MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
==New features==
===Introduce a new type of proposal===
While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|this proposal]], which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 this old proposal attempt] for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?
My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named '''poll proposals'''.
*Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.
*Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
**Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
*Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
*Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
*Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.
This allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B".


==Writing guidelines==
I've written down a [[User:EvieMaybe/Poll proposal|mockup poll proposal]] for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".
===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?
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Neat idea, per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Waluigi Time.
 
====Oppose====


A few concerns we've seen, both from others and from us, in no particular order;
====Comments on proposal proposal====
* 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.
Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a ''lot'' more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of <nowiki>{{For}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Against}}</nowiki> templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use <nowiki>{{User}}</nowiki> to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)
* 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.)
:That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
* 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!
::Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need ''something'' to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)


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.
I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into [[Category_talk:Music#Proposal:_Reorganize_this_category|three]] [[Category_talk:Musical_groups#Change_into_a_category_for_musical_groups|separate]] [[Category_talk:Sound_tests#Rename_to_.22Sound_tests.22|ones]] myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave], but I can't really envision what [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|your other example]] would look like as a poll proposal. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for [[List of references in the Super Mario franchise]], and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for [[Dotted-Line Block]], options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from ''SMBW''", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)


"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.
==Removals==
* 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.)
''None at the moment.''
* 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).


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.
==Changes==
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.
'''Deadline''': October 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Make all proposals last for 2 weeks====
This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."
#{{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.
#{{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.
#{{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.
#{{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.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time. Compared to shortening all proposals, I feel like this is the better option if we are wanting to make all proposals the same length, as I would prefer not to cut discussion time on all proposals just because some of them might not need extra time to reach a consensus.  


====Make all proposals last for 1 week====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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


====Do nothing====
====Oppose====
#{{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|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|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|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Secondary choice. The inconsistency isn't that bad and I prefer that to all proposals being shortened.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Second choice.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|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|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} This is my second choice, as I would prefer to keep the current method over shortening all proposals. However, if this option were to win, I think it might make sense to discuss clarifying what qualifies as a writing guidelines proposal and the purpose for its length inconsistency.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Green Star.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} per Green Star.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments====
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)
{{@|Nintendo101}} Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)
: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)
:I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::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)
::{{@|Nintendo101}} The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, '''not''' others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::::I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::::My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a '''lot'''. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you ''are'' allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, ''you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings''. So why is it so much more locked-down here? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::"''I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?''"
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from ''removing'' it if they should so choose. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is ''still there'', even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)


@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)
I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)


@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)
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)


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


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.
{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed?  [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)


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.
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
*[[List of implied species]]
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
*[[Soybean civilization]]
*[[Hooroglyphs]]


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)
Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue [[Hoohooros]], but also [[Hooroglyphs]] and [[Beanstone]]s. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in ''March 2007'', actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.
: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 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)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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)
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
:I think we should not modify the deadline of ongoing proposals if this proposal passes. Since the deadline is set when a proposal is created, extending it afterwards for an already existing proposal would feel like a retroactive change. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 11:30, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].


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)
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can ''see'' the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.


===Clarify coverage of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series===
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====
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).


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.
====Merge none (do nothing)====


'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====
'''Deadline''': October 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support - clarify it like this====
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
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'']].
#{{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.
#{{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|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|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.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal.


====Oppose - don't clarify it like this====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{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|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.


====Comments - clarify the clarification?====
====Support====
<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)
#{{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.


{{@|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)
====Oppose====
: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)
#{{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.
::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)
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
:::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)
#{{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.
::::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)
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.


{{@|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)
====Comments====
: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)
@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)
::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)


@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)
===Split the image quality category===
'''Issue 1:''' [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]] is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. '''Issue 2:''' All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:
*'''Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
*'''Assets to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as [[:File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png]].
Additionally, [[Template:Image-quality]] will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.


{{@|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)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
: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.
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
: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)


:::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)
====Split both====
::::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)
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
::::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)
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
::::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:
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
::::A. Proper ''Mario'' crossovers on par with ''[[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games]]'' and ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]''? or
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
::::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
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
::::C. Neither or something in between?
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
::::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.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense
::::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)
:::::I'd say Smash should be something between a guest appearance and crossover. Smash is the biggest crossover ever, but to cover it as fully as Mario & Sonic, we'd be competing against Smash Wiki. But we can't treat Smash as a guest appearance because Mario is more overrepresented than Fire Emblem, and because Link's Awakening is not covered on [[Link]]'s page despite having a [[The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening|page]] for it. If we could merge with the DK Wiki, then maybe there could be some cross-wiki discussion to merge pages not relevant to Mario into Smash Wiki. Maybe we should get the {{iw|nwiki|NintendoWiki:CrossWiki Team|CrossWiki Team}} involved? I don't know how this works. I don't see the DK Wiki merge in the proposal archive. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 00:47, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I do not think this is the same situation because DK Wiki was consolidated with Super Mario Wiki due to low community activity, maintenance, and attention. (It should be noted that Super Mario Wiki was covering the ''Donkey Kong'' franchise concurrently at the time anyways, even for the many years when DK Wiki existed.) It was the Donkey Kong Wiki's admins that sought consolidation with us. Both Super Mario Wiki and Smash Wiki are in the good fortune of having dedicated communities, so there isn't exactly the same kind of pressure.
::::::At this point, I do not think there are any ''Smash Bros.'' articles on Super Mario Wiki that are not also already on Smash Wiki. In my view, what differentiates some of these articles is "tone" and how subjects are covered. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 01:13, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Well, of course there wouldn't be any ''Smash Bros.'' articles on Super Mario Wiki that isn't already on Smash Wiki. And there weren't any Donkey Kong Wiki pages that weren't already on Super Mario Wiki was there? What did we do in that merge, cut-and-paste text from DK Wiki into the Donkey Kong related pages here? I would want Smash Wiki on board so that they don't accuse us of plagiarism when merging like that. And if our tone is not compatible with theirs, or if their pages are better than ours, I wouldn't mind if we straight up delete content here. Admins can [[Special:Undelete|undelete]] them if we ever need them later. I definitely do not want this proposal to undo the Pokémon proposal. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 15:06, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Where did this whole idea of us "competing" with SmashWiki come from anyway? Even besides the fact we don't have to base what we do on other wikis, the two wikis here have vastly different coverage from one another despite some overlap (SmashWiki has a lot of separate pages that this wiki no longer does, coverage on the fanbase and players, etc., while this wiki covers the whole Mario franchise, obviously). This isn't like Donkey Kong Wiki, where the entirety of its scope was also covered by this wiki. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:51, October 7, 2024 (EDT)


==New features==
====Only split screenshots====
''None at the moment.''
 
====Only split assets====
 
====Leave image quality alone====
 
====Comments on image quality proposal====
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
<gallery>
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)


==Removals==
===Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'', ''[[Donkey Kong Jr. (game)|Donkey Kong Jr.]]'' and ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]''===
''None at the moment.''
I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games ''Donkey Kong'', ''Donkey Kong Jr.'' and ''Mario Bros''. There's already a [[Donkey Kong (Game & Watch)|Game]] [[Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch)|and]] [[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|Watch]] game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "''Donkey Kong''" is the name of various other games too! There's [[Donkey Kong (tabletop arcade game)|the tabletop game]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|the Game Boy game]], [[Donkey Kong (Nelsonic Game Watch)|the Nelsonic Game Watch game]] and [[Donkey Kong (slot machine)|the slot machine]]. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for ''Donkey Kong''. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Nintendo DS)]].


==Changes==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
===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.


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''.
====Support====
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.


The following pages will be affected:
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.


{| class="wikitable"
====Comments====
! Current name
Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)
! 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)}}
|}


Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to use the shorter disambiguation identifier with ONLY the subtitle for the ''Yoshi's Island'' pages.
What about [[Dr. Mario (game)|''Dr. Mario'']]? That game also has a [[Dr. Mario (Gamewatch Boy)|separate release also called ''Dr. Mario'']].--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)
::The reason why the games ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Dr. Mario'' should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from ''Donkey Kong'' on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "''Dr. Mario'' (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
===Standardize what counts as "English", "English (United States)"/"American English" and/or "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" localization(s)===
'''Deadline''': October 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
A proposal like this has been long overdue, in my humble opinion. For a while now, I've especially thought that the way this wiki distinguishes between "English (United States)"/"American English" and "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" localizations has been very arbitrary, to say the least.


====Support (''Yoshi's Island'')====
Primarily because strictly speaking, the only times Nintendo has ''truly'' done significantly different localizations for the United States and United Kingdom (or "American English" and "British English") are for select DS and Wii titles (mostly the latter system's though, and it didn't become commonplace until around late 2007/early 2008, [[List of controversies#Mario Party 8|coinciding with the fallout over the use of a certain word in the initial American English localization of]] ''[[Mario Party 8]]'' [[List of controversies#Mario Party 8|that caused an issue when it was initially brought over to the UK as-is]]) as well as most 3DS and Wii U titles (with some exceptions mainly late in the Wii U's life, most notably ''[[Paper Mario: Color Splash]]'' which has identical American and "British" English scripts). This practice had largely stopped by the release of the region-free Nintendo Switch, with the exception of a couple late 3DS titles, along with ports of some (but not all) DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U games that already had separate English localizations for the United States (and the rest of the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and the rest of Europe along with Australia and the rest of Oceania).
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} 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|SolemnStormcloud}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#[[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.
#{{User|Altendo}} Per all.


====Oppose (''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'')====
But the main problem I see here is twofold: firstly, simple regional differences in the English text used between American and European releases are ''not'' necessarily related to the above practice and often can't simply be explained by the differences between "American English" and "British English" in the traditional sense; in the past Nintendo of Europe simply took the existing English localization by Nintendo of America for their version and just amended any errors or other perceived shortcomings they found. Sometimes they simply went in a different, often more literal direction localization-wise for some aspects, in particular for names, titles and other terminology; see [[Koopa Kid]] and his European name "Mini Bowser", or ''[[Yoshi Topsy-Turvy]]'' and its European (and Japanese) name ''Yoshi's Universal Gravitation''.
#{{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.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} It's funny seeing Hewer support a full name this time. And like my points against him about Fox, Sonic and Shadow, Yoshi's Island is pretty vague. But unlike those crossover characters where I'm worried about hypothetical confusion of newer readers, or new species articles in the case of Fox, ''I'' might actually think the identifier is referring to the island, not the game.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Clarifying.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Regardless of what Nintendo goes with, I'd rather it be shortened to ''Super Mario World 2'' or nothing at all. Yoshi's Island feels too broad as it's a series of games. Feels like changing the game identifier for every ''Donkey Kong Country''-specific article to just ''(Donkey Kong Country).'' Which one is it talking about? Won't know until you open the article.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} As a guy who [[Special:Contributions/83.156.220.80|became very active during the period in which i played SMW2YI a lot]], <s>so much so that i ended up registering under my current username</s>, i'd say only using "Yoshi's Island" would be counterproductive, because it would imply some enemies have made reappearances outside of the original game ([[Spiked Fun Guy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)|when it isn't necessarily the case for some]]). Per all.


====Comments====
That said, I don't know if it's really accurate to call such differences "British English", at least not in the traditional sense. (Something like "[the English script used in] the European/PAL version" would be more technically accurate, even if it's more wordy.) And even ''those'' practices are largely over now that simultaneous, region-free worldwide releases are the norm. But ''that'' said – and this is where the second part of the problem comes in – for the most part American and European/"British" English localizations are still stored separately in internal data (in folders like "USen" and "EUen" or "en-US" and "en-GB", the one being used depending on the system's region settings) despite being almost if not entirely identical (in many cases the only meaningful difference is which date format is used when applicable); I can confirm this is the case in many recent ''Mario'' games for the Nintendo Switch like ''[[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]'', ''[[Princess Peach: Showtime!]]'', ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'' and ''[[Mario & Luigi: Brothership]]''. So, despite the actual text being virtually identical and everything I've said, if they're classified like that in internal data, arguably it ''does'' make sense to use "English (United States)"/"American English" and "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" accordingly. I see three possible courses of action to address cases like this (well, along with just doing nothing), which is what the actual proposal is about. They are:
{{@|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)
#Treat American English localizations that are essentially identical in European and Australian releases with no specifically "British English" differences as a single American English localization, listed as "English (United States)" in infoboxes.
: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)
#Treat American English localizations essentially identical in Europe and Australia as simply "English" localizations, listed as such in infoboxes, with "American" only specified when addressing linguistic quirks like spelling if necessary.
#*This would match the in-game language settings in ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'', which stores its identical "USen" and "EUen" localizations separately in internal data, but only lists "English" as a selectable option in-game.
#Same as Option 2, but treat European/Australian or "British" English localizations as separate from their essentially identical (American) English counterparts ''if'' they are classified as such in internal data.
#*This would match the in-game language settings in ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'', which has both "English (US)" and "English (UK/Australia)" as selectable options for each of the games it contains. The respective scripts for each are also stored separately in internal data and contain some minor differences, but such differences are not a matter of "American English" compared to "British English" in the traditional sense (the games are largely written in American English regardless), but simply account for the aforementioned unrelated NoE amendments common at the time.


What makes this different from the prior proposals is that, officially speaking, there is no game titled "Yoshi's Island" in full; we commonly refer ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'' as such, but unlike with SMRPG or the DKC games, this isn't the full title of the game or any of its rereleases. It'd be kinda like calling ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga'' JUST "Mario & Luigi", you know? {{User:Arend/sig}} 03:44, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
:SNES Classic lists it as "Yoshi's Island." Which got me confused when I was looking for it in the game list since that changes where it goes alphabetically... [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:33, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT


@SeanWheeler: If you think me supporting full names is funny, you'll love [[Talk:The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens#Move to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before it Happens (take two)|this proposal]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:11, October 7, 2024 (EDT)
====Option 1: Treat largely identical American English localizations as "American English", list them only as "English (United States)"====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.


{{@|Axii|ThePowerPlayer|Shy Guy on Wheels|Shadow2|SeanWheeler|Sdman213|TheFlameChomp|Nintendo101|OmegaRuby|FanOfYoshi}} I respectfully disagree. The term "''Super Mario World 2''" disambiguation identifier is obviously confusing, so I think you should take a look at my comment from above. Anyway, {{@|Hewer}}, I think I know why there's a possibility to use the "''Yoshi's Island''" disambiguation identifier for ''Yoshi's Island'' pages, even if it is confusing. Because it will match similarly to the ''Super Mario RPG'', ''Donkey Kong Country 2'', and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' disambiguation identifiers. {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 10:33, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
====Option 2: Treat largely identical American English localizations as simply "English" and list them as such====
:Confusing? No? And even if it was, it doesn't stop it from being an official name, anyway! --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 10:38, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.
::I don't know of any time just "Super Mario World 2" on its own was officially used to refer to the game. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:01, October 8, 2024 (EDT)
:I already explained how this case is different from those other three in my vote. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:01, October 8, 2024 (EDT)


===Separate character content for transformations in the Gallery===
====Option 3: List largely identical American English localizations as both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if separated in internal data, otherwise default to Option 2====
The characters are all mixed up in the transformation gallery; [[Gallery:Fire Mario]]. Besides Mario, there are times when have to dig deep to find transformations for specific characters. Also, the transformations for characters other than Mario haven't been written enough. As the number of transforming characters other than Mario is increasing, I think the gallery is necessary to separate them.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it ''could'' make sense to follow suit...
<pre>
==Artwork==
===Video games===
(Listing multiple characters)
====Fire Mario====
(Listing focused character)
====Fire Luigi====
====Fire Yellow Toad====
====Fire Blue Toad====
==Sprites and models==
====Fire Mario====
====Fire Luigi====
====Fire Yellow Toad====
====Fire Blue Toad====
====Fire Toadette====
...
====Fire Mini====
==Screenshots==
====Fire Mario====
====Fire Luigi====
====Fire Yellow Toad====
====Fire Blue Toad====
==Merchandise==
====Fire Mario====
====Fire Luigi====
====Fire Yellow Toad====
====Fire Blue Toad====
</pre>


'''Proposer''': {{User|Windy}}<br>
====Option 4: Do nothing====
'''Deadline''': October 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Oppose====
====Comments====
====Comments====
For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)


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

Latest revision as of 22:19, February 8, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, February 9th, 09:24 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)
Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork, Scrooge200 (ended January 5, 2025)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 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 the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Introduce a new type of proposal

While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as this proposal, which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see this old proposal attempt for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?

My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named poll proposals.

  • Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.
  • Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
    • Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
  • Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
  • Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
  • Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.

This allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B".

I've written down a mockup poll proposal for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
  3. PopitTart (talk) For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
  4. Rykitu (talk) Neat idea, per all.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Waluigi Time.

Oppose

Comments on proposal proposal

Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a lot more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of {{For}} and {{Against}} templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use {{User}} to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)

That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --PopitTart (talk) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need something to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)

I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into three separate ones myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave, but I can't really envision what your other example would look like as a poll proposal. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)

well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for List of references in the Super Mario franchise, and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for Dotted-Line Block, options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from SMBW", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --PopitTart (talk) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

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

Oppose

  1. Ray Trace (talk) This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
  3. Sparks (talk) Friend requests are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
  5. Technetium (talk) No one even does friend requests nowadays.
  6. Mario (talk) Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it must be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
  7. Tails777 (talk) I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
  8. Mushroom Head (talk) It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
  9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
  10. Arend (talk) On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
  11. MCD (talk) This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you really don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
  12. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  13. Green Star (talk) Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
  14. Rykitu (talk) Per Green Star.
  15. Cadrega86 (talk) per Green Star.

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

Comments

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

I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — Nintendo101 (talk) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
@Nintendo101 The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, not others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. Technetium (talk) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Technetium (talk) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)

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

I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
"I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?"
It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from removing it if they should so choose. Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is still there, even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." Shadow2 (talk) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)

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

No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Super Mario RPG receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." Shadow2 (talk) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I believe users should have some fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Shadow2 What are some specific examples? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Examples of what? Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they don't want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. Shadow2 (talk) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)

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

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

Toadlose.gif Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do not fall under "unimportant fluff". Shadow2 (talk) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Shadow2 have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they don't want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. Shadow2 (talk) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? Shadow2 (talk) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Shadow2 (talk) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The glyphs are actually seen, though.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can see the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

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

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.

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.

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)

Split the image quality category

Issue 1: Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. Issue 2: All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:

  • Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
  • Assets to be uploaded with higher quality - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png.

Additionally, Template:Image-quality will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split both

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) makes perfect sense

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:

  • Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

  • Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)

Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality. Something similar should also be done for the Articles with unsourced foreign names category. Apikachu68 (talk) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)

Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros.

I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros. There's already a Game and Watch game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "Donkey Kong" is the name of various other games too! There's the tabletop game, the Game Boy game, the Nelsonic Game Watch game and the slot machine. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for Donkey Kong. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii) and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS).

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.

Comments

Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? PaperSplash (talk) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)

What about Dr. Mario? That game also has a separate release also called Dr. Mario.--PopitTart (talk) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)

The reason why the games Donkey Kong and Dr. Mario should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from Donkey Kong on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "Dr. Mario (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)

Standardize what counts as "English", "English (United States)"/"American English" and/or "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" localization(s)

A proposal like this has been long overdue, in my humble opinion. For a while now, I've especially thought that the way this wiki distinguishes between "English (United States)"/"American English" and "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" localizations has been very arbitrary, to say the least.

Primarily because strictly speaking, the only times Nintendo has truly done significantly different localizations for the United States and United Kingdom (or "American English" and "British English") are for select DS and Wii titles (mostly the latter system's though, and it didn't become commonplace until around late 2007/early 2008, coinciding with the fallout over the use of a certain word in the initial American English localization of Mario Party 8 that caused an issue when it was initially brought over to the UK as-is) as well as most 3DS and Wii U titles (with some exceptions mainly late in the Wii U's life, most notably Paper Mario: Color Splash which has identical American and "British" English scripts). This practice had largely stopped by the release of the region-free Nintendo Switch, with the exception of a couple late 3DS titles, along with ports of some (but not all) DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U games that already had separate English localizations for the United States (and the rest of the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and the rest of Europe along with Australia and the rest of Oceania).

But the main problem I see here is twofold: firstly, simple regional differences in the English text used between American and European releases are not necessarily related to the above practice and often can't simply be explained by the differences between "American English" and "British English" in the traditional sense; in the past Nintendo of Europe simply took the existing English localization by Nintendo of America for their version and just amended any errors or other perceived shortcomings they found. Sometimes they simply went in a different, often more literal direction localization-wise for some aspects, in particular for names, titles and other terminology; see Koopa Kid and his European name "Mini Bowser", or Yoshi Topsy-Turvy and its European (and Japanese) name Yoshi's Universal Gravitation.

That said, I don't know if it's really accurate to call such differences "British English", at least not in the traditional sense. (Something like "[the English script used in] the European/PAL version" would be more technically accurate, even if it's more wordy.) And even those practices are largely over now that simultaneous, region-free worldwide releases are the norm. But that said – and this is where the second part of the problem comes in – for the most part American and European/"British" English localizations are still stored separately in internal data (in folders like "USen" and "EUen" or "en-US" and "en-GB", the one being used depending on the system's region settings) despite being almost if not entirely identical (in many cases the only meaningful difference is which date format is used when applicable); I can confirm this is the case in many recent Mario games for the Nintendo Switch like Super Mario RPG, Princess Peach: Showtime!, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and Mario & Luigi: Brothership. So, despite the actual text being virtually identical and everything I've said, if they're classified like that in internal data, arguably it does make sense to use "English (United States)"/"American English" and "English (United Kingdom)"/"British English" accordingly. I see three possible courses of action to address cases like this (well, along with just doing nothing), which is what the actual proposal is about. They are:

  1. Treat American English localizations that are essentially identical in European and Australian releases with no specifically "British English" differences as a single American English localization, listed as "English (United States)" in infoboxes.
  2. Treat American English localizations essentially identical in Europe and Australia as simply "English" localizations, listed as such in infoboxes, with "American" only specified when addressing linguistic quirks like spelling if necessary.
    • This would match the in-game language settings in Super Mario Odyssey, which stores its identical "USen" and "EUen" localizations separately in internal data, but only lists "English" as a selectable option in-game.
  3. Same as Option 2, but treat European/Australian or "British" English localizations as separate from their essentially identical (American) English counterparts if they are classified as such in internal data.
    • This would match the in-game language settings in Super Mario 3D All-Stars, which has both "English (US)" and "English (UK/Australia)" as selectable options for each of the games it contains. The respective scripts for each are also stored separately in internal data and contain some minor differences, but such differences are not a matter of "American English" compared to "British English" in the traditional sense (the games are largely written in American English regardless), but simply account for the aforementioned unrelated NoE amendments common at the time.

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

Option 1: Treat largely identical American English localizations as "American English", list them only as "English (United States)"

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.

Option 2: Treat largely identical American English localizations as simply "English" and list them as such

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.

Option 3: List largely identical American English localizations as both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if separated in internal data, otherwise default to Option 2

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it could make sense to follow suit...

Option 4: Do nothing

Comments

For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4726047"