MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

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


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Consider Super Smash Bros. series titles for recurring themes low-priority===
===Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style===
Something I noticed late yesterday was that the page for "Flower Fields BGM" from Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (Or just Yoshi's Island from now on for simplicity) is still titled [[Yoshi's Island (theme)]], even after Nintendo Music dropped, and then I realised that some other song titles (Most notably [[Obstacle Course]], also from Yoshi's Island) just don't make a lot of sense. Then I feel it's important to note that even though this is a Mario Wiki (What?!?!?!? Huh!?!?!?) we should also take a look at the Super Smash Bros. titles for themes from other series, with the biggest example I can think of being "Meta Knight's Revenge" from Kirby Super Star, which is actually an incorrectly titled medley of the songs "Boarding the Halberd" and "Havoc Aboard the Halberd". It's also good to look at songs Super Smash Bros. is using a different title for than us, like how it uses the Japanese titles of the Donkey Kong Country OST instead of the correct ones. Between all these facts it should be obvious the track titles in Super Smash Bros. are not something the localisation team puts a whole lot of thought or effort into (Though the original Japanese dev team also mess these up sometimes).
The passing of this proposal would include the in-game [[mission]]s and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from ''Super Mario Sunshine'', objectives from ''Super Mario Odyssey'', etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Italicizing titles|Manual of Style]].
Going back to the original point that gave me this realisation, "Yoshi's Island" is a very nondescript track title for a random stage theme which most people would look for by searching for something like "Flower Stage" or possibly even "Ground theme" (Even though that would lead to another song but still), this is especially considering the title screen theme from the game is ALSO called Yoshi's Island, and that's not even considering the Yoshi's Island world map theme from Super Mario World, which I don't know if it even has an official title (Yet, it is coming to Nintendo Music eventually) but I would bet that's ALSO YOSHI'S ISLAND.
So I am suggesting to just make Smash Bros. a VERY low-priority source for this specific small aspect of the Wiki to avoid confusion and potentially future misinformation if things go too far.


'''Proposer''': {{User|biggestman}}<br>
In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html well-established practice]. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Do not surround song titles with quotes|proposal]] that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:
'''Deadline''': November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
<blockquote>The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''The Color of Water''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''Resident Alien''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
</blockquote>
I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.


====Support====
I would like us to explicitly include [[mission]]s as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that [[Here Come the Hoppos]] is a level, whereas "[[Footrace with Koopa the Quick]]" is a scenario ''within'' a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.
#{{User|biggestman}} Did you know there's a theme titled "Per this proposal" in Super Wiki Bros. Ultimate but the original title is simply "Per Proposal"? INSANE! (Per proposal)
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - the theme names given in ''Smash'' (particularly ''Brawl'' and previous) are more just general descriptions of the contexts they play in rather than actual names. Hence why [[DK Island Swing]] became "Jungle Level."
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per Doc and proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. To me this feels like making a non-Mario game determine the name of a Mario-article.


====Oppose====
As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.
#{{User|Hewer}} The names are from an official source whether we like them or not. Not only that, they come from within the games themselves, putting them at the top of the naming priority list. Tracks that have gone by different names more recently can use those, but those inconsistencies shouldn't invalidate the whole source. We also accept "inconsistent" names from Smash for other subjects, e.g. [[Propeller Piranha]], so it would be odd to single out music. (Also, I'd argue "Meta Knight's Revenge" isn't incorrect, but is the name of the medley rather than of either individual song. On the topic of Kirby music, I'm pretty sure "A Battle of Friends and Bonds 2" from Kirby Star Allies was first called that in Smash before the name appeared in other sources, which would suggest Smash's names aren't all bad.)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} The names used in the Super Smash Bros. series are from first-party games, are specific localizations of ''Super Mario'' specific material, and are localized by Nintendo of America. In my view, that is all that matters for citations, especially given most of these music tracks have not been officially localized into English through other channels. I similarly would not support a proposal to discredit the names for music tracks used in games like ''Mario & Sonic''. However, I do think this proposal is in the ballpark of a reality, which is that melodies that sometimes incorporate multiple compositions (like "Meta Knight's Revenge") and specific arrangements sometimes are given unique names. (This is not unique to the Smash Bros. series — a cursory view of the [https://vgmdb.net/ Video Game Music Database] or of officially published sheet music reveals Nintendo is often inconsistent with these names in the West.) In some installments, what is given a unique name for a particular arrangement (like "Princess Peach's Castle" from ''Melee'' and labeled as such in ''Super Smash Bros. for Wii U'') is attributed to just one piece in a subsequent game (in ''Ultimate'', this piece is named "Ground Theme" despite interlacing the "Underground BGM" in the piece as well, so while more simplistic for the Music List it is not wholly accurate, and I do not think "Ground BGM" should be called "Princess Peach's Castle" in any context other than this ''Melee'' piece). So I think it is worth scrutinizing how we name pieces that are "misattributed." However, I do not support a blanket downground of first-party Nintendo games just because we do not like some of the names.
#{{User|Salmancer}} If I recall from Miiverse correctly, the reason many songs are not given official public names is that naming songs does require spending very valuable developmental bandwidth, something that not all projects have to spare. (Sometimes, certain major songs have names because of how important they are, while other songs don't.) Given this, I am okay with Smash Bros. essentially forcing names for songs out early because it's interface requires named songs. Names don't have to be good to be official. My line is "we all agree this uniquely identifies this subject and is official".
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} See my comment below.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Waluigi Time
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per Nintendo101 & Waluigi Time. Some scrutiny is warranted, but let's not entirely discredit Smash Bros--a series of games published and sometimes developed in first-party capacity--as a source of information.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} These are still the most recent official names. Let's not unnecessarily overcomplicate things.


====Comments====
For clarification, <u>this proposal does not impact the names of actual ''levels''</u>, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.
I'm not sure if this is a necessary proposal, or what it's going to accomplish in practice that isn't already handled with current organization and policy. As far as I'm aware, the ''Yoshi's Island'' examples here are just the result of no editor taking the initiative to move those pages to the new titles yet. The Nintendo Music names are the most recent and I think also fall under tier 1 of source priority, technically, so the pages should have those names, end of story. We don't need a proposal to do that.


Additionally, "Yoshi's Island" and "Obstacle Course" do ''not'' refer to the original themes from ''Yoshi's Island'' - they're the names of specific arrangements of those themes from the ''Smash'' games. Maybe it's not cemented into policy, but our current approach for theme articles is to use a title referring to the original theme when available. Take "[[Inside the Castle Walls]]", for instance. There's been several different names given to arrangements of this track over the years, including "Peach's Castle", "A Bit of Peace and Quiet", and most recently in the remake of ''Thousand-Year Door'', "A Letter from Princess Peach", but we haven't and most likely aren't going to move the page to any of those. (And that doesn't mean any of those games got it wrong for not calling it "Inside the Castle Walls". It's perfectly valid to give a different name to a new arrangement.)
I offer two options:


Basically, I don't think this would be beneficial and could potentially cause headaches down the road. I can't think of any actual examples where we're stuck with a "worse" name from ''Smash'' based on everything else I've said here, especially with Nintendo Music being a new and growing resource for track titles in the context of the original games. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 14:17, November 4, 2024 (EST)
#'''Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.'''
:Indeed, [[Ground BGM (Super Mario Bros.)|Ground BGM]] already got moved to its Nintendo Music name, despite being called "Ground Theme" in Smash (among other sources). Nintendo Music should already take priority over Smash just for being more recent. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:29, November 4, 2024 (EST)
#'''Don't do that.'''


:{{@|biggestman}} I recommend skimming through our [[MarioWiki:Naming|naming policies]] for some clarity. The only reason why "[[Yoshi's Island (theme)]]" has not been moved to "Flower Fields BGM" is because no editor took the initiative yet, and another one had already turned "[[Flower Fields BGM]]" into a redirect page. That must be deleted by an admin first before the page can be moved, but that is the only reason. ''Super Smash Bros.'' and Nintendo Music are at the same tier of coverage, and because Nintendo Music is the most recent use of the piece, it should be moved. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:50, November 4, 2024 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


@LadySophie17: What do you make of [[Propeller Piranha]], [[Fire Nipper Plant]], [[Nipper Dandelion]], etc., which are named based on what Viridi [[List of Palutena's Guidance conversations#Piranha Plant|calls them]] in Smash? And more generally, why does Smash not being strictly a Mario game matter? It's still an official game from Nintendo that uses the Mario IP, and the Mario content in it is fully covered even if it's exclusive to Smash (e.g. Mario stages and special moves all get articles). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:29, November 4, 2024 (EST)
====Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.====
:There's also the fact that Nintendo Music, which this proposal aims to prioritise, is not a Mario game either. It has a collection of music from various different franchises that just so happens to include Mario, much like Smash. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:10, November 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "[[Mama Luigi]]", quotation marks in places like the [[Super Mario World (television series)#Episodes|list of episodes]], to even the infobox of its own article, we can see ''a'' reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are ''useful''. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D ''Mario'' platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is ''Super Mario Odyssey'', regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Per proposal. In my opinion, this only serves to bring further clarity to the title of a mission within the level vs. the level itself. With the established notion of a mission being inherent to 3D Mario as a sub-category within levels themselves, I don't see this causing any confusion whatsoever.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal. I do see that there are some tricky gray area to this mentioned by the opposition, but I do think it's fair to consider ''Mario 64'' style missions the equivalent of something like a chapter or TV episode — they were even called episodes in ''Sunshine'', after all!
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal and per Hooded Pitohui especially. Having an established separator between a location and the "scenario" within said location is not just a nice little feature but can even bring clarity with active or new readers of the Wiki. I see this causing quite the opposite of confusion.


A lot of you have made good points, but one I don't understand or like is the one that those are the names of specifically the Super Smash Bros. versions, which is just painfully inconsistent. With very little exception remixes in Super Smash Bros. almost always use the original title in one of two ways, either using the name completely normally or by titling it (SONG NAME 1 HERE)/(SONG NAME 2 HERE) for remixes that are a relatively even split between two songs. Outside of this the only examples of "Well it COULD be the name of specifically the Smash version!!!" from every series represented are "Yoshi's Island", "Obstacle Course" and "Meta Knight's Revenge". Out of these Yoshi's Island and Obstacle Course theoretically COULD be original titles, but Meta Knight's Revenge is (probably) just meant to be named after Revenge of Meta Knight from Kirby Super Star, which is where both of the songs represented debuted, but was mistranslated. However I can't prove anything because none of these 3 Smash Bros. series remixes Japanese titles are anywhere online as far as I can tell so there's nothing to compare any of them to. There might also be examples from something like Fire Emblem or something idk I play primarily funny platformers. The point though is that if they were to name some remixes after the originals while making original titles for some it would just be so inconsistent I simply can't see a world where that's the intent. {{User:Biggestman/sig}} 13:19, November 5, 2024 (EST)
====Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.====
:I believe the Japanese name of the track was the same as the Japanese name of "Revenge of Meta Knight", but I maintain that translating it as "Meta Knight's Revenge" is not necessarily a mistake, the translators might have just thought that name was better suited for the theme specifically, especially since medleys in the Kirby series are often given different titles to the included themes ("Revenge of Meta Knight" is still not the title of either of the individual tracks included). For example, a different medley of the same two themes in Kirby's Dream Buffet is titled "Revenge of Steel Wings". Even if "Meta Knight's Revenge" is an error, though, that's one error in over a thousand track names, and one not even from the Mario franchise. One or two errors aren't enough to invalidate an entire source, especially one of this size. As for the Yoshi's Island tracks, as has already been pointed out, they should be changed anyway because Nintendo Music is the more recent source ([[Flower Field BGM]] already has been changed since this proposal was made). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:49, November 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the [["Deep, Deep Vibes"|errant times they are official]] from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
::FWIW, that point isn't meant to be an argument against this specific change anyway, it's "we already shouldn't be prioritizing those names for article titles regardless of the outcome of this proposal, and here's why". --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 18:13, November 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
Ok so now that it's been a few days I have very quickly realised that I very much said a bad reason this change should be implemented. I just realised that all of these titles have already been moved but I have since realised a somewhat more understandable reason for it. If a new Smash game came out and reused these titles then according to our rules they would need to be moved back to those titles again, wouldn't they? Would it make sense to move Flower Fields BGM back to the less descriptive title just because a game reused a (debatably) worse title? Overall though I don't care too much about the result, even when I started this proposal, my impatience just got to me too early. {{User:Biggestman/sig}} 11:09, November 7, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Salmancer}} Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an ''average'' and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like [[Bowser Jr. Showdown]], and missions can lack those, like with [[Smart Bombing]]. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
:Yes, that's how recent name policy works. We should choose what name to use based on what the most recent official source says, not what we subjectively prefer. I personally feel like "Flower Field BGM" isn't much less generic than "Yoshi's Island". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:38, November 7, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard [[Power Moon]] names count, if ''SM64'' stars do? what about ''Brothership'' [[List of Mario & Luigi: Brothership side quests|side quests]]? ''TTYD'' [[Trouble Center|troubles]]? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like <i>Master of Disguise</i>'s [[Whose Show Is This Anyway?!!|first]] and [[The Purple Wind Stinks Up the Ship!|second]] levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
::Not a simple yes/no answer, actually. If they're just arrangements again, then no, we wouldn't move the pages. If they added the original tracks from the SNES version and used those names, then they would probably be moved. (However, you might still be able to make a decent argument for keeping the Nintendo Music names on a recency basis considering it's a live service?) --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 11:48, November 7, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all.


I've actually been mulling over a proposal like this, but for names in general, not just themes. We generally don't consider out-of-franchise content as a source of a recent name if the original ''Super Mario'' franchise supersedes it; for example, Podoboo, which is still in use over Lava Bubble in ''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise. I don't see why the same thing can't be said for ''Super Smash Bros.'', especially now with its reduced coverage. For that matter, possibly breaking it down to a per-''series'' basis (like how "Gold Goomba" was the most recent name in the ''Super Mario'' series despite being "Golden Goomba" in the most recent ''Mario Party'')? It might not be a bad idea to establish a new rule over this. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (EST)
<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.</s>


===Decide how to prioritize PAL English names===
====Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal====
As with [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Decide how to handle the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes|my previous proposal]], this one aims at getting a consistent method of how PAL names are used alongside NTSC names. One thing that I noticed is that the priority of some of these names are inconsistent, like [{{fullurl:Mini Bowser|redirect=no}} Mini Bowser], which redirects to [[Koopa Kid]] rather than link to [[Mini Bowser (toy)|the name actually used in NTSC countries]]. Other pages, like [[Bowser Party]], are disambiguations between the ''[[Mario Party 10]]'' game mode and the ''[[Mario Party 7]]'' [[Bowser Time|event]] that is only known as "Bowser Party" in PAL regions.
{{@|Ahemtoday}} I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks ''around'' the name of a subject and assume it is literally part ''of'' the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.


[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg This map] shows which countries use these different systems. The terms go beyond just color conversion; in terms of English, the PAL system is used in countries like the United Kingdom (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I also think Australia and New Zealand too), while the NTSC system is used in North America, specifically in the United States and Canada. [[MarioWiki:Naming]] says that the North American name takes priority, which means that Mini Bowser would link to the toy and Bowser Party would redirect to the section in ''Mario Party 10'', potentially among other pages, although tophats linking to pages with alternate PAL names will remain.
Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title ''Super Mario Galaxy'' on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the [[:File:SMG Title Screen.png|title screen]] is capitalized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]] but are not part of the title of "[[Happy & Sappy]]". Similar cases are "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario Bros.|"Hurry Up!" Ground BGM]]" and "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario 64|"It's-a Me, Mario!"]]", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many [[List of albums|album pages]] (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::Then why do we italicize game titles? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
::::::::I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from [[Super Mario Galaxy#Notes and references|the articles I contribute to the most]] that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like ''Final Fantasy'' where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the ''Super Mario'' series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:It is not that readers, necessarily, will '''believe''' that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they ''weren't'' equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Hewer}} I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)


Therefore, I am proposing four options:
I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D ''Super Mario'' games and missions in 3D ''Super Mario'' games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of [[Meringue Clouds]] but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like [[Cosmic block]]'s first sentence in it's ''Super Mario Galaxy'' section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't [[Spine Coaster]]s get this treatment when they appear in [[Thrilling Spine Coaster]] and in [[Rock-Candy Mines]]? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)
*NTSC>PAL, in which when linking pages, the page with the name in NTSC English or all-English takes priority over other pages sharing the same PAL name, even if it isn't as significant. If another page with the same name in PAL English exists, it can be linked to in the tophat.
:I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
*NTSC=PAL, in which pages that share the same name in both NTSC and PAL English appear in a disambiguation page regardless of whether the name is used in NTSC English multiple times or not. This is already done with [[Bowser Party]].
:The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in ''Super Mario 64'' is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are ''Super Mario Sunshine'' and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. The other three do: ''Super Mario 64'' has its levels broken up into floors; ''Super Mario Galaxy'' has [[dome]]s; and ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' has what are literally called [[World#Super Mario Galaxy 2|World]]s. So if the the equivalency of the [[Terrace (Super Mario Galaxy)|Terrace]] in ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' is [[Acorn Plains]], and the equivalency of [[Good Egg Galaxy]] is [[Acorn Plains Way]], than what is the equivalency of "[[A Snack of Cosmic Proportions]]?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
*NTSC<PAL, in which pages that share the same name in PAL English have the highest priority name linked to it, even if it doesn't have that name in NTSC English but the other pages does, in which case it will redirect to the higher-priority PAL name and the lower-priority NTSC (or all-English) page will be linked to in the tophat in the Redirect template. This has been done with [[Mini Bowser]].
::I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
*Do nothing - do I even have to explain this?
::And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an [[:File:3D Mario Infograph.jpg|image]] that ''Odyssey'' is actually the sequel to ''Sunshine'' and the ''Galaxy'' games float off with ''3D Land'' and ''3D World'', then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an [[mission|article for them]]. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a [[Spine Coaster]] is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D ''Mario'' games - named scenarios. The missions in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::::My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things).
::::Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_in_the_Honeyhive_Kingdom&diff=4484131&oldid=4482705 this edit summary] and [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_on_the_Roof&diff=4470879&oldid=4448218 this edit summary] the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star ''and'' the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a [[Bob-omb Buddy]] to unlock the [[cannon]]s, an extra [[metal ball|iron ball]], and neither [[King Bob-omb|Big Bob-omb]] nor a [[Koopa Shell]]. (This explanation on {{iw|Ukikipedia|Bob-omb Battlefield}} brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier ''Odyssey'' joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D ''Super Mario'' game.
::::For completion's sake, I should also mention that [[Dire, Dire Docks]] throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of [[Bowser in the Fire Sea]] and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. ([[Tick Tock Clock]] presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)
{{@|EvieMaybe}}, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D ''Super Mario'' platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to ''Wario: Master of Disguise'' or ''Mario & Luigi: Brothership''. I am only interested in ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Sunshine'', ''Super Mario Galaxy'', ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'', and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal ''inherently'' extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the [[mission]] page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Altendo}}<br>
On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)
'''Deadline''': November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====NTSC>PAL====
==New features==
#{{User|Altendo}} I think that abiding by SMW:NAMING is the best option. Yes, Koopa Kid is more notable than Mini Bowser toys, but if this is an American English wiki, might as well make pages link to the one that actually are named like that in NTSC.
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} I've seen courses and vehicles in ''Mario Kart Wii'' that have names that differ between the NTSC and PAL versions. If the articles to those courses and vehicles use the NTSC version, shouldn't other things use the NTSC version as well?
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.
 
====NTSC=PAL====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I think this is the best solution — completely deprioritizing the PAL names doesn't quite seem right to me.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} This is an international wiki, not an American wiki. Whilst prioritizing NTSC names for naming makes kinda sense (an article can only have one title), there's no need to prioritize a specific region when it comes to linking.
 
====NTSC<PAL====
 
====Do nothing====
 
====Comments====
can i ask for some more examples? i'm having a bit of trouble fully grasping what you mean [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 20:11, November 4, 2024 (EST)
:The Mini Bowser situation, for instance:
 
:*NTSC>PAL: Mini Bowser would link to the [[Mini Bowser (toy)|page actually named "Mini Bowser"]] instead of [[Koopa Kid]] (who is known as Mini Bowser in PAL English)
:*NTSC=PAL: Mini Bowser would be a disambiguation page between Koopa Kid and the Mini Bowser toy
:*NTSC{{<}}PAL: Mini Bowser would continue to redirect to Koopa Kid.
:*Do nothing: Nothing changes.
 
:Hope this makes more sense. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 21:07, November 4, 2024 (EST)
::So in the first option, "Mini Bowser (toy)" would lose its identifier? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:19, November 5, 2024 (EST)
:::Basically. The tophat will say, "This article is about the toy. For the characters known as "Mini Bowsers" in Europe, as Koopa Kid." I prefer abiding by SMW:NAMING by prioritizing NTSC names over PAL names. Basically, the current Mini Bowser (toy) page will be moved to Mini Bowser, which will no longer redirect to Koopa Kid. For people who have only owned NTSC copies, this is more straightforward, as many would be unaware that Koopa Kid is known as Mini Bowser without having a PAL copy. As for Bowser Party, if Option 1 passes, it will redirect to the section in ''Mario Party 10'', with a tophat leading to Bowser Time. If Option 2 passes, Mini Bowser would become a disambiguation page between Koopa Kid and Mini Bowser (toy). If Option 3 passes, Bowser Party would redirect to Bowser Time and would have a tophat leading to the ''Mario Party 10'' section. If Option 4 passes, well... nothing changes, making everything remain inconsistent.
 
:::So, to answer your question, yes, the identifier will be removed. The only other page with the exact same name minus the identifier is simply the redirect to Koopa Kid, who is only known as "Mini Bowser" in European English, and SMW:NAMING prioritizes American English names. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 07:15, November 5, 2024 (EST)
::::Now that I think about it, couldn't the identifier for the Mini Bowser toy be removed anyway? There's no actual article named Mini Bowser. For that matter, I thought it was discouraged to use the terms NTSC and PAL now in regards to English, especially now that region-locking is mostly a thing of the past. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (EST)
:::::I'm pretty sure whether the identifier can be removed for that reason is what this proposal is trying to decide. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:06, November 9, 2024 (EST)
 
::::::Hewer: Not necessarily just that - it's to decide if NTSC or PAL names should take priority when linking to a page that might have the same name in a different coded region. If Option 1 passes, it doesn't matter if a page with the same PAL name as another page with an NTSC name is more prominent; if that name isn't used in NTSC, then the page with the actual NTSC name takes priority, and the page with the PAL name is linked to with a tophat (take my Koopa Kid and Bowser Party examples above for instance). [[SMW:NAMING]] says, and quote:
 
::::::*"The Super Mario Wiki is an English language wiki, so the name of an article should correspond to the '''most commonly used English name''' of the subject, which, given our user and visitor demographics, means the '''North American name'''. For example, the North American title of "''[[Mario Strikers Charged]]''" takes precedence over the PAL region's "''Mario Strikers Charged Football''" title."
 
::::::If this is true for naming, why isn't it true for linking, specifically and especially for subjects in which they are the only ones with a specific name in NTSC? I don't have a problem with mentioning other English games in the top of a page, but I feel like linking to a page that is either a disambiguation page between a mode named "Bowser Party" in all regions and a gimmick only named "Bowser Party!" in PAL and as "Bowser Time!" in NTSC, as well as "Mini Bowser" linking to Koopa Kid over the actual toy even though only the latter is used in NTSC, would make extra steps for people who type it in the URL or even wiki search expecting to see the term only used in NTSC regions. Linking to these pages will also be easier, as, take the Mini Bowser case for instance, they don't have to use the identifier, which not only removes identifier space, but also visible text space. If multiple names continue to share the same NTSC name, then the most prominent one will continue to have no identifier, and if there is no dominance, then a disambiguation page will remain. For example, the Mini Mario form continues to be used because it is more prominent than the toy, and even then, the toy's name is slightly different, and both names are used in NTSC English. I understand that some people are from PAL countries and have PAL-configured systems, but seeing as this is an NTSC English wiki, and according to the quote above, how the majority of the views are from NTSC countries, whether from IPs or registered users, I feel like NTSC names should take priority over PAL names, even if the subject itself has a lower priority. I would rather give extra steps to PAL names than to NTSC names due to the fact that NTSC English viewers are more prominent and therefore would see "Mini Bowser" as the toy rather than Koopa Kid. Priority should be given to the most prominent visitor group, so the names that appear in the version shown to the majority of these visitors should be linked there instead of a more prominent character with the same name mainly used by a less prominent group.
 
::::::LinkTheLefty: Except for Nintendo Switch consoles sold in Mainland China, region-locking does not exist on the Switch, and the region is not actually set based on where the console is purchased - instead, it is configured during setup, and can be changed at anytime, unless a Nintendo Account is connected, in which case, the region for each game is set to the region the Nintendo Account is based in (it doesn't have to be based in the country of setup, it can be based in any country as long as the user has an applicable credit card using the same currency as the Nintendo eShop) per each user that plays it. Game Cards also don't have region locking (IDK if this is true for those purchased in Mainland China), and also use settings based on either system region or Nintendo Account region, not based on where the game was bought in (exceptions are likely made for region-exclusive games, for which I have none, so I cannot test this out). This does mean that setting up PAL English in NTSC regions is possible, and vice versa, but due to the fact that most people only have credit cards for currencies of their home country, it is almost always that their Nintendo Account (and therefore their game region) is set in their home country, meaning that the majority of people who view this wiki, which are Americans, have their region set to the United States, and therefore play NTSC versions of their games regardless of where the console or games were purchased. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 23:49, November 9, 2024 (EST)
 
===Do not surround song titles with quotes===
This is a change to [[MarioWiki:Manual_of_Style#Italicizing_titles|this section of our Manual of Style]]. Currently, our policy is to surround song titles with quotation marks whenever they appear. However. We are a Mario wiki, and the Mario series overwhelmingly ''does not'' do this.
 
The comparison arises to italics, but I feel there's quite a difference between that (an effect applied to text) and the inclusion of punctuation marks, which ''are'' text in and of themselves. Not to mention, unlike italics, which would require special programming to implement, quote marks are supported by anything that supports English text, meaning it's not a question of technical limitations — every game that names its songs is perfectly capable of listing them inside quotation marks, and yet they make the choice not to.
 
As such, surrounding song titles in quotes is questionable as adherence to an unofficial naming scheme over the original one. Not to mention the effects this can have on lists of song titles — their inclusion on [[Template:DDRMM]] fluffs up the width of the song section by the width of ''several'' song titles.
 
I'd also like to take the opportunity to mention how inconsistently these quote marks are applied across the wiki already — many entries in [[:Category:Music]] do not use them in their article, none of the lists of songs from the shows or of WarioWare DIY records use them, [[Starring Wario!]] and ''only'' Starring Wario has had its article title changed to have the quotes. I take this to mean the rule is not serving the wiki as it stands.
 
The one exception to everything I've mentioned thus far is ''Paper Mario: The Origami King''{{'}}s music discs: [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]], [["Heartbeat Skipper"]], [["M-A-X Power!"]], and [["Thrills at Night"]]. These are the only time the names of songs are formatted this way (possibly due to the items being CDs ''of'' the songs and not the songs themselves). Therefore, '''these will be the only exception if this proposal passes, and will keep their quote marks'''.
 
To circle back around to my original point: I think the nail in the coffin for displaying music this way is [[Nintendo Music]]. This application, specifically meant to play music, does not surround their names with quote marks. And yet [[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music|this article]] surrounds them in quotes anyway, stringently adhering to our unofficial way of formatting these over the way Nintendo Music actually formats them. It's almost ''lying'', frankly.
 
So, our options:
 
* '''Option 1: Exclude quote marks from song titles in all cases.''' Our manual of style will remove the mention of song titles from the section of italicizing titles. Just for clarity, this excludes Origami King's CDs.
* '''Option 2: Keep quote marks when song titles are used in a sentence, but exclude them from standalone appearances of the title.''' Such standalone appearances would include article titles, navboxes, infoboxes, track listings, and table entries. Just for clarity, this option, too, excludes Origami King's CDs.
* '''Option 3: Do nothing.''' I guess this option ''includes'' Origami King's CDs.
 
'''Proposer:''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Option 1====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} My primary choice. I've firmly laid out my reasons why here.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I prefer to think of each music as a work in its own right rather than a part of some "greater whole". ''[[Jump Up, Super Star!]]'' is more than just a piece of ''Super Mario Odyssey''{{'}}s OST. Therefore, song titles should be italicized like any other work and not be in quotation marks as if they were merely chapters.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, and there's [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Italics formatting of boat names, fictional products, and others|precedent]] for following Nintendo's official formatting in spite of usual conventions. The inconsistencies described in the proposal ought to be fixed regardless of the outcome, though.
 
====Option 2====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I will settle for this — part of my ire toward the quotemarks is that I find them highly unsuitable for these particular usages.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Secondary option, per my comment below in Option 3.


====Option 3====
Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''{{wp|The Color of Water}}''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''{{wp|Resident Alien (TV series)|Resident Alien}}''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the ''Super Mario'' franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per N101. quotation marks are a writing convention! most mario games also don't have italic titles, but we italicize them anyways because it's a formal writing convention that makes sense
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Strong oppose, per all. This is a well-recognized writing convention, the fact that Nintendo doesn't typically follow it within their products is irrelevant.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Nintendo101. These quotes are here for a reason, no matter how remote it may seem.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Quoting songs is from the manual of style itself, it's the same reason we italicize game titles. I would go even further and quote song titles as a display title like I did in "[[Starring Wario!]]"
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.


====Comments====
For example, let's say for [[Luigi]] in his appearance in ''[[Mario Sports Superstars]]'', there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:
If this passes, how would it affect coverage of non-Mario music? Our only options are either to have two standards, or ignore established convention based on what Nintendo does for media they had no hand in actually producing. Neither seems ideal to me. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:24, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:We'd treat non-Mario music the same as Mario music. Established convention doesn't mean much when we're always saying on this page that we're not other wikis and we don't necessarily need to do things the way other wikis do them. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::I don't think anyone is advocating to hold onto a convention just for the sake of it. Rather, that we should hold onto the convention because it is useful and the proposal doesn't provide persuasive reasons to abandon that usage, or at least it does not for me. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)
In addition, I wouldn't use applications such as Nintendo Music as proof that we shouldn't abide by formatting either. Neither music metadata nor files themselves quote song names, neither does [https://open.spotify.com/track/433JymbpWnRMHXzp1oTRP7 Spotify] nor [https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Bother-Shakira/dp/B000BUEG9U Amazon Music]. Yet {{Wp|Don't Bother|Wikipedia still does}} because that's how it's standardized in writing articles. In addition, you pointed out how "Starring Wario!" is the outlier as your point, I've '''only just started working on those articles''' mate. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:01, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:Even Wikipedia doesn't use the quotes in article titles though. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:17, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::I would support an option that called for just removing the quotation marks in the header for articles (as done {{wp|I Am the Walrus|here}}, which should be compared to {{wp|Magical Mystery Tour#Track listing|here}}). This is not uncommon in written books on music. But there currently is no voting option to do just that. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)
{{@|Ray Trace}} I'm aware it's in the manual of style. That's why the proposal is about changing the manual of style. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)


===Add identifiers to near-identical titles===
:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''
Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: [[Mark (Mario Tennis series)|Mark (''Mario Tennis'' series)]] and [[Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)|Mark (''NES Open Tournament Golf'')]]). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means [[Color coin]] (''Super Mario Run'') and [[Colored coin]] (''Wario Land 3'') do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include [[Secret Course 1]] (''Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins'') and [[Secret Course 01]] (''Super Mario Run''), [[Spyguy]] (''Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis'') and [[Spy Guy]] (''Paper Mario''), and [[Rollin' Down the River]] (''Yoshi's Woolly World'') and [[Rolling Down the River]] (''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'').


This proposal aims to amend [[MarioWiki:Naming]] to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.
The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.


Note that this proposal only covers names that are '''semantically identical''', and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. [[Buzzar]] and [[Buzzer]] have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. [[Balloon Boo]] and [[Boo Balloon]] are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
 
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} This is a good idea, and all it does is make it easier for readers to find information that's otherwise scattered across various pages. It's a centralizing effort that I think could be fairly helpful.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Altendo}} I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with ''identical names'', not similar names.
#{{User|Mario}} Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Altendo, this is what [[Template:Distinguish]] is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I worry this would make history sections messy and repetitive when the focus should be on the written text.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per Lefty and N101.


====Comments====
====Comments====
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)


==New features==
If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)
===Create a category for "catch-all articles"===
:I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)
By "catch-all article" (tentative term; please suggest names) I mean those that describe elements that are not related, but share an article because they boil down to the same generic, '''often''' real world object. Many of them fit what the [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects|guidelines]] call a "generic subject". Examples of this kind of article are:
 
*[[Hook]], which includes the object from ''[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]'' and the hooks on poles from ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'';
*[[Lift]], which includes the yellow lifts seen in ''Super Mario'' games, elevators from ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'', Moving Platforms from ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis]]'', among others, all just basic platforms;
*[[Bubble]], which includes the underwater bubble from ''[[Super Mario 64]]'', the player-carrying bubble from ''[[New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'', the Bubble trap from ''[[Diddy Kong Racing]]'', among others;
*[[Banana]], which includes the bananas from the [[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'']] series, the bananas from the [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|''Donkey Kong Country'']] games, the bananas from ''[[Yoshi's Story]]'', among others;
*[[Heart (item)|Heart]], which includes the heart item from ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'', the one from ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns]]'', the one from ''[[Dr. Mario World]]'', among others.
 
They may also boil down to a similar ''fictional'' basic concept, which are their own distinct thing, despite all of them taking a similar form:


*[[! Block]], which includes the red blocks from the [[Yoshi's Island (series)|''Yoshi's Island'' games]] games, the block-spawning yellow blocks from ''[[Super Mario Maker 2]]'', the ! Block switches from the [[Wario Land (series)|''Wario Land'' games]];
@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)
*[[Poison Mushroom]], which includes the mushrooms from ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels]]'', the Poison Shroom item from the early [[Paper Mario (series)|''Paper Mario'' games]], among others;
*[[? Panel]], which includes the panels from ''[[Super Mario Kart]]'', the ones from ''[[Paper Mario: Color Splash]]'', and others.


Compare subjects to which this category would '''not''' apply, like [[? Block]] or [[P-Switch]], where every reappearance of the subject is really a deliberate revisitation of a specific concept that already existed.
How much are you envisioning this is going to be used? Is it just going to be for linking to character stats or is it for any game that has a section on the profiles and statistics page? If it's just stats, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed (that information used to be in history sections anyway before profiles and statistics sections were created and later split off from their pages), but I don't think [[List_of_Mario_profiles_and_statistics#Super_Mario_Galaxy_2|something like this]] warrants a template directing readers off the page. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 13:34, January 17, 2025 (EST)


This category would be applied to articles on concrete subjects only (most of which, if not all, would be objects).
===Make categories for families===
I've made a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Families|similar proposal]] a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin[https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case 「¹」] (unrelated, but meh).


'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Weegie baby}}<br>'''Deadline''': January 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} My proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} Per me.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see how such a category would be useful, and I don't like that it's pretty subjective and is based on a trait shared by the articles rather than the objects themselves. Even if there was value in distinguishing these pages, I don't think a category like this is the way to do it.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Is [[History of Mario]] a catch-all article because it covers both a fictional character and [[Bob Hoskins]]? We would have to have that sort of debate for too many articles to count. This is too subjective and doesn't really accomplish anything.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Unnecessary, and the word "generic" alone is unclear whether it goes by the definition of real-life or ''Super Mario''.


====Comments====
====Comments====
My gut reaction is that I disagree that the Poison Mushroom and Lift articles encompass generic subjects. They are supported as discrete in the paratext for these games. But even if narrowed to the articles, it is not inherently clear to me what the benefit of having a "catch-all category" would be. My general view is that there are quite a few subjects that we consider to be generic which really are not. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:45, November 10, 2024 (EST)
{{@|Weegie baby}} You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:What would be some subjects you don't consider generic? My case for the Lift is that it's an article that encompasses almost all types of flat, moving platforms (a basic platforming game object), many even with their own distinct names; I believe you could even argue for some of the versions to get their own articles. And yeah, I agree that there's no huge benefit to having this category, as it would be there mostly for the sake of acknowledgement that "this article does not describe the history of a single idea, but it's instead an aggregation of the histories of various ideas that fit under this umbrella". {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 16:25, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:Yeah, I forgot, thanks. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)


==Removals==
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
===Delete Alternative Proto Piranha Images===
This concerns [[:File:SMS Fire Gatekeeper.png|these two]] [[:File:SMS Green-Yellow Gatekeeper.png|image files]], which are as of present unused.


==Changes==
The main argument is that not only are these two images taken using a hacked version of the game, but that they aren't actually even intended in the first place; while we don't know much about how ''Sunshine'' works under the hood, the leading theory is that the object for the [[Proto Piranha]] simply borrows  the texture of whatever [[Goop]] is currently loaded. Given the resulting Proto Piranha inherits no other attributes of the goop aside from visuals, this definitely tracks. In addition, attempts to add these to TCRF were removed [https://tcrf.net/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Sunshine/Unused_Objects&diff=785172&oldid=783712 not once], [https://tcrf.net/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Sunshine/Unused_Objects&diff=787388&oldid=787192 but twice]. Given these images have been languishing for a long while with no real use, it seems more-or-less fine to remove them to us.
===Encourage game-related "icon"-type images to have consistent file dimensions with each other when applicable to their origins===


[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Prioritize sprite/tile uploads that have their original file parameters (or clean divisions of them)|My last proposal]] related to this subject had too many holes in it due to being too wide to make an actual rule on the subject. Indeed, not all sprites really need the blank space, not all "icons" are sprites at all. To recap:
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
;this looks good:
'''Deadline''': January 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
<gallery heights=64 widths=64>
MKDD_Mario.png
MKDD_Luigi.png
ToadIcon-MKDD.png
PeachIcon-MKDD.png
MKDD_Yoshi.png
MKDD_DK.png
BowserMKDD.png
MKDD_Wario.png
</gallery>


;this does not:
====Delete====
<gallery heights=72 widths=72>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Given the lack of any glitches to even spawn a Proto Piranha in these areas, the dubious origin of the images themselves, and the fact that calling them "unused content" is a bit of a misnomer, we don't see any particular reason to keep these around--even the "the goop reflects the area it's loaded in" is already thoroughly demonstrated thanks to the images of the Proto Piranha as it already appears, in vanilla, in [[Delfino Airstrip]] and both [[Bianco Square]] and [[Bianco Hills]]. This, to us, would be like listing the thing where if you hack a Yoshi into a Castle stage in ''[[Super Mario World]]'' its head becomes a Lava Bubble as "unused content" for that game.
MarioMPT.png
#{{User|Tails777}} I'm leaning towards this. I feel this would be different if there was a video showcasing what happens when you insert a Proto Piranha in a place it otherwise doesn't spawn in, mostly because it's not uncommon for us to cover possibilities only possible through hacks. If we had a bit more to back it all up, that's be fine, but images without anything else doesn't really prove a lot. At best, this is like a small trivia point for Proto Piranhas, not unused content. <small>They still look cool though.</small>.
Luigi MPT.png
#{{User|Jdtendo}} If it was not intended, then it is not unused content.
Shy Guy MPT.png
#{{User|Ray Trace}} The only thing that really kept me from nuking these images outright is because of lack of info and I'm glad that's cleared up in this proposal. Kill these.
Peach MPT.png
#{{User|Technetium}} Here Ray Trace, you can borrow my FLUDD. Per all.
Yoshi MPT.png
#{{User|Sparks}} Wash 'em away!
DK MPT.png
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I'm inclined to claim that this ''is'' in fact unused content, just that it's not notable enough to warrant using images from a hacked version of the game. A small, text-based note in the article and using images from the unhacked vanilla game works fine.
Bowser MPT.png
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
WarioMPT.png
</gallery>


Notice how half of the MPT ones (second row) are awkwardly, inconsistently stretched in various gross ways that makes some of the pixels be rectangles, and none are at a proper size relative to each other - this is an obsessive-compulsive spriter's worst nightmare. Meanwhile, the MKDD ones (first row) look crisp, clean, and are at a nice size relative to each other. Why is this? Because since they are icons, they are programmed to occupy the same type of space in select screens and player standings in-game. They're ''supposed'' to be at around the same size, which is accomplished through the small amount of empty space some have in the upper right corners - which the origin images have in the game's files. We should reflect this for the simple reason that we're only going to be putting these in galleries and table cells with each other ''anyway'', so it makes the most sense to have them take up the same amount of space here as well. They should either be at their raw parameters, or if they are cropped, cropped to the exact same size as all the others for that type in that game so as to not screw up formatting and table cell sizes (and we shouldn't be increasing the size of sprites that are at this size by default anyway). This goes for selection icons, rank icons, map icons, that sort of thing. Cropping them down needlessly leads to the grossness that the second gallery there displays.
====Keep====
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} To be honest, I do think these images (or at least one of them) have value in something like the Trivia section, illustrating how the enemy is coded to appear as the type of goop present in the level - including goop not normally present alongside them. It's an interesting fact, and I think rather than being labeled unused content, both that fact and one of these images would make a fun Trivia addition.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per Fun with Despair, I think there's no harm in including these as trivia, as long as it's clear it's just a side effect of how gloop/Piranha Plants work and not necessarily an intended unused feature.


This is already something of an unofficial rule on here; a majority of the games with this sort of icon have them uploaded at a consistent size already for the same pragmatic reasons I just listed. I'm just trying to make this more clear-cut. It's like how "don't optimize images with color-changing metadata" is a rule - most people can't tell the difference, but it minorly affects the accuracy and presentation, so that's why that rule is in place. This is also for the "accuracy and presentation" reasoning. Also, I fail to see what the difference is between this and preferring screenshots be uploaded at native res rather than boosted resolution.
====Comments (delete alternative proto piranha images)====
i can see a case for keeping them around to illustrate how proto piranha's goo change isn't hardcoded, but i agree with the idea that a video might be better. i'll abstain for now. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 09:57, January 4, 2025 (EST)


'''{{color|purple|THIS DOES NOT COVER THE RARE INSTANCES GAME ICONS ACTUALLY ''DO'' HAVE DIFFERENT SIZES AS STORED IN-GAME.}}''' Instances of that are quite rare, especially for character icons that swap locations, but they can happen. Since they aren't the same size to begin with, there's nothing to match up with. It also does not apply to ones that are extrapolated from a singular group image containing all of them.
===Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects===
The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called [[Mario Party 13]] (as of proposal, this leads to ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'', which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as [[MP11]], [[MP12]], and [[MP13]].


'''{{color|purple|PLEASE NOTE THAT MOST IMAGES OF THIS TYPE ON THE WIKI ALREADY FOLLOW THIS RULE.}}''' Attempting to do the opposite, therefore, will take more effort for less reward.
Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for ''[[Super Mario Party]]'', ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]''. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "[[Fury Bowser|God Slayer Bowser]]" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.


'''{{color|purple|ADDITIONALLY, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT SPECIFICALLY STATING THEY NEED TO KEEP THEIR NATIVE DIMENSIONS.}}''' Rather, it is saying that if you ''do'' decide to crop them, you should crop them to consistent parameters, ie, the width of the widest one and the height of the tallest one. Having to resize images on an individual basis is tedious and can lead to extra HTML bloating the page that would be a non-issue if they were uploaded at the same size to begin with.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''{{color|purple|EDIT:}}'''
====Delete (party's over!)====
Here's a better illustration of why I think this is necessary:<br>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
https://www.marioboards.com/attachments/49667.png
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Does anyone actually call those games ''Mario Party 11'', ''12'' or ''13''? Per proposal.
<br>Notice how with them cropped to content, their vertical (and horizontal if they were stacked, thanks to Klap Trap's muzzle and Diddy's hat) positions are all over the place. To someone with OCD, that's maddening. Not unlike [https://www.xkcd.com/1015/ bad kerning]. This is what this proposal hopes to avoid. And no, that's not something a "rawsize" thing can do, that's gallery-only - and this inconsistent positioning would be an even bigger issue with the images in a gallery, since those ''don't'' have positioners available. And while technically, HTML ''can'' fix the positioning on the table (but again, not in a gallery), that would require a bunch of finagling span classes that would bloat the page's byte count unnecessarily - not to mention take potentially hours of trial and error depending on the image amount - when the obvious solution is to give the images the consistent parameters they were deliberately made to have - and yes, that's deliberate in more than just "limited by sprite parameters," because they used them to position them accurately in the character/level select, as I am doing with this table.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all.
#{{User|Drago}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of ''"Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100"'' and re-redirected the MP12 ones from ''Superstars'' to ''Jamboree'', already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Honestly, I’m already on edge on Mario Parties 6-10 because of the non-mainline Mario Parties, but unlike those 5 games, the three concerned don’t even use those as their own game, not to mention ''Jamboree'' is basically a sequel to ''Super Mario Party''.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
====Delete MP12/MP13, keep MP11 (...except you, you stay.)====
'''Deadline''': November 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we personally feel like a clean sweep makes the most sense, but we understand the merit of keeping MP11 given that at least ''Super Mario Party'' has ''a'' piece of dialogue calling it the 11th party.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|the proposal that added the Mario Party 11 redirect]].
#{{User|Arend}} Secondary choice; I guess it makes sense to still call ''Super Mario Party'' the 11th one, and my vote for deleting them all stems from the confusion whether Superstars or Jamboree is the 12th one, a discussion from which ''Super'' is exempt.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Secondary option. I’m sure there is like 6% of users who would search ‘MP11’, but ''Jamboree'' is basically SMP2 anyways, and whether MPS or Jamboree is MP12 is so confusing we might as well delete MP12 and 13.


====Support - consistent icons (change the few remaining icon images and make it a general rule for the future)====
====Keep (party on!)====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - ''Icon'' haz dead, never-funny-in-the-first-place memes about fast food sandwiches?
<s>#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|this proposal]].</s>
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} - Accurate to how the graphic or texture is stored in game.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per fast food sandwiches
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|blueberrymuffin}} Per proposal.
#{{user|wildgoosespeeder}} I don't bother cropping anything for this kind of reason. [[tcrf:The Cutting Room Floor|The Cutting Room Floor]] doesn't do something like this because of prioritizing consistency in dimensions, where possible.


====Oppose - who needs consistency? (do nothing)====
====Comments (idle party chat)====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Rawsize exists.
I do think fan nicknames [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53#Recreate the numbered Mario Kart redirects|can be allowed as redirects]], so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} There's no sense in ''deliberately'' translating the functional limitations of a game onto a wiki. The site's educational purpose dictates that official material shown on a wiki be inherently recontextualized, and showing that material at a different scale than originally intended is in line with that idea. Even taking into account the niche interests of a sprite enthusiast (which TBH is fair, the wiki is a gateway to Mario material for anybody), the sprites in and of themselves are accurate to how they were extracted when you view them on their dedicated file pages; it's only their appearance on mainspace pages that is subject to alterations, and what to what degree that is beneficial is better scrutinized on a case-by-case basis than through a global proposal. TLDR If the sprites are too uncomfortably big just resize them, or use rawsize like Waluigi Time says.
#{{user|Lakituthequick}} Per WT.
#{{User|UltraMario}} Per all. This can easily be taken care of by either a gallery or a table's settings, I am very sure of that. We don't need to be unnecessarily tampering with perfectly cropped files. I am not 100% sure of the technical site of the wiki but I am very sure that there are better ways to go about fixing sizing of things in tables not being adequate without just having to overhaul image uploads entirely, rather than just playing around with a table.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Seems like a huge amount of work for what is... honestly imperceptible to 99.9% of users such as in your example. Busywork for the sake of busywork.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. I see no real benefit from this.
#{{user|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We already have tools capable of representing these icons more accurately to their in-game versions as necessary without requiring deadzones or other such things to be baked into the image itself. In fact, baking it into the image itself can cause issues when attempting to use the same image on different pages not fitted for them; such as how the image on the infobox for [[Blooper (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)]] is markedly smaller because it retains the blank space for the sake of [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) bestiary|the bestiary article]]. While we should strive for accuracy, we shouldn't let it get in the way of making the information actually accessible and readable; besides, if someone wanted the raw, original images, including any blank space around them, they would likely check The Spriter's Resource, not us.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Koopa Con Carne. Zero readers care if an asset is cropped to content to dimensions in the power of 8 or if they have the ripped dimensions, especially if all said images are there to illustrate a gallery and especially if there is copious amounts of empty space just to pad the image to appropriate dimensions for a game engine. We aren't a game engine (modern game engines are perfectly capable of having textures in resolutions not in powers of 8 by the way), official websites such as the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe's official website [[:File:MK8DX Baby Luigi Icon.png|crop to content]] because image editors know that it doesn't need to be in those dimensions (let's not get into how these assets are actually made, they're scaled down in the first place 100% for game engine reasons) icons should be cropped to editor's discretion without bludgeoning editors over the head about it, we should prioritize optimization and readability over faithfulness to asset dimensions. I can see cases where consistent sizes can work out, namely the character icons as listed in this proposal, but the general rule ''should'' be crop to content, but leave some in exceptions in regards to formatting tables, not the other way around.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all, especially Koopa con Carne and Ray Trace.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Some really small icons like the Super Smash Bros. series stock icons would look really bad if they were resized to be consistent with Mario Kart ranking icons.
#{{User|Mario}} The additional caveats in the proposal trying to address this issue is nice I guess but it makes the proposal much less clear in what it's trying to accomplish and it comes off as this user trying to bludgeon over their approach to these images in opposition with several other people's while tacking on qualifications and caveats after the fact. It doesn't help that the terminology of the proposal is imprecise (what is a "game-related 'icon'-type image"?? Does the proposal apply to whatever is a "game related 'non-icon' type image"?) Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. I don't see the point in doing this.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I will reiterate what I said below: if folks want to maintain unified dimensions around certain assets, like the ones in the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example, that is completely fine and okay to do. I agree it looks nice. However, folks should have the freedom to choose whether they want to do that or not with the tables and templates they have developed. To experiment. I agree with the opposition that cropping to the visual content of an asset is not inherently destructive, while recognizing there are real examples on this wiki where assets benefit from having unified dimensions outside of galleries. But those were choices made because they are visually appealing and convey information - not out of a unique reverence for how computer engines spatially store assets, and while I know this proposal is not explicitly advocating for that, it derives from similar arguments made in the previous one, and I wanted to touch upon that here. We adjust assets all the time for the sake of illustrative intent. We assemble disembodied sprites. Adjust/add colors to reflect in-game appearances (especially when they are not actually coded as such for older consoles). We pose models. We approximate lighting conditions. We crop out screenshot details for a focused view. We narrow displays to omit details that the player typically has [[:File:MagmawNSMBU.png#File history|no way of seeing]]. From my experience, none of these choices have been considered controversial, and they should not be. They are not dissimilar from {{wp|taxidermy}}, {{wp|Conservation and restoration of paintings|art restoration}}, and similar curatorial techniques that are exercised in museums worldwide. To me, cropping to visual content - the pixels that people can actually see - is no different from these methods and not an inherent problem. If folks want to keep unified dimensions around the assets they are working with or see use outside of galleries, that is fine and good. This is the opinion of some other folks in the opposition, like fellow ripper Ray Trace, as evident [[:File:WarioMASATOG.png#File history|here]]. However, if folks do not want to do that, or use tables built on the expectation that assets they are using are cropped to content, or they are cropping the content around assets that are only found in galleries, I think they should have that freedom too.
#{{User|MCD}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} No. No, both look good in their own right. Per all.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.


====Comments====
This is up for debate, because there's redirects for [[Mario Kart 1]] through [[Mario Kart 6]], so if these are to be affected, then they'd need to go too, but I see no reason to remove those as they may come in handy if someone wants to search for the [[Mario Kart 5|5th Mario Kart]] for example. Simply ask "what's the [[Mario Party 11|eleventh Mario Party]]?" and there it is. Another proposal with tons of grey area unaccounted for it seems. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 13:28, January 12, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Waluigi Time}} - Rawsize doesn't help for tabular data. Only for galleries. Only way to get it there would be to separately size each cell, and even that doesn't keep them in the correct position within the cell. Wouldn't it be more pragmatic to just have the images at the correct size rather than having to mess with the HTML each time? And we do indeed use these for tabular data, like ghost times, tennis rivals, that sort of thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:43, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:I'm not fond of "MK6"-style redirects, but at least there's no confusion about the 6th ''Mario Kart'' game was and you can be pretty sure that there will never be a game titled ''Mario Kart 6''. However, you wouldn't create a "MK9" redirect to ''Mario Kart Tour'', would you? It is debatable whether this game would count as the 9th ''Mario Kart'', and Nintendo could still release a game titled ''Mario Kart 9'' in the future. I admit that it is less likely that Nintendo would release an actual ''Mario Party 11'', but it could still happen – they did release ''New Super Mario Bros. 2'' when there was already [[New Super Mario Bros. Wii|a second ''NSMB'']] after all. As for people who would know what is the 11th ''Mario Party'' released on a home console (which is not the 11th ''Mario Party'' game overall if you include the handheld games), they will probably want to find the 12th as well, which, since there's no consensus on what ''Mario Party 12'' should even be (''Superstars'' or ''Jamboree''?), would probably only lead to frustration no matter what we choose "MP12" to redirect to. Frankly, unless Nintendo suddenly announces a game titled ''Mario Party 14'' which would retroactively confirm that the current Switch games are ''MP11'', ''MP12'' and ''MP13'', I would rather not keep these redirects. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 06:07, January 13, 2025 (EST)
:And would that not be easily solved by displaying the image at its native resolution (or at least consistent resolutions for all of them) and centering it? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 16:51, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::This is why I'm in support of only keeping the Mario Party 11 redirect, as Birdo states in dialogue in the game that it's the "eleventh party", so it's not ambiguous whether it counts. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:04, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::No, it absolutely wouldn't. Because not all the icons are themselves centered, such as the MKDD ones above. They all come out of the lower-left corner. And that's not getting into how some games have a variant with an actual shaped background alongside clear-background ones, like ''[https://www.spriters-resource.com/wii/mariostrikerscharged/sheet/195218/ Strikers Charged]'' for example. It'd make the most sense to match those up relative to where the square bounds are for their respective size, IMO. Also, when they need shrunk for smaller tables, it's easier to do that when they have the same x-y parameters anyway so you don't have to check every. Last. One. And do the math each time. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:52, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::Question! Would it be too late to add a "keep MP11, delete MP12/MP13" option to this proposal? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:08, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Waluigi Time}} - Rawsize also doesn't work for sizing images down. Only sizing them as-is or sizing them up. So it's still not a perfect solution for all occasions anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:48, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
::::You can add options within the first four days of a proposal's creation, so yes, I think today is the last day you can add an option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:15, January 13, 2025 (EST)
:All of these things can be fixed using <code>text-align: center</code>, <code>vertical-align: middle</code>, and the inherent ability of tables to size columns and rows based on their contents. {{User:Lakituthequick/sig}} 20:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Nintendo is probably not going to release Mario Party 14 (too lazy to do italics), because they’ll probably make Super Mario Party Superstars Jamboree or Super Mario Party Jamboree 2 or whatever. {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:25, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::I already said that's not true, because not all of them are centered in their origin. If you want DK's image's left border touching the left border and his right border touching the right border, and the same to go for Luigi, that will absolutely not work unless they are uploaded at their intended size. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:58, October 28, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Koopa con Carne}} - I thought you didn't want math to be forced onto the site. In order to resize them consistently if they aren't uploaded at the intended consistent size, you have to go through ''every single one'' and check their sizes individually, ''then'' apply whatever size change also individually in order to be consistent. Keeping them as they are intentionally incorporated into the game is much cleaner on both counts. If mediawiki had a "50%" in addition to the pixel resizing, that wouldn't be an issue, but they don't. And applying a same-pixel-size on sprites with different base sizes is just dirty. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:04, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
==Changes==
:You're misconstruing my point about math on the wiki. I never suggested curbing the use of math in the back end by editors (even then, I don't recall ever actually mathing my way through editing a page other than establishing sizes of things like images and charts). It was strictly in reference to the math that is displayed, for one reason or another, to readers, specifically how serviceable it is for articles to show readers more complex formulas versus simple tallies of elements in a level. I've long digressed though, lol.<br>The issues you bring up are solvable on a case-by-case basis. I like consistency and tidiness, too, however, those ought to have a healthy marriage with the wiki's primary interest to educate. [[Mario_Kart_Tour_race_points_system#Object interactions|Here]], you'll notice I purposefully enlarged the icon for the Giant Banana item relative to the regular banana peel, because it used to look about the same size, which was odd. I understand where you're coming from and I support giving a sense of scale to sprites of a certain type in a row if it would otherwise look too messy or unnatural, but I don't believe that has to be enforced among all these sprites indiscriminately. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:23, October 28, 2024 (EDT), edited 19:03, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
::Well this proposal isn't about "all sprites," it is specifically about icons within a particular family, ie, all MKDD character select icons are one family, all MKDD item icons are another family, all MKW select icons are yet another family, etc. etc. etc. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:30, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?
:::I understand. That's what I meant when I said "sprites of a certain type in a row". That's a tad wordy, so I guess "sprite family" can indeed be used for the purposes of this proposal instead. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:59, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::OK so.... what is the negative you are seeing to this? It seems like you agree with what the proposal actually aims to do, so I'm not really understanding your opposition. It's like how "don't optimize images with color-changing metadata" is a rule - most people can't tell the difference, but it affects the accuracy and presentation, so that's why that rule is in place. This is also for the "accuracy and presentation" reasoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:07, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::::What I agree with, is that assets extracted from the game shouldn't be tampered with before they are uploaded on the wiki. The native size and optimizations should still inherently be part of the asset. What I disagree with, is that such a principle should extend to their presentation on mainspace articles. An image gallery is not a sprite sheet, it's '''demonstrative'''. If you think a gallery of assets can benefit from a few fine adjustments to accommodate scale and aesthetic sensibility, by all means do it. I agree the Shy Guy icon you show in the proposal looks too large and should be scaled down a little, as I did with the giant banana I mentioned previously. Enforcing the standard you propose across a demonstrative gallery is shifting the priority on technical accuracy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:19, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
::::::The actual argument of this proposal is different from the last one. This isn't specifically aiming for native dimensions, though that would still be the "easy way" imo. This allows for cropping as long as the cropping is to a consistent size for said related assets. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:40, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|UltraMario}} - You... ''do'' realize that ''cropping'' the files is where the "tampering" comes into play, right? If they're displayed as they are in the game, they are ''un''tampered with. Cropping them down is, by definition, tampering with them. I think you need to reword that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:07, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|Fun With Despair}} - Except most of them are ''already'' like this - this is just making an unofficial rule we've used for years an official one for practicality. In this case, doing the ''opposite'' would be busywork. And making them consistent is busywork I am willing to ''do''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:35, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:Besides, being a lot of work hasn't stopped [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Require citations for names in other languages|proposals that take even more work to implement]] from passing. It's a flimsy reason to oppose a change. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:02, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::Not opposing because it's a lot of work, opposing because it's a lot of work in service of something that is unnoticed and not cared about by the vast majority of users. The citation proposal is a bad example because that is actually something important to the accuracy of information on the wiki. This doesn't do much of anything at all besides force small edits to many old images.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 18:33, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::That could be said about proposals in general. If it doesn't matter to you, wouldn't it make more sense to not vote at all? If I see a proposal on a subject I don't care about, I just don't vote. After all, if it matters to ''someone'', it matters in general and shouldn't just be opposed because of what amounts to "I don't care about this." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:36, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::I'd argue a majority (or at least significant number) of readers likely don't care either way about citations for names in other languages. But that doesn't mean people who do care about the change don't exist, or that it's inherently a bad change. I think "eh who cares" is also a flimsy reason to oppose a change. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:38, October 28, 2024 (EDT)


Wait, so if this is already often the way things are, will the oppose option change that? That would mean this proposal lacks a "do nothing" option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:07, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.
:Oppose is a "do nothing." I'm not going to include an option for what I would consider a ''negative'' change. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:28, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::Wasn't suggesting you should, just got confused since you were making comments about "doing the opposite". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:31, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::That was mainly directed at the "too much work" argument. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:32, October 28, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Camwoodstock}} - Things like the TTYDr bestiary images are not covered by this proposal, only small icon sprites that are intended to be square anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:46, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.
:For the record, we know that wasn't exactly what the proposal was targetting, we mostly mentioned it as it's a pretty striking example of how including these transparent margins in the images themselves can backfire (besides, it's one of the most recent examples of such a thing happening.) We hope that makes sense, anyway. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:48, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::I still don't see why it's preferable to be forced to use the HTML to make them somewhat close-ish to accurate when simply letting it have the one or two columns of blank pixels that it's supposed to have on one side of it would look better for practical reasons anyway. It's a lot simpler and doesn't hurt anything to do. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:52, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::Because sometimes, you ''don't'' want them to be entirely accurate; while an original-resolution image might be wanted for, say, a gallery or a table, in an article, template, or especially in an infobox, you probably don't want the original size and would want something a lot more readily scalable, without transparent margins baked into the image that you need to futz with. At best, it would be too small to add a proper caption to; at worst, you basically gut the clarity of the image itself. For example, while not an "icon" in the sense of the original proposal, the articles for various objects from [[Super Mario Land]] upscale the images outside of their original context. Infoboxes on articles such as the [[Lift Block]] would be rendered borderline incomprehensible if the images were not enlarged like this. And the grown image size is accomplished not via baking it into the files themselves, but via using fairly basic wikiscript or HTML; that way, on the main article, they can still appear in their original format. This general philosophy applies to icons as well, which is why we bring it up.<br>Again, if someone was looking for the raw, unedited sprites, they would likely head to The Spriter's Resource and not us; our goal here is to make these images accurate, of course, but we need to make them both usable in articles and also keep them standardized between one another; baking transparent margins into the images themselves, even if technically accurate to the source material, does run counter to that latter goal. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 21:09, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::There are plenty of instances where we'd have to edit ripped textures anyway because they're ripped rotated or flipped. Cropping to content is similar to those nondestructive edits and I still fail to see how it's such a big issue, we don't need to preserve transparent pixels just because image editors deliberately padded out assets just for the game engine to decipher properly. Otherwise we should upload sprites without any color data and their palette data as separate entities. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:15, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::::It's destructive to me. ._. Also, saying "zero" readers is obviously wrong if there's people supporting this. "Who cares" is never a good argument. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:10, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::{{@|Camwoodstock}} - Boosting them by a consistent size factor (like 50%, 200%, 300%, etc) is perfectly fine - Lift Block, for example, is sized up by 1000%. And it's a lot easier to do that when they have consistent base dimensions so you don't have to look the specific dimensions to resize them by for each image separately. Having all the 32px images display at 64px is a lot simpler than having to look through each to see which needs to be at 64, which needs to be at 62, which needs to be at 58, and so on. That's pointless, tedious, and can be prevented completely by doing what this proposal aims for. And again, non-consistent size factors, like "just make them all display at 50px!" are really messy - see the ''Mario Power Tennis'' example above, and how Shy Guy's icon is ultra pixelated while Bowser's is fairly crisp. It's grossly inconsistent, and on a table, it can't just be rawsized with a percentage (and rawsize in galleries only works for making them ''bigger'', not ''smaller''). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:45, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
::I was the one who uploaded these bestiary images, and I had a few reasons. The main one is that some images like Smorg are cut off by the borders and would look strange when cropped. Also, since each of the Tattle Log images display against a border and background that I was also able to rip, I was hoping we'd be able to fit the enemy images over the background and border so it'd be more accurate to how it appears in-game. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 20:30, October 29, 2024 (EDT)


By the way, a striking example of ripped assets that are extremely counterpoint to this proposal are the [[Mario_Party:_Island_Tour#Spaces|Mario Party: Island Tour]] space icons. Every single one of those icons are cropped from a single texture that compiles all of them, absolutely requiring you to crop images and then crop to content because none of the options suggested that would "encourage" them cover those instances. Hence why I think it's extremely pertinent to encourage crop to content except for formatting purposes in regards to tables. In addition, icons ripped may also come with engine gamma-fixes or even be outright flipped or rotated all which require correction in display for browsing purposes. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:10, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
:Hence "when applicable to their origins". As that one is done differently, it is not applicable. {{file link|MK8DX-BCP audience TVV.png|This texture}} was stored in a similar manner with all eight of its frames in a single image (evenly spaced), while there's also {{file link|MKAGP audience.png|this group texture image}} that has someone sideways. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:06, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Some important things to note:<br>
====Blank support====
'''1.''' The proposal only applies to icons that have a natural similarity, such as characters, items, board spaces, badges, etc. It does not apply to textures, screenshots, logos or scanners.<br>
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
'''2.''' In fact, the wiki and the TSR do not have the same purpose. The wiki is not a graphics museum, nor does the TSR have informational content. But this has nothing to do with what the proposal suggests is the organizational factor.<br>
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
'''3.''' "Who cares?" Yes, the readers and Super Mario enthusiasts who visit the site every day may not care. But the proposal is not for them. After all, are they the ones who vote here? The proposal is for the editors, for those who submit images and create galleries. Approving this would only be a way to better organize what is already common practice.<br>
#{{User|PopitTart}} <small>(This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)</small>
'''4.''' This prevents things like {{file link|M&S2014 Mii Costume 55.png|it}}.<br>
#{{User|Altendo}} <small>(Look at the code for my reasoning)</small><!---It might not seem annoying, but over time, or answering multiple proposals at once, it can start putting stress. Copy-pasting can be done, but it is just much easier to not type anything at all.---->
[[User:blueberrymuffin|blueberrymuffin]] ([[User talk:blueberrymuffin|talk]]) 17:44, October 29, 2024 (-03 UTC)
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}}
:What constitutes as an "icon" is entirely arbitrary in terms of graphics, there is technically no difference between graphics HUD of a character's disembodied head in a map and images used as flair in menus, or images of items in say Mario Party 4, or little images in the group photo in ''Mario Superstar Baseball''. As for the "who cares" statement, that's specifically why I voted to oppose: '''I''' don't care about what this proposal wants to implement, I think it's way too draconian for the purposes of this wiki, and I am having my voice heard, and there is a discernible amount of people who share that sentiment. ''Editors use this wiki too''. I also don't see the issue with the cropped Mii suits, MediaWiki has the tools to format those images should they be formatted. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 23:18, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really ''are'' just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at ''all.'' <small>(Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)</small> <!---Silent per all.---->
::"MediaWiki has the tools," does it? Please tell me how, using the <nowiki>[[File:xxxxxxx.png]]</nowiki> type of image, you can implement a resizing of, say, "50%" rather than individually going in and checking the pixel dimensions and dividing it by two yourself. As far as I am aware, you cannot, and when there's 70 or so images all with different dimensions, that's adding a needless amount of tedious work when the obvious solution is to give them the same dimensions in the first place so it only needs done for ''one'' value. And obviously, what makes an icon is determined by whether it is ''used'' as an icon. That doesn't even need said, so I don't know where you were going with that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:29, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
#{{user|TheDarkStar}} - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
#{{user|Ninja Squid}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}}
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all. The idea that you can't infer what a blank vote means is absolute pedantic nonsense. The idea that per all has this grand meaning or that if we allow blank votes people could abuse voting is ridiculous. News flash if people wanna abuse votes they can just put per all. Do you people hear yourselves? The idea that a blank vote can lead to an anarchy of votes nobody can understand or will lead to this great rush of bad faith votes but the 7 characters that spell out per all will protect us from the anarchy is a goddamn preposterous argument.
#{{User|MCD}} - If we allow per all votes then there's no reason not to allow a blank vote that clearly infers the same thing. If someone makes a blank vote and you don't understand why then you can always ask them to expand in the comments. Outside of that the only real argument against this is personal preference which shouldn't dictate whether we allow this or not.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all/proposal votes are already rarely, if ever, scrutinized. Allowing blank votes won't change that, and I don't think most voters necessarily put as much thought into them as some of the opposition seems to think. I know I've cast per all votes in proposals where I agree with the premise but my thoughts don't align 100% with everyone who has voted already. You can just as easily cast a bad faith vote disguised under per all as you could a blank vote anyway, but we really shouldn't be assuming anyone is participating in proposals in bad faith without a good reason. (Also, having to write "per proposal" on your own proposal is silly.)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>per Shoey.</s> per Mario's comments below. I found them contextualizing. I don't think this really the big deal folks think it would be - we should assume good faith of fellow users regardless. And if this doesn't workout as expected, there is nothing preventing folks from trying to overturn this in a couple months if they so choose.


I do not know if this has been mentioned or demonstrated yet, but '''this is what the ''Mario Kart: Toadstool Tour'' icons look in a gallery when rawsize is integrated''':
====Blank Oppose====
<gallery class=rawsize>
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
MarioMPT.png
#{{User|Technetium}} I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
Luigi MPT.png
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone ''does'' provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
Shy Guy MPT.png
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} {{color|white|Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type ''two words''.}}
Peach MPT.png
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all <small>(is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)</small>
Yoshi MPT.png
#{{User|Axii}} Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
DK MPT.png
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
Bowser MPT.png
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
WarioMPT.png
#{{user|DesaMatt}} Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
</gallery>
#{{User|Blinker}} Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu
#{{User|Scrooge200}} A blank vote would be hard to interpret, and you should at least give ''some'' reasoning rather than none at all. A "per all" sends the message that the voter has read the proposal and all its votes and is siding with them. For more heated proposals, a blank vote is basically arbitrary because it doesn't tell you anything about why they chose the side they did.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per opposition. "Per [someone]" implies that you took the time to peruse someone's arguments, is an explicit and articulate enough way to show support for those, and it's typically only around a dozen characters long including the space. A blank vote is ambiguous--it could be what I just described, or it can be a vessel for drive-by voting, bandwagoning, or even a simple bias towards the fictional thing so discussed. Sure, the weight of your vote would the same regardless, but if I'm not able to tell which user's case you express your support for, be it the proposer themself or one of the voters, I can just as easily infer that you're not engaging with the proposal in good faith. Give your vote a meaning.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} 2 things: Putting a blank vote doesn’t automatically mean you agree with previous voters. It may mean you’re voting because you like voting, or you may have accidentally saved changes before typing a reason. And… It’s not really a big deal to type 6 letters, 1 blank and 1 full stop. If you are too lazy to type 1 a, 1 e, 2 l, 1 p, 1 r, 1 blank, and 1 full stop, it implies you are too lazy to vote properly.
#{{User|Hewer}} I see the arguments for both sides but I'm slightly leaning towards this one. Even if blank votes are supposed to be interpreted as "per all" votes, that wouldn't be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with this policy, and it shouldn't be that big a deal to have to write two three-letter words to clarify the reasoning for a vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. The reason you're expected to provide an explanation with your vote is to drive discussion and to help people interpret the final result of the proposal. "Why did this proposal succeed?" "Why did this proposal fail?" While "per all" isn't the ''most'' useful reasoning to provide, at least it's ''something''. I understand the concept of treating blank votes as equivalent to "per all", but there's no guarantee that future wiki editors would understand it.


and this is what they look like when it is added to '''the gallery as laid out in this proposal, with heights and widths set to 72'''.
<s>#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides ''some'' insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.</s>
<gallery class=rawsize heights=72 widths=72>
MarioMPT.png
Luigi MPT.png
Shy Guy MPT.png
Peach MPT.png
Yoshi MPT.png
DK MPT.png
Bowser MPT.png
WarioMPT.png
</gallery>
I do not know if this is apparent in all displays, but Donkey Kong and Bowser are smaller than they should be in the second row. This is happening because the dimensions set for the gallery (72) are smaller than the dimensions of the sprites for DK and Bowser. '''When the heights and widths are changed to 79 (the pxl height of the biggest sprite), it looks like this''':
<gallery class=rawsize heights=79 widths=79>
MarioMPT.png
Luigi MPT.png
Shy Guy MPT.png
Peach MPT.png
Yoshi MPT.png
DK MPT.png
Bowser MPT.png
WarioMPT.png
</gallery>
I do not know if has been alluded to elsewhere in the discussion or changes anything, but I just wanted to point this out. In galleries, you can use rawsize to accurately display assets to scale as long as their are no dimensions set for the gallery, or the dimensions set are larger than the largest sprite. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:04, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
:But you can't ''shrink'' them or use that outside of galleries, so it is not a solution to the primary issue of "it screws up table cell widths and heights," and "you'd need to go in and resize each individually on a table since mediawiki doesn't have a percent-based standard image-resizer, only a pixel-based one, and that's an unnecessarily large amount of work and added HTML for adding proper-sized bounding boxes separately, needlessly bloating the page's byte count when the easy, practical, and obvious solution is to just upload them with the intentional shared dimensions in the first place." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:26, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
::I honestly feel these are valid points. I found instances where it is easier to us certain assets in tables when they are all squared in dimension, and I personally have not heard persuasive reasons why easy integration into templates or tables should always take a backseat to their presence in galleries since we are primarily a resource to be read. Not just browsed. However, this is again a case where I feel allowing users to exercise discretion would be better than a rule. For example, I agree that squaring the ''Double Dash!!'' icons is nice, but I don't know how that really benefits the display for the ''Mario & Sonic'' Mii costumes.
::For clarity, I would not support a proposal that insists we must always crop to content. I understand assets are not always restricted to galleries, and tables and templates are often setup with reliable size parameters. It is generally easier to edit an asset once rather than adjust all the tables it appears to ensure it is displayed in a preferred way, and while cropping to content is nice, I do not personally think it really "ruins" the display in a gallery if one or two assets are out of alignment with their neighbors or look smaller in preview. I at least do not think it is so unsightly that cropping to content should be prioritized over their utility outside of galleries. Users should have the ability to exercise discretion. It remains an important part of making this a communal space. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 02:28, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:::Keep in mind the proposal is not specifically about keeping the original dimensions, it's more about consistency - cropping can occur as long as that too is consistent. And if an icon is completely unique and not part of any "family" with other ones, then it doesn't matter. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:36, October 30, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I think you're missing the point the opposition here or in the previous proposal is trying to make. As far as I'm aware, no one's saying "never do this". It's already done on the wiki, and it's good when the circumstances call for it. I don't think the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example you posted is that bad but it's definitely better at the consistent dimensions, and I don't see anyone here clamoring to crop down the ''Double Dash'' icons either. What I take issue with, and I assume many of my fellow voters feel the same, is this proposal's goal to essentially enforce that across the wiki whether it's helpful and wanted for design purposes or not. The ''Mario Power Tennis'' icons you used as an example aren't currently used anywhere on the wiki where inconsistent dimensions actually matter. I assume the [[Mario_%26_Sonic_at_the_Sochi_2014_Olympic_Winter_Games#Costumes|''Mario & Sonic'' Mii costumes]] would also get caught up in this since they're technically icons, but in my opinion, consistent sizing is unnecessary and the images look worse with the extra space needed to accommodate the largest costumes. At the very least you can't say it looks objectively worse that they're not all centered in this case. You've mentioned having OCD several times in these types of discussions, so I recognize and sympathize that some of these inconsistencies can be frustrating for you, but your personal preferences and irritations aren't always going to reflect the majority of the userbase.
====Blank Comments====
I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:::My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::::My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:{{@|Mario}} I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:In my opinion, saying "per OP" or "per (insert user here) is just as much effort as saying "per all" and at least demonstrates a modicum of original thought. I think that a blank vote is essentially the same as just voicing that you agree with the OP, so I did vote for that option in this case - but I think per all does an equally poor job to a blank vote at explaining what you think. At least requiring specific users to be hit with the "per" when voting would give far more of a baseline than "per all". That's not really what this proposal is about though, so I won't dwell on it. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 00:22, January 2, 2025 (EST)


Also, the reason rawsize keeps getting brought up is because ''you'' were the one who started this proposal with a comparison of images in galleries and made it seem like a key point of your proposal. I'm not sure why you did that, and it feels misrepresentative of the situation at best since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Expand_use_of_.22rawsize.22_gallery_class|you were the one who proposed its wider usage a few months ago]] and should've known it was an easy solution to the specific problem you were presenting. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 14:59, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:I know I proposed that addition. I mainly used a gallery as an example here because it was convenient to bang out quickly, not at an illustration that it is the only issue brought on by this. In regards to making it a rule though, please recall I am not stating here it "has" to be the native dimensions specifically. Also, we have other image upload rules that some people and/or wikis might consider "draconian" but have been around long enough here that they make perfect sense to us (don't upload non-animated .gif's, don't convert .jpg's to .png's and especially don't give them transparency, don't optimize images with metadata, and the above proposed one with currently unanimous support regarding NES palettes), so I really don't see how this ends up any different. I specifically noted in the proposal and its very title that if it straight-up doesn't work in whatever context, that it doesn't need done for it, so I don't see how it ends up as a problem anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:58, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:: This unfortunately contributes to the same problem I had with the previous proposal. Your reply here makes it sound like there would be no substantive or practical difference between how folks generally handle assets already, making it unclear what would actually change if the proposal were to pass. What would change? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:::Because when I tried to enforce "how folks generally handle assets already" it was treated as me going notably out-of-line. There's always gonna be ''someone'' who uploads a .jpg -> .png image because they don't know any better or don't realize it (I'm guilty of the latter from before I knew to check with the "save image as" function), and that needs to be corrected - it is how we "generally do things," but we do it because that is a thing that needs discouraged, hence there being a rule. I see this as no different from that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:52, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
::::This proposal is just going to result in a patchwork of interpretation of how to approach these assets. It's a sign of a very flawed proposal. Doesn't help that your entire bedrock of reasoning that led to this kind of proposal (that we should be encouraged to maintain the original dimensions of a ripped sprite), which I have deemed utter nonsense and I stand by it being utter nonsense, continues to be maintained. This leaves me with a not very confident impression you have any clue how these assets are created, stored, and used in a video game, that you understand ''why'' an asset is padded and has dimensions of 128x256 or something and ''why'' this doesn't mean a wiki should be necessarily maintaining these dimensions. {{User:Mario/sig}} 00:33, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::::I have explained time and time and time and time and time and time again that ''this'' proposal ''does NOT'' require the original dimensions. Just ''shared'' dimensions. I figured putting it at the top in '''{{color|purple|ALL-CAPS BOLDED BRIGHT PURPLE}}''' would be enough to get people to actually read and realize this, but apparently not. Please acknowledge this and stop treating it as though that is my argument here when it is ''not''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:02, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Let me clarify: when I mentioned the bedrock of reasoning, I meant to contextualize the situation that led up to the proposal. It's to support my criticism of your proposal, which was made in response to the earlier one that was canceled from mounting opposition, that this follow up proposal is poorly made. Due to the timing of things, it comes off as an attempt to simultaneously continue your practices of insisting that image dimensions are important information to maintain (they are not) but with flawed solutions designed around this flawed principle. To me, this is a confusing proposal that will lead to conflicting approaches to how an asset will be handled, and the examples used don't do a great job clarifying points (this example shouldn't even be a table imo). {{User:Mario/sig}} 02:04, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::They absolutely are, but regardless of that, if it ''wasn't'' a table and were instead a gallery, the OCD-triggering vertical position issue would be even worse. (Seriously, I'd get less feeling of disgust from an animated loop of Wario puking up an endless stream of black dioxic squid ink onto Penny than I get from this - hell, that wouldn't even be half of it. This is trypophobia-level shit here.) In regards to that edit you made to your vote, obviously non-icons are completely unrelated to this. I worded this as specifically as I could to avoid it being abused. This is for icons and icons alone, and by "game-related," I mean such as "MKDD-related" or "MPT-related" to determine which group gets which parameters. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:21, October 31, 2024 (EDT)


::::I think there was some misunderstanding amongst parties after the previous proposal was cancelled. I at least do not think anyone intentionally meant any harm. The impression I have is that a lack of familiarity with certain tools lead to some bad-faith interpretations of why folks did the things that they did. But regardless, I think a gentler, less heavy-handed approach to these types of things would be better going forward. I do not think this needs to be strict policy, or something staff and other users need to enforce. But generally, as a courtesy, if one wants to adjust assets that are being used in particular fashions outside of galleries, it does not hurt to reach out and ask if it would be okay to adjust their dimensions. And if a user cropped material, one should not invoke rules that do not exist as actual policy, or bring up some "innate" sprite-ripping principals that do not exist. (I understand the point of this specific proposal is to make certain rules concrete, but I am referring to some of the interactions I saw between users before this current proposal was raised.) Rather, there is no harm in explaining why it is helpful to keep certain assets at particular dimensions for tables and templates. I know some folks have mentions CSS coding, but no one has bothered explaining what that would look like, and generally, adjusting the empty space around an asset is the most user-friendly and intuitive path to take. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 01:28, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring ''a'' written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)


@SeanWheeler: I believe the proposal is just for the icons within a particular "set" to be consistent with each other, not icons of different sets. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:46, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Fun With Despair}} And a blank oppose vote would mean what, exactly? At least with "per" votes, it's obvious that there must first be someone to agree with, in this case, the other opposers. A blank oppose vote on the other hand is little better than a vote just saying "No". <small>Which, imo, also should not be allowed.</small> [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 09:27, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Blinker}} If you can't pick at least one user to specifically reference in a "Per _____", then I don't think the vote has much merit to begin with. "Per All" is just as much a "No" vote as a blank would be. It's lazy and barely tells anything about your opinion whatsoever or even if you bothered to read the other votes. If we are allowing them at all, a blank and a Per All should be equivalent. I would prefer we ban both, but oh well.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 22:55, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::I disagree. A "per all" vote tells you that the voter agrees with all the previous votes, and sees the reasoning given by them as good justification for voting the same way. I don't see how that's less valid than only agreeing with a specific user. Of course, if someone is writing only "per all" just because it's an easy way to not have to give an actual reason, that isn't right, but that doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with "per all" votes. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 11:55, January 11, 2025 (EST)
:This is a bit of an extreme-case scenario here, but imagine a proposal which is a landslide failure, only 1 support from the author and 20 opposes. Consider how the creator of that proposal would feel in the scenario where the opposition is 1 proper vote and 19 "per" votes, versus an opposition of 20 votes that are all completely blank. How would they handle the former? The latter?<br>To take it a bit more extreme, say you were tasked to make a follow-up proposal. How exactly would you go about it in the former case? Could you do the same thing in the latter case? Does the question ''even make sense at all'' in the latter case?<br>In no uncertain terms: how exactly should one be expected to set up a proper proposal if they're only met with silent disapproval? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 03:35, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::What the hell are you talking about? What's the difference between 20 per all votes against you or 20 blank votes against you? An ass kicking is an ass kicking. I'd feel the exact same way either way "wow people really hated my idea." Again the idea that there's this huge difference between 20 people saying per Shoey and 20 people not saying that, especially if the rules say that blank votes should be considered the equivalent of a per all or a proposal. What is a person supposed to do in any scenario where they lose in a landslide? They accept that there idea is unpopular and move on (or they throw a huge fit and get told to fuck off) {{User|Shoey}}
:::This is about wiki maintenance, not social dynamics you'd find in middle school. If you're going to have a landslide loss, the least everyone in the room could be bothered to do is at least ''say why.'' Because otherwise, well, as far as the proposal creator is concerned, ''any'' blank vote could be telling them to fuck off. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::This proposal passing wouldn't even allow this scenario to happen. The point is to classify all blank votes as "per all", and if you have 20 blank votes with not actual reasoning, then none of them would actually count because there's no reasoning for them to per by. The first vote would have to have a reason, and in that case both situations you've come up with here are exactly the same. {{User:Shy Guy on Wheels/sig}} 11:12, January 17, 2025 (EST)


{{@|Killer Moth}} - See the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' table above and the alignment issues it had before I enacted this principle on it, and how it's much more eye-pleasing afterward? ''That'' is the point. Without it, they tend to look gross - like that table did before. If you can't see why that's an issue, then I envy you, but it really looks bad - the version with the alignment lines is how ''my'' eyes see it even when they aren't there. And I have still yet to see any actual downside to this other than people trying to cram them into signatures, which is... not what the wiki is about and that absolutely should ''not'' take priority in presentation. Same reason we don't add fake armbands to Bowser's SMB1 sprite since that's transparency. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:50, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
I don't understand the majority of the oppositions. The idea that blank votes could encourage drive by voting or bandwagon voting like what are talking about? Do you think people can't bandwagon vote with a per all or a per proposal? There's already nothing stopping somebody from voting and then never checking the proposal again in the current system. If people wanna make bad faith votes they already can! They just say per all, or per proposal, or per so and so. There's no eliminating least of all with some arbitrary per proposal requirements. {{User|Shoey}}
:Again, the dominant perspective of the opposition is '''not''' "no, this is a bad idea. No one is allowed to set up assets to make them aligned as they appear in the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' table." Personally, I think the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example you provided is aesthetically pleasing when the sprites are all aligned, and folks should have the freedom to do that. It is for similar reasons that I integrated organized 100x100px sizing for all images in the mainline game tables and try to ensure columns are the same width across all tables in an article. Rather, the oppositional perspective is, "no, we do not want to police this or make this a type of rule. People should have the freedom to experiment with what types of dimensions they want for the assets used in their tables, and we do not agree that cropping to visual content is inherently destructive of an asset." - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:11, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:That's assuming bad faith in written "per" votes. I already said that a blank vote can be equated to ''anything'', constructive or frivolous, it ultimately depends on how you personally imagine it to be. It can have the exact same exact rhetoric value as fandom-driven voting, as in "I vote to make a page for X game/character because it is my favorite game/character!" and you wouldn't be able to tell. Unless you ask that user for clarification, at which point you might as well cut the middleman and enforce users to state something in their vote like currently. An explicit "per" is not only more on-point, but takes only a few keyboard presses to type out. I'd be more open to a proposal that seeks to allow blank votes as an express "I agree with the proposer in particular but not necessarily the voters", because as it stands, a blank vote can be worth jack-all. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 08:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::I feel doing this is an absolute good, and if someone has the freedom to crop, I have the freedom to restore. Two-way street and all that. Also, LGM's argument from what I can tell is exactly that (which coupled by the general belligerent/caustic directing of profanity towards it) fueled most of this. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:57, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:The problem is that a blank vote, even if we ''say'' it equals "per", there is no way to tell if that's how someone is actually using it unless they're otherwise asked; and if they get asked, well, they'll more likely than not just say "oh yeah, it was totally a per all!". And when you open the gates to "using a blank vote as anything"... well, you open the proverbial floodgates. Does the person have something thoughtful to say that they just don't feel like they can phrase correctly? Does the person feel like everything else has been said, an ''actual'' per vote? Do they think "'''YOU SHOULD EAT A BOWL OF NAILS AS RECOMPENSE FOR YOUR FOOLISHNESS AND YOU MUST WALLOW IN THE MISERY AND HUMILIATION YOU DESERVE AND OR GO AWAY FROM THE LIFE OF THE WIKI FOREVER PLEASE'''" and hold nothing but contempt for the fact you would put something up to proposal, if not more than that? Or do they just. Literally not care. And they didn't even read the proposal for 2 seconds before picking the option that sounded kinda neat. And if you asked them, they would say "wait, ''that'' is what we're voting on?" What are they actually thinking? All you see is literally no text at all. For all you know, it could be all of the above, or none of those at all. If you ask them to clarify, and they don't, what exactly do you do in that case? What's different from ''their'' blank vote aside from the fact they were questioned for it? It's utter nonsense.<br>tl;dr; even if we ''say'' "a blank is per all", a blank vote tells you absolutely nothing about what the voter actually thinks, up to and including that you can't actually tell if they're ''using it properly as a per vote''. And in trying to fix that issue, well, there's a solution we can think of to fairly easily denote when a vote is a per vote; it's just 3 key presses, a space bar press, 3 more key presses, and the period key. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:28, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::I respect that you view a policy revision like the one advocated for in this proposal is an "absolute good," but I do not think you have made a compelling persuasive argument as to why, or at least not one to me. And I understand your concerns over a "two way streak," but we do have [[MarioWiki:Courtesy|courtesy policies]] on this wiki. Many of them seem relevant, but the one I would like to highlight is that '''users should not participate in other users' editing projects without asking them first'''. Galleries are more of a shared neutral space, but if one wants to crop to content or retain space around ones that are integrated into tables in a spatially-dependent way, it would be courteous for one to reach out to the uploader of those assets first or at least touch base with them. The ''Mario Power Tennis'' ones, for example, have only been integrated in [[Mario Power Tennis#Participants|one table]] at the time of this comment and cropping them does not seem to have impacted the layout or scaling in any perceivable way to me. There was no demonstrable harm.
:::I do not think LGM is advocating that arranging tables like the one in the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example should not be allowed, or at least that is not my reading of her comments. I believe her perspective is not dissimilar from mine. I would personally appreciate it if you reviewed what I wrote in my vote above. I think it would be clarifying.
:::I could be wrong, but I believe the curtness comes from statements you had included in the previous proposal that, from her experience as someone who also rips assets and someone who participates on this wiki very regularly, she knew were objectively false, but you were presenting them as hard facts and even invoking them to talk down to another user. This is understandably not appreciated conduct, and it is not uncommon from you. She can speak more to that if she wants to. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:13, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
::::The statements I made then were accurate too, our perspectives are just completely incompatible. And considering in the cases of those Mii costume images, here, the original uploader (who is supporting this proposal) explicitly wants to keep them they way they were uploaded in, which is what I reverted them to, and LGM is reverting them from. The specific thing she has said that I take issue with is her claim that the space is absolutely worthless and should be removed from everywhere it feasibly can be, which naturally I perceive to be extremely misguided. As for the ''Mario Power Tennis'' table, it only looks as good as it does thanks to my own ingenuity of hiding a cell divider bar to make two cells look like one cell - that table is ''the'' one that has given me trouble in that regard. Presumably if they are changed to a tabular form, those icons will remain useful if we start covering rivals for it like we do for the 64 game, but by then it'd be easier if they did share parameters. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:39, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Maintaining space needs to be done for a good reason, and having it simply because it was ripped that way ''is not a good reason''. It is okay to find an example where extra space is needed but that table provided is a heavily flawed example due to being an inappropriate use of a table and the suggestion below that does fix the issue to begin with (and probably there is a code for horizontal alignment too). As for Mario Power Tennis table, if you're referring to this one[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Mario_Power_Tennis&oldid=4392103#Participants] that's another fundamentally flawed table which was one of the many other tables that prompted criticism by multiple users and would not be my example to try to illustrate a proposal. The ''one'' example I think may work is [[:File:MK8 Mario Icon.png]] due to its use in multiple pages and being in an array with similar scaled images, which were all put in a 128x128 box. Not sure if cropping to content is going to lead to unexpected results but for the record, I don't see the point of cropping to content for these Mario Kart 8 things either, since they're already reasonably occupying the space (unlike those Mario Kart Double Dash map icons which were heavily padded); it's a case of don't fix what isn't broken. The proposal doesn't really advocate any of this. It's, what I can glean, a way to maintain aspect ratio while cropping tightly as possible without losing information, but dressed up in bad examples and imprecise wording (like the proposal does not even define what a "game-related 'icon-type' image" is, so). {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:56, November 2, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I was more referring to how the N64 Mario Tennis had a separate "partners/rivals" table before I incorporated that information into the main character table, and it used the face icons. I was saying if MPT did something similar, which it probably should if there is indeed a hard-coded system like that in the game. I don't really think I need to define the icon thing; but if you insist, I mean "icon" as in "a small image representing a subject," with "game related" simply meaning as a per-game basis (ie, MK64 icons have no bearing on MKDD icons). (Also, off-topic, but how else would the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example be handled if not as a table? There's other information below it that's been cropped out.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:52, November 2, 2024 (EDT)


The ''Diddy Kong'' example, too, can be easily fixed with aforementioned styling, in this case by using <code>vertical-align: bottom</code>. That is to say however that those sprites are of a size where it makes sense for all of them to just retain their original size, I would not crop those either. There are cases like the Mii suits from the other day where it does make sense to crop them. {{User:Lakituthequick/sig}} 17:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Read from here:
:Not all of them have flat bottoms in other games, of course, while that also doesn't fix the left-right issue. But yes, I digress. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:57, October 31, 2024 (EDT)


Another thing I want to ask the opposition: if {{file link|058-SMMMontyMole.png|this}} is to not be cropped, why should any of the other things? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:24, November 6, 2024 (EST)
:That should be cropped to content. The large blank space serves a purpose to optimize the graphic in a game, not so much here. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:06, November 9, 2024 (EST)


All right, if this is going to continue to be "case by case," then expect a ''looooooot'' more discussions on this in the future. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:29, November 10, 2024 (EST)


===Allow unregistered users to comment under talk page proposals===
One thing I never understood about rule 2 is why unregistered users are not allowed to comment under proposals. The rule states: "Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals." While it makes sense on this page, it is semi-protected after all, talk page proposals are a different story. Why should IPs be prevented from commenting under talk page proposals? Most IPs are readers of this wiki and they should be allowed to express their opinion on wiki matters too. I've seen several examples of IPs making good points on talk pages, I imagine most of them are regular visitors who are more interested in reading rather than editing, and allowing them to leave a comment under a TPP would only be beneficial.


If this proposal passes, unregistered and not-autoconfirmed users would be permitted to comment under talk page proposals. They still wouldn't be allowed to vote or create proposals, only comment.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Axii}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support (unregistered users proposal)====
#{{User|Axii}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Wait, this was a rule?
#{{User|Pseudo}} This rule doesn't really seem like it accomplishes anything.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Why wasn't this already applicable?
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} it makes sense if it's just for comments
#{{User|Drago}} The rule was only [[Special:Diff/1858371|changed]] because of this page's semi-protection and not, as far as I can tell, because of any misuse of comment sections by unregistered users. Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} This is a reasonable change.
#{{User|Dine2017}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Anons use the wiki too and should be able to voice their concerns in the comments section, there's no reason to bar them the ability to comment.
#{{User|Mario}} We'll see if the Bunch of Numbers behave.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.


====Oppose (unregistered users proposal)====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Unregistered users just have numbers for their names, so that looks awkward with the way the votes are counted. It's easy to use your IP to sockpuppet, so I wouldn't want anyone doing that for the votes. And even for just the comments, I wouldn't want anyone to sockpuppet in an argument for manipulation tactics. Nor do I want to see poor grammer or vandalism. Anyone who wants to participate in voting discussions should sign up. This page was semiprotected for a reason. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 00:19, November 1, 2024 (EDT)


====Comments (unregistered users proposal)====
Do you know what I mean if this was my vote? {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:37, January 17, 2025 (EST)
"While it makes sense on this page, it is semi-protected after all"<br>If the protection history displayed above this page's edit box is any indication, it was the other way around. There was already a rule against anonymous voting on this page by the time it was semi-protected. In that case, it might be useful to look into the reasons this rule was made in the first place and, if there's any disagreement, extend this proposal to this page too. As to where these reasons are stated, I don't know. My assumption is that the rule exists because anons are more prone to shit up the place than registered and autoconfirmed users. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:15, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:Yes, depending on whether the vote is placed in "Support" or "Oppose", I would know that your opinion is that you either agree with my proposal or you don't. I don't really see the problem with this personally. All that matters is whether you agree or disagree. As it stands, someone could vote against a proposal by just saying "No.", which is just as productive if not less.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 10:56, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:I couldn't find a reason why IPs were disallowed to comment. My only assumption is that when this page was protected the rule was modified to mention that IPs couldn't comment, but talk page proposals weren't considered. I'll look into it more and potentially add a third option to allow IPs to comment here as well. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 16:20, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
::That's only your read of a blank vote. A blank vote can also just mean that the user agrees or disagrees with the proposal out of sheer sympathy for the fictional thing described in the proposal, for example. It doesn't just matter if you agree or disagree, because that can be purely subjective towards the subject at hand. If a "per" vote is already difficult to derive intent from, then a blank vote provides even fewer clues, with no way of knowing until the user clarifies their choice ''somehow''. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::If somebody wants to place a vote on a proposal because they're I dunno, in love with Luigi and doesn't want his article changed and not anything actually expressed in the proposal, they can already just write "per all" or even make a fake BS argument as it is. Writing "per all" has absolutely never discouraged anyone. Every single argument made regarding disingenuous voting can be applied to "Per all" or "Per proposal" or even just writing "No, just no." with no argument as I have literally seen people do with valid votes that get counted.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 13:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::We, respectfully, disagree with the notion that you can apply the same concerns with disingenuous votes to "per all"s, because the fundamental point of saying "per all" is to literally say, "per all the other voters." There is a fairly rigid definition for what "per all" means. It's the definition for the word "per", and the definition for the word "all". How do you define silence? Even if we say "blank means per all", how exactly do you plan to police that? How can you tell what they ''actually meant'' when you're given absolutely nothing to go off of? If someone places a "per all" vote, sure, it's hard to tell what their overall thoughts are, but there is at least something there to go off of--there is ''something that can be said about it''. What does this give you?: <!-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK --> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:41, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::: Respectfully, have you never heard of a liar? Anyone who would be abusing blank votes to push their agenda is likely already just lying and writing "per all" when in actuality they just don't like the proposer or some of the people voting against the proposal and don't want that side to win. If you GENUINELY believe that writing "per all" is some monumental feat of brave honesty that verified the voter's integrity beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I have a bridge or twenty to sell you. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 14:03, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::: Okay, genuine question here; what do you think we're thinking if we choose to respond like this: <!-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK --> <br> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::Well cam considering the fact that this proposal specifically pertains to blank votes being treated the same as per all votes. I'd say your blank comment is a fake bullshit straw argument trying to equate a blank comment to a blank vote. {{User|Shoey}}
:::::::I don't think anything because unlike a vote with two defined options (a big fat AGREE or DISAGREE) that indicates the opinion of a voter, your post is lacking that context. It is a strawman using a completely different scenario. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 15:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::The answer was that we were thinking "this entire ordeal is just begging for someone to misinterpret someone else that blows up in some stupid TikTok fandom drama-tier nonsense where nobody says anything of value and/or actively refuses to listen to what is said, a situation that we firmly do not want to be a part of, yet we're worried we're already careening towards it already if we're having people gladly chime in with 'i have a bridge to sell you's or 'or they just throw a fit and get told to fuck off's"... And then we got up because we had to run a few errands and get a drink, so we pre-wrote this before that. If you want to doubt this, be our guest, but we have a picture of this in our Notepad++, pre-written and all, with a timestamp from our computer clock--not a screenshot, as that would be easily edited, unlike a photograph of an LCD.<br>...So, like, see what we mean? You can't gleam ''anything'' from total silence. Is it just a silent agreement with the consensus? Is it apathy? Is it an irrational meltdown? (As of writing this, we ''cannot'' blame you if that's what you assumed if you didn't see us in the Discord, being fairly casual... Sorry. We really wanted to commit to this stupid point, and we promise we won't do it again.) Is it some secret test of character? Unless someone tells you and they can back it up, ''you don't know.''<br>Our ultimate point, we guess, is that you gain a bare minimum something from a "per all", but nothing is... well, nothing. And while it is extremely, and at this point, ''extraordinarily'' petty of us, we would rather have that bare minimum something, than nothing at all. Which, admittedly... is kinda just what we said in our own vote almost a month ago, huh. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::I feel that if a known liar and bad faith poster that is inexplicably not banned and voting in proposals tries to justify a bad faith position with a bad vote... vote against them.... If I'm inputting my vote with simply <code><nowiki>#{{User|Mario}}</nowiki></code> after a series of 5 votes making a case against a proposal, or me being the second support in a proposal that has already outlined its points, what motives are you expecting from me (I assume you trust me to make fair and respectful judgement)? Can you assume good faith? Why can't you extend this courtesy to most other users? Is it really necessary I type something out beyond this? Should I be forced to end my votes in periods? {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)


{{@|SeanWheeler}} - This isn't about voting, it's about commenting. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:04, November 1, 2024 (EDT)
[[File:LM ending 13.png|thumb|Somehow one of my most contentious proposals I've ever made - {{User|Mario}} 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)]]
:For real, do you even read before voting on proposals? It's a small paragraph that makes it very clear that it's only about commenting under talk page proposals, not even on this page. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 01:07, November 1, 2024 (EDT)
Can I just ask why it is that the primary concern of this proposal's discussion so far has been the concern of "bad-faith voting"? Is there any kind of basis in recent events to justify this kind of concern over "drive-bys"? I don't really have a strong opinion either direction, but I'm not sure why we're so nervous about the potential of blank votes suddenly being moves towards people like, completely overrunning the proposals page or something? Feels like a slippery slope argument to me. [[User:Roserade|Roserade]] ([[User talk:Roserade|talk]]) 13:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:I'm not sure why the concern relies solely on bad-faith assumption of people casting votes. We're not supposed to be assuming bad faith or ulterior motives from blank votes. I can't understand how "per proposal" or "per all" alleviate those. People also say "just write it out anyway" but this is like forcing people to end their votes in full sentences with a full period. It's ''only'' one more keystroke? All I want to do is make it slightly easier to vote for people who probably like the idea of just reading the arguments, deciding with support or oppose, typing their name for the decision, and not being required to write anything else. {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::As I've stated before, I agree that you can never extract the true intent behind a "per proposer/per all" vote as it stands, and that it does not inherently alleviate assumptions of bad-faith and bandwagoning. Where I disagree is that blank votes would be somehow better. They'd be worse; until they're integrated in a sub-voting system under someone's vote as an expression of support, they'd afford no clue over which user's idea you'd even be rallying behind. Here, Pseudo makes a clear reference in his vote to Cam's, Technetium's, and Axii's reasonings, as Nintendo101 does with yours, so someone engaging with a proposal's discussion can have some idea of which talking points are more prevalent and worth stressing or combatting. Votes shouldn't just tie back to the proposal itself, they should also inform and be informed by other votes. Had the aforementioned users opted for blank votes instead, that principle is lost, and... well, we ''know'' these users have only demonstrated good faith so far, but for the sake of the argument, a blank vote in this case would not particularly help someone's presumption that they voted out of sympathy/out of spite/out of whatever subjective. What's to lose from a modicum of articulateness, other than a trivial amount of text memory? "Per" votes offer a small, but significant advantage over the alternative.<br>I strongly opine that assuming good faith in users by default has a limit somewhere--not towards established and contributive users, but towards new users who are less versed with the rules, who may be inclined to vote out of personal preference and where some suspicion from others would only be natural. Blank votes, and a change of rule that I assume they would entail, would only encourage such a practice. It's less about the compulsive liars, which you hypothesized above, and more about the candid newbies. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:12, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::I see. However we can't force people to add more to their votes, just as how it's not feasible to force ALL voters to write in unique opinions the comment sections. They simply have nothing else to add beyond indicating they decided which side best reflected their stance. If they want to reference a particular user to reinforce that point, I trust them that they will. If they really want to veil spite or bad intent that factored in their vote, they're not going to communicate it, even if it's required to write out a reason. People already likely do this. It doesn't really happen, or if it does, it's already in a multitude of other votes that actually have reasons. I'm not sure if there is a realistic scenario where multiple people conspire to undermine the process against a disliked user, but even in the case that happens, I don't think requiring a reason for a vote will stop them. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::Perhaps we could allow blank votes only as an alternative to "per proposer in particular". If you attribute a strict meaning to these votes, you diminish their ambiguity whilst encouraging users to actually state who they align with in the discussion if it's someone other than the proposer. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:45, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::That would still have the problem of requiring that you already know how the rule works beforehand to understand the votes, and I feel like it would probably not be very intuitive for new users. It makes more sense to me to just keep it so that reading the vote clearly tells you its reasoning. (That said, I could see the argument for allowing the initial support vote by the proposer to be blank, since they just explicitly outlined their reasoning in the proposal itself.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)


===Decide whether to cover the E3 2014 ''Robot Chicken''-produced sketches===
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
For {{wp|E3 2014}}, Nintendo's press conference was a video presentation similar to today's Nintendo Directs, featuring [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FgzkZC0reE clips of stop-motion sketches] by the producers of ''{{wp|Robot Chicken}}''. I feel that these qualify to receive coverage on this wiki, since their appearance in a video published by Nintendo means that they are officially authorized, and they prominently feature ''Mario'' franchise characters. However, I have never seen the sketches discussed in any wiki article, nor are they listed on [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], so I thought it would be appropriate to confirm their validity for coverage with a proposal.
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.


The following articles would be affected by this proposal if it passes (since the E3 2014 video is not a game, film, etc., coverage is best suited to an "Other appearances" section):
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.
*[[History of Mario]]
*[[History of Bowser]]
*[[History of Princess Peach]]
*[[History of Wario]]
*[[Reggie Fils-Aimé]]
*[[Fire Flower]]
*[[Bullet Bill]]
*[[List of implied entertainment]] (In the last sketch, Mario mentions the fictional game ''Mario Ballet'').


Regardless of which option ends up winning, a note should be added to MarioWiki:Coverage to explain how these sketches are classified. Also, I'm clarifying that this proposal does not involve any sketches from ''Robot Chicken'' itself, since those are clearly parodies that have no approval from Nintendo.
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''': {{User|ThePowerPlayer}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Hewer}} This feels logical enough that I'm not sure it needs a proposal or even an explicit note on the coverage policy, but per proposal just in 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|EvieMaybe}} per proposal
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Tails777}} Some of them were Mario related so I don't see any reason not to mention them. Per proposal.
#{{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|Ray Trace}} Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} At first, we were a bit confused as to why ''only'' E3 2014 was getting this treatment, but it turns out that no, actually, we do mention a few things from E3 presentations and Nintendo Directs in these articles, we just never internalized that information. If we cover [[History of Wario#Other appearances|that Wario animatronic puppet from E3 1996]], and we cover [[History of Bowser#Other appearances|Bowser in Bayonetta 2]], we don't see why we shouldn't cover this specific E3's trailers just because it was by a different producer.
#{{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}} Don't see why not.
#{{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|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} It is no less official than [[Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō]] or [[Super Mario-kun]]. Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Robot Chicken is an adult parody show. To cover Robot Chicken in Mario's history is like taking the Family Guy cutaway gags as canon. The Robot Chicken sketches including the E3 specials are covered in [[List of references in animated television]].
#{{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|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.
====Comments====
#{{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.
Uh, SeanWheeler? You may want to see [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]]. There is no canon in Super Mario. And being an "adult" show shouldn't prevent text from being referenced in normal articles given the wiki does not censor anything. (The last point on [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], and the set of arguing over [[Bob Hoskins]]'s page quote.) I guess one could discount the sketches on account of them as parodies, but given the "no canon" bit that seems hard to justify. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:01, November 3, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
:It's been a hot minute, but aren't the 2014 E3 sketches not even a part of Robot Chicken, anyways? Just produced by the same team behind them. It would be like prohibiting mention of [[Ubisoft]] because they developed those South Park games. And even if the sketches for E3 2014 were particularly "adult", [[List of unofficial media acknowledged by Nintendo#Super Hornio Brothers|overwhelmingly adult content hasn't stopped us before]]. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 09:43, November 4, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
::We might not have any canon, but Robot Chicken sketches are like the Family Guy cutaways. We don't cover Family Guy despite having a few Mario cameos. They only get listed in [[List of references in animated television]]. And no, it's nothing like prohibiting Ubisoft for their South Park games. We have [[Ubisoft]] for their involvement in the [[Mario + Rabbids (series)|Mario + Rabbids]] crossover series. We don't cover South Park. Prohibiting the mention of Ubisoft for just one unrelated series would be ridiculous. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 15:25, November 9, 2024 (EST)
#{{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.
:::So what if these are "like the Family Guy cutaways"? We don't cover Family Guy because we're not a Family Guy wiki. As far as I know, no Mario cameos in Family Guy were officially authorised by Nintendo, so it couldn't get its own article anyway. Meanwhile, these sketches were officially posted by Nintendo and featured Mario characters prominently. As for the part of your comment about Ubisoft and South Park, you've just described the point Camwoodstock was making by bringing that up. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:59, November 9, 2024 (EST)
#{{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.
{{@|ThePowerPlayer}} Looking at these sketches, why not create an article covering them? It would be inconsistent not to cover them separately as well, not just as sections of other articles. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 13:26, November 4, 2024 (EST)
#{{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.
:The proposal is to cover them in "Other appearances" sections, which are [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/57#Define the scope of "Other appearances" sections|supposed to cover things without articles]]. Also, to my knowledge, they don't exactly have an official title that we could use. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:32, November 4, 2024 (EST)
#{{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.
::This is exactly why I brought it up. It would be weird not to have a page on them when all other content does. Lack of an official title never stopped us either :) <br>[[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 03:42, November 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
:::My point is that not "all other content" has a page, and that's what "Other appearances" sections are for. I don't think these short, nameless skits from an E3 presentation that are more about Nintendo in general than specifically Mario are really in need of an article when this proposal passing would mean their entire relevance to Mario would already be covered on the wiki. They aren't even the only skits with Mario characters from an E3 presentation, E3 2019 has an appearance from Bowser. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:34, November 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{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.
::::Exactly. Making an article would just lead to a lot of unnecessary descriptions of content that has nothing to do with the ''Super Mario'' franchise. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 19:44, November 5, 2024 (EST)
 
===Require citations for dates===
Recently, a proposal decided that not sourcing a foreign name puts the article into a meta category of "unsourced foreign names". But I'd say a similar idea should be implemented to dates for things such as media releases, company foundations, and game, company and system defunction. Because, for example, there's been many times where I've seen an exact release date pinpointed and I think "where did they get that date from?", and after a bit of research, I can't find any reliable source with said exact release date. Dates being sorted like this would be nice.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Starluxe}}<br>'''Deadline''': November 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
<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>
#{{User|Starluxe}} Per my proposal
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I agree.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, how is this ''not'' already policy??? Per proposal.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I personally find that a lot of release dates for games on the internet come from hearsay, and copying what other sites say without actually double checking that info, so this would be great for guaranteeing accuracy.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Mario}} The next time Peach asks Mario out, I am sooo citing this proposal.
 
====Oppose====


====Comments====
====Comments====
What source you think is acceptable for release dates? I personally use GameFAQs. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:05, November 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)
:GameFAQs isn't officially related to Nintendo, right? If so, then no. It needs to be an official source. Because if anything, GameFAQs' release dates could be taken from another unofficial source, making that an unacceptable source. {{User:Starluxe/sig}} 13:00, November 6, 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)
::But that is a major problem of mine regarding old games, especially those that came out before the internet. Game sites such as GameFAQs and Wikipedia have it down all the time, especially those as old as GFAQs, but I don't think Nintendo themselves keep track of it too much barring recent titles or titles they are currently selling, with rare cases of them citing release dates in games themselves (like Super Smash Bros. Brawl's chronicles). For example, Wikipedia does cite Mario Kart: Double Dash's release date in a financial statement by Nintendo but other games such as the original Thousand Year Door's release dates remain unsourced. I'll need an answer to what sources you plan on using to cite the release data. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:28, November 7, 2024 (EST)
::{{@|Nintendo101}} The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, '''not''' others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::This has come up [[Talk:Donkey Kong (game)#Arcade release dates|a]] [[Talk:VS. Super Mario Bros.|few]] [[Talk:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest#NA release date|times]], but the state of proper video game release date archival is dreadful. I would argue it was around the time of digital storefronts that they were catalogued more seriously. I really want to support this proposal, but first, I think it's really important to decide what type of sources are usable. Sites like GameFAQs and MobyGames? They're actually user-contributed, in theory, I guess. You can contribute there. The problem is that I don't know anything about their curation. Unlike a wiki, you can't look back. Someone can contribute something else that overrides your contribution, and you won't know why (probably something to the effect of "another online source"). So, I wouldn't take sites like them, despite search results doing a good job of making sure they're one of the first things you see. Wikipedia has taken to citing the copyright office, but as far as I know, details like that are not always the same thing as an actual release/airing date. My suggestion is that this needs a whole source priority of its own, preferably contemporary sources like magazines and press releases. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (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)


Seeing how this could also apply to other things like defunction dates, I've added so to my explanation. {{User:Starluxe/sig}} 12:16, November 7, 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)


===Move "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to "Peach" and "Daisy"===
: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)
Earlier this year, I made [[Talk:Princess Daisy#Move to "Daisy"|a proposal]] suggesting that the article "Princess Daisy" should be moved to "Daisy". That proposal was rejected, with one of the main reasons being that people were concerned about the inconsistency this would cause with Princess Peach. Since then, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles|another similar proposal]] has passed that suggested moving the Koopaling articles to just their first names. So, I would like to suggest once again that I think "Princess Daisy" should be moved to "Daisy", except that this time I'm also including the option to move "Princess Peach" to "Peach".
::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)


This proposal is ''not'' suggesting that we stop using these titles for these characters ''completely''. We should continue to do as we have done: use whatever name is used in a specific work when talking about a character's appearance in that work. I am only suggesting that the articles themselves be moved to "Peach" and "Daisy", which I believe to be their ''primary'' names.
{{@|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)


====The case for moving Daisy's article====
{{@|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)
You can read my full argument for Daisy in my previous proposal about this subject, so I'll be brief here. My key point is that '''Daisy has never been called Princess Daisy in any game as her primary English name'''. It's certainly not an ''un''official title by any means, but she is and always has been called "Daisy", with no honorific, considerably more often and more prominently than her full title.
:[[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)


====The case for moving Peach's article====
=== Allow co-authorship of proposals ===
The case for Peach is much weaker than the case for Daisy. Unlike Daisy, Peach is actually called by her full title in-game as her primary English name sometimes. In fact, as was pointed out in the comments of the previous proposal, Nintendo has [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/puzzles/jigsaw-puzzle-princess-peach-daisy-rosalina/ on occasion] used the names "Princess Peach" (with the honorific) and "Daisy" (without) together.
The passing of this proposal would allow duel authorship of proposals (including talk page proposals), where both authors shape the same proposal, the written text, and have equal responsibility for its implementation. It would not allow more than two authors on any proposal for reasons I will explain below.


Nonetheless, her highness is called "Peach" in-game considerably more often than "Princess Peach". (To be clear, my point is not that she's ''never'' called "Princess Peach", just that "Peach" appears to be her ''primary'' in-game name, which is what the [[MarioWiki:Naming|naming policy]] recommends.) I believe the strongest example here is ''[[Mario Kart Tour]]'', which uses "Peach" despite having no shortage of playable drivers with excessively unweildy names.
[[File:Princess Peach and Princess Daisy - Mario Party 7.png|right|200px|buds]]
I have sometimes come up with changes I thought would be nice for the site and have wanted to make proposals for, but stopped myself because the sheer scope of seeing them implemented have kept me from doing it. While maintaining and editing a wiki is a communal craft, passed proposals - regardless of whether they require simply changing the name of an article or creating hundreds of new ones based on the splitting of a list article - are often largely the burden of the person who proposed it. These can be very big time commitments and ultimately feel monotonous and - even when one supports the ideas behind a proposal and do not regret passing it - the weighing monotony can lead to poor editing decisions with rolling it out. It can also lead to big proposals with lots of support not being realized for a long time, sometimes multiple years, as a cursory view of the [[#Unimplemented proposals|unimplemented proposals]] list would seem to support. Additionally, as prefaced, it can lead to some good ideas not being proposed because the idea of carrying out the changes is discouraging. I don't think that's a good thing.


'''Proposer''': {{User|janMisali}}<br>
I wish there was more collaborative involvement in larger proposals, maybe with aide from the supporters, instead of the expectation being almost entirely on the person who passed it. I think it further fosters collaboration and passive comradery among the userbase, encourage users who largely only participate in proposals to get involved with revising articles directly, and come with a more equitable expenditure of time and effort on larger projects. The aims of this specific proposal will not enable all of those things, but I think it will be a step in the right direction for greater collaboration among users and ease the burden of seeing large proposals realized by a single individual person. Sometimes a good idea comes up in passive conversation anyways, and there are sometimes users one appreciates that they would like the opportunity to work with more directly on a shared project (or at least that is the case for me). Direct collaboration can result in stronger proposals as well, as both authors could spot one another's blind spots and oversights.
'''Deadline''': November 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Move both princesses====
I originally thought having more than two authors on a proposal would be fine, but I think it would be undemocratic and awful if - say - someone raised a proposal with ten "authors" who all immediately voted to support. I view that as manufactured consent, and would make it difficult to oppose even if the ideas behind it are poor. I think having two authors should be sufficient. If this proposal passes, users would be permitted to ask one another{{footnote|main|*}} if they would like to create a proposal together and shape the ideas behind it, to which the other user can accept or decline as they so choose. If accepted, they would write something together, or at least mutually support the written text before it is published, and if there is a supplemental article draft used for the proposal, they would both have to be supportive of how that is laid out and written as well. No user can be attached to a proposal unless they were legitimately involved in its creation and support the published text. If neither is the case, they are to alert [[MarioWiki:Administrators|site staff]] who will issue a [[MarioWiki:Warning policy#Level two offenses|warning]] to the offender and the proposal is to be cancelled. If the alleged offender has proof to the contrary, they are to present it to staff. (I only clarify these details not to intimidate anyone or make them uneasy, but to layout what I think are sufficient guardrails.)
#{{User|JanMisali}} First choice, as proposer.
#{{User|Tails777}} Primary choice. Even if Peach uses her title more often, MANY games usually relegate to just calling the princesses by their names without their titles. And since Bowser is also referred to as just "Bowser" over "King Bowser" (a titled name used about as often as Princess Peach), I feel all three can just use their names without titles.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Only choice, per proposal. I was part of the opposition to the previous proposal, but this one fixes the issue I had with it. And anyway, in basically any game where Peach is playable, the thing written under her on the character select is just "Peach", same as Daisy, so this feels like the natural solution.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} "Princess" is just a title of Peach's name, and most appearances refer to her as simply Peach. The name for "Daisy" is very seldomly preceded by "Princess". Compare to Dr. Mario, where the "Dr." is an inherent part of his name, rather than a full title.
#{{User|Altendo}} If we can remove names from Sonic characters, the Koopalings, and even named identifiers like [[Grodus|Sir]] and [[Bobbery|Admiral]], there is no reason to ''not'' do this. Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal, and the original proposal that spurred this one.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Things are headed in this direction, let's rip the bandage off.
#{{User|Arend}} I'm more comfortable with removing the "Princess" title from both articles rather than just Daisy's. Yes, Peach is often called "Princess Peach", but I find it comparable to Koopa minions referring to Bowser as "Lord Bowser" or "King Bowser" (or, in the case of game titles such as ''Super Princess Peach'' or ''Princess Peach Showtime'', it's comparable to the ''Super Mario'' games, which bear this title even if there's no Super Mushrooms to turn Mario into Super Mario).
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Fine, second choice.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal.
<strike>#{{User|Pseudo}} First choice, per proposal. The princess titles for both characters can definitely be seen as their full names, but it seems to occupy a similar space to "King Bowser" in most games.</strike><br>
<strike>#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Altendo, specifically</strike>


====Only move Peach====
{{footnote|note|*|At baseline level, I think reaching out should be permitted on the user talk pages of the wiki, but I also think it would be fine to reach out to a fellow user on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord Server. In my view, this just facilitates ease of communication and allow options. <u>'''If anyone has concerns about collaborations occurring on these other two platforms, please raise them below.'''</u>}}


====Only move Daisy====
I offer two options:
#{{User|JanMisali}} Second choice, as proposer.
#'''Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!''': This would amend the rules above on the proposal page, give space for two users to be cited in the "list of ongoing proposals" and "archiver" list, add nonconsensual attribution as a level two offense, and allow two users to co-author proposals (including talk page proposals).
#{{User|Pseudo}} Second choice, since Daisy has stronger reason to be moved.
#'''Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.'''
#{{User|Tails777}} Secondary choice. Daisy is referred to as "Princess Daisy" far less than Peach is referred to as "Princess Peach", with some modern games still using Peach's title. Daisy is almost always just referred to as "Daisy".
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per the case being made for Daisy. Games and other media as recent as ''Princess Peach Showtime'' and the Mario Movie alternate between naming Peach with and without the honorific, so MarioWiki:Naming cannot enforce one over the other based on recency, frequency, or source priority. None of this can be said about Daisy, however. Some have argued that "Daisy" is chosen for functional purposes within games, i.e. is an attempt to keep the character's name short in areas where you can allocate a piece of text only so much memory--and I'd understand the argument, if it weren't for cases like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)", "Yellow Shy Guy (Explorer)", and "Purple Koopa (Freerunning)" which push that memory limit much further than "Princess Daisy" ever could. I also question why the naming scheme of either character has to remain consistent with the other just for the sake of it; if their patently similar appearance and roles is the sole thrust behind this point of view, what's stopping [[Rosalina]] from being moved to "Princess Rosalina", then? That's an official title, too. Better lock in and make the facts readily apparent on the fan encyclopedia.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Koopa con Carne. I see the argument for moving Peach as well, but feel more strongly that Daisy should be moved since she's rarely called "Princess Daisy".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Secondary choice.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary choice. We need to do ''something'' about Daisy, at least.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Koopa con Carne.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Secondary choice, Daisy is pretty much never referred to as "Princess Daisy" as her primary name.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per Koopa con Carne.


====Keep both princesses the same====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Stop shortening names! Seriously, I knew this was next after the Koopaling proposal.
'''Deadline''': January 31st, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Mario}} I don't think any these moves are great (especially the one where "Shadow the Hedgehog" was shortened, I dislike that one). They greatly hinder searches on the wiki (in Peach's case, it's going to conflict with the fruit), and more people online are going to search "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to find the character. What these moves are going to do, like with those older name moves (which I am ''not'' on board with) is going to have searches rely on redirects. I'm not sure how much SEO and search engine discoverability is going to be impacted (Porple confirmed with me on Discord that it will certainly hinder discoverability on search engines but it's not catastrophic, just something to keep in mind) but I think there is a great reason we chose [[Chuckster]] over Pianta Thrower. These are distinct, recognizable names. Don't fix what isn't broken, and the current method of piping and using redirects for the shortened, overlapping names seemed to serve us well enough.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Mario. I don't think focusing in so heavily on the exact places or times the full names vs. the shortened names are used is beneficial if those names are still in frequent use. Some of these make sense (E. Gadd is rarely called Elvin, the Koopalings' full names seem to be mostly phased out these days), but the Sonic proposal was a misstep IMO. Princess Peach is still very commonly used, the average person knows her by that name, I don't see a need to change it. I feel less strongly about Daisy, admittedly.
#{{User|UltraMario}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Upon further thought and seeing Mario and Waluigi Time's votes, I'm inclined to think that moving pages like this is probably not such a wise idea, especially as it hurts searchability. I've removed my original vote for merging both and now consider this my primary one, though I think that moving Daisy would still be alright with me.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Yeah, no; per all. We'd need a counterproposal... The Sonic proposal already was a stupid enough decision as-is and this... this is no different.
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all; first of all, in terms of a fan managed encyclopedia like this, it's still the best route to keep the "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" article titles for this Wiki, even though certain and recent games like the sports, kart racing, and Mario Party games just address the two as "Peach" and "Daisy" in their names. Plus, in terms of linking their names to the respective articles, we're already making sure that "Peach" links to the "Princess Peach" article and "Daisy" links to the "Princess Daisy" article anyway.
#{{User|Arend}} Secondary choice, the current names are fine too.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Waluigi Time
#{{User|Dwhitney}} Per all. Also, Daisy is referred to as Princess Daisy in ''Mario Tennis Aces''.
#{{user|Lakituthequick}} Per all, in particular Mario and WT. As for the SEO point, while that certainly does matter (even outside of "corporate" contexts), in this case it's just clearer to denote the princesses with their titles. SEO happens to be a happy by-product of that.


====Princess Comments, Peach====
====Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!====
@SeanWheeler: Why is shortening names a bad thing? If the shortened name is the more current title of a character or game, shouldn't the article be moved to the more current title? The length of the titles of the characters is not the main issue here; it's how current those titles are. [[User:Mari0fan100|Mari0fan100]] ([[User talk:Mari0fan100|talk]]) 20:41, November 9, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As someone whose proposals have been hit or miss, the ability to co-author proposals will increase the likelihood of them passing. This will resolve an issue where the proposer may not necessarily see the flaws of what they are proposing.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this makes sense!
#{{User|Technetium}} Hell yeah!
#{{User|Sparks}} Friendship Is Magic!
#{{User|Tails777}} Teamwork makes the dream work! Per proposal!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} <s>wow the plural system is a fan of co-operation???</s> Per proposal, we're a little surprised there hasn't been a formal system for co-authored proposals before honestly, given a few proposals in particular have already happened precisely because of talk page discussions. Though, in fairness, those talks usually involve a lot more than 2 people, and only one of them mediates the proposal itself. Still, hey, if multiple users want to work on the same proposal, why not, right?


@Mario: Given "Peach" and "Daisy" are very commonly used names, and also shorter (thus easier to type), I can't imagine it being that bad for searches. The shortened names are also "distinct, recognizable names", and the ones Nintendo is fine to use for the characters (as well as what I usually hear fans call them), so why shouldn't we follow suit (especially given all the other renaming proposals, some of which, e.g. [[Talk:Bobbery#Changing Admiral Bobbery to just Bobbery|Bobbery]] and [[Talk:TEC#Move to TEC|TEC]], had literally no opposition)?<br>@Waluigi Time: I would argue Princess Daisy isn't really "still in frequent use". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:13, November 10, 2024 (EST)
====Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.====
:I think if I wanted to look up the Mario character named "Daisy" in Google, I would use "Princess Daisy" to try to get more results that aren't daisies. Mario's popular, but not the center of all reality. (Though a company selling BB guns somehow beats out the plant.) Google suggests I may also want to use "Daisy mario". Bobbery is unique enough to be the main topic of that name. TEC has technology companies beat out the character unless "TEC-XX" is used.
:Super Mario Wiki appears to be far enough ahead in results that if Google recognizes the search is for a character this site is first up, even in cases like Bobbery, TEC, and Ludwig. But I'm no search engineer, so I don't know if changing the article names can impact this.[[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 06:29, November 10, 2024 (EST)
::I was more referring to searches on the wiki itself. Google searches shouldn't really be what determines page names in my opinion, or we'd have a good case to move [[Pauline]] to "Mayor Pauline" (or to add "mario" in brackets to a ton of article titles). Either way, I feel like having to search "daisy mario" instead of "princess daisy" (as I imagine many people already do) isn't that big a deal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:44, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:::As I alluded to, my reasoning mostly concerns Peach, but I don't really want to put my official support behind a Daisy move either, which is why I chose that option. IMO, external searchability absolutely should be something taken into consideration when it's relevant, but not the deciding factor. At the end of the day, a wiki is here for its readers, so let's not make it needlessly harder on them to find things if we can help it. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:56, November 10, 2024 (EST)
::::I'd think using the name the character most commonly goes by would make it more intuitive to find. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:15, November 10, 2024 (EST)
::::I'm not convinced that switching to a shorter name has any negative influence on external searchability regardless of if that should be a priority or not. We're still on the front page of Google results for "Shadow the Hedgehog wiki", and the only results that come up before our "Shadow (character)" article are from Wikipedia and dedicated ''Sonic'' wikis. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 13:51, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:::::I don't understand why the topic of SEO is still part of the debate. It's a misplaced priority. This site is a community-run educational resource, not a corporate product that you're incentivized to optimize every little aspect of in the name of clicks. Look at Fandom wikis--they promise the former while being the latter, and everyone hates them for that. I'm not saying this site would exist without traffic and participation at all, every project needs funding and other manners of support, but, like<br>guys,<br>This is the biggest resource on the Internet for the most popular video game franchise on the planet.<br>Do you really believe losing 0.005% of total searches because Glup Shitto got renamed to the less popular but more accurate "Shart Faqeer" is such a big deal in the grand scheme of things? {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:33, November 10, 2024 (EST)
::::::I think "corporate product" is a bit of a misread. Rather, there is little value in maintaining an encyclopedia that people cannot find. I do not know if it impacts this particular case (i.e. when I last searched "wendy mario" or "wendy o. koopa" on Google, [[Wendy|our article]] still shows up near or at the top, regardless of name), but I do not think it is invalid to keep in mind.
::::::I think it is worth keeping in mind that the Super Mario Wiki has different goals than a character-selection screen or a level-selection screen, which typically prefer simple truncated names. ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' refers to a boss as "[[Larry]]" in [[Larry's Torpedo Castle|one context]] and as "Larry Koopa" in [[Larry's Groundless Battle|another]]. An encyclopedic reference that encompasses many series and subjects may similarly best support its information by adopting fuller names with discretion. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:22, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:::::::The character select screen name shortening argument has already been addressed: names like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)" are longer than "Princess Daisy", yet the former is used while the latter is not. Clearly Nintendo just has a preference for the shorter name, so we should too. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:59, November 10, 2024 (EST)
::::::::This is not consistent though. On the character-selection screen in ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'', you can select "[[Yoshi (species)|Light-Blue Yoshi]]." The standees for this character's name is truncated as "[https://youtu.be/9kJ2eVPxu1w?si=dQ3ZlK_uMZ3TSHS4&t=342 L. Blue Yoshi]." The ''Star Fox'' protagonist goes by "[[Fox]]" on the character-selection screen for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' titles, but goes by "Fox McCloud" on the costume list for ''[[Super Mario Maker]]''. Our pink princess character goes by "[[Princess Peach]]" on the [[:File:Princess Peach Showtime Box Art.jpg|box for her standalone game]], and simply as "Peach" in the game itself. Is it invalid to suggest whether a character goes by a truncated or full name is really context dependent, and less about the phasing out of monikers or surnames for certain characters? If the former, is Super Mario Wiki inherently not the platform where full names would be helpful? And if it is not, why? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:07, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::The length of a character's name can undoubtedly be subject to technical limitations in a game. I personally just don't think this is necessarily the case with Daisy's name as of today, and my view is that the wiki should be observing what the most current official consensus on those names is. The standees in ''Wonder'' are a highly particular instance of name rendering even within the game; the character selection screen [https://youtu.be/Q4Gp9aZKwEk?t=7 otherwise uses "Light-Blue Yoshi" and "Daisy" simultaneously], and I'd hazard a guess that players are more likely to make better note of those than how they are rendered in the standee menu. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:41, November 10, 2024 (EST), edited 19:50, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:::::::As people have related in this discussion, Mario Wiki tends to be pushed forward in Google results for a Mario character. It is decidedly not an encyclopedia people cannot find. Porplemontage can probably conjure some projections, he has the data for this sort of thing after all, but I'm confident given the wiki's size and popularity that Mario Wiki will remain in the top search results for "peach mario" and "daisy mario" whether the characters retain or lose their mantle titles. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:04, November 10, 2024 (EST), edited 19:12, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:::::{{@|JanMisali}} Same with googling "shadow sonic wiki". Even just "shadow wiki" still brings up his Mario Wiki article on the second page on my end, which is pretty impressing considering the breadth of coverage either of the words "shadow" and "wiki" have on the Internet. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:48, November 10, 2024 (EST)


@MeritC: "We'd have to change links" is never a good argument. If this passes, a bot will take care of fixing all the links. That's how we were able to [[Talk:Super Mario (franchise)#Move to "Super Mario (franchise)" -- proposal|rename the "Super Mario (franchise)" page]], probably one of the most linked to pages on the entire wiki, with no issue. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:59, November 10, 2024 (EST)
====Comments on co-authorship proposal====
Our only real question is, what do we do for archiving these co-authored proposals? We might need to update the author parameter to account for the possibility of a second author. If that was addressed, we'd support this in a heartbeat. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:I specify above that space would need to be allocated for two users to be cited rather than just one when applicable in the archives and other comparable lists. I do not offhand know the the technical steps needed for this to occur, but I assume it is not technically difficult. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)


{{@|Dwhitney}} Where in ''Mario Tennis Aces'' is the name "Princess Daisy" used? I can't find any evidence of her being called anything but "Daisy" in that game. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:27, November 11, 2024 (EST)
==Miscellaneous==
===Normalise splitting long References to/in other media sections===
Last year, I successfully proposed that the [[The Super Mario Bros. Movie#References to other media|References to other media section on ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'' article]] should be split into its own article due to its length, with the same later occurring for the [[Super Mario Bros.#References in later games|References in later games section on ''Super Mario Bros.'']] On [[Talk:Super Mario Bros.#Split References in other media section|the TPP for splitting the latter section]], the user [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] supported saying "i wonder what'll be the next game to require this". That got me to realise that other articles with these sections are of similar length, and suffer the same problems that I originally pointed out in those past proposals. Select examples that I've been able to find include the following:
*''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' ([[Super Mario Bros. 2#References in later media|references in later media]])
*''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' ([[Super Mario Bros. 3#References in later media|references in later media]])
*''[[Super Mario World]]'' ([[Super Mario World#References in later games|references in later games]])
*''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' ([[Super Mario Odyssey#References to other media|references to]])
*''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'' ([[Super Mario Bros. Wonder#References to other media|references to]])
Again, these are just examples. There's probably more out there that are equally as long. If this proposal were to achieve support, there would have to be some sort of guideline (similar to [[MarioWiki:Galleries#Splitting galleries|splitting galleries]]) relating to a certain limit at which the section is split, possibly a maximum of 20-30 bullet points or certain number of bytes before splitting, as the sections I've cited as examples go over said amount of bullet points. Normalising this would also prevent anyone from having to make separate TPPs to suggest splitting each and every long section separately, and would also help create some consistency, as it doesn't make much sense for only a few select references to/in other media sections to be split rather than more.


===Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)===
'''Proposer''': {{User|RetroNintendo2008}}<br>
''Mario Kart Tour'' has quite the reputation on this wiki in terms of pages, at one time nearly forming the top ten of the largest pages here in terms of bit size. However, what was glossed over was the size of Tour's template, being large enough to hold several templates within itself, and making the page, should the user click on it, almost double in length, more so with the other templates open. Using [[DS DK Pass]] as an example, a page for a race course that doesn't have a lot of information on it making for a relatively quick read, is now nearly half taken up by the monstrously large ''Mario Kart Tour'' template.
'''Deadline''': January 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
A total of four sub templates exist within the ''Mario Kart Tour'' template: Characters (and their skins), Vehicle Parts, Courses, and Other (miscellaneous). For example, if the Courses template were split off and applied to DS DK Pass' page, it would make for a much more palatable experience for those looking for courses found in ''Tour'', rather than making the reader scroll for a centuries and looking for it amongst a sea of numerous skins and kart parts.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|MightyMario}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|MightyMario}} I heartily endorse this proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} I kinda agree with this. I feel this would be a bit more organized too, so people don't have to scroll through loads of characters, karts and other things just to find the tracks section. I have found myself on numerous occasions jumping from track articles and with ''Tour's'' template, it was rather irritating searching through massive sections of characters and tours just to find tracks. I support this idea.
<s>{{User|EvieMaybe}} look ma, i'm on tv! yeah, this seems like a very reasonable thing to do</s>
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} We've split navigation templates for [[Template:NSMBW levels|much less]], this makes sense for the sheer amount of content in the game.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Agreed with all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Dark Jonathan}} I didn't know Tour templates gave so many problems, but hey, that's a good proposal.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I support in principle, but I'm against the proposed implementation here. We already have [[MarioWiki:Article size]] for determining what to do when pages get too long, so what I would like to see is simply considering references sections as things that can get split off when that happens. Of the pages linked in this proposal, SMB2 and 3 don't even meet the minimum byte count for a split (SMB2 falls especially short at ~85k bytes). SMB didn't meet those criteria before the proposal either and I think that should be reversed. These lists aren't ''that'' long all things considered and they're kept pretty low on the page so I don't think their presence is necessarily intrusive.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Waluigi Time; we already have policies for this, and we see no need to carve out any exceptions for the references section just yet.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Waluigi Time. A good idea in principal, but only if warranted on a case-by-case basis. I generally do not like splitting up pages unless necessary.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Waluigi Time, i hadn't considered that. i hope that if this proposal ends with Oppose bc of everyone backing WT, we still remember that we can split reference sections to trim article size
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time. Definitely split the articles when necessary, though I agree that it makes sense to follow the standards already set in place rather than making a new criteria solely for reference sections.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I think alternatively, they could be given different collapsible sections, like we do with the galleries template. But I agree it is overwhelmingly enormous. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:58, November 10, 2024 (EST)
We're talking about the navigation template at the bottom of these pages, right? Because that's the only Tour-related template on the DS DK Pass article (subpages notwithstanding) and it's indeed quite huge. If we do split it off into several subtemplates, I suppose it'd be comparable to various levels from specific platformer titles having a navbox template for themselves instead of sharing a primary nabvox template with the rest of that game's content (e.g. [[Super Bell Hill]] featuring {{tem|SM3DW levels}} instead of {{tem|SM3DW}}); or the existence of various navigation templates for the various microgames or minigames in specific ''WarioWare'' or ''Mario Party'' title. So while it's atypical for us to split ''Mario Kart''-specific nav templates, it's not unheard of for us to split off nav templates in the first place. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:04, November 10, 2024 (EST)
==Miscellaneous==
===Either remove non-English names from cartoon dubs that weren't overseen by Nintendo or affiliated companies, or allow English names from closed captions===
"What does one have to do with the other?" You'll see!
Back in 2021, there was a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#"Closed caption of the Mario cartoons"|proposal]] to allow closed captions used on ''Mario'' cartoons uploaded or streamed officially online to be used as sources on the wiki. It encountered massive opposition, with one comment left by a user in a previous discussion acting as the cornerstone of the opposition's rationale. The link intended to lead to that comment, seen under that proposal, doesn't do its job any more, so I'm copy-pasting it here for your convenience.
<blockquote><span class="quote" style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:11pt;font-style:italic">“re closed caption: The relation between WildBrain and video streaming platforms like Netflix is the same one Nintendo has with retaillers like Gamespot: meaning the owner of the property sells the product to the retailler/streaming website, and they may supply other material (like artwork, press releases, etc) to help the client market the product. However, that doesn't mean everything the client does with the product is now official; for instance, Gamespot has in the past created fake placeholder boxarts for Mario games using edited official artwork. Gamestop may be an authorized (or "official") retailler of Mario products but it doesn't make those placeholder boxarts by association as they were made entirely by Gamespot without inputs from the creators of the source material.
“In that respect, closed captions fall in the same category as placeholder retailler-made boxarts. Closed captions are made by people with no relation to the source material or access to behind-the-scenes material like script, and who are just writing down what they hear by ear. They are not an acceptable source for spellings.”</span>
~ '''{{user|Glowsquid}}, 2021'''
</blockquote>
This is valid. In all this talking about what is official and what is not, I suppose it feels right to draw a concrete line somewhere. Someone who acquires the rights to use Nintendo's or one of their partners' IP to use it for a given purpose is technically an authorized party, but they're no authority themselves over the content within. Makes sense.
...Meaning the multilanguage names invoked in the proposal's title stick out all the more like a sore thumb. A good chunk of them, at least. Why would the wiki treat a studio or company that dubs and distributes syndicated Mario cartoons to a given demographic as particularly authoritative over the content? Ultimately, it's the same situation as the one described in the quote, the apparent clincher being that it's in a different language, and I apologize, but I don't see how it is consistent to prohibit third-party English subtitles but allow foreign dubs by people that are just as far-removed from the parent company. I propose a compromise.
Of course, not all foreign dubs would be off limits as sources should the second option of this proposal win. If one can provide sufficient proof that a given dub was supervised by one or more employees representing a company with authority over the original product, i.e. that the company left their mark on the endeavor, sourcing it is absolutely fine. As it stands, though, I can already point to the Romanian dubs of the Mario DIC cartoons as ineligible for sourcing given my failing to find any evidence DIC Entertainment ever put its signature on them. (This is coming from someone who contributed a significant amount of names from these dubs. Sometimes you gotta kill your darlings.)
"'''So if option 1 wins, 'Ahehehaue' is considered official again?'''"
No. That doesn't come from a closed caption, and I consider WildBrain's issue of circular sourcing to be a whole other can of worms best left out of this week's topic.
(added 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)) "'''Does the proposal extend to the live-action segments of the ''Super Show''?'''"
Yes, they're within the same package.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Allow the sourcing of English closed captions from officially uploaded and streamed ''Mario'' animated works====
#{{User|Hewer}} Perhaps I just have a more liberal understanding of "official" (as an Ahehehauhe defender), but after proposals like [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/57#Allow/prohibit fan work by former Nintendo staff|this]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Allow quotes of characters being voiced by their official actors in unofficial media|this]], and [[Talk:Fangamer#Delete this article|this]], I feel like all these should be close enough to official to be worth documenting. And aren't games like [[Hotel Mario]] a bit of a similar case, where the "official" involvement didn't go much further than licensing them?
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I think the difference between closed captions and placeholder retailer box art is that the closed captions are a(n optional) part of the media as it can be officially experienced. As such, I think it counts as "official" regardless of who did it.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Well, we would need some kind of source for names of characters that never appeared in English localizations.
#{{User|Pseudo}} These names would be familiar to some viewers of the material, if nothing else, and it seems a bit odd to consider them completely unofficial even if they weren't overseen by the original creators.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} a license is a license
#{{User|UltraMario}} Per all. I still believe that these should still count as official enough, as they are the providers of the content and it's like a license of a license.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} In the absence of any alternative names from Nintendo or the original team at DiC (since goodness knows that that isn't coming anytime soon), we feel like these are fair ''enough''. While not exactly a primary source by any means, if we permit names from various strategy guides, we feel like names from closed captions officially provided by the distributors should be fair game.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} These are no different than names from ''licensed'' strategy guides or other content written or localized by third parties.
====Remove names that originate from non-English dubs of ''Mario'' animated works that were not overseen by Nintendo or an affiliated company====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal. I found the argument persuasive.
====Do nothing====
====Comments (closed captions vs. foreign dubs proposal)====
Waltuh... I'm not voting right now, Waltuh... {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:01, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} By "not overseen by Nintendo/DiC", do you mean they gave the go-ahead but didn't have any direct involvement in production, or the dubs were produced by a third party with no permission whatsoever? I'd consider being more charitable for the former, but if it's completely unauthorized then that's basically equivalent to a bootleg or fan translation and probably shouldn't be covered. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 17:07, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:First one. The proposal only touches on the scenario where a company that airs a dubbed ''Mario'' cartoon has a license to do so from the work's owner. Anything outside of such a licensing agreement is completely unofficial, like you pointed out. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT), edited 17:44, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
Added stipulation that the proposal extends to live-action ''Super Show'' segments. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:What is "Ahehehauhe?" [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 23:29, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
::It's a [https://youtu.be/OdLFZ5RAPTU clip] of a ''Super Show'' episode uploaded to YouTube by WildBrain, the current owners of most of DIC Entertainment's library (including their Mario shows). On the wiki, "Ahehehauhe" used to redirect to that episode's article because it was deemed an "official" alternate title given WildBrain's ownership status over the material, which many found outrageous since it barely passes as a "title" and is simply a transcription of the characters cackling in that clip. We don't even know if a human consciously named the clip that; it could've been a bot. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 06:28, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
::Now, "Ahehehauhe" isn't linked to the WildBrain-related circular sourcing issues I mentioned in the proposal (they used names from the wiki in promotional texts, which Ahaha isn't one of). However, if the same policy used for the English Super Mario Encyclopedia is to be applied to WildBrain on the same grounds, then the only case where a name they used for a given subject should be employed by the wiki is (a) if the name didn't come from the wiki in the first place, and (b) there are no other known names for that subject. Even if we're to consider Ahahahue a unique and proper way to call an episode of a TV show, its use would still be untenable under the second point. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 06:39, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::If the same ''Encyclopedia'' logic applied, shouldn't it still be a redirect at least? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (EST)
::::Ah, I didn't know that was the case with the Encyclopedia. Still, I don't think many would be keen on treating an onomatopoeia as an alternate title for an episode anyhow. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:11, November 9, 2024 (EST)
:::::Why would "Ahehehauhe" be considered as an ''alternate title for a full episode'' when it's only been used as a name for a ''15-second clip from said episode'', anyhow? It's only a short moment of the episode! I don't think other wikis for TV series consider official names of clips from a short moment of a particular episode to be an alternate title for the full episode either, whether it's some funny-sounding onomatopoeia or a more descriptive caption. I'd be all for using Ahehehauhe as a redirect if it was actually used as the name for the full episode, but it simply ''isn't'': it was only used for a small fragment and nothing more. {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:38, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Latest revision as of 19:59, January 17, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, January 18th, 00:59 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. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. 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.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. 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.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the 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.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(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.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. 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}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style

The passing of this proposal would include the in-game missions and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from Super Mario Sunshine, objectives from Super Mario Odyssey, etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.

In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a well-established practice. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a proposal that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:

The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a greater whole (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in The Color of Water. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of Resident Alien. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "Gusty Garden Galaxy" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and Gusty Garden Galaxy is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.

I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.

I would like us to explicitly include missions as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that Here Come the Hoppos is a level, whereas "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario within a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.

As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the Super Mario Galaxy article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.

For clarification, this proposal does not impact the names of actual levels, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.

I offer two options:

  1. Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.
  2. Don't do that.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "Mama Luigi", quotation marks in places like the list of episodes, to even the infobox of its own article, we can see a reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
  4. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are useful. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D Mario platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is Super Mario Odyssey, regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.
  5. Fun With Despair (talk) Per proposal. In my opinion, this only serves to bring further clarity to the title of a mission within the level vs. the level itself. With the established notion of a mission being inherent to 3D Mario as a sub-category within levels themselves, I don't see this causing any confusion whatsoever.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal. I do see that there are some tricky gray area to this mentioned by the opposition, but I do think it's fair to consider Mario 64 style missions the equivalent of something like a chapter or TV episode — they were even called episodes in Sunshine, after all!
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per proposal and per Hooded Pitohui especially. Having an established separator between a location and the "scenario" within said location is not just a nice little feature but can even bring clarity with active or new readers of the Wiki. I see this causing quite the opposite of confusion.

Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the errant times they are official from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
  3. Salmancer (talk) Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an average and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like Bowser Jr. Showdown, and missions can lack those, like with Smart Bombing. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard Power Moon names count, if SM64 stars do? what about Brothership side quests? TTYD troubles? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like Master of Disguise's first and second levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
  5. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all.

#Jdtendo (talk) Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.

Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal

@Ahemtoday I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks around the name of a subject and assume it is literally part of the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from Paper Mario: The Origami King - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.

Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title Super Mario Galaxy on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the title screen is capitalized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)

The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of "Deep, Deep Vibes" but are not part of the title of "Happy & Sappy". Similar cases are ""Hurry Up!" Ground BGM" and ""It's-a Me, Mario!"", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many album pages (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — Nintendo101 (talk) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Then why do we italicize game titles? - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in Super Mario Sunshine is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from the articles I contribute to the most that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like Final Fantasy where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the Super Mario series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
It is not that readers, necessarily, will believe that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they weren't equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? Ahemtoday (talk) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)

@Hewer I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — Nintendo101 (talk) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D Super Mario games and missions in 3D Super Mario games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of Meringue Clouds but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like Cosmic block's first sentence in it's Super Mario Galaxy section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't Spine Coasters get this treatment when they appear in Thrilling Spine Coaster and in Rock-Candy Mines? Salmancer (talk) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in Super Mario 64 is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Odyssey. The other three do: Super Mario 64 has its levels broken up into floors; Super Mario Galaxy has domes; and Super Mario Galaxy 2 has what are literally called Worlds. So if the the equivalency of the Terrace in New Super Mario Bros. U is Acorn Plains, and the equivalency of Good Egg Galaxy is Acorn Plains Way, than what is the equivalency of "A Snack of Cosmic Proportions?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an image that Odyssey is actually the sequel to Sunshine and the Galaxy games float off with 3D Land and 3D World, then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) Salmancer (talk) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an article for them. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a Spine Coaster is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D Mario games - named scenarios. The missions in Super Mario Sunshine are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things).
Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to this edit summary and this edit summary the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star and the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a Bob-omb Buddy to unlock the cannons, an extra iron ball, and neither Big Bob-omb nor a Koopa Shell. (This explanation on Bob-omb Battlefield brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier Odyssey joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D Super Mario game.
For completion's sake, I should also mention that Dire, Dire Docks throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of Bowser in the Fire Sea and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. (Tick Tock Clock presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) Salmancer (talk) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)

@EvieMaybe, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D Super Mario platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to Wario: Master of Disguise or Mario & Luigi: Brothership. I am only interested in Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Super Mario Odyssey. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)

By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal inherently extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the mission page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)

On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. Jdtendo(T|C) 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)

New features

Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page

This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more Super Mario games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for Mario, Bowser, and many other recurring subjects.

Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.

For example, let's say for Luigi in his appearance in Mario Sports Superstars, there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:

For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see here.

The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
  3. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  4. Fun With Despair (talk) This is a good idea, and all it does is make it easier for readers to find information that's otherwise scattered across various pages. It's a centralizing effort that I think could be fairly helpful.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) I worry this would make history sections messy and repetitive when the focus should be on the written text.
  3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Lefty and N101.

Comments

@Hewer I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)

If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)

@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)

How much are you envisioning this is going to be used? Is it just going to be for linking to character stats or is it for any game that has a section on the profiles and statistics page? If it's just stats, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed (that information used to be in history sections anyway before profiles and statistics sections were created and later split off from their pages), but I don't think something like this warrants a template directing readers off the page. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 13:34, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Make categories for families

I've made a similar proposal a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin「¹」 (unrelated, but meh).

Proposer: Weegie baby (talk)
Deadline: January 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Hewer (talk) Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
  2. Weegie baby (talk) Per me.

Oppose

Comments

@Weegie baby You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Yeah, I forgot, thanks. Weegie baby (talk) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Removals

Delete Alternative Proto Piranha Images

This concerns these two image files, which are as of present unused.

The main argument is that not only are these two images taken using a hacked version of the game, but that they aren't actually even intended in the first place; while we don't know much about how Sunshine works under the hood, the leading theory is that the object for the Proto Piranha simply borrows the texture of whatever Goop is currently loaded. Given the resulting Proto Piranha inherits no other attributes of the goop aside from visuals, this definitely tracks. In addition, attempts to add these to TCRF were removed not once, but twice. Given these images have been languishing for a long while with no real use, it seems more-or-less fine to remove them to us.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: January 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Delete

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Given the lack of any glitches to even spawn a Proto Piranha in these areas, the dubious origin of the images themselves, and the fact that calling them "unused content" is a bit of a misnomer, we don't see any particular reason to keep these around--even the "the goop reflects the area it's loaded in" is already thoroughly demonstrated thanks to the images of the Proto Piranha as it already appears, in vanilla, in Delfino Airstrip and both Bianco Square and Bianco Hills. This, to us, would be like listing the thing where if you hack a Yoshi into a Castle stage in Super Mario World its head becomes a Lava Bubble as "unused content" for that game.
  2. Tails777 (talk) I'm leaning towards this. I feel this would be different if there was a video showcasing what happens when you insert a Proto Piranha in a place it otherwise doesn't spawn in, mostly because it's not uncommon for us to cover possibilities only possible through hacks. If we had a bit more to back it all up, that's be fine, but images without anything else doesn't really prove a lot. At best, this is like a small trivia point for Proto Piranhas, not unused content. They still look cool though..
  3. Jdtendo (talk) If it was not intended, then it is not unused content.
  4. Ray Trace (talk) The only thing that really kept me from nuking these images outright is because of lack of info and I'm glad that's cleared up in this proposal. Kill these.
  5. Technetium (talk) Here Ray Trace, you can borrow my FLUDD. Per all.
  6. Sparks (talk) Wash 'em away!
  7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I'm inclined to claim that this is in fact unused content, just that it's not notable enough to warrant using images from a hacked version of the game. A small, text-based note in the article and using images from the unhacked vanilla game works fine.
  8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Keep

  1. Fun With Despair (talk) To be honest, I do think these images (or at least one of them) have value in something like the Trivia section, illustrating how the enemy is coded to appear as the type of goop present in the level - including goop not normally present alongside them. It's an interesting fact, and I think rather than being labeled unused content, both that fact and one of these images would make a fun Trivia addition.
  2. Cadrega86 (talk) Per Fun with Despair, I think there's no harm in including these as trivia, as long as it's clear it's just a side effect of how gloop/Piranha Plants work and not necessarily an intended unused feature.

Comments (delete alternative proto piranha images)

i can see a case for keeping them around to illustrate how proto piranha's goo change isn't hardcoded, but i agree with the idea that a video might be better. i'll abstain for now. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 09:57, January 4, 2025 (EST)

Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects

The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called Mario Party 13 (as of proposal, this leads to Super Mario Party Jamboree, which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as MP11, MP12, and MP13.

Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for Super Mario Party, Mario Party Superstars, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "God Slayer Bowser" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.

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

Delete (party's over!)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Does anyone actually call those games Mario Party 11, 12 or 13? Per proposal.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
  4. Sparks (talk) What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all.
  6. Drago (talk) Per all.
  7. Arend (talk) The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of "Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100" and re-redirected the MP12 ones from Superstars to Jamboree, already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  9. Mushroom Head (talk) Honestly, I’m already on edge on Mario Parties 6-10 because of the non-mainline Mario Parties, but unlike those 5 games, the three concerned don’t even use those as their own game, not to mention Jamboree is basically a sequel to Super Mario Party.

Delete MP12/MP13, keep MP11 (...except you, you stay.)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we personally feel like a clean sweep makes the most sense, but we understand the merit of keeping MP11 given that at least Super Mario Party has a piece of dialogue calling it the 11th party.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per my comment and the proposal that added the Mario Party 11 redirect.
  3. Arend (talk) Secondary choice; I guess it makes sense to still call Super Mario Party the 11th one, and my vote for deleting them all stems from the confusion whether Superstars or Jamboree is the 12th one, a discussion from which Super is exempt.
  4. Mushroom Head (talk) Secondary option. I’m sure there is like 6% of users who would search ‘MP11’, but Jamboree is basically SMP2 anyways, and whether MPS or Jamboree is MP12 is so confusing we might as well delete MP12 and 13.

Keep (party on!)

#Hewer (talk) Per my comment and this proposal.

Comments (idle party chat)

I do think fan nicknames can be allowed as redirects, so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)

This is up for debate, because there's redirects for Mario Kart 1 through Mario Kart 6, so if these are to be affected, then they'd need to go too, but I see no reason to remove those as they may come in handy if someone wants to search for the 5th Mario Kart for example. Simply ask "what's the eleventh Mario Party?" and there it is. Another proposal with tons of grey area unaccounted for it seems. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 13:28, January 12, 2025 (EST)

I'm not fond of "MK6"-style redirects, but at least there's no confusion about the 6th Mario Kart game was and you can be pretty sure that there will never be a game titled Mario Kart 6. However, you wouldn't create a "MK9" redirect to Mario Kart Tour, would you? It is debatable whether this game would count as the 9th Mario Kart, and Nintendo could still release a game titled Mario Kart 9 in the future. I admit that it is less likely that Nintendo would release an actual Mario Party 11, but it could still happen – they did release New Super Mario Bros. 2 when there was already a second NSMB after all. As for people who would know what is the 11th Mario Party released on a home console (which is not the 11th Mario Party game overall if you include the handheld games), they will probably want to find the 12th as well, which, since there's no consensus on what Mario Party 12 should even be (Superstars or Jamboree?), would probably only lead to frustration no matter what we choose "MP12" to redirect to. Frankly, unless Nintendo suddenly announces a game titled Mario Party 14 which would retroactively confirm that the current Switch games are MP11, MP12 and MP13, I would rather not keep these redirects. Jdtendo(T|C) 06:07, January 13, 2025 (EST)
This is why I'm in support of only keeping the Mario Party 11 redirect, as Birdo states in dialogue in the game that it's the "eleventh party", so it's not ambiguous whether it counts. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:04, January 13, 2025 (EST)
Question! Would it be too late to add a "keep MP11, delete MP12/MP13" option to this proposal? Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:08, January 13, 2025 (EST)
You can add options within the first four days of a proposal's creation, so yes, I think today is the last day you can add an option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:15, January 13, 2025 (EST)
Nintendo is probably not going to release Mario Party 14 (too lazy to do italics), because they’ll probably make Super Mario Party Superstars Jamboree or Super Mario Party Jamboree 2 or whatever. MHA Super Mushroom:) at 07:25, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Changes

Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?

Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.

This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Blank support

  1. Mario (talk) Per all.
  2. Ray Trace (talk) Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
  3. PopitTart (talk) (This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)
  4. Altendo (talk) (Look at the code for my reasoning)
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk)
  6. OmegaRuby (talk) While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really are just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at all. (Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)
  7. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
  8. TheDarkStar (talk) - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
  9. Ninja Squid (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Tails777 (talk) It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
  11. RetroNintendo2008 (talk)
  12. Fun With Despair (talk) I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.
  13. Shoey (talk) Per all. The idea that you can't infer what a blank vote means is absolute pedantic nonsense. The idea that per all has this grand meaning or that if we allow blank votes people could abuse voting is ridiculous. News flash if people wanna abuse votes they can just put per all. Do you people hear yourselves? The idea that a blank vote can lead to an anarchy of votes nobody can understand or will lead to this great rush of bad faith votes but the 7 characters that spell out per all will protect us from the anarchy is a goddamn preposterous argument.
  14. MCD (talk) - If we allow per all votes then there's no reason not to allow a blank vote that clearly infers the same thing. If someone makes a blank vote and you don't understand why then you can always ask them to expand in the comments. Outside of that the only real argument against this is personal preference which shouldn't dictate whether we allow this or not.
  15. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all/proposal votes are already rarely, if ever, scrutinized. Allowing blank votes won't change that, and I don't think most voters necessarily put as much thought into them as some of the opposition seems to think. I know I've cast per all votes in proposals where I agree with the premise but my thoughts don't align 100% with everyone who has voted already. You can just as easily cast a bad faith vote disguised under per all as you could a blank vote anyway, but we really shouldn't be assuming anyone is participating in proposals in bad faith without a good reason. (Also, having to write "per proposal" on your own proposal is silly.)
  16. Nintendo101 (talk) per Shoey. per Mario's comments below. I found them contextualizing. I don't think this really the big deal folks think it would be - we should assume good faith of fellow users regardless. And if this doesn't workout as expected, there is nothing preventing folks from trying to overturn this in a couple months if they so choose.

Blank Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
  2. Technetium (talk) I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone does provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type two words.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all (is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)
  6. Axii (talk) Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
  7. Pseudo (talk) Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
  8. Mister Wu (talk) Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
  9. DesaMatt (talk) Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
  10. Blinker (talk) Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu
  12. Scrooge200 (talk) A blank vote would be hard to interpret, and you should at least give some reasoning rather than none at all. A "per all" sends the message that the voter has read the proposal and all its votes and is siding with them. For more heated proposals, a blank vote is basically arbitrary because it doesn't tell you anything about why they chose the side they did.
  13. Koopa con Carne (talk) per opposition. "Per [someone]" implies that you took the time to peruse someone's arguments, is an explicit and articulate enough way to show support for those, and it's typically only around a dozen characters long including the space. A blank vote is ambiguous--it could be what I just described, or it can be a vessel for drive-by voting, bandwagoning, or even a simple bias towards the fictional thing so discussed. Sure, the weight of your vote would the same regardless, but if I'm not able to tell which user's case you express your support for, be it the proposer themself or one of the voters, I can just as easily infer that you're not engaging with the proposal in good faith. Give your vote a meaning.
  14. Mushroom Head (talk) 2 things: Putting a blank vote doesn’t automatically mean you agree with previous voters. It may mean you’re voting because you like voting, or you may have accidentally saved changes before typing a reason. And… It’s not really a big deal to type 6 letters, 1 blank and 1 full stop. If you are too lazy to type 1 a, 1 e, 2 l, 1 p, 1 r, 1 blank, and 1 full stop, it implies you are too lazy to vote properly.
  15. Hewer (talk) I see the arguments for both sides but I'm slightly leaning towards this one. Even if blank votes are supposed to be interpreted as "per all" votes, that wouldn't be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with this policy, and it shouldn't be that big a deal to have to write two three-letter words to clarify the reasoning for a vote.
  16. JanMisali (talk) Per all. The reason you're expected to provide an explanation with your vote is to drive discussion and to help people interpret the final result of the proposal. "Why did this proposal succeed?" "Why did this proposal fail?" While "per all" isn't the most useful reasoning to provide, at least it's something. I understand the concept of treating blank votes as equivalent to "per all", but there's no guarantee that future wiki editors would understand it.

#Hooded Pitohui (talk) I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides some insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.

Blank Comments

I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)

I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
@Mario I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)
In my opinion, saying "per OP" or "per (insert user here) is just as much effort as saying "per all" and at least demonstrates a modicum of original thought. I think that a blank vote is essentially the same as just voicing that you agree with the OP, so I did vote for that option in this case - but I think per all does an equally poor job to a blank vote at explaining what you think. At least requiring specific users to be hit with the "per" when voting would give far more of a baseline than "per all". That's not really what this proposal is about though, so I won't dwell on it. --Fun With Despair (talk) 00:22, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)

Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. Technetium (talk) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring a written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

@Fun With Despair And a blank oppose vote would mean what, exactly? At least with "per" votes, it's obvious that there must first be someone to agree with, in this case, the other opposers. A blank oppose vote on the other hand is little better than a vote just saying "No". Which, imo, also should not be allowed. Blinker (talk) 09:27, January 9, 2025 (EST)

@Blinker If you can't pick at least one user to specifically reference in a "Per _____", then I don't think the vote has much merit to begin with. "Per All" is just as much a "No" vote as a blank would be. It's lazy and barely tells anything about your opinion whatsoever or even if you bothered to read the other votes. If we are allowing them at all, a blank and a Per All should be equivalent. I would prefer we ban both, but oh well.--Fun With Despair (talk) 22:55, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I disagree. A "per all" vote tells you that the voter agrees with all the previous votes, and sees the reasoning given by them as good justification for voting the same way. I don't see how that's less valid than only agreeing with a specific user. Of course, if someone is writing only "per all" just because it's an easy way to not have to give an actual reason, that isn't right, but that doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with "per all" votes. Blinker (talk) 11:55, January 11, 2025 (EST)
This is a bit of an extreme-case scenario here, but imagine a proposal which is a landslide failure, only 1 support from the author and 20 opposes. Consider how the creator of that proposal would feel in the scenario where the opposition is 1 proper vote and 19 "per" votes, versus an opposition of 20 votes that are all completely blank. How would they handle the former? The latter?
To take it a bit more extreme, say you were tasked to make a follow-up proposal. How exactly would you go about it in the former case? Could you do the same thing in the latter case? Does the question even make sense at all in the latter case?
In no uncertain terms: how exactly should one be expected to set up a proper proposal if they're only met with silent disapproval? Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 03:35, January 17, 2025 (EST)
What the hell are you talking about? What's the difference between 20 per all votes against you or 20 blank votes against you? An ass kicking is an ass kicking. I'd feel the exact same way either way "wow people really hated my idea." Again the idea that there's this huge difference between 20 people saying per Shoey and 20 people not saying that, especially if the rules say that blank votes should be considered the equivalent of a per all or a proposal. What is a person supposed to do in any scenario where they lose in a landslide? They accept that there idea is unpopular and move on (or they throw a huge fit and get told to fuck off) Shoey (talk)
This is about wiki maintenance, not social dynamics you'd find in middle school. If you're going to have a landslide loss, the least everyone in the room could be bothered to do is at least say why. Because otherwise, well, as far as the proposal creator is concerned, any blank vote could be telling them to fuck off. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal passing wouldn't even allow this scenario to happen. The point is to classify all blank votes as "per all", and if you have 20 blank votes with not actual reasoning, then none of them would actually count because there's no reasoning for them to per by. The first vote would have to have a reason, and in that case both situations you've come up with here are exactly the same. Shy Guy on WheelsSGoW sig.png(T|C|S) 11:12, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I don't understand the majority of the oppositions. The idea that blank votes could encourage drive by voting or bandwagon voting like what are talking about? Do you think people can't bandwagon vote with a per all or a per proposal? There's already nothing stopping somebody from voting and then never checking the proposal again in the current system. If people wanna make bad faith votes they already can! They just say per all, or per proposal, or per so and so. There's no eliminating least of all with some arbitrary per proposal requirements. Shoey (talk)

That's assuming bad faith in written "per" votes. I already said that a blank vote can be equated to anything, constructive or frivolous, it ultimately depends on how you personally imagine it to be. It can have the exact same exact rhetoric value as fandom-driven voting, as in "I vote to make a page for X game/character because it is my favorite game/character!" and you wouldn't be able to tell. Unless you ask that user for clarification, at which point you might as well cut the middleman and enforce users to state something in their vote like currently. An explicit "per" is not only more on-point, but takes only a few keyboard presses to type out. I'd be more open to a proposal that seeks to allow blank votes as an express "I agree with the proposer in particular but not necessarily the voters", because as it stands, a blank vote can be worth jack-all. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 08:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
The problem is that a blank vote, even if we say it equals "per", there is no way to tell if that's how someone is actually using it unless they're otherwise asked; and if they get asked, well, they'll more likely than not just say "oh yeah, it was totally a per all!". And when you open the gates to "using a blank vote as anything"... well, you open the proverbial floodgates. Does the person have something thoughtful to say that they just don't feel like they can phrase correctly? Does the person feel like everything else has been said, an actual per vote? Do they think "YOU SHOULD EAT A BOWL OF NAILS AS RECOMPENSE FOR YOUR FOOLISHNESS AND YOU MUST WALLOW IN THE MISERY AND HUMILIATION YOU DESERVE AND OR GO AWAY FROM THE LIFE OF THE WIKI FOREVER PLEASE" and hold nothing but contempt for the fact you would put something up to proposal, if not more than that? Or do they just. Literally not care. And they didn't even read the proposal for 2 seconds before picking the option that sounded kinda neat. And if you asked them, they would say "wait, that is what we're voting on?" What are they actually thinking? All you see is literally no text at all. For all you know, it could be all of the above, or none of those at all. If you ask them to clarify, and they don't, what exactly do you do in that case? What's different from their blank vote aside from the fact they were questioned for it? It's utter nonsense.
tl;dr; even if we say "a blank is per all", a blank vote tells you absolutely nothing about what the voter actually thinks, up to and including that you can't actually tell if they're using it properly as a per vote. And in trying to fix that issue, well, there's a solution we can think of to fairly easily denote when a vote is a per vote; it's just 3 key presses, a space bar press, 3 more key presses, and the period key. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:28, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Read from here:





Do you know what I mean if this was my vote? MHA Super Mushroom:) at 07:37, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Yes, depending on whether the vote is placed in "Support" or "Oppose", I would know that your opinion is that you either agree with my proposal or you don't. I don't really see the problem with this personally. All that matters is whether you agree or disagree. As it stands, someone could vote against a proposal by just saying "No.", which is just as productive if not less.--Fun With Despair (talk) 10:56, January 17, 2025 (EST)
That's only your read of a blank vote. A blank vote can also just mean that the user agrees or disagrees with the proposal out of sheer sympathy for the fictional thing described in the proposal, for example. It doesn't just matter if you agree or disagree, because that can be purely subjective towards the subject at hand. If a "per" vote is already difficult to derive intent from, then a blank vote provides even fewer clues, with no way of knowing until the user clarifies their choice somehow. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
If somebody wants to place a vote on a proposal because they're I dunno, in love with Luigi and doesn't want his article changed and not anything actually expressed in the proposal, they can already just write "per all" or even make a fake BS argument as it is. Writing "per all" has absolutely never discouraged anyone. Every single argument made regarding disingenuous voting can be applied to "Per all" or "Per proposal" or even just writing "No, just no." with no argument as I have literally seen people do with valid votes that get counted.--Fun With Despair (talk) 13:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
We, respectfully, disagree with the notion that you can apply the same concerns with disingenuous votes to "per all"s, because the fundamental point of saying "per all" is to literally say, "per all the other voters." There is a fairly rigid definition for what "per all" means. It's the definition for the word "per", and the definition for the word "all". How do you define silence? Even if we say "blank means per all", how exactly do you plan to police that? How can you tell what they actually meant when you're given absolutely nothing to go off of? If someone places a "per all" vote, sure, it's hard to tell what their overall thoughts are, but there is at least something there to go off of--there is something that can be said about it. What does this give you?: Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:41, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Respectfully, have you never heard of a liar? Anyone who would be abusing blank votes to push their agenda is likely already just lying and writing "per all" when in actuality they just don't like the proposer or some of the people voting against the proposal and don't want that side to win. If you GENUINELY believe that writing "per all" is some monumental feat of brave honesty that verified the voter's integrity beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I have a bridge or twenty to sell you. --Fun With Despair (talk) 14:03, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Okay, genuine question here; what do you think we're thinking if we choose to respond like this:
Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Well cam considering the fact that this proposal specifically pertains to blank votes being treated the same as per all votes. I'd say your blank comment is a fake bullshit straw argument trying to equate a blank comment to a blank vote. Shoey (talk)
I don't think anything because unlike a vote with two defined options (a big fat AGREE or DISAGREE) that indicates the opinion of a voter, your post is lacking that context. It is a strawman using a completely different scenario. --Fun With Despair (talk) 15:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
The answer was that we were thinking "this entire ordeal is just begging for someone to misinterpret someone else that blows up in some stupid TikTok fandom drama-tier nonsense where nobody says anything of value and/or actively refuses to listen to what is said, a situation that we firmly do not want to be a part of, yet we're worried we're already careening towards it already if we're having people gladly chime in with 'i have a bridge to sell you's or 'or they just throw a fit and get told to fuck off's"... And then we got up because we had to run a few errands and get a drink, so we pre-wrote this before that. If you want to doubt this, be our guest, but we have a picture of this in our Notepad++, pre-written and all, with a timestamp from our computer clock--not a screenshot, as that would be easily edited, unlike a photograph of an LCD.
...So, like, see what we mean? You can't gleam anything from total silence. Is it just a silent agreement with the consensus? Is it apathy? Is it an irrational meltdown? (As of writing this, we cannot blame you if that's what you assumed if you didn't see us in the Discord, being fairly casual... Sorry. We really wanted to commit to this stupid point, and we promise we won't do it again.) Is it some secret test of character? Unless someone tells you and they can back it up, you don't know.
Our ultimate point, we guess, is that you gain a bare minimum something from a "per all", but nothing is... well, nothing. And while it is extremely, and at this point, extraordinarily petty of us, we would rather have that bare minimum something, than nothing at all. Which, admittedly... is kinda just what we said in our own vote almost a month ago, huh. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
I feel that if a known liar and bad faith poster that is inexplicably not banned and voting in proposals tries to justify a bad faith position with a bad vote... vote against them.... If I'm inputting my vote with simply #{{User|Mario}} after a series of 5 votes making a case against a proposal, or me being the second support in a proposal that has already outlined its points, what motives are you expecting from me (I assume you trust me to make fair and respectful judgement)? Can you assume good faith? Why can't you extend this courtesy to most other users? Is it really necessary I type something out beyond this? Should I be forced to end my votes in periods? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Somehow one of my most contentious proposals I've ever made - Mario (talk) 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Can I just ask why it is that the primary concern of this proposal's discussion so far has been the concern of "bad-faith voting"? Is there any kind of basis in recent events to justify this kind of concern over "drive-bys"? I don't really have a strong opinion either direction, but I'm not sure why we're so nervous about the potential of blank votes suddenly being moves towards people like, completely overrunning the proposals page or something? Feels like a slippery slope argument to me. Roserade (talk) 13:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I'm not sure why the concern relies solely on bad-faith assumption of people casting votes. We're not supposed to be assuming bad faith or ulterior motives from blank votes. I can't understand how "per proposal" or "per all" alleviate those. People also say "just write it out anyway" but this is like forcing people to end their votes in full sentences with a full period. It's only one more keystroke? All I want to do is make it slightly easier to vote for people who probably like the idea of just reading the arguments, deciding with support or oppose, typing their name for the decision, and not being required to write anything else. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)
As I've stated before, I agree that you can never extract the true intent behind a "per proposer/per all" vote as it stands, and that it does not inherently alleviate assumptions of bad-faith and bandwagoning. Where I disagree is that blank votes would be somehow better. They'd be worse; until they're integrated in a sub-voting system under someone's vote as an expression of support, they'd afford no clue over which user's idea you'd even be rallying behind. Here, Pseudo makes a clear reference in his vote to Cam's, Technetium's, and Axii's reasonings, as Nintendo101 does with yours, so someone engaging with a proposal's discussion can have some idea of which talking points are more prevalent and worth stressing or combatting. Votes shouldn't just tie back to the proposal itself, they should also inform and be informed by other votes. Had the aforementioned users opted for blank votes instead, that principle is lost, and... well, we know these users have only demonstrated good faith so far, but for the sake of the argument, a blank vote in this case would not particularly help someone's presumption that they voted out of sympathy/out of spite/out of whatever subjective. What's to lose from a modicum of articulateness, other than a trivial amount of text memory? "Per" votes offer a small, but significant advantage over the alternative.
I strongly opine that assuming good faith in users by default has a limit somewhere--not towards established and contributive users, but towards new users who are less versed with the rules, who may be inclined to vote out of personal preference and where some suspicion from others would only be natural. Blank votes, and a change of rule that I assume they would entail, would only encourage such a practice. It's less about the compulsive liars, which you hypothesized above, and more about the candid newbies. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:12, January 17, 2025 (EST)
I see. However we can't force people to add more to their votes, just as how it's not feasible to force ALL voters to write in unique opinions the comment sections. They simply have nothing else to add beyond indicating they decided which side best reflected their stance. If they want to reference a particular user to reinforce that point, I trust them that they will. If they really want to veil spite or bad intent that factored in their vote, they're not going to communicate it, even if it's required to write out a reason. People already likely do this. It doesn't really happen, or if it does, it's already in a multitude of other votes that actually have reasons. I'm not sure if there is a realistic scenario where multiple people conspire to undermine the process against a disliked user, but even in the case that happens, I don't think requiring a reason for a vote will stop them. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Perhaps we could allow blank votes only as an alternative to "per proposer in particular". If you attribute a strict meaning to these votes, you diminish their ambiguity whilst encouraging users to actually state who they align with in the discussion if it's someone other than the proposer. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:45, January 17, 2025 (EST)
That would still have the problem of requiring that you already know how the rule works beforehand to understand the votes, and I feel like it would probably not be very intuitive for new users. It makes more sense to me to just keep it so that reading the vote clearly tells you its reasoning. (That said, I could see the argument for allowing the initial support vote by the proposer to be blank, since they just explicitly outlined their reasoning in the proposal itself.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)

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

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.

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.

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)

Allow co-authorship of proposals

The passing of this proposal would allow duel authorship of proposals (including talk page proposals), where both authors shape the same proposal, the written text, and have equal responsibility for its implementation. It would not allow more than two authors on any proposal for reasons I will explain below.

buds

I have sometimes come up with changes I thought would be nice for the site and have wanted to make proposals for, but stopped myself because the sheer scope of seeing them implemented have kept me from doing it. While maintaining and editing a wiki is a communal craft, passed proposals - regardless of whether they require simply changing the name of an article or creating hundreds of new ones based on the splitting of a list article - are often largely the burden of the person who proposed it. These can be very big time commitments and ultimately feel monotonous and - even when one supports the ideas behind a proposal and do not regret passing it - the weighing monotony can lead to poor editing decisions with rolling it out. It can also lead to big proposals with lots of support not being realized for a long time, sometimes multiple years, as a cursory view of the unimplemented proposals list would seem to support. Additionally, as prefaced, it can lead to some good ideas not being proposed because the idea of carrying out the changes is discouraging. I don't think that's a good thing.

I wish there was more collaborative involvement in larger proposals, maybe with aide from the supporters, instead of the expectation being almost entirely on the person who passed it. I think it further fosters collaboration and passive comradery among the userbase, encourage users who largely only participate in proposals to get involved with revising articles directly, and come with a more equitable expenditure of time and effort on larger projects. The aims of this specific proposal will not enable all of those things, but I think it will be a step in the right direction for greater collaboration among users and ease the burden of seeing large proposals realized by a single individual person. Sometimes a good idea comes up in passive conversation anyways, and there are sometimes users one appreciates that they would like the opportunity to work with more directly on a shared project (or at least that is the case for me). Direct collaboration can result in stronger proposals as well, as both authors could spot one another's blind spots and oversights.

I originally thought having more than two authors on a proposal would be fine, but I think it would be undemocratic and awful if - say - someone raised a proposal with ten "authors" who all immediately voted to support. I view that as manufactured consent, and would make it difficult to oppose even if the ideas behind it are poor. I think having two authors should be sufficient. If this proposal passes, users would be permitted to ask one another* if they would like to create a proposal together and shape the ideas behind it, to which the other user can accept or decline as they so choose. If accepted, they would write something together, or at least mutually support the written text before it is published, and if there is a supplemental article draft used for the proposal, they would both have to be supportive of how that is laid out and written as well. No user can be attached to a proposal unless they were legitimately involved in its creation and support the published text. If neither is the case, they are to alert site staff who will issue a warning to the offender and the proposal is to be cancelled. If the alleged offender has proof to the contrary, they are to present it to staff. (I only clarify these details not to intimidate anyone or make them uneasy, but to layout what I think are sufficient guardrails.)

* - At baseline level, I think reaching out should be permitted on the user talk pages of the wiki, but I also think it would be fine to reach out to a fellow user on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord Server. In my view, this just facilitates ease of communication and allow options. If anyone has concerns about collaborations occurring on these other two platforms, please raise them below.

I offer two options:

  1. Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!: This would amend the rules above on the proposal page, give space for two users to be cited in the "list of ongoing proposals" and "archiver" list, add nonconsensual attribution as a level two offense, and allow two users to co-author proposals (including talk page proposals).
  2. Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 31st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) As someone whose proposals have been hit or miss, the ability to co-author proposals will increase the likelihood of them passing. This will resolve an issue where the proposer may not necessarily see the flaws of what they are proposing.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) this makes sense!
  4. Technetium (talk) Hell yeah!
  5. Sparks (talk) Friendship Is Magic!
  6. Tails777 (talk) Teamwork makes the dream work! Per proposal!
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) wow the plural system is a fan of co-operation??? Per proposal, we're a little surprised there hasn't been a formal system for co-authored proposals before honestly, given a few proposals in particular have already happened precisely because of talk page discussions. Though, in fairness, those talks usually involve a lot more than 2 people, and only one of them mediates the proposal itself. Still, hey, if multiple users want to work on the same proposal, why not, right?

Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.

Comments on co-authorship proposal

Our only real question is, what do we do for archiving these co-authored proposals? We might need to update the author parameter to account for the possibility of a second author. If that was addressed, we'd support this in a heartbeat. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I specify above that space would need to be allocated for two users to be cited rather than just one when applicable in the archives and other comparable lists. I do not offhand know the the technical steps needed for this to occur, but I assume it is not technically difficult. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

Normalise splitting long References to/in other media sections

Last year, I successfully proposed that the References to other media section on The Super Mario Bros. Movie article should be split into its own article due to its length, with the same later occurring for the References in later games section on Super Mario Bros. On the TPP for splitting the latter section, the user EvieMaybe supported saying "i wonder what'll be the next game to require this". That got me to realise that other articles with these sections are of similar length, and suffer the same problems that I originally pointed out in those past proposals. Select examples that I've been able to find include the following:

Again, these are just examples. There's probably more out there that are equally as long. If this proposal were to achieve support, there would have to be some sort of guideline (similar to splitting galleries) relating to a certain limit at which the section is split, possibly a maximum of 20-30 bullet points or certain number of bytes before splitting, as the sections I've cited as examples go over said amount of bullet points. Normalising this would also prevent anyone from having to make separate TPPs to suggest splitting each and every long section separately, and would also help create some consistency, as it doesn't make much sense for only a few select references to/in other media sections to be split rather than more.

Proposer: RetroNintendo2008 (talk)
Deadline: January 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.

EvieMaybe (talk) look ma, i'm on tv! yeah, this seems like a very reasonable thing to do

Oppose

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) I support in principle, but I'm against the proposed implementation here. We already have MarioWiki:Article size for determining what to do when pages get too long, so what I would like to see is simply considering references sections as things that can get split off when that happens. Of the pages linked in this proposal, SMB2 and 3 don't even meet the minimum byte count for a split (SMB2 falls especially short at ~85k bytes). SMB didn't meet those criteria before the proposal either and I think that should be reversed. These lists aren't that long all things considered and they're kept pretty low on the page so I don't think their presence is necessarily intrusive.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Waluigi Time; we already have policies for this, and we see no need to carve out any exceptions for the references section just yet.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Waluigi Time. A good idea in principal, but only if warranted on a case-by-case basis. I generally do not like splitting up pages unless necessary.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) per Waluigi Time, i hadn't considered that. i hope that if this proposal ends with Oppose bc of everyone backing WT, we still remember that we can split reference sections to trim article size
  5. Technetium (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Waluigi Time. Definitely split the articles when necessary, though I agree that it makes sense to follow the standards already set in place rather than making a new criteria solely for reference sections.

Comments

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4608685"