MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 2: Line 2:


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"===
Currently, the way our proposals are set up, there are two deadlines. On the main proposals page, they last for 1 week. On talk pages, or for writing guidelines proposals, 2 weeks. Now, this is ''fine.'' We're not going to claim this is like, some total deal-breaker or nothing. However, lately, [[MarioWiki talk:Proposals#Why the inconsistency?|there have been a few concerns raised about this inconsistency]], and we figured, what the hey, why not put it up to vote?


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


I can already sense a murmur rising in the crowd, but hear me out. I've made it no secret on here that [[Template_talk:Species_infobox#Point_of_derived_subject.2Fsubject_origin.3F|I don't really like the Subject origin parameter]] on the [[Template:Species infobox|species infobox]]. The term "subject origin" is a bit of a misnomer. It really should've been called "design inspiration", because rather than explaining where the subject comes from ''in pieces of media'', it's only ever been used in instances where the subject took any sort of inspiration from another entity, either real or fictional. If that sounds oddly broad... then yes, it ''is'' '''very''' broad.
Now, there's a few ways you can go about this, but there's one in particular we've taken a liking to: uh, just make all proposals take '''2''' weeks, lmao.


This line of reasoning is used for bizarre classifications such as [[Mincer]]s being derived from [[Zinger]]s because they're both spiky enemies (is Mincer even an enemy, or just an obstacle?) that follow specific paths, or every "Bone" enemy variant being derived from [[Dry Bones]] even if they don't actually fall apart. There's even a few cases where "subject origin" has taken priority over confirmed relatedness between species, despite the term not in itself suggesting a close relationship between subjects, thus ''losing'' useful information in the infobox in these cases (e.g. [[Rocky Wrench]]es which were formerly [[Koopa (species)|Koopa]]s, [[Whomp]]s which are said to be "cousins" of [[Thwomp]]s, [[Krumple]]s being blue Kremlings that follow the same naming scheme as their predecessors [[Krusha]] and [[Kruncha]]).
"BUT CAM & TORI!", we hear you shout, "BUT YOU SAID 2 WEEKS PROPOSALS TAKE TOO LONG??? WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THEM TO SOMETHING YOU HATE???", and to that we say... No! We actually like the 2 weeks proposals! They have a distinct benefit to them! The problem is that they're juxtaposed with the 1 week proposals. Let's run through those same bullet points.
* If all proposals were 2 weeks, well, there's no real loss to making a talk page proposal over a main proposal page proposal, as they'll all last 2 weeks anyways. (Sure, a proposal can take longer if there's a tie, but that just happens for all proposals anyways.)
* There's also no incentive to make a talk page proposal/writing guideline proposal if you particularly want your porposal to stick around, as again, now ''every'' proposal is guaranteed to last for, at the very least, 6 weeks.
* Now. While it's annoying that all proposals will take 2 weeks, despite the inherent risk of some coming to their consensuses much faster than the deadlines, for one, [[Talk:Alien (Club Nintendo)#ANTI-ALIEN ALARM!!! (Delete this article)|this is also an issue with talk page proposals as-is]]. For two, the extra time can offer extra time for new information to come to light or for particularly close votes to make their cases and form a proper consensus, without needing a tiebreaker. Lastly, if it's really ''that'' big of an issue, we could perhaps create a rule that if a proposal comes to a particularly large consensus a week in, it'll pass early (the finer details would be created as necessary).


The most awkward instances, however, are easily the instances of a subject being "derived" from a generic concept. [[Kleptoad]]s, though based on [[frog]]s, have little to no relevance to any of the generic instances of frogs present in the Mario franchise. Similarly, [[Rabbid]]s are entirely separated from the Mario series' depictions of [[rabbit]]s, not only because they don't act like generic rabbits in the Mario series, but also because they're not even from the same ''franchise''. It's not even restricted to entities that actually ''have'' pages on the Mario Wiki. [[Kremling]]s are stated to originate from "crocodilians", a page that [[:Category:Crocodilians|only exists as a category]], [[Crazee Dayzee]]s are derived from "flowers" (which are in a similar situation), and [[Krimp]]s are listed as being derived from "dogs". Who's to say [[Boo]]s aren't derived from "ghosts", or that [[Flaptack]]s don't have "bird" as a subject origin, or that [[Octoomba]]s aren't based off of both "aliens" and "octopuses"?
There is, of course, the alternative of making all proposals '''1''' week. While we realize this does also resolve a lot of things, it does also necessarily mean that some proposals that would want to happen slower, now don't have that time, and are rushed. Even making only talk page proposals take only 1 week means that Writing Guideline proposals will be at a unique disadvantage for how long they take/an advantage for how long they last if they pass. (And of course, we could just leave everything as they are, but that goes without saying.) That being said, we ''have'' provided options for these, and you're free to make your case for these.


I hope you can see that the unrestricted references to generic or real-world species at the very least are a problem. But even for non-generic subject origins, the vast majority of the time (I'm tempted to say all of the time, but there could be an instance I'm struggling to think of that doesn't fall under this), this kind of info is covered sufficiently in the introductory paragraph, or the General information/Appearance section when applicable. I propose we deal with this in one of the following ways:
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT


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


'''Proposer''': {{User|DrippingYellow}}<br>
====Make all proposals last for 1 week====
'''Deadline''': June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT


==== Option 1 ====
====Make all proposals except for writing guidelines proposals last for 1 week====
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} As derived from my proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option. While we like this much less, we do see the merit of making Talk Page Proposals 1 week, and it's not exactly the end-all-be-all. However, we would ''vastly'' prefer 2-week proposals, and keeping Writing Guidelines proposals 2-week is kind of a necessary evil to prevent them from being too rushed for their own good. However, compared to truly ''all'' 1-week proposals, this is better... though, not as good as all 2-week proposals.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal
#{{user|7feetunder}} For me, it's either this or bust. [[Talk:Ankoopa#What_to_do_with_this_article|New information coming to light can still invalidate a proposal's entire premise too late and require a counterproposal even with a 2 week deadline]], so extending the deadline of main page props to 2 weeks won't stop that from happening from time to time. Most proposals that don't reach a consensus in a week will probably require extensions anyway. TPPs being less "visible" than main page proposals was more of an issue back when no quorums were immediate, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Overhaul_the_no_quorum_proposal_rule_.28.238.29|but that's no longer the case]].
#{{User|7feetunder}} This parameter is, as it is currently written, not well defined at all. [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:Species_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=3968459 It was originally] meant to be ''only'' for connections to real-world species, but was [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:Species_infobox&diff=next&oldid=3968459 given a wishy-washy, vague rewording] so it could be used to make flimsy claims like [[Bazuka]] being based on [[Kutlass]] because they're both [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Bazuka&diff=prev&oldid=3976730 "small Kremlings with oversized weapons"] or the aforementioned Mincer thing (which I was unaware of before this proposal).
#{{User|Axii}} Voting for this just so the first option doesn't win.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, and especially per 7feetunder. It's an awkwardly named, unnecessarily confusing, arbitrarily used, unhelpfully broad parameter that feels like it's spiralled and descended from its [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59#Fix how we handle infobox relations on generic species|intended purpose]] to uselessness (plus random speculation at worst), and it feels weird for the fictional species that something's a variant of (like with [[Galoomba]]) and debatably necessary listings for the generic real thing it's based on (like with [[Crazee Dayzee]] and [[Moo Moo]]) to use the same parameter. In short, this subject is the origin of much confusion, and little good can be derived from it.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all and my comments below.
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} After enough consideration, I'll go with this option. This category got flanderized.
#{{User|Somethingone}} As the person responsible for revitalizing the parameter in the first place (it was used before my proposal and fell off before my proposal too), sure. Just as long as the real world species are kept out of the "comparable" parameter.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} Per everyone.
 
==== Option 2 ====
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Secondary choice.
 
==== Option 3 ====
 
==== Option 4 ====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I think, right now, it's a little confusing, myself. Back when I thought to have the parameter [[Template talk:Species infobox#Repurposing subject origin?|revived]], I thought of only using it for genericized subjects, and this option seems to be closest to what I had in mind. For that matter, we don't need to list every single variant of something under derived subjects; just the base version is fine. I'd rather not go back to listing generic subjects broadly listed under comparable again, and insist that the parameter would benefit from focus.
#{{User|Somethingone}} Second choice - my original intent with that old proposal.
 
==== Option 5 ====
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Second choice
 
==== Do nothing ====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - I don't really see the issue. If anything, the "relatives" parameter not having directional counterparts is the weakest link. Plus the "listing Galoombas as Goomba relatives rather than variants because a source distinguished them from each other and happened to used the word 'related'"-type of thing might be itself getting out of hand...
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per Doc
<s>#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.</s>
 
==== Comments ====
Oh, looks like I'm involved with this proposal to some degree. You see; I was the one who did the Kremling edit and especially the recent Dry Bones edits. For the latter, my explanation is that subject origin refers to things based on another entity ''while not actually being the entity.'' For example, Galoombas have been considered not Goombas, but they were meant to be inspired by them and even their [[Galoomba#Names in other languages|name]] reflects it. There are various subjects that are definitely inspired, while not considered relatives of the original entity. Goombrats are weird, because they are stated to be relatives, although it's not made clear if they are a variant, as ''Super Mario Run'' loved to throw a wrench at us. The initial existence of subject origin appeared to be more generic species that had multiple fictional variants off of it. I always had this issue with penguins on this, because the ''Mario'' franchise equivalent of penguins are meant to be based on those from ''SM64'', yet the derived section brings up entities that existed ''before it.'' The blue color seems to derived from Bumpties, so there's ''that'' [[MIPS]]hole for you. As for my Dry Bones edit, they've inspired various skeleton enemies over the years. It's obvious that Bone Piranha Plants were inspired by Dry Bones, because their designs have the same type of texture. The same applies to Fish Bones, because they are meant to be underwater Dry Bones, especially given in ''Maker'', where an underwater Dry Bones becomes a Fish Bones. Poplins are not confirmed to be relatives of Toads, but it's wrong to say that aren't inspired by Toads. Really, I got the impression that subject origin = inspiration. We know that Dry Bones and Fish Bones are definitely two different entities not even related, but we know one took inspiration from the other. I guess this type of logic would make Shellcreepers being the origin for Koopa Troopas, although Shellcreepers are retroactively considered part of the Koopa clan. Yeah, relatives is another thing. For me, if its unclear what came first, its a relative. Paragoombas have the ability to spawn Mini Goombas. Mini Goombas aren't really a variant of a Paragoomba, so the relative label fits there. To get back on topic a little bit, I'm surprised [[Moo Moo]] didn't get mentioned here; it's in the same boat of Kremling, except I made it link to the Wikipedia article for [[Wikipedia:Cattle|cattle]]. My thought process behind these edits, where to tell the viewer what the species is based off on. This is somewhat true for Kremlings, who are sometimes called [[Donkey Kong Country (television series)|reptiles or lizards]]. A person who isn't familiar with this franchise might not know what the hell a Kremling is meant to be based on, so I figured that I mention its inspired by both crocodiles and alligators (not sure if Kremlings tend to crossover with these two, like how Diddy and Dixie are crosses between monkeys and chimps). I guess this could get out of hand when talking about fictional animals such as dragons or aliens, so there's that. My thought process is that someone might not realize what the species is based on. Like, if there was a fictional species based off on a [[Wikipedia:Spider monkey|spider monkey]], which some people might not realize actually exists, ''that'' was the intended goal. Of course, it can resort to "well, no shit," situations regarding Kremlings who are just based on typical crocs and Moo Moos. So yeah, I'm not entirely sure what to choose here. I do want it to be obvious to non-''Mario'' readers what the subject is based on. Are we considering making Galoombas be considered comparable to Goombas? [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 23:55, June 11, 2024 (EDT)
 
This very well could just be me, and I do not want to disregard the hard work of my fellow users. However, in my personal experience, the "subjects origins", "relatives", etc. entries for the species infoboxes have become so diluted and bloated with loosely-affiliated species that I usually just ignore whatever is written in those sections completely. This is a bit of a shame, because I remember them being quite fun and informative years prior. Today, I don't really trust/value the information written there because it seems either: (A) very subjective and promoting of drive-by edits; (B) derived from a proposal drawn chiefly from subtle similarities in Japanese nomenclature, to the point that they ignore everything about the species' physical appearance or canonized taxonomy; (C) declares it to be derived from a subject that is pretty apparent just by looking at the subject; (D) based on mechanical similarities within their respective games, which is not something that I think inherently means they are related, variants, or subjects of origins, and are details best left in the body paragraphs; or (E) are so long that it makes the whole concept of the infobox - something to quickly condense information - completely useless.
 
I do not know what would be the best amendment for the species infoboxes. Something to return them to their prior useage would be nice - it's not really clear if any of {{User|DrippingYellow}}'s options would really do that. (Possibly something to address D, I think.) But I am interested in sort of change. Too often, it feels like people are going out of their way to look for connections that are not real, rather than noting ones that unambiguously exist. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:43, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
 
Abstaining from voting, but while I don't really have a problem with axing the subject origin parameter (we can move the information from that parameter to relatives or comparable), I do realize that by doing so, we're basically undoing [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59#Fix how we handle infobox relations on generic species|this proposal]] about fixing how to handle the relations of generic/real-life species in infoboxes, meaning we might need a new solution for this issue. Do we have to list some of the fictional species as variants to the real-life species, related to the real-life species, or perhaps introduce a new parameter to replace subject origin that is far clearer and stricter in its definition? (e.g. "real life inspiration" or "real life counterpart"... okay tbh these aren't the best replacements, I'm basically spitballing) {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:16, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
:I don't remember if randomly listing the real thing that something is based on even if it doesn't have an article (like on [[Crazee Dayzee]]) was already being done before that proposal, but either way that kind of thing shouldn't be in the infobox at all in my opinion. As for "real-world species" that we do have articles for, we can probably just treat them like we would any other species in these infoboxes. To quote Nintendo101 [[Talk:Frog (Yoshi's Story)|here]], "A [[seagull]] is just as derived from real {{wp|gull}}s as [[Goonie]]s, and just as divorced from real-life components of those animals. It is inaccurate to present them as otherwise." {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
 
==New features==
===Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes===
Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being [https://www.mariowiki.com/images/2/26/Mario1c.jpg dumb], but hear me out.
 
A few years after [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/31#Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxes|this proposal]] passed, this wiki added a [[Template:Group infobox|group infobox]] for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would '''only''' be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.
 
I've come up with two options:
*Option 1: [[Template:Character infobox]] and [[Template:Species infobox]] get a "member of" parameter, which would be used to link to groups they are, well, a member of. [[Goomba]] and the like would link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[Vivian]] would link to [[Three Shadows]], etc. This parameter would be used to list both memberships and leadership roles (the latter could maybe be distinguished by adding "(leader)" next to the link).
*Option 2: these infoboxes would also get a separate "Leader of" parameter. [[Bowser]] would use this to link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[King K. Rool]] would use this to link to [[Kremling Krew]], [[Captain Syrup]] would use this to link to [[Black Sugar Gang]], characters and species-characters would link to the [[:Category:baseball teams|baseball teams]] they lead, etc.
*Option 3: Only add the "member of" parameter to the character infobox, not the species infobox.
 
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).
 
EDIT THE SEQUEL: Per {{user|LinkTheLefty}}, added an option to only add this to the character infobox. I originally thought it would be weird to exclude it from the species infobox since some species-characters like [[Birdo]] are heavily associated with groups such as the [[Yoshi Islanders|Birdo Beauties]], at least when these characters are treated as individuals rather than species, but in hindsight, it would be odd to, say, classify ''all'' [[Goomba]]s as members of [[Bowser's Minions]] when that's [[Goombario|obviously]] [[Goombaria|not]] [[Goomama|the]] [[Goompapa|case]]. (At least [[Gary (Super Paper Mario)|Gary]] would be classified as a member of Bowser's Minions...)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to June 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Option 1====
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} First choice per proposal.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) The folly of the "affiliations" tab was that it was allowed to include characters, which led to nonsense like Fawful being affiliated with "himself" among other things. Restricting it to groups is perfectly fine.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, don't really see why not. The oppose argument seems to mainly be "it could be used wrong", but that kinda goes for anything, and doesn't mean it ''will'' be used wrong.
#{{user|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
 
====Option 2====
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Second choice per proposal.
 
====Option 3====
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Third choice per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Secondary choice.


====Do nothing====
====Do nothing====
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place. Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the [[Template:Character infobox]] is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. [[Excess Express]] passengers, [[Mario Kart 8]] racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances. In the [[Goomba]] example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions.  What about the Goombas in [[Goomba Village]] or [[Rogueport]] or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas. You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
#{{User|7feetunder}} If making TPPs last 1 week isn't desirable, I say just keep the status quo. While the current system ''does'' encourage making main page proposals over TPPs when possible if one wants their prop to pass faster, I'm fine with that. A controversial prop is not going to end in a week, and a prop with unanimous or near-unanimous support probably doesn't need that extra time in the oven. I'd be more open to global 2 weekers if a "early consensus = early pass" sub-rule was already in effect, but it isn't, and there's no guarantee that such a rule would be accepted by the community.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per DrBaskerville.
#{{User|Axii}} The solution isn't solving anything. There was never a problem with inconsistency. Talk page proposals last for two weeks because they're far less visible to people. Mainspace proposals page is frequently visited by many, having proposals last for 2 weeks instead of one doesn't change anything. It doesn't help the community settle on anything, one week is more than enough. Proposals that are tied already get extended automatically, if anything, I would argue writing guidelines proposals should last a week instead. I proposed a different solution on the talk page as well. If a user making a proposal (or an admin) feel like one week wouldn't be enough, they should be able to extend it to two. (I specifically added "or an admin", because most users don't want a proposal to last for two weeks.) Either way, the fact that users often choose mainspace proposals over talk page is perfectly fine as well. It's not about the time in the oven but the visibility of the proposal to the wiki community. Writing guidelines (if they remain at two weeks) could instead be clarified. Right now it is unclear what writing guidelines proposals even are, I think this is the main problem that should be looked at.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Couldn't we just write this stuff in the body paragraphs? I worry an "affiliation" would be too often open to subjective interpretation and promote drive-by edits, further damaging the infoboxes.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Secondary choice. The inconsistency isn't that bad and I prefer that to all proposals being shortened.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} I'd rather avoid adding parameters that could lead to unconstructive uses.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Second choice.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think it is worth scrutinizing our proposal policies and the issues people brought up are valid, but I do not think setting the same time for everything is necessarily the best solution. I will elaborate on my thoughts below.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Would having single character and species infobox options satisfy some of the opposition's concerns? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 21:27, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
Something that occurred to me: The time allowed to edit TPPs was originally 3 like main page proposals, but [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48#Double_the_amount_of_time_a_proposer_can_edit_their_talk_page_proposals|eventually doubled to 6 to go with their extended duration]]. If TPPs are shortened to 1 week, would the time allotted to edit them be reverted? {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 19:30, October 2, 2024 (EDT)
:That seems only fair to put them back to 3 days if that option passes--after all, it would be a glaring oversight to retain that and effectively allow for proposals that were en route to pass suddenly being hijacked on the last day, and pivoting from the original purpose, while ''still retaining the vote''. The plan here is to de-jank the proposal time-lengths and make them more consistent--not to introduce ''even more shenanigans''! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:18, October 2, 2024 (EDT)
::Then I also suppose that, if ''all'' proposals are going to last two weeks, then the time allowed to edit/cancel those proposals would also be doubled to six days, in order to reflect with the TTPs, right? I've been worried since this was not mentioned in the proposal either. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:58, October 6, 2024 (EDT)


==Removals==
@7feetunder: Of course there's still a chance for new information to come too late with any proposal length, but longer proposals mean the chance is lower. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:44, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
===Trim the [[list of Snake's codec conversations]] and [[list of Palutena's Guidance conversations]]===
This is something that stuck out to me while I was adding profiles to [[Samus]]'s article. These articles, [[List of Snake's codec conversations]] and [[List of Palutena's Guidance conversations]], include the conversations for ''every'' fighter in the Super Smash Bros. series, even all the non-Super Mario characters. About a year ago, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Trim the Smash Bros trophies page|a proposal]] to remove non-Super Mario trophies from the lists of [[Trophy (Super Smash Bros. series)|trophies]] passed with no opposition, and most, if not all, of the points brought up in that proposal also apply here. You can read that proposal if you want to see the arguments in full, but to summarize for this proposal:
*This content does not involve anything from Super Mario and its related franchises, it is purely flavor text about non-Mario characters spoken by non-Mario characters
*We have a precedent for trimming non-Mario Smash content
*Aside from the trivia, this content isn't original to this wiki, it's flavor text pulled straight from the game itself, and you would get the exact same content from just going to SmashWiki instead


With that in mind, I think the conversations for all non-Super Mario characters should be axed from these lists. The conversations for non-Mario characters that have their own articles, like [[Link]] and [[Samus]], would still be included in their profiles/statistics along with their trophies, since I think the question of whether or not those should also be removed is best saved for a separate proposal.
@7feetunder: On your reasoning under ''Do nothing'', the idea of an early-consensus-early-conclusion rule for proposals is intriguing... I feel as if we have 2-week proposals that can end early if everyone has a near unanimous consensus on what to do with the proposal, we'd have an ideal middle ground. --[[User:OmegaRuby|OmegaRuby]] ([[User talk:OmegaRuby|talk]]) 08:55, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}}<br>
While finding the discussions where this first took place have not been successful (with the closest approximate being tracked down by retired staff [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals here], which alludes to this issue), there was wisdom in having longer time for talk page proposals, because they would often would get overlooked and fail simply due to lack of engagement, not because there was anything wrong with them. That may not be the case today, but I see a different set issues that this proposal does not address.
'''Deadline''': June 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Trim the lists to only the conversations about characters from ''Super Mario'' and its related franchises====
Personally, I think certain proposals - regardless of whether they are on the main page or a talk page - are very niche and entail a very granular change that probably does not need two weeks of discussion or even one to be implemented. Proposals that have wide and systematic changes for the site, such as a policy revision or something that would change many pages, do benefit from longer discussion time because the impact would be significant and affect a lot of people. Whether a proposal has narrow or broad impact has nothing to do with whether it is on an article's talk page or this main page.
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} My first instinct was to think of moving the non-Mario conversations to the sections for each fighter in the fighter lists, but seeing as we didn't do that with other things like their trophies, it's sadly pretty hard to justify keeping a ton of dialogue about non-Mario characters said by non-Mario characters in a non-Mario setting.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. For every Guidance/Codec call for an actually relevant character, such as the infamous Viridi speech about [[Piranha Plant]]s that has been outright cited in proposals that resulted in [[Petea Piranha|tangible splits]] [[Fiery Dino Piranha|or merges]], there's Snake's thoughts on Fox McCloud. Take a guess which one we think should stay, and which one we think should probably just stick to being covered on SSBWiki instead.
#{{User|Somethingone}} My thoughts are best summarized in that one essay I wrote for the character proposal<!--which I wrote completely during a car ride-->; if we trim ''Smash'' content to just Mario stuff in some areas, we should trim it that much in all areas.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per all.
#{{User|Axis}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and others
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} On a Mario Wiki, we should keep the Smash content relevant to Mario.


====Do nothing====
Additionally, while it may seem like there should be some sort of rule that allows proposals that gain consensus quickly to be implemented, there have been concerns among staff that users have raised similar proposals to ones that had failed in the past with the hope of getting the attention of a different pool of users who may agree with them. (To clarify, there is a difference between raising a new proposal based on one that had previously failed using new information and arguments, versus one using essentially the same argument). If we had some sort of rule that allowed the passing of a proposal due to quick engagement and support, I can see it being abused in such cases and resulting in proposals passing that people at large may not have agreed with.


====Comments====
I don't like complicated rules. I believe the best policies and rules are straight forward, clear, and unambiguous. There is not use in having rules that people cannot easily understand and follow, imo. However, in this case, I think applying a blanket term policy for all proposals (be it two weeks or one) is too broad and does not address the issues I have observed, or even some of the ones raised by other folks on the main proposal page's talk page. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:18, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
Relatedly, it's probably time we do something about [[List of Smash Taunt characters]] (perhaps a merge to the stage lists like what was done with the [[List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Multi-Man mode enemies|Multi-Man enemy teams]]). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:45, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
:If you ask me, "talk page proposals are two weeks, but the ones on the main page are one week, except writing guidelines which are also two weeks for some reason" is an overly complicated rule. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form|Every now]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66#Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages|and then]], confusion about the "writing guidelines are two weeks" stipulation arises in proposal comments, which I think is telling. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:54, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


I'll be honest, I kinda think the Mario characters should ''also'' have this stuff moved to their profile & statistics sections. That feels more natural to me than making a page for something in Smash and then giving it incomplete coverage. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 19:07, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
I think my main issue is the difference with writing guideline proposals specifically. Mostly because it's hard to determine what a writing guideline even means, or which proposal should fall under which category. I'm not sure where I'll place a vote yet, but I do at least think there should be consistency between all main proposal types. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 16:22, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


==Changes==
If this passes, will it immedately affect all ongoing proposals, or just new ones going forward? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:31, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
===Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary===
An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch)]], as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, ''very'' long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the ''TTYD'' remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and ''then'' go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?


I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'']] or ''TTYD'' remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'', but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)
Not voting because I think the current setup is "don't fix what isn't broken", but I'll be willing to try something new. I'll just wait and see. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:52, October 5, 2024 (EDT)


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


I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land|Kirby's Return to Dream Land]]'' and ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe|Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe]]'' that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.
People may wonder, "What about Nintendo Land and Saturday Supercade? Why don't they get this level of coverage?" It's simple, really: In ''Smash'', you can have Mario throw a Deku Nut at Ridley in Lumiose City and nobody bats an eye at how absurd that situation is. In those other games, the different representations are very much split apart; all ''Mario''-related stuff is within a few minigames that do not overlap whatsoever with any of the other ones. In ''Nintendo Land'', you cannot have Mario fighting Ridley in the Lost Woods, despite (representations of) all of those things appearing in the game. In ''Smash'', anyone can interact with anything, regardless of origin, so '''''Mario'' characters can interact with anything, and anyone can interact with ''Mario'' things'''. That's why ''Smash'', the melting pot it is, gets more focus than ''Nintendo Land'', where everything's more of a side dish.


This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long ''TTYD'' section might, but something like ''Super Mario Advance'' could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br>
====Support - clarify it like this====
'''Deadline''': <s>June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
 
#{{User|Axii}} Even though I disagree with points 6, 7, and especially 8 (''Mario''-themed minigames should be covered separately), I feel like this is the solution most would agree to compromise on.
====Support====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} While we would like to do some stuff of our own (cough cough, maybe a proper solution to Smash redirects clogging categories), this is a good start, we feel. If push comes to shove, we could always revert some of these changes in another proposal.
#{{User|DryKirby64}} As proposer.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This is a great framework for our coverage of the series. I still would like a better handling of smaller things like trophies, stickers, spirits, and music, but I'm not sure what that would look like and we could always make that change later.
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I agree with this proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, this is a good step towards cleaning up our Smash coverage.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per proposal
#{{User|Tails777}} I’d like to see where this goes. Per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I've reconsidered my hardline stance since the previous proposal, and I can now agree with most of the points listed here. However, like others have said, I do want to revisit the coverage of massive lists like those for stickers and spirits in the future.
#{{User|Superchao}} Per the proposal. Hving the itemized list will allow for simpler debate and discussion in the future, rather than our ad-hoc coverage status built over time. Lay the groundwork, then discuss the details.
#{{User|Arend}} Per proposal.


====Oppose====
====Oppose - don't clarify it like this====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} We might actually need to reduce the Smash coverage a bit more. We especially can't undo that proposal that reduced Pokémon. And those sticker and spirits list really should have been reduced to Mario subjects like the trophy list. The fact that the [[List of spirits in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (501–1000)|middle spirit list]] doesn't have a single Mario spirit is absurd. And maybe those fighter lists should be split back into their own character pages again. Most of them had appeared in Super Mario Maker. I have a different idea of how we should handle Smash.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} This wiki really doesn't need to cover every series that appears in Smash Bros. extensively. Would be better to limit full coverage to both Mario itself and Smash since that's the host series while minimizing exposure to others if there's some connection to Mario, like, which stickers boost tail damage for Yoshi. General info on all of the modes (Classic, collections, settings), that's fine. Characters, stages, items, Assist Trophy spawns etc., just list the Mario content, mention the totals and the proportions from Mario, and include screenshots of full selections if possible.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments - clarify the clarification?====
This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
<small>(I was gonna name the options "Smash" and "Pass," but I thought that might be too dirty)</small> - [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:38, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. [[User:DryKirby64|DryKirby64]] ([[User talk:DryKirby64|talk]]) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
::It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)


I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in ''Super Mario 3D All-Stars'' would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for ''three'' games. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Axii}} - I wouldn't say any of the minigames are really innately ''Mario''-themed, though. If any were, I'd have them stay separate. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:02, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:As I mentioned on your talk page, Break the Targets and Board the Platforms have ''Mario''-themed stages [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 23:57, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
::Yes, and as I mentioned in the proposal, those can be separately split later if it is determined to be acceptable. The minigames themselves, however, are not ''Mario''-themed. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:19, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
:::Why not leave them out of this proposal though. Why should we merge ''Mario'' content? [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 09:29, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
::::The current articles don't actually describe the individual stages anyway, just an overview of the mode. Also, those list pages ''already'' include the ''Mario'' stages, just with a "main article" template. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:56, October 4, 2024 (EDT)


In my eyes, the change list for ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I know you are familiar with my [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|crossover article draft using ''Zelda'' as a base]], but I do not think I clarified some of the intents I had with it, which I shared [[User talk:Nintendo101#In regards to Smash and crossovers|here]] with Mushzoom. I do not think it intersects with what you layout above, but I just wanted to let you know. (I also welcome other folks to check it out.) - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:45, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:I think both can coexist dandily. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:56, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in [[Mario Sports Superstars]] article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler: Though the middle spirit list has no spirits of Mario characters, it's not irrelevant to Mario because Mario characters, stages, items, etc. appear in many spirit battles. In fact, the very first spirit on that page (Jirachi) has Mario relevance (you need Luma and Starlow to summon it). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:09, October 3, 2024 (EDT)


Just for reference, the current size of the ''TTYD'' remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|SmokedChili}} - What about non-''Mario'' characters that we cover anyway due to them crossing over outside of Smash, like Link, Isabelle, and Banjo? Surely their presence in another crossover deserves to be acknowledged. That's one of the main issues that arises with the "nuclear" mindset. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:32, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
:What ''about'' those? Them crossing over in Mario isn't the same thing as crossing over in Smash. That's where the complete selection screenshots come in, make them image maps where crossover subjects with Mario Wiki articles get image map links with necessary notes. That way lists don't have to bleed over to include anything else but Mario.
:On another note, shouldn't you have just waited four more weeks? You posted [[Talk:Super Smash Bros.#Oppose|here]] your concern over those two proposals stalling you further with this if they passed, but that's not how rule 7 works. It says 'any decision'. That means voting to keep status quo is also what can't be overturned for 4 weeks. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 09:28, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
::My understanding is that, because those two proposals failed, neither of this proposal's outcomes would contradict that. The coverage that they were trying to remove is kept either way here. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:25, October 5, 2024 (EDT)


===Replace sticks' direction notes in games' control lists with Unicode arrows===
:::Honestly, I think all those points should be in their own separate proposals. I would support #1 if it was a talk page proposal for [[Talk:List of Super Smash Bros. series items]], but combined in a wiki proposal with other things I don't want, I had to oppose. {{@|Axii}} is that month really worth having #6, #7 and #8? {{@|Camwoodstock}}, sure we can revert some of these changes with another proposal, but the proposal rules state we have to wait four weeks before we have a counterproposal to a part of this proposal. And if Hewer is right about failed proposals not counting, then would opposing this be the better choice of action when you disagree with just one thing? Oh, and {{@|Hewer}}, if I make a proposal to reduce the Spirit List, I would definitely want to keep the Spirit Battles that involve Mario fighters and stages. And with stickers, I would get rid of the non-Mario stickers that don't specifically boost Mario characters. And, I definitely do not want Smash 64's page in that way. It should be as focused on Mario like how {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros.|Bulbapedia's}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. Melee|''Super Smash Bros.''}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. Brawl|series}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS/Wii U|game}} {{iw|bulbapedia|Super Smash Bros. Ultimate|pages}} focus on the Pokémon content, and how the Sonic Wiki Zone's page on {{fandom|sonic|Super Smash Bros. Brawl}} was more about Sonic. #4 is going to make our Smash game pages more comprehensive than Smash Wiki's game pages. If we're really that worried about losing stuff in our reduction of Smash coverage, why don't we talk to Smash Wiki's admins about merging the pages we don't need into Smash Wiki's articles? There's got to be some cross-wiki communication if the Donkey Kong Wiki merged into us. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 01:11, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
I've noticed for many retro games' pages, for instance ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels#Controls]]'' and to a lesser extent ''[[Mario Kart: Super Circuit]]'', have pretty wordy explanations that make the tables taller than they should ideally have been. An instance from the former page at the time of writing is "{{button|gcn|stick}} (left and right)", which if my proposal would pass would be mass-converted to "{{button|gcn|stick}}↔", especially since ''The Lost Levels'' was nominated for "Spotlight notice" earlier tonight, for which its note ''"(...) help to contribute in any way that you can."'' seem like a fitting time for me to see if this idea floats well with other users than me.
::::My long term goal is only having non-''Mario'' Smash content on the game page itself. If it means compromising to get more people on board, I'm all for it. I'm going to make a prediction that in 5 years the idea to cover Smash like a guest appearance won't be much controversial [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 02:04, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
::::As I said in the proposal, "we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that." Also Sonic is a bad example since he was only introduced in the third game, while Bulbapedia is built around the very rigid structure of the main Pokemon games anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:12, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
::::I think folks engaging with this proposal should think critically about what type of titles the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games are in relation to ''Super Mario''? Are they:
::::A. Proper ''Mario'' crossovers on par with ''[[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games]]'' and ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]''? or
::::B. Games that have some Mario material in it on par with [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'' (Wii)]], ''[[NES Remix]]'', ''[[The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening]]'', and ''[[NBA Street V3]]''? or
::::C. Neither or something in between?
::::I think part of the issue with this in particular is not only that ''Smash Bros.'' articles had seen full support on the wiki for a very long time, but many of the characters and elements in it do appear with ''Super Mario'' in completely other contexts. Almost none of the Fighter lists we have on Super Mario Wiki exclusively cover the ''Smash Bros.'' title of their respective articles and it is just odd to organize information that way. ''Super Mario'' also represents the greatest percentage of material in every ''Smash Bros.'' game.
::::I do not know if it is worth holding on to any spirit, sticker, or trophy lists, but if we did, and restricted to to ones that are not only of ''Super Mario'' subjects, but things that can be ''applied'' to ''Mario'' fighters, I would personally find lists like that so fragmented that the articles would basically be useless. What's the point of having intentionally fragmented articles and lists that no one is going to read? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 02:22, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
:::::The trophy lists already got trimmed to just Mario ones, which is easier to do there because the non-Mario ones don't interact with Mario characters like stickers and spirits do. I wouldn't want to remove Mario-relevant information, but I also agree with your "fragmented articles" comment, so I think not trimming the stickers and spirits is the best choice. Plus, in the case of spirits, they can all be used by Mario characters, so you can justify it similarly to the list of items. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:01, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
::::To be clear, failed proposals do count for the four-week no overturning rule, I was just saying that the failed outcome of those two specific proposals doesn't contradict either of this proposal's outcomes. If this proposal were to fail, it'd still be four weeks until a proposal to only do some of its changes could be made. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:43, October 6, 2024 (EDT)


D-pads for newer consoles are more or less unaffected (except in particular the Nintendo 64 D-pad that doesn't currently have an icon in [[Template:Button]] at all), and motion control info for Wiimote/Joy-Con would also be unaffected due to their very high complexity, but for non-N64 analog sticks there are no other viable options at all to reduce the table boxes' text lengths.
==New features==
''None at the moment.''


Other examples, though theorethical ones instead of the above ones:
==Removals==
*"{{button|switch|leftstick}} up/down" → "{{button|switch|leftstick}}↕"
''None at the moment.''
*"{{button|3ds|Stick}} left" → "{{button|3DS|Stick}}←"
*(Optional) "Rotate {{button|n64|Stick}}" → "{{button|n64|Stick}}↻"


There's only really one option that I can see, with no possible alternate options to vote for instead. I personally do not consider the vote as a matter of "Mass-implement" or "Prohibit forever", and I would not object to if anyone applied the idea to arrow-application edits on individual pages if they were to so wish.
==Changes==
===Lower the requirement for a disambiguation page from 5 to 4===
As of now, the requirement for a disambiguation page's creation is five pages:
:''"If there are five or more pages which could be reasonably associated with a given name, then a disambiguation page must be created"'' ([[MarioWiki:Naming]])
This rule feels needlessly restrictive, considering the amount of clutter links make at the very top of the page. "For a minigame in the ''WarioWare'' series, see X. For an object in ''Super Mario Odyssey'' found in the Luncheon Kingdom, see Y. For an underwater enemy from...", you get the idea. If this proposal passes, the threshold on MarioWiki:Naming will be lowered from 5 to 4.  


'''Proposer''': {{User|DandelionSprout}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Axii}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 22, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|DandelionSprout}} I've tested it with fairly good success on [[Mario Kart 64#Controls]].
#{{User|Axii}} ^
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Makes sense to me.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} One or two other articles are fine, but having three separate articles in the <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template at the top of the page is the point where a disambiguation page is ideal.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per proposal  
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} We don't need to clutter the {{tem|About}} template.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Frankly, I'd support bringing the requirement as low as 3. Per proposal.
#{{User|Mariuigi Khed}} I too I'd go with 3. Per proposal
#{{User|Dine2017}} Per proposal.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Shadow2}} It might seem silly, but I think the unambiguous English word "Left" is a more direct representation than just an arrow. Someone might look at your second example replacement and think "Why is there an arrow pointing at the control stick icon?" Comparatively, "Left" means "Left". This is especially more prudent with the stick rotation. It might be obvious to you and others, but not everybody is going to see "↻" and understand that it means "Rotate the control stick". Again, the unambiguous English word "Rotate" is better.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per Shadow2, I think this is trying to fix a non-issue, plain words are much more understandable and clear than ambiguous arrows. Arrows could also be a bit problematic in terms of accessibility (e.g. screen readers, although they probably can't read the stick icon either unless it's been given alt text.)
#{{User|Tails777}} I've thought a bit about this and personally, I feel this is a situation where words speak louder than pictures, or symbols in this case. This isn't necessarily something that ''needs'' to change or anything, I think it's fine the way it is. Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I think the inconsistencies between devices brought up in the comments kinda sinks this idea for me.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Ahemtoday; if we had some work-around to guarantee a consistent way for screenreaders to read these/have devices always display the exact same symbols, we might be singing a different tune. But for now, we should probably prioritize what works and is accessible over aesthetics.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
====Comments====
I like this in principal, but I will sometimes use "→" to convey the order of button presses, as apparent on the ''[[Super Mario 64#Controls|Super Mario 64]]'' page. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, June 15, 2024 (EDT)
:Well, I guess if instead "▶" is being used (◀{{button|n64|stick}}▶, ▼{{button|gcn|c}}▲), I guess it wouldn't be much of a problem? <s>Or maybe any of {{wp|Supplemental Arrows-C|these}}?</s> Nevermind, these don't work on iPad. {{User:Arend/sig}} 09:46, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
::We already have stuff like {{button|padupdown}} and {{button|padleftright}}. Is there any way that this could be implemented on examples like those? [[User:BMfan08|BMfan08]] ([[User talk:BMfan08|talk]]) 12:30, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
:::Not for analog sticks by any realistic means that I can tell. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 12:33, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Wondering if gif would be supported, since some games have animated gifs of stick movement. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:58, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
:Sounds impractical in my eyes, as the GIFs would (presumably) constantly play and potentially distract people who read the pages. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 16:13, June 18, 2024 (EDT)
Regarding ease of reading, the ability to compress the height of some games' control tables by possibly more than 40%, significantly outweights any potential initial readibility. The one and only thing I'd note, is that in some rare cases the stick and the arrow could end up with a newline between them, in which case the only workaround I could find would be to use <nowiki>"<br>"</nowiki>; [[Template:Button]] doesn't seem to support non-breaking spaces. {{Unsigned|DandelionSprout}}
Our main concern is: how do screen readers handle the arrow symbols in unicode? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:04, June 18, 2024 (EDT)
:My browser's built-in TTS feature reads "→" as "right-pointing arrow", but I'm aware of other systems that would just skip these symbols entirely. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 17:09, June 18, 2024 (EDT)
:On my end (iOS 15, you.com), a few of the symbols render as emojis (up-down arrow as ↕️, left-right arrow as ↔️, and the triangles for left and right as ◀️ and ▶️), while the others register as ASCII symbols. {{User:Somethingone/sig}} 17:13, June 18, 2024 (EDT)
:I did some googling, and while "alt" doesn't seem to be supported in "span" at all, allegedly "aria-label" is supported by TTS tools, though I currently lack the setup needed to test any TTS tools. On the [[Swordfighter Peach#Controls|Swordfighter Peach]] page I've now tested out such a label with "aria-label=up" wrapped around 🠉, which I'm 85% sure wouldn't be emoji-fied. While the latter is part of the "Supplement Arrows-C" Unicode set that was said by [[User:Arend]] above to be unsupported by iOS, the set was released in 2014 and is therefore something that surely must've been added in later iOS versions, or at least I hope they've been added. Had it not been for how the arrow set I've now tested out doesn't have two-pointed arrows, I'd have called it a second 180° that would've swung the tide back in favor of approval. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 15:36, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
::Doesn't seem to work for me, it just displays as the cross in a rectangle symbol. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:02, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
::Yeah no, my iPad is running iPadOS 17.5.1, the most recent version for iPads as of last May, and it's showing your symbol as the white rectangle symbol. I'm not sure about iOS (the one running on iPhones) or MacOS, but I feel they would have to display these things somewhat similarly? {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:35, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
===Standardize sound test page titles===
Something I've noticed in [[:Category:Sound tests|some of the sound test pages]] is if they're given an in-game name for the sound test mode like "[[Jukebox]]", "[[Sound Gallery]]" etc. that name gets used instead of <s>"List of (game) in-game music"</s> "(game) sound test", but this makes things very confusing (especially when you have [[Juke Box]] and [[Jukebox]], two separate lists) since it's not clear which of these is for which game, and these sound tests can have many different possible names. Some of the <s>"in-game music"-</s> "sound test"-titled lists even have sound test names and currently don't use them (e.g. "Music List" for ''Odyssey'').
I propose renaming these exceptions to <s>"List of (game) in-game music"</s> "(game) sound test" and having the original names redirect to them (and add {{tem|redirect}} linking to the category if necessary). Of course, this would be applied to future sound tests in games as well.
However, there's also the issue of some music lists being incorporated into other, location articles (e.g. [[Musée Champignon]]) or some being treated as its own location article (e.g. [[Sound Studio]]), and I'm not fond of the idea of renaming a location to a list since the MarioWiki is supposed to [[MarioWiki:Coverage|document locations]]. I think these exceptions named after ''physical'' in-game locations (listed in '''bold''' below) should be left as is, and "Category:Sound tests" would be added to <s>"List of (game) in-game music"</s> "(game) sound test" redirects linking to their respective sections for better standardisation and consistency on the category page.
Another, obvious solution would be to split these lists off from the location pages to their own <s>"in-game music"</s> "sound test" pages, which I've added as another voting option, but I personally don't like the idea of keeping all of the other sections on Musée Champignon together and intact while having its Sound Gallery somewhere else. (Then again, I noticed [[Prisma Museum]] doing just this with its art gallery at the time of writing this... Maybe the art can be moved from [[Gallery:Paper Mario: Color Splash#Concept art gallery]] to there to be consistent with Musée Champignon. But I digress.)
(EDIT: I just realised that [[Juke Box]] is a physical item in ''Mario Party''. For the sake of this proposal, it will be considered one of the bolded locations.)
Relevant pages:
*'''[[Juke Box]]'''
*[[Jukebox]]
*'''[[Musée Champignon]]'''
*[[Music Player]]
*'''[[Music Room]]'''
*'''[[Prisma Museum]]'''
*'''[[Scrapbook Theater]]'''
*[[Sound Gallery]]
*[[Sound Player]]
*<s>'''[[Sound Room]]'''</s> (EDIT: Excluded from proposal; see comments)
*[[Sound Room (WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Party Game$!)]] (While the name suggests a location, it's actually just a sound test mode like the other unbolded ones here.)
*'''[[Sound Studio]]'''
*[[Sound Test]]
*'''[[Sticker Museum]]'''
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario jc}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Rename sound test modes (unbolded), create categorized redirects to others (bolded)====
#{{user|Mario jc}} - Per proposal.
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} Supporting on the condition that we rename these articles "''[game]'' sound test" instead.
#{{user|DrBaskerville}} Per all
#{{User|Hewer}} Second choice, just because I really don't like the idea of indiscriminately splitting specifically the music lists from articles that cover a lot of different information, and I feel like it would look messy. For instance, it would look super weird for [[Scrapbook Theater]]'s page to just be an enemy list with the music list (which is actually shorter than the enemy list) split into its own page. Keeping the lists on the pages also helps make it clear we're using the ordering and naming from the list of music shown in that place in the game, including any other oddities, such as Scrapbook Theater's music list ending with "Yoshi's Woolly World Medley" that's just a button to play a random song. I don't think there's much of a way to justify splitting just the music lists and nothing else from pages like this.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
====Rename sound test modes (unbolded), split sound tests from locations (bolded)====
#{{User|Arend}} Honestly, I feel like the sound tests found from locations/items should have their own dedicated article, given that articles like [[Musée Champignon]] are jam-packed with so many files that some devices (e.g. my iPad) have trouble loading the page (although this issue is also a thing with the TTYD remake's [[Sound Gallery]]). Not sure if the [[Sound Room]] of ''Wario Land 4'' should be included, given that all the CD songs included there are unique to that Sound Room (with none of the tracks appearing ''anywhere else'' in the game), and we already have [[List of Wario Land 4 media|a dedicated article]] for ''Wario Land 4'' media with the actual level music and stuff.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Arend. We feel like this makes the most sense from a perspective of performance, which if we're being real here, is our main concern here.
====Do nothing====
#{{User|Hewer}} This change doesn't feel super necessary to me and seems to just create more complications than it's worth. We're already using official names here, I don't really get the need to change that, especially not to "sound test", since that's ''not'' always the official name. Not every article title needs to specify the game it's talking about, otherwise we'd use identifiers on like every article. (Odyssey's page can be moved to "Music List" too if necessary)
<s>{{user|Ahemtoday}} As someone with a vested interest due to renaming this category a while back, I think the thing with me is... I don't think the phrase "in-game music" makes much sense as a name for these articles. I only changed the name of the category because I really don't have a better name for these articles, but "in-game music" in no way conveys that these articles are about sound tests. As such, I don't really relish the concept of changing ''more'' articles to be named that.</s> My issue with this has been solved, see the comments.


====Comments====
====Comments====
First of all, I think you forgot to add a comments section. Second of all, as the creator of the [[Sound Room (WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Party Game$!)]] page, I only created it like that cause there already was a Sound Room page made. I asked members of the Discord if they thought I should move the other one (which belongs to Wario Land 4) but received no reply. [[User:BMfan08|BMfan08]] ([[User talk:BMfan08|talk]]) 12:30, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Do you have any examples of how many subjects would be affected by this change? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 10:52, September 29, 2024 (EDT)
:I don't think there's an easy way to tell, but I can't imagine it being too many. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 12:05, September 29, 2024 (EDT)


Yeah, the Musee Champignon page takes a couple more seconds for me to load, too. It's in the top 170 largest pages (and would be smaller if it weren't for all the ''Mario Kart Tour'' list pages). Something curious is that ''Color Splash'' has a full media page, while for ''Origami King'' and ''Thousand-Year Door'' Switch, they just have the files embedded onto the museum/sound gallery pages. I did this for ''CS'' because I wanted to upload extra fanfares and unlisted tracks, but I'm wondering how to handle it now. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 18:27, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
===Shorten the disambiguation identifier for ''Yoshi's Island'' pages with the subtitle only - take two===
Last season, I had to cancel [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Yoshi's Island pages|my last proposal]] since I was caught plagiarizing [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages|someone else's proposal]]. This time, I've come up with another proposal that is not plagiarized.


@Ahemtoday The point of the proposal is to keep the naming consistent. The "in-game music" can be renamed to something else later if needed. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 22:51, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Take the "Choose a Game" screen and the main game's title screen in ''Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3'' for example. As you see, the logo for the main game on both screens ONLY reads ''Yoshi's Island'', not ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island''.
:I think where I'm at right now is that I prefer naming these articles after the menus/areas in which they play, even given the inconsistency, over the unfitting "in-game music" title. I'll support the proposal if someone suggests a more suitable we could move all these to instead. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 23:26, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
::I was thinking just "(game) sound test", like "(game) [[bestiary]]". {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 23:48, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
:::Ooh, that's a good way to handle it. I'll vote for this proposal on the condition that that's the naming scheme we use. Do I need to make a separate proposal for that or something, or is it uncontroversial enough that we can just do that? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:29, June 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::Looks like Porple went ahead and [[:Category:Sound tests|renamed them]], so that takes care of that. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 10:40, June 17, 2024 (EDT)


@Arend I forgot the Sound Room songs are unique and not from the game's levels, so an "in-game music" title wouldn't be accurate. I've removed it from the list (so it would be the only name exception in the category). {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 22:51, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
The following pages will be affected:
:A bit tangential, but do you think [[List of records in WarioWare: D.I.Y.]] would qualify as an exception? I know it's not in the category right now, but it's reminiscent of that situation. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 23:26, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
::Yes, I would count that as an exception alongside Sound Room. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 23:48, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
::Seconding that the WarioWare D.I.Y. records should probably be an exception. Those are all exclusive songs that don't appear in any of the other modes (unless you input music from them into one of your own Microgames, of course). {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 00:05, June 17, 2024 (EDT)


So my naming issue has been solved, but let me say my thoughts on separating these out. See, the thing is, these articles are not all in the same situation. Yes, [[Musée Champignon]], [[Prisma Museum]], [[Scrapbook Theater]], and [[Sticker Museum]] have enough content in the article that a split-out list would function. It's extremely justifiable for [[Prisma Museum]], which is already split; but maybe a bit less necessary for [[Sticker Museum]], whose other contents are mostly plaintext. However, [[Juke Box]] and [[Sound Studio]] have basically nothing outside of the content that would get split off; in option 2, they would be basically nothing but stubs leading to another article. And then there's [[Music Room]], which covers multiple games; I can only describe it as an edge case. I'm not sure it makes sense to treat all these articles the same way. Though I suppose this proposal ''is'' about creating consistency. If we're dead-set on doing that, I have to support option 1 — I value [[MarioWiki:Once and only once]] over fast load times. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:29, June 17, 2024 (EDT)
{| class="wikitable"
! Current name
! Will be moved to
|-
| [[Fuzzy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|Fuzzy (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|Fuzzy (''Yoshi's Island'')|Fuzzy (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[King Bowser's Castle (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|King Bowser's Castle (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|King Bowser's Castle (''Yoshi's Island'')|King Bowser's Castle (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[Magnifying Glass (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|Magnifying Glass (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|Magnifying Glass (''Yoshi's Island'')|Magnifying Glass (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[Spiked Fun Guy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|Spiked Fun Guy (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|Spiked Fun Guy (''Yoshi's Island'')|Spiked Fun Guy (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 1 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 1 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 1 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 1 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 2 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 2 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 2 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 2 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 3 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 3 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 3 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 3 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 4 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 4 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 4 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 4 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 5 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 5 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 5 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 5 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|-
| [[World 6 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|World 6 (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')]]
| {{fake link|World 6 (''Yoshi's Island'')|World 6 (Yoshi's Island)}}
|}


===Split ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' bosses into boss levels===
Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to use the shorter disambiguation identifier with ONLY the subtitle for the ''Yoshi's Island'' pages.
This proposal is similar to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/41#Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levels|the one that passed]]. As you see, we have [[Motley Bossblob]] and [[Hisstocrat]] boss levels from ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'', the boss levels from the [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|''Donkey Kong Country'' series]], even boss levels ''[[Yoshi's Crafted World]]'' where each boss guards a [[Dream Gem]]. Right now, you might be wondering how we can create separate articles for the ''[[Wario Land: Shake It!]]'' boss levels.
 
According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split:
 
*[[Rollanratl]] → [[Rollanratl Battle]]
*[[Hot Roderick]] → [[Hot Roderick Race]]
*[[Chortlebot]] → [[Chortlebot Challenge]]
*[[Bloomsday]] → [[Bloomsday Blowout]]
*[[Large Fry]] → [[Large Fry Cook-Off]]
*[[Shake King]] → [[VS the Shake King]]
 
Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' boss levels.


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': October 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support (''Yoshi's Island'')====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} You know what? I'm actually going to agree with this. One reason is because, according to [[Talk:Collector (Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle)|this]], [[Talk:Stretch (Shy Guy)|''this'']] has to move, and there were concerns raised with the overly long identifier that I agree with. The other reason is because ''Yoshi's Island'' is a perfectly valid shorter name for this game. Look at any of the ''Super Mario Advance 3'' materials: the ''Super Mario World 2'' portion was removed. Also, outside of ''Super Mario Advance 3'', ''Yoshi's Island'' has been used as the shorter title [[list of Wiggler profiles and statistics#Super Smash Bros. Brawl|on]] [[list of Baby Mario profiles and statistics#Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS|occasion]]. This is in keeping with other proposals about using shorter identifier titles where applicable, and it will not conflict with "(''Yoshi's Island'' series)".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see [[Bowser's Sourpuss Bread]], which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per LTL. I personally prefer to shorten it to ''Super Mario World 2'', but that's clearly not Nintendo's own preference, so that is moot.


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


====Comments====
====Comments====
Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Hewer}} I respectfully disagree. "''Yoshi's Island''" is actually short for both "''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island''" and "''Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3''", so I think there's a possibility to use the "''Yoshi's Island''" disambiguation identifier for ''Yoshi's Island'' pages, even if it is confusing. {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 08:39, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
:Looking at "[[Special:ShortPages|Short Pages]], when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP]]'' items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split ''[[Speed Mario Bros.]]''. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when [[Pesky Billboard]] is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
:Why do it if it could be confusing? [[MarioWiki:Naming]] advises: "When naming an article, do '''not''' use game abbreviations. (e.g. use [[Bully (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)|Bully (''Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time'')]] as opposed to {{fake link|Bully (''M&L:PIT'')}})." {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:59, October 4, 2024 (EDT)
:Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for ''Yoshi's Island'' pages===
This is based on two proposals that have passed. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|One proposal]] was about using "(''Super Mario RPG'')" as a disambiguation identifier over the full "(''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'')" title due to the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Switch remake]] not using the "''Legend of the Seven Stars''" subtitle from the [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|original SNES title]] while still calling it just "''Super Mario RPG''," and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages|the other]] was about using the "(''Donkey Kong Country 2'')" and "(''Donkey Kong Country 3'')" as a disambiguation identifier over the full "(''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'')" and "(''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'')" titles, respectively, due to not only the [[Donkey Kong Country 2 (Game Boy Advance)|GBA remake]] not using the "''Diddy's Kong Quest''" subtitle from the [[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest|original SNES title]] while still calling it "''Donkey Kong Country 2''," but also the [[Donkey Kong Country 3 (Game Boy Advance)|other GBA remake]] not using the "''Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!''" subtitle from the [[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!|original SNES title]] while still calling it "''Donkey Kong Country 3''." In both cases, it would be easier to navigate and would look nicer because the page title is not so overly long in comparison.
 
This proposal is the same as before, except that articles rather concern ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' (an idea also suggested in the two aforementioned proposals, one for ''Super Mario RPG'' and the other for both ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' and ''Donkey Kong Country 3''). As a [[Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3|GBA game]] is named "''Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3''" instead of "''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island''," it contains a remake that has entirely omitted the subtitle from the SNES original much like the Switch remake of ''Super Mario RPG'' and the GBA remakes of ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'', yet articles that make use of a full title of the original SNES iteration (see [[:Category:Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island worlds|Category:Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island worlds]] per example). Perhaps it would be much easier to navigate once the identifiers went from "(''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')" to simply "(''Yoshi's Island'')." I believe that this makes sense because both the original SNES iteration and the GBA remake are still called "''Yoshi's Island''," and it is the same as what we have done with the ''Super Mario RPG'', ''Donkey Kong Country 2'', and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' identifiers.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment on the matter last time: it replaces (and reorders) the subtitle rather than just removing it, so we've never had a game just called ''Yoshi's Island'', and I don't know of any other time we've used a title for a game identifier that isn't actually a title for a game. "[[Yoshi's Island]]" also isn't quite as immediately obvious what it refers to compared to "Super Mario RPG", "Donkey Kong Country 2", or "Donkey Kong Country 3". I think this is going a bit too far and ends up a little more confusing than helpful.
#{{user|Dive Rocket Launcher}} As the person who originally [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages|spitballed this]]... yeah, thinking about it, this would probably do more harm than good.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Hewer.
 
====Comments====
Just to clarify, is this proposal to make the identifier (''Yoshi's Island'') or (''Super Mario World 2'')? The former would make more sense, but the latter is what removing "the subtitle" from (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'') would entail. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 16:46, June 22, 2024 (EDT)
 
...Gunther, did you just literally copypasted [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages|my proposal]] to use as a basis of yours? The structure is quite similar and certain words and sentences being used are also the same. I would've appreciated if you didn't copypaste my proposal and sell it as if it's your own text (aka, ''plagiarism''), and instead proposed your idea in your own words. I mean, I didn't copypaste [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|Annalisa's proposal]] at all when I made my own proposal, did I? {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:47, June 22, 2024 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===Allow quotes of characters being voiced by their official actors in unofficial media===
''None at the moment.''
Voice actors whose performances are heard in official works may also go on to voice their usual character(s) unofficially, such as [https://youtu.be/RTGzcEz4Dgo?si=Qtkl7ctAXSZUmerc Charles Martinet having fun as Mario, Luigi, and Wario on a trip to Chile in a series of Vines] or the voice actors of the DKC cartoon reprising their roles in the fan-made ''Return to Krocodile Isle'', with the former example [[List_of_Mario_quotes#Charles_Martinet's_profile_on_Vine_and_Instagram|already being quoted on the wiki]]. What this proposal aims to do is explicitly enable the practice of quoting unofficial performances through a statement at [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Fan work by creators officially involved with the brand|MarioWiki:Coverage, section "Fan work by creators officially involved with the brand"]], specifically as an extension to its policy on fan artwork. To be eligible on the wiki, the quotes must only reproduce lines of dialog that are perceived as directly tied to the character in a given piece of media, and not frivolous performances that can be determined to be demonstrations of skill on the part of the performer while they are engaged in an interview or other such interaction. For instance:
*Charles Martinet cracking jokes about crabs in those Vines '''will be allowed to be quoted''', because the lines can be attributed to the Mario Bros. figures shown in the video.
*Charles Martinet saying "[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K2xTvwkkK50 All toasters, toast toastie!]" in his Mario voice at a convention panel is '''not to be quoted''' because Martinet is still being himself as he changes his pitch to sound like Mario.
*even outtakes '''can be quoted''' as long as they are incorporated into a fictional blooper portraying the character being interpreted, Pixar-style. [[Ben Campbell]]'s King K. Rool [https://twitter.com/ArtOfAlexH/status/1788187903249539358 stutters and says a bad word while singing a line in front of a mic.]
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 24, 2023, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Chile today, hot tamale!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly surprised this wasn't already a thing. Mostly because "It's a hibiscus! Oh, hello-biscus." is firmly wedged in our lexicon, but also because this feels like a very natural extension of our coverage. Maybe it's because quotes pages go generally under the radar? At any rate, these feel like natural inclusions to those pages.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal. This definitely seems within the wiki’s scope as a semi-official semi-unofficial portrayal of these characters.
#{{User|Hewer}} This feels like a reasonable extension of the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/57#Allow/prohibit fan work by former Nintendo staff|proposal]] to allow fanart from people who officially worked on the franchise, so sure, per proposal. Though we should probably give them some separation (like their own section) on quotes pages to make it clear they're not strictly official.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} No harm in having these, sure.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
I don't know if [https://youtu.be/bVcxP1FnU-M?t=856 this] fits. Jack Black pretends to be Bowser and even puts on a small show when he enters the stage, with lights flickering and a throne as prop and whatnot--but that's still just a cute segue into an interview with Jack Black. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:27, June 17, 2024 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 14:12, October 6, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, October 6th, 22:41 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

Rules

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

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

Rules

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

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

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)
Create MarioWiki:WikiLove and WikiLove templates, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make all proposals last for 2 weeks

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

Make all proposals last for 1 week

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

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

Do nothing

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

Comments

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

That seems only fair to put them back to 3 days if that option passes--after all, it would be a glaring oversight to retain that and effectively allow for proposals that were en route to pass suddenly being hijacked on the last day, and pivoting from the original purpose, while still retaining the vote. The plan here is to de-jank the proposal time-lengths and make them more consistent--not to introduce even more shenanigans! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:18, October 2, 2024 (EDT)
Then I also suppose that, if all proposals are going to last two weeks, then the time allowed to edit/cancel those proposals would also be doubled to six days, in order to reflect with the TTPs, right? I've been worried since this was not mentioned in the proposal either. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 07:58, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series

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

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

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

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

Support - clarify it like this

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

Oppose - don't clarify it like this

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

Comments - clarify the clarification?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about those? Them crossing over in Mario isn't the same thing as crossing over in Smash. That's where the complete selection screenshots come in, make them image maps where crossover subjects with Mario Wiki articles get image map links with necessary notes. That way lists don't have to bleed over to include anything else but Mario.
On another note, shouldn't you have just waited four more weeks? You posted here your concern over those two proposals stalling you further with this if they passed, but that's not how rule 7 works. It says 'any decision'. That means voting to keep status quo is also what can't be overturned for 4 weeks. SmokedChili (talk) 09:28, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
My understanding is that, because those two proposals failed, neither of this proposal's outcomes would contradict that. The coverage that they were trying to remove is kept either way here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:25, October 5, 2024 (EDT)
Honestly, I think all those points should be in their own separate proposals. I would support #1 if it was a talk page proposal for Talk:List of Super Smash Bros. series items, but combined in a wiki proposal with other things I don't want, I had to oppose. @Axii is that month really worth having #6, #7 and #8? @Camwoodstock, sure we can revert some of these changes with another proposal, but the proposal rules state we have to wait four weeks before we have a counterproposal to a part of this proposal. And if Hewer is right about failed proposals not counting, then would opposing this be the better choice of action when you disagree with just one thing? Oh, and @Hewer, if I make a proposal to reduce the Spirit List, I would definitely want to keep the Spirit Battles that involve Mario fighters and stages. And with stickers, I would get rid of the non-Mario stickers that don't specifically boost Mario characters. And, I definitely do not want Smash 64's page in that way. It should be as focused on Mario like how Bulbapedia's Super Smash Bros. series game pages focus on the Pokémon content, and how the Sonic Wiki Zone's page on Super Smash Bros. Brawl was more about Sonic. #4 is going to make our Smash game pages more comprehensive than Smash Wiki's game pages. If we're really that worried about losing stuff in our reduction of Smash coverage, why don't we talk to Smash Wiki's admins about merging the pages we don't need into Smash Wiki's articles? There's got to be some cross-wiki communication if the Donkey Kong Wiki merged into us. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:11, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
My long term goal is only having non-Mario Smash content on the game page itself. If it means compromising to get more people on board, I'm all for it. I'm going to make a prediction that in 5 years the idea to cover Smash like a guest appearance won't be much controversial Axii (talk) 02:04, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
As I said in the proposal, "we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that." Also Sonic is a bad example since he was only introduced in the third game, while Bulbapedia is built around the very rigid structure of the main Pokemon games anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:12, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
I think folks engaging with this proposal should think critically about what type of titles the Super Smash Bros. games are in relation to Super Mario? Are they:
A. Proper Mario crossovers on par with Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and Itadaki Street DS? or
B. Games that have some Mario material in it on par with Punch-Out!! (Wii), NES Remix, The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, and NBA Street V3? or
C. Neither or something in between?
I think part of the issue with this in particular is not only that Smash Bros. articles had seen full support on the wiki for a very long time, but many of the characters and elements in it do appear with Super Mario in completely other contexts. Almost none of the Fighter lists we have on Super Mario Wiki exclusively cover the Smash Bros. title of their respective articles and it is just odd to organize information that way. Super Mario also represents the greatest percentage of material in every Smash Bros. game.
I do not know if it is worth holding on to any spirit, sticker, or trophy lists, but if we did, and restricted to to ones that are not only of Super Mario subjects, but things that can be applied to Mario fighters, I would personally find lists like that so fragmented that the articles would basically be useless. What's the point of having intentionally fragmented articles and lists that no one is going to read? - Nintendo101 (talk) 02:22, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
The trophy lists already got trimmed to just Mario ones, which is easier to do there because the non-Mario ones don't interact with Mario characters like stickers and spirits do. I wouldn't want to remove Mario-relevant information, but I also agree with your "fragmented articles" comment, so I think not trimming the stickers and spirits is the best choice. Plus, in the case of spirits, they can all be used by Mario characters, so you can justify it similarly to the list of items. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:01, October 6, 2024 (EDT)
To be clear, failed proposals do count for the four-week no overturning rule, I was just saying that the failed outcome of those two specific proposals doesn't contradict either of this proposal's outcomes. If this proposal were to fail, it'd still be four weeks until a proposal to only do some of its changes could be made. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:43, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Lower the requirement for a disambiguation page from 5 to 4

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

The following pages will be affected:

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

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

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

Support (Yoshi's Island)

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4389065"