorge icons. 🧐 {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 05:37, May 12, 2024 (EDT)


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Non-standardize franchise sub-headings in History sections===
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
This proposal aims to non-standardize -- not outright forbid or penalize -- the use of "franchise" subheadings under History. In other words, should this pass, if someone gets rid of franchise sub-headings in favor of series or standalone game sub-headings, someone is not allowed to revert it and must leave it as-is. Otherwise, users are allowed to add the sections at their discretion. Think of it like the Cite template, which is standardized but not required.
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 [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.


I never understood the need for the franchise subheadings (with three equals signs), since it just adds an unnecessary extra heading in the page text. It's like if we had a "Super Mario franchise" section and began listing various subsections under it. The points I'm making below may digress from the proposal, but could provide insight as to why I think it muddies the waters too much by giving individual franchise sections.
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.


I feel that it shouldn't be this wiki's job to decide which game goes into what franchise. To give some examples, Nintendo has not taken the effort to, let's say, classify ''Yoshi's Safari'' as a ''Yoshi'' game on par with the ''Yoshi's Island'' series, and I haven't seen ''Wario's Woods'' being listed among the likes of ''Wario Land'' series, not to mention Wario is the main antagonist of ''Wario's Woods'', despite his name in the title (though could similarly be said about ''DK'' arcade game). And ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' could either be a ''Super Mario'' game, since it stars Mario, or a ''Donkey Kong'' game, but I'm more inclined toward the former, since all the sequels (minus the Switch remake) do not retain any elements from the Game Boy version of ''Donkey Kong'', and Donkey Kong is the consistent antagonist.
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."
 
So with the examples listed, see how it kind of muddies the waters? And if future proposals or discoveries determine the games to not be part of the franchises, or the franchises themselves outright nil, then that would be numerous pages to clean up on, should the franchise sub-sections be applied to the wiki universally. Even if it may appear disjointed on some articles, the point is still that these are still ''Super Mario'' characters starring in their own games, not different than ''Captain Toad'', ''Princess Peach'', and ''Luigi's Mansion'', all of which are explicitly ''Super Mario'' games but starring different characters.
 
In the ''Smash Bros.'' series, I am aware that Wario, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong have distinct symbols, but that could reflect their protagonist status, not their own series.
 
'''Edit:''' Another problem from using franchise sub-sections is that would mean game sub-sections could have five equal signs if branching off of a series subheading of a franchise sub-heading. An example of how that would look: <code> ===''Yoshi'' franchise=== ====''Yoshi's Island'' series==== =====''Yoshi's Island DS''===== </code>


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Shadow2}} 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.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} 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.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} 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.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find it genuinely difficult to find topics when they are not grouped into franchise headers like this, especially for long articles, and it can be frustrating. I can understand not putting ''Wario Land'' and ''WarioWare'' titles together under a "Wario (franchise)" heading, but ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is a ''Yoshi's Island'' game in everything but literal name, and it is unintuitive to not group it with those titles for recurring subjects. Same with ''Donkey Kong Jungle Beat'' and the other ''Donkey Kong'' platforms. ''Smash Bros.'' did not invent the idea of grouping these franchises together. Nothing is lost when these subfranchise headings are maintained - only gains for readers.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} 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.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per Nintendo101. It's unclear what benefits this would have.
#{{User|Hewer}} 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.
#{{User|Arend}} Well, I guess I now know the truth about that oddity of [[Special:Diff/4174787|this edit on the Icicle page]] ([[Icicle|which is still in use btw]]). In essence, though, the "unnecessary" extra heading is there for organizing, so it ''has'' a purpose, and is ''not'' entirely unnecessary. If what you're proposing is exactly what you've done on the Icicle page (which is to say, not only removing the Yoshi franchise header, but also relocating the Yoshi's Crafted World section towards the bottom of the History section), it would only look disorganized (especially since, as Nintendo101 said about Woolly World, Crafted World is already super similar in gameplay to the Yoshi's Island games... as is Yoshi's Story, too, btw). In fact, such a drastic change would ''only'' make sense if we treated ''every game'' like this and have ''everything'' listed in release order regardless of other series like Mario Kart or Smash Bros.
#{{User|Sparks}} 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.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}}Perall!
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all. This honestly feels even more cumbersome and strange than how we already do things--besides, Ctrl+F (or "Find" on mobile) generally helps if you're lost as-is.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User |Big Super Mario Fan}}I'm against it. There is a Donkey Kong, Wario and Yoshi Franchise.
#{{User|Mario}} 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.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Tails777}} 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.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} 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.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} 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.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} 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.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} 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.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments====
@Nintendo101: Except the ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is not a ''Yoshi's Island'' game, since those have Baby Mario in it, but reuses concepts from said series. And the "Donkey Kong platforms" already have two series of their own: Donkey Kong Country series and Donkey Kong Land series, and then there's the unassociated games like Donkey Kong 64 (which i used to think was a DKC game) and DK Jungle Beat [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:19, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|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. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:I would argue that ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is a ''Yoshi's Island'' game because whether or not Baby Mario is present is completely outweighed by the games' mechanical similarities, level designs, enemies, characters, aesthetics, "game feel", and development staff. What they actually named the game doesn't matter. But that is admittedly my subjective interpretation.
: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. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:What is not subjective is that ''Woolly World'' (in addition to ''Yoshi's Story'', ''Crafted World'') has significantly more in common with the traditionally-recognized ''Yoshi's Island'' games than they do to the majority of other titles and make more intuitive sense grouped together. Additionally, we have a dedicated [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] article and framing on the wiki (i.e. articles on the ''Yoshi'' platformers are generally structured similarly and have comparable heading colors). It does not make sense why that classification is okay in one context, but not for the spaces that really matter - articles on recurring subjects that would legitimately benefit from subdivisions. I maintain the same position for ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Wario'' titles, as I would for ''Mario Party'' and ''Mario Kart''. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:32, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
:::Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::Then there's the ''Yoshi'', ''Yoshi's Cookie'', and ''Tetris Attack'' puzzle games, supposedly with the ''Yoshi'' branding, though I think the former two are ''Super Mario'' games with Yoshi as a mascot. Throwing all of that under a "Yoshi franchise" heading would be an example of muddying the waters, with both platforming and puzzle games mixed together. The "comparable" heading colors could basically apply to the ''Super Mario'' franchise, which is associated with the color red, like Mario's shirt and hat.
:::::My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::''Yoshi's Story'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and ''Yoshi's Crafted World'' not being part of an explicitly defined ''Yoshi'' platforming series isn't a fault on our part, but is rather a reflection on Nintendo. Have Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach Showtime! been confirmed to be part of the same series, or are they both "Super Mario" games starring Peach? If such two section are disjointed in an article, like Princess Peach's, because they're not in an officially defined series, that's because it's Nintendo's responsibility to define it, not ours. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:48, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
: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. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::I appreciate the thoroughness of your response, but it did not address what I was trying to get at. Why can Super Mario Wiki have a [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] article, template, and organization structure in their articles and then passively assert no such thing exists in the actual History sections for subjects? What you describe as "muddying the waters" I perceive as helpful clarity and a consistent presentation of information maintained across the wiki. That's inherently helpful for readers. It also really has not been explained to me what is improved for readers in removing subfranchise headings. I know for me personally it would make it more difficult to passively read articles or locate information, and I suspect I am not alone in that feeling. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:31, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
::"''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'?''"
::::Because the same question could apply to why does [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] not have its own subsection and on what grounds. The History section basically passively asserts the Super Mario franchise isn't there for the same reason. And if we're to cover like every Chain Chomp appearance in ''Zelda'', would that get its own franchise section and subheadings? The history section in that instance would be presenting it on the same tier as ''Yoshi'', ''Wario'', and ''Donkey Kong''. Convenience isn't always an accurate reflection of the official way of sorting. One could have ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3'' come after ''Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins'' in the History section, since the former literally takes place after the latter's events, or ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'' after ''Super Mario World'' (or considering "Super Mario Bros. 5" was a dropped subtitle during development), but that would be negating their respective Wario Land and Yoshi's Island series. I wanted to point out that your opinion on ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' being a ''Yoshi's Island'' title could be a stretch based on personal viewpoint, but not necessarily official confirmation. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:43, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::While it is one that I agree with and I believe it can be substantively demonstrated, I do not group ''Woolly World'' with ''Yoshi's Island'' because of a subjective interpretation. I apologize if that was the impression. It is because we currently consider them part of the [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] on the wiki. Grouping them together under the history section is just matching what is already recognized elsewhere, and I believe it is helpful. I feel like to not group them together in the History section calls for a much wider discussion on how we should classify games on the wiki at large, and if we should be recognizing a ''Yoshi'' franchise (also a ''Wario'', ''Donkey Kong'', etc.) at all. But that is a departure from how things are currently recognized by the userbase.
:::...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. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Are the ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', and ''Wario'' franchises themselves not within the ''Super Mario'' franchise? I was under the impression that that was the overarching umbrella. ''Zelda'' would inherently be outside of that. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
::::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. {{User:Mario/sig}} 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." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::The three you mentioned are part of the ''Super Mario'' franchise, that's true. And ''Tetris Attack'', a puzzle game, is as much of a ''Yoshi'' game as ''Super Mario World 2''. Putting every game installment under a single "franchise" heading is the history sections conflating franchises with series, which i deem a problem. Why put ''Yoshi'' puzzle game, the [[Super Scope]] game ''Yoshi's Safari'', ''Yoshi's Island'', and miscellaneous platforming games under a single heading that makes them all seem strung together somehow? Yoshi's Woolly World is platforming, so it's closer by that merit but Yoshi (the puzzle game) is far from any sort of association to ''Yoshi's Island'', which it predates, and is an entirely different genre. It would be inconsistent if the ''Super Mario'' franchise's series gets sub-sections but not like Yoshi's Island or Wario Land, like it's being decided subjectively of how to find information per game series. And a Donkey Kong franchise's 4-equal sign headings could theoretically look like: <code>====Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest====</code>, <code>====Donkey Kong Land 2====</code>, <code>====Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!====</code>, since that's the chronological release order of Donkey Kong platforming games from two separate series. Or what about Wario's: <code>WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!</code>, <code>Wario World</code>, <code>WarioWare: Twisted!</code> This means either way, there will be cases where things will look disjointed for varying reasons. The way History sections are sorted are not a reflection of the wiki scope. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:52, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
 
 
The biggest issue with these franchise subheadings is that it can lead to creating a level 5 subheader in some instances and we really need to avoid this because they're increasingly more indistinguishable from text. The current method of doing it avoids this because the entities don't seem to appear in many games, so it doesn't make much sense to bar the use of it, but IMO if using franchise subheadings results in too many subheaders, avoid it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:25, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
:Yeah, this is one of the things I brought up as to why I find the franchise subheadings a problem, because it could result in the creation of the level-5 subheadings, like in an example that I listed above. Another case I'd find the franchise subheadings redundant is if there's only two releases or three releases, none from the same series, and especially if doing without the franchise subheading already shows them in chronological order. For example, [[Cog (obstacle)]] has ''[[Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns]]'' listed under "''Donkey Kong'' franchise, despite the fact that without that extra franchise subheading, they'd already be displayed together in chronological order in the history section. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:53, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
::"Gently encouraging users to avoid/minimize the use of level 5 subheaders because it is difficult to discriminate from normal text", is a world of difference from "imposing an editorial restriction on an organizational arrangement that others feel makes articles easier to read". - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:47, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
::Except gears also appear in ''[[Mario Kart DS]]'' and ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'' thanks to [[DS Tick-Tock Clock]], the former being inbetween ''Jungle Beat'' and ''Country Returns'' (I've already added the info on the cog page). Additionally, a gear plays a prominent role in the ''[[WarioWare: Twisted!]]'' and ''[[WarioWare Gold]]'' microgame [[Scrambled Egg]] (though it does not serve as a platform there, so I was hesitant about adding that to the page). {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:42, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::Come to think of it though, ''[[WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!]]'' already features gears in the microgame [[Gear Head Fred]], so if we were to include WarioWare microgames on the cog article, that section would have to come before ''Jungle Beat'' anyway. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:56, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
 
On the level 5 subheader thing: ...Can't we just change how those look via CSS shenanigans and the like? While there's definitely more eloquent ways to do it, simply giving them <font color="#444">'''a slightly gray color to distinguish it from a level 4 subheader'''</font> could probably resolve at least a couple of issues with them. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:17, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:I thought the argument was that the level 5 subheader wasn't that it'd look indistinguishable to the level 4 subheader, but to the article's regular text. Not that I disagree with the CSS thing though, we can make changes to it to make the level 5 subheader a tiny bit bigger... same goes for level 6 subheaders btw (yes, level 6 subheaders are a thing, and so are level 1 subheaders, [[user:Arend/sandbox|see this sandbox]]). Not sure if it's ''entirely'' necessary to drastically change them, since level 5 subheaders are not only already a bit bigger, but also are displayed '''bold'''. It's level 6 subheaders that are displayed in the same size as the regular text, albeit in bold as well, though level 6 subheaders are rarely used, if at all. But, we could maybe change the headers' fonts to distinguish them if that's preferable over size or color changes, as the Timeless mobile skin displays all of these headers in Times New Roman. {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Allow separation of the Super Mario Bros. series and Super Mario series in articles===
This proposal aims to allow separating the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series of side-scrolling platformers ([[:File:SMR Notifications 2023-12-20 excerpt.jpg|it's official]]) from the ''Super Mario'' 3D series in history sections. This is based on how Nintendo sometimes treats the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series separately from the ''Super Mario'' 3D games, like from the screenshot (in-game from ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' itself), ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is said to be the first ''Super Mario Bros.'' game in 11 years (referring to 2012, when ''[[New Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' and ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' were released).
 
Currently, this proposal would only allow for the series to be separated in sections, not necessarily standardized, as that would depend on how the article is laid out.
 
The complicated part of 2012 being the cutoff before ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is that would mean ''[[Super Mario Maker]]'', its sequel, and ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' would all be disqualified from the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series. The ''Super Mario'' series is the standard/main series, and ''Super Mario Maker 2'' has been making effort to maintain association with both the 2D and 3D series, since they have a ''Super Mario 3D World'' format. ''Super Mario Run'' is technically a game of its own, but I think the safer bet would be to keep it in ''Super Mario'' series. This proposal is to help the ''Super Mario BROS.'' games stand out and their evolution between the different sidescrolling titles.
 
The ''Super Mario'' name is more universal than just outside the platforming games (e.g. ''[[Super Mario Strikers]]'', for one), and is the name and trademark of the very brand itself, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of separate series beginning with "''Super Mario''", even if in this case it's referring to just the 2D and 3D games themselves.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|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"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
: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." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
<s>#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Per proposal, but I have concerns about Super Mario Maker 1, 3DS,2 & Super Mario Run.</s>
::{{@|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. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)


====Oppose====
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I do not support severing the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series games from their sister games. In my neck of the woods, the term "{{wp|clade}}" is widely used for taxonomic ranks that do not neatly follow the traditional Linnaean terms people learn about in high school (order, family, etc.) and unlike them, they do not denote their rank position at all. A clade can contain multiple other clades, and a clade can be contained in another clade. Unless there is a definition for "series" that I am unfamiliar with, there is no intrinsic reason why a series cannot contain multiple series or be within a series itself. The recognition of a ''Super Mario Bros.'' series does not at all indicate that they are separate from the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]], a category that has been narrowly recognized as the action platformers of the greater [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] as recently as [[:File:SuperMarioBros35thAnniversary - Game Collection.jpg|2020]]. Unless Nintendo explicitly states that they are not siblings of the same series, I think the assertion that ''Super Mario Land'', ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Maker'', and ''Super Mario Run'' are not within the same series as the original ''Super Mario Bros.'' or ''New Super Mario Bros. U'', and that they should not be recognized together as distinct from the rest of the franchise, is unsubstantiated.
::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. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|JanMisali}} The ambiguity and inconsistency surrounding which specific games are part of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries makes this less useful than it otherwise would be.
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Nintendo101.
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Nintendo101 and JanMisali. Plus, I see no point in separating proper 2D side-scroller Mario games such as ''Super Mario Land'' 1 & 2 from an ill-defined ''Super Mario Bros.'' series on the sole basis that those games lack the word "Bros." in their title.
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Arend}} As one can see in the comments, people have vastly different views of what counts as a ''Super Mario Bros.'' game and what doesn't (e.g. Doc believes the ''Super Mario Land'' games don't count because Luigi doesn't appear in them, I think that's superficial and that the ''Land'' games should still be counted as at least related since the general gameplay is still the same otherwise). While a good idea on paper, it will lead to many arguments and disagreements until we get a definite answer from Nintendo what should count and what shouldn't... and all we get from Nintendo is that they lump every ''Super Mario'' game, from ''Bros'' to ''Land'' to ''64'' to ''Sunshine'' to ''Maker'' to ''Run'' to ''Odyssey'', as part of the same series.
:::::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. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, especially the fact that the Super Mario Bros. series is a subset of the Super Mario series anyway. If we separated SMB as its own thing, wouldn't that be implying the Super Mario series only contains 3D games and miscellanea like Maker? Because that's certainly not the case.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, and also the mere fact that jan Misali did in fact make a 40+ minute video on roughly this same subject, juxtaposed with the comments below. This would be an extremely strange thing to try to enforce when there's no fewer than 4 major standards for what even counts as a ''Super Mario'' game, and one of them is literally our own.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} How do we know what's mainline? Everything is senseless 'cause there's no consensus. Opening us up to even more inconsistency would just make it harder to navigate and lead to pointless back-and-forth edits on what goes where.
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} While it is a good idea, there's just too many unanswered questions. So sorry, but I have to change to oppose.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all.


====Comments====
{{@|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. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA): I addressed some of the concerns about the ''Mario Maker'' (which implements ''3D World'' in a sidescrolling format) and ''Run'' titles. Should this pass, it could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series. This is just the starting point. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:18, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:True, but only ''Mario Maker 2'' implemented ''3D World'', and ''Run'', from experience, has all the hallmarks of a ''NSMB'' game, whereas the ''Mario Maker'' games COULD be seen as related to the ''NSMB'' games due to having ''NSMBU'' as a game style, although they are a part of the same series as ''SMB'', ''SMB3'', & ''SMW''. Otherwise that helps. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::Basically, it's on Nintendo to sort this out, not us. We're just reflecting what the official sources say, in spite of any discrepancies that may occur. "Related" wouldn't mean putting it under the same heading (check [[Super Mario (series)#Ports, remakes, and compilations|here]], for instance, has ''Captain Toad'', ''Super Mario World 2'', ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3''. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:25, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::And the official sources say [[Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary#Games|this]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:We already had [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run|a proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series]] somewhat recently, and it failed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)


I don't think it should be "separated" so much as covered in both places. I have a skeleton for the SMB series [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario Bros. (series)|here]] and one for the 3D series [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario 3D (series)|here]]. ''Land'' and ''Maker'' are additional subseries, while ''Run'' is its own thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:28, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed?  [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:The user subpages of those two series only add to the point why I think the section sorting is worth reconsidering, and that some disjointment on Nintendo's part shouldn't be a disqualifier to separating the 2D and 3D series. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:32, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::Look, my WIP Super Mario (franchise) rework does have 2D-3D seperation, but it's WIP, so it's not finished. It only so far has ''Mario Bros.'', ''Super Mario (series)'', & ''Wrecking Crew'', but the ''Super Mario (series)'' bit is basically my main focus. I have ''Super Mario (series)'' into 2 sub-series based on the 2D-3D stuff and their shared names (no, the argument that the ''Super Mario'' name is the same for the 2D & 3D games doesn't work because the 2D games share the same ''Super Mario Bros.'' name, which I use for the 2D sub-series), while also splitting 2 sub-sub-series, ''Super Mario Land'' (because of the old ambiguity, the fact of a different shared name, Wario Land series, etc.) & ''NSMB'' (Different style from other games yet consistent within itself, objects from DS existing in Wii, DS & Wii objects existing in U, etc.). I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone more than I probably already have. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::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". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::''Super Mario Land'' can't be a sub-series of ''Bros.'' because there's no "bros" in it, it's just Mario. (Granted, the same can be said about ''Special'', but it's a blatant retool of SMB assets so it gets a pass.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::{{@|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? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Uhh, I listed it as a sub-series of ''Bros'' because it was listed with the ''Bros.'' games in the 30th anniversary celebration and onward. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:54, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Except that list wasn't referred to as "''Super Mario Bros.'' games," that list was labeled "some 2D games Mario has appeared in." (It also missed a few, like NSMB2.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::(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. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::(facepalm) No, not THAT list. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:11, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::"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. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::::Then what list? Care to link or show an image? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:30, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::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? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Look [[Super Mario Bros. 30th Anniversary#Gallery|here]]. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 19:24, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::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? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::That list includes the 3D platformers too. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 19:41, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::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. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::So? It shows that the ''Maker'' games & ''Run'' are part of the same series as ''SMB'', ''SMW'' & ''NSMB''. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 19:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::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. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::So this is not an example of an official source classifying the games in the same way this proposal suggests. The fact that this list includes ''Super Mario Land'' does not demonstrate that ''Super Mario Land'' is part of a specific subset of ''Super Mario'' games that includes ''Super Mario Bros.'' and excludes ''Super Mario 64''. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 19:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
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’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::::No, but it proves my main point. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 20:01, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::It proves that ''Super Mario Land'' is a mainline game, but that wasn't under question. The thing that was asked was why your list of ''Super Mario Bros.'' games, as a separate subseries, includes the ''Super Mario Land'' games as a sub-subseries. This source could also justify classifying the 3D games as a sub-subseries of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries for exactly the same reason. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:05, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Ok. 1. this lists the ''Super Mario (Bros.)'' series. 2. The ''Super Mario'' sub-series (3D games) ARE listed here, but are separate due to recent official stuff. 3. The ''Super Mario Land'' games are listed as a sub-series to the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series (2D games) because, despite the different shared names, which are a reason of them being a sub-sub-series, ARE ''Super Mario Bros.'' games. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 20:14, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The ''Super Mario Run'' notification is ''very'' specific in how it phrases its statement. ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is the first "side-scrolling entry" in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series in 11 years. That specificity means that there ''could'' be entries in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series which are ''not'' side-scrolling games, because otherwise there'd by no reason to specifically say "last side-scrolling entry". I believe these sources taken together ''could'' imply that at least some of the 3D games are ''Super Mario Bros.'' games, and that using "''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries" to refer to the 2D platformers is not helpful. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::They are ''not'' "Super Mario Bros." games, Luigi isn't in them. Hard to be "Bros." without the Bros. (Though again, ''Special'' is the exception due to its watered-down nature). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Luigi is ''only'' in the (early) Super Mario Bros. games because of the 2-player mode. If ''Super Mario Land'' and ''Super Mario Land 2'' had the possibility of a 2-player mode, then Luigi would obviously be added in those games (we know that Nintendo tried adding Luigi in ''Super Mario 64'' but scrapped it due to difficulties with adding multiplayer). If we ''had'' to hard-gatekeep the Mario Land games out of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries (even as a spinoff to it like ''Super Mario Maker'' and ''Super Mario Run'', then logically, we should do the same with ''[[New Super Luigi U]]'', which features no Mario at all (and since ''New Super Luigi U'' has been released at one point as a standalone game, ''and'' we've been counting campaigns like ''[[Bowser's Fury]]'' as official entries, I think that should count).<br>To me, I think we should view the Land games, the Maker games, and Run at least as related games to the ''Bros.'' titles, since they feature basically the exact same kind of gameplay as any other ''Super Mario Bros.'' title. Hell, ''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]'', the USA version, is more different than ''Land 1'' in terms of gameplay, yet we're counting it as an official entry. I don't think the ''Land'' games should be exempt purely because of something as superficial as "there's no Luigi in it". {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:14, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::I mean, by virtue of all those games being Super Mario games, they (along with the 3D games) should be "related" to the Super Mario Bros. series by default, right? To distinguish "related" beyond that, deciding if a game is "related" to a subseries that it shares a larger series with anyway, feels a bit hair-splitting. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The notification does also specifically say that ''Super Mario Bros.'' is a "series of side-scrolling action games", so to then say afterwards that ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is the first side-scrolling game in 11 years... I feel like their intent is pretty obvious here. I was an SMB series doubter for the longest time, but first with that quote in one of the interviews leading up to ''Wonder'', and now with this notification in-game in ''Super Mario Run'', it's definitely giving the impression that Nintendo considers Super Mario Bros. a sub-series. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 21:26, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Well, it said "side-scrolling" games, & ''Maker'' is a game-maker game, while ''Run'' is like one of those auto levels but you have some control, so at that point we'll need at least one extra layer. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:25, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::''Maker'' and ''Run'' both have cameras that scroll to the side. That's the literal definition of "side-scrolling game". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 09:51, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::(facepalm) It said "'''''side-scrolling action games'''''", which, yes, ''Maker'' & ''Run'' fit in, but both ''Maker'' & ''Run'' also fit under other categories, whilst this notification only specifies side-scrolling action games, NOT other categories of games OR games that mix categories (like ''Maker'' & ''Run''). [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::But you admit that Run and Maker also fit the definition of "side-scrolling action games". Your idea that the classification excludes "games that mix categories" is not supported at all by the text of the notification. By that logic, would the [[New Super Mario Bros.#Minigames|minigames]] included in New Super Mario Bros. somehow disqualify it from the series too? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:35, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::No, because ''NSMB'''s minigames are not the main game. ''Maker'' being a game-maker game AND a side-scrolling game, or ''Run'' being an "automatic movement with some control" game, ARE the main game. The text of the notification ONLY says "side scrolling action game", but not anything else in terms of type of game. And I never said anything about games being disqualified, because of other official sources including games like ''NSMB'', ''Maker'', etc. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::Indeed, the notification only says "side-scrolling action games", not "side-scrolling action games except those that also feature other elements". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Has anyone considered that the reason they stated that "''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is the first side-scrolling entry in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series in 11 years", because they may consider ''Super Mario Run'' and the ''Super Mario Maker'' games as ''spinoffs'' to the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series? I mean, for comparison, ''[[Mario Party: The Top 100]]'' and ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]'' only includes information from Mario Party 1-10, leaving out ''[[Mario Party Advance]]'', ''[[Mario Party DS]]'', ''[[Mario Party: Island Tour]]'', ''[[Mario Party: Star Rush]]'', and in Superstars's case, ''[[Super Mario Party]]''; but these are all undoubtedly ''Mario Party'' games as well, with ''DS'' and ''Super'' in particular featuring the same basic gameplay as the first eight ''Mario Party'' titles. {{User:Arend/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Well, Super Mario Bros. for NES is the first game in both the Super Mario Bros. series and the broader Super Mario series, so anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:16, May 10, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Hewer}} That's one of the things I used for my ''Super Mario (series)'' sub-series split. Also, I don't think that this will affect ''Maker'' and ''Run'''s mainline status. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
===Merge the Tortes===
:I don't understand what you mean. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:48, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
::You brought up [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run|this]] (which the second part of my reply was directed to), & as for the 1st part, I don't really remember what that was supposed to be directed to. Seems to be directed to one of the various things you said here, but it could've been for someone else. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
:::For the second part, I'm aware this proposal won't directly affect Maker and Run's mainline status, but Super Mario RPG said that this "could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series", which is why I brought up that past proposal that tried to do exactly that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:04, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
* [[Chef Torte]]
* [[Torte]]


"Anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right?" By that logic, with the ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]'' beginning both the ''[[Mario Bros. (series)|Mario Bros.]]'' series and the greater [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Mario'' franchise]], shouldn't the entire mainline Mario series, being a "spinoff" of ''Mario Bros.'', all be merged under one "''Mario'' (mainline series)" header? Not only is that an organizational mess, but Nintendo has never treated it as being such.<br>While you could argue it was ambiguous before, I feel now that Nintendo has given us a very clear delineation of a separate "''Super Mario Bros.'' series of side-scrolling action games" that excludes the ''Maker'' games and ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' (which were released in the 11 years between ''Wonder'' and "[[New Super Mario Bros. U|the last side-scrolling entry]]"). Let me emphasize: A series of ''side-scrolling action games'', and this is a ''side-scrolling entry'' in the series of ''side-scrolling action games''. It seems like a stretch of logic to infer from this that there could be non-side scrolling and/or non-action games in a side-scrolling action series. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 12:10, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
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.
:Under the logic of the 1st 2 setences, we should merge all 4 franchises and all the series into 1 article! Also, for the last sentence, what about games that are both ''side-scrolling action games'' AND ''non-side-scrolling action games (like game-making or "automatic movement with some control" games)''? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:24, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::If a game is a side-scrolling action game, it can't also be a non-side-scrolling action game, this isn't Schrödinger's game genre. Being able to make levels in the Maker games doesn't mean their side-scrolling action elements somehow don't exist. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:I agree with you about the classification of the Super Mario Bros. series as part of the Super Mario series, my point was more that "spinoff" is a bit of a useless classification when we're dealing with sub-sub-series and what have you. However, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Split game series articles into sub-series articles|I don't think we need to have a Super Mario Bros. series article separate from the main Super Mario series article]], if that's what you're suggesting. I feel like the Mario Bros. example isn't really comparable because of how obviously untenable merging most of the franchise's distinct series into a single page would be. In my opinion, series contained within series shouldn't get articles, but series contained within franchises should. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::But then what about DKL? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:28, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::What about it? It's a related yet separate series to DKC. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::It could be considered a sub-series of DKC, due to its numerous similarities (& especially DKC2/DKL2 and DKC3/DKL3), and thus wouldn't deserve an article. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:34, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::A sub-series is a series contained within another series, not a related yet separate series, which is what DKL is. Compare Mario Tennis and Mario Golf - they're similar, related series of sports games developed by [[Camelot]], but are separate as neither can be said to contain the other. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:39, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::And yet Mario Golf & Golf are part of the same overall series, which has to do with golf, and all the sports games are all part of the same overall sports series. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:41, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::[[Golf (series)|Uh, no?]] {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:44, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::1, "...eventually leading to the Mario Golf series...". 2. [[NES Open Tournament Golf]] is part of both series. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:48, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::Good point, but I still think it's a stretch to call them part of the same series, and that doesn't seem to be the wiki's current interpretation, with the [[Mario Golf (series)]] article referring to the "previous ''Golf'' series", and much like with DKC and DKL, "leading to" doesn't necessarily mean "containing" (though admittedly some kind of re-evaluation of the golf games might be in order since [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/history/index.html Nintendo seems to consider Japan Course and US Course as Mario Golf games]). Anyway, to return to the topic of the Super Mario series, I still don't think there's any sub-series that need splits here. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:19, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::I never said that DKC LEAD TO DKL, but DKC2 is almost the same as DKL2, and same with DKC3 & DKL3. Also, what do other people think concerning "there's any sub-series that need splits here"? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 13:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::Uh, I thought we were in agreement that DKC led to DKL, that much at least seems inarguable ([[Donkey Kong Land (series)]] article tells us "The series is based on the ''Donkey Kong Country'' series"). I just don't think that makes DKL a "sub-series" of DKC, but rather a [[Donkey Kong Country (series)#Related series|related series]], since neither series contains the other. But I digress. Anyway, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Split game series articles into sub-series articles|this quite recent proposal]] dealt with splitting sub-series, and it failed by quite a margin. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::I never said DKC led to DKL. All I was saying was that DKC2/3 are basically the same as DKL2/3. As for that linked proposal, see my comments on that proposal. <small><small><small><small>Also there are other contributions I made that are still "current", so anyone (including you) needs to reply so that they can keep going. </small></small></small></small>[[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)


Ah, wait, I think I misunderstood the proposal at first. Is this basically an extension of the proposal to get rid of "franchise" headings, to be able to separate the SMB games and other Super Mario games into different places in the History section? [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 14:45, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
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 <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template.
:The comments have strayed off-topic a bit but yeah, I think so. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:23, May 11, 2024 (EDT)


===Move ''Super Mario Odyssey'' kingdom infobox brochure info to Brochure details section and use the generic course infobox for ''Odyssey'' kingdom articles===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
It is strange that, while infoboxes for courses in ''Super Mario 64'' or ''Galaxy'' feature useful data for players (like missions and comets for galaxy articles), we don't have any of that type of info in the ''Odyssey'' Kingdom infobox (such as number of Power Moons, number of regional coins and bosses). The infobox template for ''Odyssey'' kingdoms include just the brochure data, like population and industry, but, since that is fictional and irrelevant data, we should move it to the kingdom article's brochure details section, as it ''is'' just brochure data.
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


I propose:
====Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)====
* Moving the current kindom infobox (centered on brochure info: kingdom and location taglines, population, size, locals, currency, industry and temperature) to the Brochure details section. The kingdom tagline could be displayed as the quote at the top of the article as well.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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''.
* Use the [[Template:Course infobox|course infobox]] instead for the opening of the article, as that is already used for the 3D games' courses and galaxies without distinction.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
* Adding info for the number of Power Moons and number of regional coins into the course infobox template.
#{{User|Sparks}} Merge!
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.</s>
====Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with [[Talk:Iron_Cleft#Merge_with_The_Iron_Adonis_Twins|last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins]].
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} 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.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Waluigi Time.


In order to maintain the layout of the Brochure details sections intact, we could make the kingdom infobox into a horizontal box like so:
====Do nothing (It's gourmet!)====


{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" width="100%;"
====Comments (It's... Alive???)====
!Horizontal box idea
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 <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki>. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)
|-
:Good observation, actually! Went and added this. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)
|
{| style="width: 80%; font-size: .9em; padding: .4em; background-color: white; margin: auto;"
|-
|rowspan=5 style="width:280px" | [[File:SMO Cap Brochure Art.png|280px]]
|colspan=2 | <big><big>'''Cap Kingdom'''</big></big><br>"''Home of Tradition, Propriety, and Hats''"
|-
|colspan=2 | <Big>Bonneton</big><br>"''A land of haberdashed dreams.''"
|-bgcolor=whitesmoke
|'''Population'''
|Middling
|'''Size'''
|Smallish
|-
|'''Locals'''
|Bonneters
|'''Currency'''
|Hat-shaped
|-bgcolor="whitesmoke"
|'''Industry'''
|Hats, Airships
|'''Temperature'''
|Average 71°F (22°C)
|}
|}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
@Doc: On that note, because of [[MarioWiki:once and only once|once and only once]], that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} Per my proposal.
: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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Hewer}} Sounds reasonable, per proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as we still use the (revised horizontal) infobox in the brochure details, per all.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Nice idea! Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Good idea, and I like the horizontal box.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Oppose====
By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs]]? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|LadySophie17}} I like the infobox as it is. It's charming and harmless. If necessary, we could just add the relevant info like number of Power Moons, Regional Coins and following/preceding kingdoms to the template itself.
: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. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
::We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:::Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of [[Snifster]]s are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)
::::Well they don't really have names, they have numbers. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:51, February 2, 2025 (EST)


====Comments====
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
Actually, given that the brochure infobox's info is already displayed in a similar table in the brochures in-game, wouldn't it be a good idea to simply just ''move'' the kingdom infobox to the article's brochure details section, instead of removing the infobox altogether? That would be the simplest way to move all the info to that section ''and'' keep both the kingdom tagline and area tagline neatly in the brochure where it already belongs in-game, instead of separating it to the top of the page. The course infobox can still take the kingdom infobox's initial placement on the article, it's not like we haven't had articles with multiple infoboxes before. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
:I think I'd prefer that too. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
*[[List of implied species]]
:I guess, but that would mess up the layout used in the brochure details sections, which I personally think looks pretty nice and clean the way it is, which is why I didn't consider it (unless we made the box horizontal). You think it is worth it? {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 21:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
::You've got a point there. Maybe we could try to revamp the infobox to be horizontal so it wouldn't have to mess up the layout. {{User:Arend/sig}} 22:59, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
*[[Soybean civilization]]
:::I updated it and kept the box as you suggested. If you have any ideas on how to improve it, please let me know. {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 23:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
*[[Hooroglyphs]]
::::Looks great! I'd probably set the <code>colspan</code> for the Kingdom name/area name/taglines to <code>4</code> instead of <code>2</code> so it would look nice in 4:3 screens (i.e. iPad), and I'd probably try to keep the [[Template:SMO kingdom infobox/styles.css|styles]] that the infobox had as much as possible (e.g. with the dark khaki border and area tagline), but it's perfectly serviceable regardless. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)


I should probably note though, that all ''Super Mario Sunshine'' courses (e.g. [[Sirena Beach]], [[Pinna Park]]) appear to use the location infobox instead of the course infobox. Would that also have to be changed (or at least determined via another proposal)? {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
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 [[Beanstone]]s. 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.


===Create <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|DLC infobox|Template:DLC infobox}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
The ''Super Mario'' DLC articles are missing a <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|DLC infobox|Template:DLC infobox}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> template. I was just wondering if there's a possibility to create the <code><nowiki>{{DLC infobox}}</nowiki></code> template. The following parameters are as follows:
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


*<code>name</code> - The name of the DLC (italics are optional).
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
*<code>image</code> - Image(s) of the topic.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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]].
*<code>game</code> - The game(s) the DLC applies to.
*<code>release</code> - The release date of DLC in all regions (use the <code>{{tem|release}}</code> template).
*<code>languages</code> - The languages the DLC is playable in (use the <code>{{tem|languages}}</code> template).
*<code>cost</code> - The cost date of DLC in all regions (use the <code>{{tem|release}}</code> template).
*<code>platforms</code> - The platforms that the DLC has been released on.
*<code>content</code> - A brief summary of the content in the DLC.
*<code>related</code> - Any subjects related to the DLC.


Once this proposal passes, the we'll be able to put the infobox on [[Mercedes-Benz x Mario Kart 8|Mercedes-Benz × ''Mario Kart 8'']], [[The Legend of Zelda x Mario Kart 8|''The Legend of Zelda'' × ''Mario Kart 8'']], [[Animal Crossing x Mario Kart 8|''Animal Crossing'' × ''Mario Kart 8'']], [[Donkey Kong Adventure]], the ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass]]'', [[The Tower of Doooom]], [[The Last Spark Hunter]], and [[Rayman in the Phantom Show]].
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====
'''Deadline''': May 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Merge none (do nothing)====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I've always found it strange that these don't already have an infobox. Considering DLC for ''Mario'' games is getting more common lately, it definitely has a use.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly, we're surprised this hasn't been created sooner with the absolute ''deluge'' of DLC ''Mario Kart 8'' has received across literally multiple consoles, running the gambit from the Mercedes-Benz crossover to the Booster Course Pack. And if that wasn't enough, the Rabbids games' DLC campaigns show this isn't even just a Mario Kart 8-only thing. (We have a bit more to say, but we'll leave that to comments.)


====Oppose====
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====
 
====Comments====
Depending on how you choose to define "DLC", we think you could even throw in a few other things as well. Admittedly, the [[:Category:Downloadable content|DLC category]] is a little muddied at the moment with... <small>mumble grumble...</small> smash redirects, so we couldn't get the best look at this hour, but from what we saw, you could even throw in those [[Coin Rush]] packs pretty easily. We think the only real exception is ''[[New Super Luigi U]]'', since that one technically did see a standalone release without the game it's DLC for, meaning we already use the game infobox for that one. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 01:58, May 12, 2024 (EDT)


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

Latest revision as of 03:47, February 3, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, February 4th, 15:16 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 {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
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)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
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)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 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.
  7. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

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) Get Firefox 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-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)

New features

None at the moment.

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.
  12. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Shadow2.

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. Mario 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. Mario 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. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 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)

Toadlose.gif Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. Mario 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. Mario 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’ MHA Super Mushroom:) at 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Merge the Tortes

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

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.
  8. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Waluigi Time.

Do nothing (It's gourmet!)

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-sigicon.png~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? --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. 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-sigicon.png~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)
Well they don't really have names, they have numbers. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:51, February 2, 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:

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.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4719018"