MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
==Writing guidelines==
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
''None at the moment.''
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{user|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. '''Signing with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki> is not allowed''' due to technical issues.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==New features==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
''None at the moment.''
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].  Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).


The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights).  If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


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


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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


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


===Super mario cartoons===
====Comments====
A few articles have information that regard the Mario cartoons as canon. For example, this can be found in Mario's biograpy:
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
 
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
''Abandoning carpentry and leaving Donkey Kong to his own devices, Mario entered the plumbing business with Luigi and formed Mario Brothers Plumbing as revealed in The Super Mario Bros. Super Show. The pair worked on plumbing from the business's headquarters, performed house calls, and also released a line of products. As the years passed, they remained financially unsuccessful, but gained a reputation for their plumbing skills and were recognized by the Grand Order of Plumbers as Plumbers of the Year in "Plumbers of the Year" despite an embarrassing appearance on David Horowitz's worldwide television show that ruined the reputation of their product line in "The Marios Fight Back"
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
 
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
''Mario and Luigi had a variety of mainly benign adventures. For example, in "Texas Tea" the brothers became rich from an oil well in their tomato garden. However, they were endangered on several occasions, such as in "Slime Busters" when the brothers were attacked by Slime Ghosts. Despite their adventures, Mario confided to Luigi in "Baby Mario Love" that he was dissatisfied with his current life, complaining it lacked glitz and glamour.''  
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
 
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
''Two conflicting stories of how the Mario Bros. returned to Mushroom World exist. The first originates from The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! introduction and later expanded on in "Toddler Terrors of Time Travel." Mario and Luigi were performing a house call for a slightly daft lady who hired them to fix her bathtub drain. Unknown to them, the drain was a Warp Zone connected to the Mushroom World. After Luigi cleared it, Mario and Luigi were sucked towards the drain. Mario grabbed onto the shower curtain bar, but Luigi was already in the drain's suction. Grabbing unto Mario, Luigi ended up pulling both of them down. Later, Mario and Luigi were forced to relive this event due to Ludwig von Koopa's Time Travel Tube. The events were slightly altered. Instead of struggling against the drain, Mario and Luigi openly jump through the pipe, accompanied by Toad. The three were warped from the past Earth to the present Mushroom World, ending the process of overwritting past events.''
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
 
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
''The second was invented for "The Legend." While Mario ate lunch one day in Mario Brothers Plumbing, the brothers heard a cry for help through a very small pipe. Springing into action, they grabbed their plungers and followed the voice, which they later learned belonged to Princess Peach.''
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
 
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
However, Nintendo has confirmed that the Mario cartoons are non-canon. Therefore, I propose that all information like this should be removed or put into a non-canon information section.
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
 
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Magikoopa67}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 30th, 2008, 20:00


==== Support ====
===Merge introduction/ending sections for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section===
{{Early notice|March 1}}
Back in 2013, there was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Get_rid_of_pointless_Mario_Party_Minigames_beginnings_and_endings|a proposal]] to cut intro/ending descriptions for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles the proposer deemed pointless, which was rejected by the community. However, with over ten years passing since the original proposal and some discussion I had with some staff on the Discord server regarding the sections/descriptions, I would like to revisit the idea of addressing these sections and the issues that commonly plague them.


==== Oppose ====
TL;DR: This proposal, if passed, would merge the Introduction and Ending sections of articles for ''Mario Party'' minigames into the Gameplay section, which itself may be renamed to Overview to reflect a more all-encompassing coverage of the minigames if the community supports such an idea. For explanations and more, read on.
#{{User|Cobold}} I don't see your problem. All other media are ''alternate''-canon and are separated from the games everywhere.
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Cobold. When and where did they confirm that the cartoons are "non-canon" anyway?
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per Cobold.


====Comments====
While the descriptions for the intros and outros of the minigames can help our readers who need tools like screen readers, many of said descriptions are often riddled with issues, some common problems including, but not being limited to:
*Excessive descriptions of minor details or other forms of filler/content bloat that do not meaningfully contribute to the article: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Eyebrawl&oldid=4500992 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sugar%20Rush%20(minigame)&oldid=4509228 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Flip_the_Chimp&oldid=4715460 3]
*Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=On-Again,_Off-Again&oldid=4744643 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Chain_Event&oldid=4513579 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Blazing%20Lassos&oldid=4746544 3]
*Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sick_and_Twisted&oldid=4504726 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Platform_Peril&oldid=4744623 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Burnstile&oldid=4494938 3]


The whole CANON thing is a load of bullcrap: There,'s no official guide for wut is "canon" and what isn't, and besides, what is the point of saying "X NEVER HAPPEND" when '''we're still going to write about it''', Anyway?
One of the most important rules of keeping readers interested is to keep one's writings as concise as possible, and it goes without saying that including details that are insignificant to what defines the minigame like what characters, enemies etc. are in the background or the exact angles or motions or positions the camera is in will clutter information that is actually relevant and important to the minigame, thus reducing the quality of the pages for readers. Even if all the filler were to be cleaned up, the descriptions, especially ones of the aforementioned "the winners/losers do their respective animations" type, tend to be so short that it does beg the question as to whether the minigames really need dedicated sections for their intros and outros. Plus, a lot of people who read the minigame articles are more likely to do so for information like how it plays or what game it appears in, not what happens to the winners or losers in a minigame like [[Glacial Meltdown]].


On the other hand, I support rewriting the Mario biography to separate the Cartoon from the game, the whole thing is just confusing, misleading and doesn't really works. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:38, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
This is where I propose we merge the contents of the Introduction and Ending sections back into the Gameplay section of the minigame articles, of course cleaning them up of filler and other unnotable details where needed. The Introduction sections can be repurposed to serve as the opening line of the Gameplay section while the Ending sections can serve as the conclusion.


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


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


===E.T. Templates===
'''Proposer''': {{User|ToxBoxity64}}<br/>
Currently, we have both [[Template:Alien]] and [[Template:Cosmic Species]], and [[User:Garlic Man|Garlic Man]] and I have had some disagreement over how it should be dealt with. I say the Alien template should be used for all species and characters not originating on the [[Mushroom World]], while Garlic Man feels we should keep Cosmic Species. My rationalle is that typing <nowiki>{{Template:Alien}} is easier than {{Template:Cosmic Species}}</nowiki>, his is that the Cosmic Species template was around first. To avoid edit wars, I've brought the issue here, for more feedback over what we should do. Also, I feel it would be best to use [[User:Walkazo/Templates|this]] instead of the current configurations for whichever template we decide to use: it uses terms from both existing templates, and improves organization overall.
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
====Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section====
'''Deadline''': August 23th, 2008, 20:00


====Use Alien Template====
====Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per myself.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
#{{User|Stumpers}} - "Alien" is an in-universe term. "Cosmic Species" is not.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Mario5 (opening) - MP6.png|18px]] These sections have always suffered from poor writing and serve mostly to pad the article (why are there such egregious descriptions of how the camera behaves in these articles?). There is some utility in these to contextualize the minigames, so this information should be kept in many instances (though ones with the standard win/lose endings shouldn't be mentioned, only the ones where a funny consequence happens like Wario getting his butt destroyed in [[Piranha's Pursuit]]), but they don't need to be in their own section. I think overview is a better broader way to name these sections.
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - I personally think this is a ridiculous proposal, as it is mostly about what name to use, but I like the fact that "alien" is easy to write. Oh, and if that's not enough reason, per Stumpers.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Mario.
#{{User|The Writing Guy}} - Per all. For instance, Cosmic Species is just changing the name.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per proposal.
#{{user|Luigi001}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} The intro/outro sections are long overdue for some merging. Mentioning them is all fine and good, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to exactly one sentence that amounts to "the camera zooms in and the winner does a funny dance" on articles like [[Burnstile]]?
#{{User|Pikax}} - Like the proposal about changing "Species" to "Character type", "Cosmic Species" is unnecessary nitpicking.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Walkazo. (Yes, I did make those templates; feel free to rub the error in my face. o:)
#{{User|Technetium}} Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
#{{User|Toadette 4evur}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't agree that "minor" or "uninteresting" information should be removed (like, if we did remove all of the "they do their victory animations" descriptions, that would leave us with some minigame articles that describe the endings while others don't, which is not helpful to readers at communicating the information and just makes it look like information is missing). But merging the sections is fine, they can be very short.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per everyone.
#{{User|BMfan08}} But who could forget such classics as "the winning player attempts to do a winning pose as the player wins" or "the other team is sad that they lost the game"? Ahem. Anyway, per all.


====Use Cosmic Species Template====
====Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)====
#{{User|Garlic Man}} - Sort of contradicting on what Stumpers said; Alien, in fact, the dictionary definition is: "a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization", or a "Foreigner", or "a person who has been edtranged or exluded". What this means, is that Aliens are always something invading from somewhere else, so for instance, [[Shroobs]] are aliens, because they invaded Earth, and the Mushroom Kingdom. However, [[Luma]] is ''not'' an alien, due to the fact that it is in it's designated "home", where it belongs to be. In fact, if we twisted the definition of "Alien", we could even say Sonic is an "Alien" to the Mario series. Alien does not necessarily mean outer space, but Extraterrestial does. By saying extraterrestrial, we are signifying that the species/characters can be either ally or enemy. Aliens, although not ''neccesarily'' enemies, show that they are somewhere where they ''do not'' belong, and thus are invading, or there without permission of some sort. So, the "Extraterrestial Characters and Species" template seems more appropriate. I hope that makes my point clear.
#{{User|H Poke}} - I agre with garlic man "Alien" is someone from a different place that doesn't neccesarily mean other plent like Cosmic Beings
#{{User|Arend}} I've seen that the Cosmic Species and characters template appears to have more links then the Aliens template. So, yeah...
#{{User|Purple Yoshi}} In proper Mario games, they never use the word Alien. Anyway, Cosmic Species is more...mario-ish.
#{{User|Phoenix Rider}} See below.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I've only included options for one or the other now, as we can't have two templates about the same thing. Another idea I had was to limit Cosmic Species to ''[[Super Paper Mario]]'' extraterrestrial enemies, as then we might be able to include variations of the species that are found in other dimensions, but I felt this would confuse the issue a bit too much. - {{User|Walkazo}}
I dunno. The sections are pretty poorly done, but part of ''Mario Party 8''{{'}}s brand of humor is having humorous endings to minigames so a header calling them out makes a certain kind of sense. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 15:28, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:Garlic Man: just because something is not native to a certain place '''doesn't''' mean they don't belong there. A Luma came to the Mushroom World, but it was born in space: it's not a native species, ergo, it is an [[Wikipedia:alien (biology)|alien]]. If you ''want'' to get into semantics, we can't even call these things [[Wikipedia: Extraterrestrial|Extraterrestrials]] because we're not talking about Earth we're talking about the Mushroom World.
:It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of [[Crops 'n' Robbers]] was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]] and [[Photo Finish]] from Mario Party 4; [[Merry Poppings]] and [[Head Waiter]] from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like [[Picture Perfect (minigame)]] or [[Flip the Chimp]]. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:Arend: the only reason Cosmic Species has more links was because Garlic Man added them, after reverting my edit on "Aliens" that bolstered ''its'' link count, I decided to come here instead of retaliate on my own.
:Anyway, I stand by my assertuion that writing "Alien" is easier than "Cosmic Species", though I've designed a new template (see the last line I added to the Proposal) compromising between the two sets of terminology. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::Oh, no, Luma was NOT in the Mushroom kingdom, except at the very end of the story, if my memory is correct. '''Mario''' was the one who went to outer space to chase Bowser and Peach, and met the Lumas. The Lumas never actually went anywhere besides the observatory. Mario was the "alien" in this case. Also, saying that "Writing Alien is easier" is a lame reason, and has nothing to do with the proposal itself. {{User|Garlic Man}}
:::And at the very beginning; but the point is, Lumas ''were'' on the Mushroom World, and that means they can be labeled as "aliens". This is why I suggested the compromise-template - so people won't get bent out of shape over the words. For example, [[Template:Fire]] included things that aren't actually fire, yet the name is used because it is descriptive and simple. If you want to add a template about "extraterrestrials", you'd try trying in <nowiki>{{Extraterrestrials}} or {{Aliens}} long before {{Cosmic Species}}</nowiki> comes to mind. Yes, I know you can always seek out a different article that has the template to find out the proper code, but people are lazy, and they get side-tracked (myself included). "[[Alien]]" seems like a more natural title for these creatures. -  {{User|Walkazo}}
::::Actually, the Cosmic species template was originally made for creatures like Cosmic Bullet Bills, Cosmic Goombas, Cosmic Bloopers, Cosmic Toads, Cosmic Tox Boxes, most of which later got merged into their respective articles. So, it became a template for any kind of species found in outer space, whether alien or non-alien, covering a wider variety of species. {{User|Garlic Man}}
 
like i said in my vote aliens can refer to anything not from the same place as such [[Beanish]] are aliens to [[Toad(species)|Toads]] {{User|Hemu}}
:Exactly. The Beanbean Kingdom and the Mushroom Kingdom were two different places; When cackletta sneaked into Peach's castle, she was an "alien"; but, not from outer space. {{User|Garlic Man}}
::Garlic Man: your template is not called, "Extraterrestrials" - it's called "Cosmic Species." So why were you arguing that extraterrestrials is better than alien if your template is called "Cosmic Species"? I'd be supporting you if you were using extraterrestrials.  As to the word cosmic: "–adjective 1. of or pertaining to the cosmos: cosmic laws. 
::2. characteristic of the cosmos or its phenomena: cosmic events. 
::3. immeasurably extended in time and space; vast. 
::4. forming a part of the material universe, esp. outside of the earth." As you can see, cosmic has four definitions, where as extraterrestrial is,
::"–adjective 1. outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth. 
::–noun 2. an extraterrestrial being: a science fiction novel about extraterrestrials conquering the earth." In other words, extraterrestrial is much closer to what you are thinking of, especially if we use, "Extraterrestrial'''s'''," because that is always a noun, and that always means "an extraterrestrical being"
::To the user that said aliens are not mentioned in a proper Mario game, you're wrong, but it doesn't matter: it appeared in an official Nitnendo published title (actually, all throughout the Mario Party series) and therefore should be considered official, canon, or what have you.
::I'm fine with using an unofficial term, but just make sure that it actually applies to the subject at hand. {{User|Stumpers}}
 
So is this a proposal about which template we should use or what we should call the template? {{User|Pikax}}
:What we should call it.  All subjects of the "alien" and "cosmic species" templates will be merged to the chosen template. {{User|Stumpers}} 12:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
::I've actually made an [[User:Walkazo/Templates|improved template]] (the link's up in the proposal too) with more species, higher organization and clearer terminology that I will put in place of whichever template is chosen. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:::Just a small note, Walkazo, about your template, the Cosmic Tox Box enemy is no longer called that. ;) {{User|InfectedShroom}}
 
I think the main thing that's got everyone so hung up is that the Cosmic Species template's header doesn't match. It does make it abundantly clear that we are referring to creatures from space. Whether it's official or not has no bearing on the outcome. It's about clarity. {{User|Phoenix Rider}}
:Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. And saying that "Alien is a shorter word to type" seems more like an excuse than a reason; the cosmic species template, while the name is longer, is still more accurate as to what it has on the template. Everything on the Cosmic species template are "cosmic species", while not everything on the "Alien" template are not "aliens". {{User|Garlic Man}}
 
===Mario Super Sluggers Cutscenes===
Currently, we have an article entitled [[Challenge Mode Cutscenes (Mario Super Sluggers)]]. So my question is; is this article really needed? I mean all it is is the story of [[Mario Super Sluggers|MSS]] in it's own article. It really doesn't have a point. Shouldn't it just be included in the main article? And having this page gives me a feeling that we need an article about cutscenes in [[Super Mario Galaxy]], or [[Super Mario Sunshine]]. (Note how on those pages the cutscenes are merged nicely with the Story/Plot sections.)


Proposer: {{user|Luigi001}}
===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.


Deadline: August 28, 2008, 17:00
If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.


====Merge into main article====
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
#{{user|Luigi001}} Per myself (above and below.)
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.<br>The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.</blockquote>
#{{User|Palkia47}} Per 001. I don't think it would make it long; I mean, just look at the [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]] article, it has info on just about every cutscene in the Subspace Emissary, and that article would be way longer even if the cutscenes for MSS were added to the article.
#{{User|Moonshine}} Per my comment below. As said below, if we merge it, we should shorten it significantly.


====Keep Article====
In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: '''fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion.''' The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at [[Stretch_Shroom#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - It would be way too big with it merged.
#{{User|Arend}} - The MSS Page has enough info. Also, the cutscene article of MSS is detailed with everything what happens, for just '''4''' Cutscenes! And the article is already long enough to deserve a standard place on this Wiki. Other cutscenes, like SMG and SSBB aren't detailed, because there are many, many cutscenes of those games, and are long either.
#{{user|tanokkitails}}-Getting rid off them would take a while and if we merge it with anything else ''that'' article would be much longer so keeping it makes the most sense.


====Comments====
I noticed that some users prefer to '''instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced'''. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.
That's not entirely true Infected Shroom. Notice how on the SMG page there is a nice little paragraph about each cutscene. It doesn't have all that who is involved or the picture galleries. I mean, do we really need those? All we need are little paragraphs on the cutcenes, not an entire article. If we have the article, we may as well make one for every game with cutscenes. {{user|Luigi001}}
:Yeah, it is true. First off, the SMS article doesn't have a giant table with all the characters on it. Also, the "Story" in Sluggers is supposed to be unlike the story of any other sports game. And no, technically we don't need them. It just makes for a better experience when reading the page. {{User|InfectedShroom}}
All in all, I think that the Cutscenes page is essentially just the story of MSS, which the MSS page is missing. The story, especially in this case, is far more important that what's on the MSS page now. Why do we have an in depth explanation of Toy Field but no story? The page really needs to get it's priorities in order. It's not hard to cut down the cutscenes page. Simply merge it with the MSS page, give it it's own section entitled "story" and it's done. There's no need for each scene to have an infobox, and there's no need for 10 pics per scene either. You could put like 1 or 2 pics in the section, and get rid of the rest. Also, most of the info is unneeded and over-descriptive. We don't need to put 'who Mario threw the ball too in the intro' and things like that. If we do this then the MSS page won't be THAT long. But if we were to merge it the way it is now, I agree that it would be too long. {{User|Moonshine}}


OK, to the opposers: '''IT'S AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE STORY OF A GAME!''' We may as well call it: Story (Mario Super Sluggers). And who really cares if it make the article too long? No one's complaining about the length of the [[SSBB]] or [[Mario]] articles! I mean seriously! Even if we put every last bit of information from the article in the MSS article, it would barely be half the size of either of the two mentioned articles! And what's so bad about taking long? There's no time limit to how long an approved proposal must take to complete it! All you have to do is copy & paste, then edit it to fit in the MSS article! Do you get my point, opposers? {{user|Luigi001}}
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:
:Yes, I do get your point. However, if I had total control over this wiki, I would split up the Mario and SSBB pages myself. And actually, you'd probably copy it, find a spot for it, and ''then'' paste it. 'Least, it's what I'd do. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


==Changes==
<references/>
===Princess?===
Currently, [[Rosalina]]'s page is just called ''Rosalina'' because she is never called a princess in the games.
But I found official proof. This is the first part of Rosalina's bio in [[Super Mario Galaxy]]. The whole bio can be found at the end of Rosalina's page.


''Not much is known about Rosalina, the lonely '''princess''' who wanders the cosmos in the Comet Observatory, a giant starship that travels the celestial expanse.''  
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Now we found proof, I think we can move the page. But before doing anything, users must agree with this. What shall we do?
====Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Arend}}<br>
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
'''Deadline''': August 28th, 2008, 17:00
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.


====Change to ''Princess Rosalina''====
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
#{{User|Arend}} Super Mario Galaxy has spoken.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Tucayo}} Per Arend,and because she wears a crown
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
#{{user|King Mario}}- Per Mr.Arend
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
#{{user|YoshiAndMe10}} if shes a princess than call her princess rosalina pretty simple.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{user|Dry Funky}} I agree with all above.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
#{{user|Mr. Br Mario}} I agree with that. After all, he's using canonical information. Canonical information is the most precious information that could belong to Super Mario Wiki. So, let's do this!
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
#{{user|BeeBop!}} I agree with all above. As per (Princess) Rosalina's bio, she is known as a 'Princess' in [[Super Mario Galaxy]]
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Club Nintendo Classic SMB2 01.png|70px]]  Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
#{{user|KingYoshi64}} Dat is a good idea
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.


====Keep ''Rosalina''====
====Don't make a standard====
#{{User|Master Lucario}} Wearing a crown means nothing. I get a crown in my Burger King Kid's Meal. Am I a king? No. She's not royalty of any sort. I oppose this proposal.
#{{User|Garlic Man}} -- Whoa, whoa, wait up, here. Just because it says she IS a princess, the game never calls her by the title "Princess Rosalina". It calls her Rosalina. You know how Bowser is not [[King Bowser]]? Yeah, because he's Bowser. Nowhere is Rosalina ever fully called "Princess Rosalina". I oppose. (obviously)
#{{User|YellowYoshi398}} - Per Garlic. Plus, even if we did discover an official mention of "Princess Rosalina," just plain Rosalina would outweigh it because it is used more often.
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Garlic Man. Just because she ''is'' something doesn't mean the article should be called that.
#{{User|Booster}} -- Per Garlic Man.
#{{User|Palkia47}} - Per Garlic and AgentCH (below). If its not seen in the game or manual, then it probably had to be from a guide. We don't exactly allow information from guides (ie. seen in the MKWii Guide as Peach and Daisy are cousins).
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Garlic Man. There are no citations anywhere on that page to prove that she is '''in fact''' a princess. If Nintendo has given no proof, then it is clearly speculation.
#{{user|LinkTheLefty}} - It's probably a translation error. If anyone remembers the travesty that is Sonic 2006, Blaze was called a Queen in that game's profile, yet she's supposed to be a princess. It could be a one-time thing. That, and the fact that Rosalina was a princess in concept development before ties with Peach were broken off. I think we should, however, mention it in the article... Provided it's from a tangible source (second or third party sources shouldn't make a difference).
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{user|Moonshine}} - Per all. Another example being Mario. We all know he's a plumber, but we don't call him "Mario the Plumber" in the title.
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per all. "Princess" is not her official title.
#{{user|MC Hammer Bro.}}- per all and see comment.
#{{User|Pikax}} - Per Garlic. We don't call [[Baby Daisy]] and [[Baby Peach]] "Baby Princess Daisy" and "Baby Princess Peach" because they're not given such titles in the games they appear in.
#{{User|Bob-omb buddy}}Per all. princess dosen't have to mean royalty. It can be discription, not a title.
#{{User|Dom}} Per all, including Master Lucario's LOL comment, and in particular Garlic Man's comment.
#{{user|AgentCH}} - Per Garlic and my own reason below.
#{{user|Yoshikart}}- I have no proof.
#{{User|Myles}} - Per Garlic Man and Pikax. I'd also like to add that we don't call Mario: Mario Mario, or Luigi: Luigi Mario. We call them what they are usually called. It should however be noted that she is a princess.
#{{user|Super Fuelbot}} - Per Garlic Man.


====Comments====
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
I'm leaning toward opposing, since "Princess Rosalina" is not her official title. But I'd like to hear a few more opinions, considering she ''is'' a princess. {{user|InfectedShroom}}
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production here], they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:I have placed a part of Rosalina's '''Official''' bio in the proposal. She is called a princess in the bio. {{User|Arend}}
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|other non-numeric parts of a source}} that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::Just where is this official bio from? As has been said before, it's not said in-game that she's a princess, and I just checked the manual and it doesn't say anything either. Is this from a guide? A ''Prima'' guide, perhaps? {{user|AgentCH}}
::Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)
Wow, after I placed my oppose, there was a rush of opposes following mine... I feel Special. :P  Anyway, I do also agree with AgentCH, because if it's not in-game or in-manual, then it's probably not our most reliable source. We may as well move [[Mario]] to {{fakelink|Plumber Mario}} (hey, a red link!). {{User|Garlic Man}}


The term '''princess''' could be just a "nick name" and not a true title. The "princess that wonders the stars" ''Princess'' could be saying that she is a legondary person. Or maybe just because she is beautiful (I never said that. I've just heard people say she is ;) ). I think that it is just a play on words. {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}}
==Miscellaneous==
:Oh, then should [[Princess Peach]] move to Peach, and [[Princess Daisy]] to Daisy. {{user|Arend}}
''None at the moment.''
::No, because (from what I know) they are both referred to as "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy", respectively, in the games. Rosalina is never referred to as "Princess Rosalina". {{User|Time Q}}

Latest revision as of 12:15, February 25, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, February 26th, 18:13 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Split the SMRPG Chain Chomp from Chain Chomp, Kirby the Formling (ended February 22, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

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

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

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

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

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4755790"