MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (→‎Keep both princesses the same: Got called out on this, so... i'm removing this.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Consider Super Smash Bros. series titles for recurring themes low-priority===
''None at the moment.''
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).
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>
==New features==
'''Deadline''': November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
===Introduce a new type of proposal===
 
While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|this proposal]], which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 this old proposal attempt] for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?
====Support====
#{{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====
#{{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.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} If we've got a song from a crossover game, information from that crossover matters more than the non-Mario source.
 
====Comments====
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.)
 
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)
: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)
 
:{{@|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)
 
@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)
: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)
 
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)
: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)
::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)
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)
: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)
::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)
 
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)
 
===Decide how to prioritize PAL English names===
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.


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


Therefore, I am proposing four options:
This allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B".  
*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.
*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]].
*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]].
*Do nothing - do I even have to explain this?


'''Proposer''': {{User|Altendo}}<br>
I've written down a [[User:EvieMaybe/Poll proposal|mockup poll proposal]] for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".
'''Deadline''': November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====NTSC>PAL====
#{{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.
#{{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?
#{{User|YoYo}} This would have to expand into other games too, like Mario Kart. Now, there are entire courses in Mario Kart with different names between PAL and NTSC, like [[3DS Cheep Cheep Lagoon|Cheep Cheep Cape]], [[3DS Wario Shipyard|Wario's Galleon]], [[3DS Piranha Plant Slide|Piranha Plant Pipeway]] and [[Wii DK Summit|DK's Snowboard Cross]]. How would one make there be no priority here? One would have to occupy the article name, an article cannot have two names. That, by default, means making both equal priority is impossible. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 13:19, November 12, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a primarily American English wiki, and use American English in the actual article bodies (e.g. we use spellings like "color" over "colour", we use terms like "flashlight" over "torch", etc. etc.), so it only makes sense to prioritize American English releases for these too.
 
====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)
 
@YoYo: I think you may have misunderstood the proposal (which I don't blame you for, it's a bit confusing). It's about what names get priority in terms of identifiers and redirects in cases of different things sharing a name, not which name gets priority as the article title. None of those Mario Kart courses share their names with any other thing, and their titles will continue to prioritise the American name regardless of this proposal's outcome. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:40, November 13, 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====
#{{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.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - "Because game writing" is what leads to wikis encouraging jokey sarcastic writing, which I'm pretty sure is not the direction we want to go.
 
====Comments====
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)
:I'm not talking about the wiki's manual style. I'm talking about general guidelines especially [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html MLA] {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 15:41, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::If it's not ''our'' manual of style, then there's no reason for us to care about it because we don't use it. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::''Our'' manual of style '''is based on this manual of style.''' {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:11, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::If it's only ''based on'' it, then it ''isn't'' it. The manual of style is ours, so this quote mark convention has to survive on its own merits, not just by virtue of being in someone ''else's'' manual of style. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:22, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::Not using general formatting standard guidelines solely because "we shouldn't just because we're not them" is not a good argument. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::Well, then — '''Nintendo doesn't do this either, so there's no reason for this wiki to ''pretend'' like they do.''' That's been my argument this whole time. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::The main difference is that they're a video game, and they're inherently informal in their presentation. They're not trying to write things and bios formally, they're trying to present writing to players, so formatting like italicizing game titles is optional, because that's what it's set out to do. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, our writing formatting is far more similar to Wikipedia which observes these things and MLA writing guidelines, and how to format sourcing, and it's something we ''should'' emulate over a video game's script. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:47, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::{{@|Ahemtoday}} I don't think that is the strong argument you think it is, because almost no piece of media where it has become conventional to include quotation marks include them themselves. They are not on the back of most [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/e1/7e/abe17ef61a737df53498f93487668213.jpg albums], [https://images.template.net/89102/novel-table-of-contents-template-wvzrz.jpeg books], or [https://addbcdbimages.s3.amazonaws.com/nick/sbsp_fish_bowl.jpg title cards for television shows]. But they are all still presented with quotes arounf them in reference material like Wikipedia and physical books. What makes the Nintendo music we cover here so different that warrants unique treatment? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:53, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::Nintendo doesn't always italicize game titles either, this site does. To be honest, though, I'm not sure how consistently this wiki observes MLA. There's some superficial basis in it (mostly coming off of Wikipedia's style guide, which is sprinkled with some MLA), what with the titles of whole works being written in italics and those of constituent parts of a work being surrounded by quotes, yet the manner in which citations are formatted, arguably a priority of any academic style guide, seems rather peculiar to Wikipedia's house style. Take any citation formatted using the {{tem|cite}} template on this wiki and compare it to how [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_formatting_and_style_guide.html MLA proposes it is done] <small>(owl.purdue.edu)</small>. There's also been at least [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Italics_formatting_of_boat_names.2C_fictional_products.2C_and_others|one attempt]] at explicitly adopting a standard purveyed by MLA that got shot down. Not to digress too much, I just wanted to point out that MLA is not currently as pervasive here as it's made out to be and can't be appealed to solely because of a few instances that (happen to) observe it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:20, November 11, 2024 (EST), edited 19:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::I am personally forgiving on how we structure citations in that template, because many academic journals don't adopt the MLA structure either. Everyone does something a little different from one another. The information included in a citation is more important than how it is organized, and things like ISBN are pretty helpful for an online reference like Super Mario Wiki.
::::::::But I also don't believe in supporting conventions just for the sake of them ''being'' conventions. I'd rather support them if they are beneficial. What are your thoughts on what I said in my vote above? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:33, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::I cannot argue with your vote. If a writing standard promoted by outside guides can harmonize with the needs of Mario Wiki, there's no reason not to adopt it. Quotation marks serve their purpose well in this case. so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:10, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::Cool! I was just curious. I value your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:14, November 11, 2024 (EST)
 
I'm realizing I haven't given my full thoughts on {{@|Nintendo101}}'s vote yet. I agree that there are benefits to formatting song titles in this way (particularly in sentences, which is why I have the option to keep the quote marks exclusively ''in'' sentences) — but this formatting scheme misrepresents how the actual works in question are referred to by official media. I had to ask a friend who had Nintendo Music to find out whether or not the app displayed song titles in quotes, because I couldn't trust this wiki to tell me — and, like I said, Nintendo Music ''doesn't''. Yet [[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music|this article]] writes the song names as if it ''does'', because apparently this convention is more important than this kind of information. I know this is a minor piece of information, but this formatting convention causes me to be '''unable to trust the wiki about it'''. No benefit can counterbalance that. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 20:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:I am sorry that you felt mislead, but are you sure it is not because you were unfamiliar with this being a convention for music pieces in the first place? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:12, November 12, 2024 (EST)
::I was well familiar with the convention and how this wiki used it at the time, which is why I knew to ask a friend instead of taking the wiki's word for it. I take such a hardline stance against it not because this untrustworthiness has personally wronged me, but because untrustworthiness is a failure of the wiki on principle. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 00:02, November 13, 2024 (EST)
:::I am sorry, I was not referring to Super Mario Wiki in isolation. I was referring to the convention at large. In books and articles on music, regardless of topic, individual pieces are placed within quotation marks. I know I myself first learned one is supposed to put quotation marks around music titles while I was taking English class in middle school. So while I am sympathetic that this bothered you, I do not agree it is misleading. Maybe the issue lies with folks who do not have a lot of experience reading or writing about music. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:05, November 13, 2024 (EST)
::::Whether or not readers are familiar with the convention doesn't change the fact that the convention is not reflective of what is being talked about. The only reason wiki readers know [["Thrills at Night"]] and its ilk are actually surrounded in quotes officially is because we haven't been thorough in applying this convention. If we ''did'', then the distinction would vanish completely, because the wiki currently considers adhering to this guideline more important than this kind of information. You can't pin that on readers being unfamiliar. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:17, November 13, 2024 (EST)
 
===Add identifiers to near-identical titles===
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.
 
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.
 
'''Edit:''' Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include [[Family Basic (microgame)]] and [[Family BASIC]] (as ruled by [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|a proposal]]), [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)|Hot Air Balloon (''Donkey Kong'' franchise)]] and [[Hot-air balloon]], [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]], and [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] and both [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)|Avalanche! (''Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix'')]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)|Avalanche! (''Mario Party 4'')]]. If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.


'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal.
 
====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|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|Ray Trace}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|Dine2017}} Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
 
====Comments====
I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the [[Secret exit]] article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. [[Family Basic (microgame)]] recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from [[Family BASIC]] [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|was deemed unreasonable]]. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)]] (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from [[Hot-air balloon]]. [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] has an identifier to separate it from [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]], even though both of them have exclamation marks. [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]] get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made [[Family Basic]] a redirect to [[Family BASIC]], so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)
 
==New features==
===Create a category for "catch-all articles"===
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]];
*[[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.
 
This category would be applied to articles on concrete subjects only (most of which, if not all, would be objects).
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} My proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.


====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''.
#{{User|Arend}} Honestly, the inclusion of fictional items like Poison Mushroom, ! Block and ? Panel would make it more confusing for me what a "catch-all article" is supposed to be; if it's supposed to be about generic subjects, then their inclusion would definitely muddy the concept quite a bit. Not to mention that the term "catch-all article" isn't clear enough as it is.


====Comments====
====Comments on proposal proposal====
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 articles I agree are generic, 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)
Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a ''lot'' more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of <nowiki>{{For}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Against}}</nowiki> templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use <nowiki>{{User}}</nowiki> to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)
: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)
:That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into [[Category_talk:Music#Proposal:_Reorganize_this_category|three]] [[Category_talk:Musical_groups#Change_into_a_category_for_musical_groups|separate]] [[Category_talk:Sound_tests#Rename_to_.22Sound_tests.22|ones]] myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave], but I can't really envision what [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|your other example]] would look like as a poll proposal. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for [[List of references in the Super Mario franchise]], and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for [[Dotted-Line Block]], options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from ''SMBW''", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)


==Removals==
==Removals==
Line 243: Line 43:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Allow unregistered users to comment under talk page proposals===
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
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.
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.
 
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.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} IP addresses can leave comments on unprotected talk pages. If they can do that, shouldn't they be able to comment in talk page proposals as well, given that they're not protected? Per all.


====Oppose (unregistered users proposal)====
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.
#{{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)====
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."
"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)
: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)


{{@|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)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
: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)
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
===Decide whether to cover the E3 2014 ''Robot Chicken''-produced sketches===
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.
 
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):
*[[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.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|ThePowerPlayer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 16, 2024, 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|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} It is no less official than [[Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō]] or [[Super Mario-kun]]. Per all.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|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.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Green Star.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments====
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)
{{@|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)
: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)
: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)
::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)
::{{@|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)
:::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)
:::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)
{{@|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)
::::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)
: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)
:::::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)
::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)
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)
:::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)
: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)
::::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)
::"''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)


===Require citations for dates===
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)
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.
: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)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Starluxe}}<br>'''Deadline''': November 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)


====Support====
{{@|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)
#{{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====
{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed?  [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
====Comments====
::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)
What source you think is acceptable for release dates? I personally use GameFAQs. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:05, November 2, 2024 (EDT)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
: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)
:::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)
::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)
::::(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)
:::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)
::::"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)


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


===Move "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to "Peach" and "Daisy"===
Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue [[Hoohooros]], but also [[Hooroglyphs]] and [[Beanstone]]s. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in ''March 2007'', actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.
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/69#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2|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".


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.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====The case for moving Daisy's article====
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
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.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].


====The case for moving Peach's article====
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
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.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.


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.
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====


'''Proposer''': {{User|janMisali}}<br>
====Merge none (do nothing)====
'''Deadline''': November 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Move both princesses====
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====
#{{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.
#{{User|WayslideCool}} Per proposal. Consistent with how we've handled this sort of thing in other contexts, would feel weird to make an exception here specifically.
<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====
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


====Only move Daisy====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|JanMisali}} Second choice, as proposer.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Second choice, since Daisy has stronger reason to be moved.
#{{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.
#{{User|UltraMario}} Per all. I voted on the other one so that both Princesses could not get changed, but I'm also going to vote this because I agree that Daisy should just be called Daisy, specifically.
 
====Keep both princesses the same====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Stop shortening names! Seriously, I knew this was next after the Koopaling proposal.
#{{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... That Sonic proposal already was a stupid enough decision as-is and this... this is no different; regardless of whether this proposal passes or fails, i'd want to reverse the Sonic proposal.
#{{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.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all. Since these proposals are made with following the rules in mind, then the obvious alternative is to change the rules. The naming guidelines have nothing about full names and titles, that should be changed so that conditions pertaining to them to allow use of extending their titles based on official material over (identifiers). Let's use Princess Peach as an example. "Princess Peach" was first seen in Yoshi's Safari then later in Mario 64 and here and there ever since. Thus "Princess" is part of Peach and should be kept as "Princess Peach" to distinquish from Peach the fruit. Same with Roy Koopa and Roy from Mario Golf, the latter doesn't really need an identifier if the former is moved back to his full name. On the other hand, I've been also thinking such a policy would have to be restrictive: "Princess Peach Toadstool" wouldn't be legit because it wasn't seen in Yoshi's Safari first, "King Bowser" wouldn't be either for similar reasons, "Boo Diddly" wouldn't count because  it's only seen in Mario 3 and its remakes, and Mollusque-Lanceur's full name won't because it comes from a secondary source and its length may be an issue. There's probably a lot more that needs to be figured out, those are just examples that came to my mind.
#{{User|MCD}} Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
 
====Princess Comments, Peach====
@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)
 
@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)
: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--outwardly, it provides the former, but it's also an ad-ridden hellhole artificially planted on the front page of Google results with no regard to the quality or accuracy of the content herein. I'm questioning whether it's worth compromising accuracy so the wiki could compete with such actors. Not to say 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), [[Special:Diff/4429048|edited]] 10:55, November 11, 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)
 
{{@|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)
:It's right there in the beginning of the story mode. [https://youtu.be/bQYgz5RlAQI?t=315 This video, around the 5:15 time mark]. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:19, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::Ah, missed that. Thanks! But regardless, it's definitely not her ''primary'' name in that game. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:25, November 11, 2024 (EST)
It should also be noted that [https://www.mariomayhem.com/downloads/mario_instruction_booklets/Super_Mario_Land_-_Manual_-_GB.pdf the ''Super Mario Land'' manual] consistently refers to Daisy as "Princess Daisy" in the story section and gameplay section; the character section is the only place in the manual where she's referred to as just "Daisy" (plus mistakenly calling her "Daisy Princess" as well). The manual of [https://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Nintendo_GameCube/Manual/formated/Mario_Kart-_Double_Dash_-_Nintendo.pdf Mario Kart: Double Dash] refers to her as "Princess Daisy" once, too. I get that these aren't exactly "in-game" materials, but that should put "Princess Daisy" on the same level as the Koopalings' full names.<br>Do ''Super Smash Bros.'' games count too, btw? [https://youtu.be/U3wCxICjLPM?si=UEy9xJJ3Y3xX9Ee6 Palutena has referred to her as "Princess Daisy"]. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:43, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:I mentioned ''Smash Bros.'' in my previous proposal about this. She's called Daisy everywhere else in that game, including elsewhere in that same Palutena's Guidance conversation. But yes, I agree that "Princess Daisy" is a name used on the same level as the full names of the Koopalings, and I think we should use it the same way we use the Koopalings' full names (ie. not in the article title). {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:25, November 11, 2024 (EST)
 
@SmokedChili: There is no universe where peach the fruit that made minor appearances in five games could get naming priority on this wiki over Peach the major character with hundreds of appearances. That's why [[Peach]] already redirects to the character, and [[Peach (fruit)]] already has an identifier - shortening the name wouldn't change that. The same goes for Roy - the Mario Tennis character always had an identifier for years before Roy Koopa's name was shortened, because the former is significantly less prominent and less likely to be what people searching "Roy" are looking for. (Also, Mollusque-Lanceur's full name recently appeared in Nintendo Music, which I don't think is a "secondary source", and [[The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens|length wouldn't be an issue]].) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)
 
{{@|SmokedChili}} Peach is not called "Princess Peach" at any point in ''Super Mario 64''. She is called "Princess Toadstool", "Peach", "the Princess", and "Princess Toadstool, Peach". {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:48, November 11, 2024 (EST)
 
:We should most certainly revise our naming conventions, since it's warranting proposals for every character to be moved to just their first names. And now that we have the [[Sonic Drive-In|Sonic restaurant]], the hedgehog should definitely get his full name back. And with Shadow and Big, their full names would be better page titles than identifiers. And after opposing the proposal to add identifiers to similarly named pages, I might advocate for [[Peach (fruit)]] to get it's identifier removed just for the princess to keep her title. That page already has the {{Tem|About}} template linking to the princess anyway. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 23:52, November 13, 2024 (EST)
::Are you suggesting that someone who types "Peach" into the search bar on mariowiki.com and presses enter is more likely to be looking for the fruit than the character? {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 00:29, November 14, 2024 (EST)
::Sonic Drive-In also changes nothing, it's called Sonic Drive-In and not just Sonic. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:53, November 14, 2024 (EST)
 
===Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)===
''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.
 
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|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{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.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|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|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{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.
#{{User|BMfan08}} I was just thinking about this the other day when I was changing tense on tour articles. It's definitely a lot to take in, and it's also overlooked because people don't put into a template quite as much as they do a page. I agree with this idea.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per all.


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


====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)
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)


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


===Allow certain proposals to close after one week===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
Alright, hear me out.
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Recently, a [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Revise_how_long_proposals_take:_.22IT.27S_ABOUT_.28how_much.29_TIME_.28they_take.29.22 proposal] has passed, making all proposals last for 2 weeks instead of 1. Though I was opposed to this change, I can definitely now see the benefit of giving proposals more discussion time. However, not all proposals need that extra week. Some proposals leave zero room for discussion, because everyone already agrees with the proposer. So the proposal just sits for another week and the outcome obviously isn't going to change. I propose to introduce a rule that would close proposals with '''high participation''' and '''unanimous consensus''' after one week, like it was before that. Let me explain:
====Split both====
 
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
#If a proposal has 10+ votes with no opposition or 12+ votes with 1 oppose vote by the end of the first week, it passes.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#Same applies to proposals with unanimous opposition, 12+ oppose votes with only 1 support vote (that being of proposer, or 10 if the proposer didn't vote) closes a proposal at the end of the first week.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
#If this condition isn't met, a proposal runs for two weeks as expected, even if it gets 10 votes after one week. In short, the proposal only has one opportunity to get closed early: at the end of the first week.<br>Proposals with more than two options also abide by this rule, though they're very unlikely to ever close early. Though it can happen! If the proposal has multiple options, it probably needs more discussion time anyway, so I decided not to touch those at the moment.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#If the proposal has an ongoing discussion in the comments section or the proposal may for any other reason benefit from running for two weeks to generate more discussion (e.g. writing guidelines, wiki policy changes, etc.), both the proposer and the admin team have the right to add the '''"Do not close early"''' tag below the deadline. This will ensure proposals with unanimous support that need that extra week of time can still get it.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
 
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
This rule will '''not''' apply to talk page proposals
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense


I believe this change to be a good compromise between giving proposals more discussion time and eliminating proposals that can do without it.
====Only split screenshots====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Axii}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Axii}} This can be a good compromise
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Altendo}} Why drag on proposals that already have anonymous support? Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} This makes sense to us! We are a little on-the-fence about the exact thresholds, but this is definitely a pretty elegant system to help unanimous proposals pass sooner, and given it has only one method to proc, it leaves it pretty shenanigan-proof.


====Oppose====
====Only split assets====


====Comments====
====Leave image quality alone====
<s>Would this also apply to talk page proposals?</s> Never mind, I can't read. I do think this could apply to TPPs though. What's your reasoning for it not? [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 14:09, November 13, 2024 (EST)
:Talk page proposals just aren't as visible to the community as mainspace proposals are, so I believe they should still last for two weeks regardless. They also do not clutter the proposals page. I may consider adding it as a third option. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 14:13, November 13, 2024 (EST)
::Axil, I think it's a better idea to replace a direct URL (<nowiki>[https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Revise_how_long_proposals_take:_.22IT.27S_ABOUT_.28how_much.29_TIME_.28they_take.29.22 proposal]</nowiki>) to a direct wikilink (<nowiki>[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"|proposal]]</nowiki>) so that it removes bytes on the archive page and doesn't always open a new window when clicked. Just my recommendation, though.


::Also, what happens with proposals that somehow retain the aspect ratio of at least 12 to 1 (like 25 support votes to 2 oppose votes)? I feel like the case for closing proposals after one week with oppose votes should be changed to '''a ratio of at least 12 to 1''', not '''at least 12 support votes and only 1 oppose vote'''. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 15:07, November 13, 2024 (EST)
====Comments on image quality proposal====
I think clause 2 needs to explicitly account for proposals where the proposer does not vote in support of their own proposal. It's not the least common thing in the world, after all — and if we ''miss'' it, we could have people retracting their solitary vote to buy more time, which would not be an intended feature of this. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 02:59, November 14, 2024 (EST)
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
<gallery>
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)


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

Latest revision as of 19:21, February 7, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, February 8th, 00:21 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Introduce a new type of proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
  3. PopitTart (talk) For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.

Oppose

Comments on proposal proposal

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

That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --PopitTart (talk) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The glyphs are actually seen, though.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

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

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

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

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think slightly slanted text is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that is there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
  4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

Split the image quality category

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

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

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

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

Split both

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

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

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

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

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

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

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

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

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4724397"