MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Monday, July 22nd, 16:00 GMT

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

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

How to

Rules

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

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

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

---

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "July 22, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

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

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

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

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

Rules

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Merge Count Down and Ring-a-Ding as "watch (boss)" (discuss) Deadline: July 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Spin Smash to Super Hammer (move) (discuss) Deadline: July 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Tricky the Triceratops, Bluey the Walrus, Bubbler the Octopus, and Smokey the Dragon to shortened names, and move their respective courses to the full names (discuss) Deadline: July 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Bowser's Brother to Fake Bowser (Blue) (discuss) Deadline: July 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge X-Fist with Magnus von Grapple and merge X-Punch with Magnus von Grapple 2.0 (discuss) Deadline: July 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Blooper (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) from Big Blooper (discuss) Deadline: July 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Prioritize the names used in Toadstool Tour over the guidebooks for enemies and bosses endemic to Super Mario Sunshine (discuss) Deadline: July 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Shadow (character) to "Shadow" (discuss) Deadline: July 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Stop considering Togezo in the Kirby series to be guest appearances of Spiny (discuss) Deadline: August 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects (discuss) Deadline: August 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Split Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels, GuntherBayBeee (ended July 2, 2024)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)

^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder

Allow colorful tables, Scrooge200 (ended July 9, 2024)

Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Merge Golf (series) with Mario Golf (series), Hewer (ended July 15, 2024)

Reorganize Template:Galleries, JanMisali (ended July 20, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Standardize the coverage of elements from guest appearance titles

As brought up by an earlier cancelled proposal, the current coverage of The Legend of Zelda series is very inconsistent, and the worst offender is Bombite. Unlike Spiked Thwomp, Stone Elevator or Mega Thwomp, it has no direct or implied connection to the Mario franchise, but has an article anyway, solely based on its appearance.

MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest_appearances permits giving individual articles for subjects "unique to the [guest appearance] game while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise". I propose to more clearly define on MarioWiki:Coverage what elements from guest appearance titles should be given their own pages:

1. The subject is clearly derived from or based on the Super Mario franchise, as confirmed by Nintendo. (Nintendo Land minigames, Thwomp types exclusive to The Legend of Zelda, etc.)
2. The subject is distinct enough to justify its own article. (Cannot be merged with an existing page. BowWows or Cheep-Sheeps don't get individual articles because they're not distinct enough from their Mario counterparts)
3. Subjects exclusive to Mario-themed stages or minigames (Chili plate, Blue check mark, etc. Monita still doesn't get her own page, despite her role in the Luigi's Ghost Mansion minigame)
4. If the subject derived from the Mario franchise appears in a Nintendo-published or endorsed media that isn't considered guest appearance, a proposal is required before creating a page. (If Nintendo ever releases a game with a unique Mario subject that can't otherwise be considered a guest appearance title, wiki editors have an option to consider if it's worth covering anyway)

This is where Bombite comes into play:

Option 1: Similar appearance isn't enough to justify creating a new article. This option would result in the deletion of Bombite, its contents will be merged with the Zelda section of Bob-omb's article

Option 2: Similar appearance is a good justification for creating a new article for a distinct enemy. Bombite's page remains

Proposer: Axis (talk)
Deadline: July 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. Axis (talk) Per proposal
2. Hewer (talk) Connecting Bombite to Bob-omb does feel like a stretch, so yeah it doesn't need an article.
3. JanMisali (talk) Per Hewer.
4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.
5. Arend (talk) As I already stated here, Bombite being covered here with its own article is really strange, even if it does resemble Bob-omb, and the game it's from references Mario a lot. Rest of the proposed guidelines also check out, per all.
6. 7feetunder (talk) I really have no idea why Bombites even exist when they could've just put Bob-ombs in Link's Awakening. Regardless, per proposal.
7. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.

Comments

How is "Option 2" any different from "Oppose"? Doesn't this proposal just decide whether Bombite stays or goes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It's about standardizing it so there's something to refer to in case something like this comes up again. Both options support the new standart, the difference is whether or not visual similary qualifies as a connection Axis (talk) 08:31, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

A somewhat recent proposal about the coverage of the Rhythm Heaven series decided that Rhythm Heaven minigames with WarioWare characters in them (including Kung Fu Ball from Rhythm Heaven Fever, the debut of Cicada) should not get dedicated articles. Would this new definition overturn that decision? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 08:33, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It is not within the scope of this proposal, no Axis (talk) 08:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Relatedly, though I did vote against Monita having a page a couple years ago, I have started to reconsider a bit. She's a bit of an edge case, but not having a page on her creates a gap in our otherwise full coverage for Luigi's Ghost Mansion. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:56, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Side note, would Togezo also be affected by the scope of the proposal? It's currently being covered on the Spiny article as if it's the same thing, even though it only vaguely resembles a Spiny (read: it's a black ball with two Kirby feet, dot eyes and a Spiny Shell helmet), and even had the Japanese and English name for Spiny swapped at first. Even with Doc's explanation in this discussion, I'm still unsure if Togezo was meant to be the same creature as Spiny, or anything more than a simple reference to Spiny (it honestly looks more like Spiky, or even Bumbleprod). The Spiked Beetle, in comparison, resembles Spiny much more, especially in the Switch version of Link's Awakening. rend (talk) (edits) 12:09, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Whether part of this proposal or not, we should absolutely stop considering Togezo to be Spiny, it's patent speculation and the enemies don't even look alike besides having spiky shells. For all we know, they could've been created entirely separately from each other and coincidentally ended up with the same spike-based names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I agree with Hewer, unless any of the guides say otherwise. Either way, it should be handled by a different proposal. (Also, I don't think any of the Kirby games are considered guest appearance anyway? So it isn't related, really) Axis (talk) 14:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Y'all keep neglecting to bring up the "rolling into ball" bit as well as Spiny having the same black face in their prior appearances in SMB3 and SMW. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I really don't see how that changes anything. Neither aspect is uncommon among Kirby characters. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:18, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Later Kirby characters. Remember, Spinies were introduced to Kirby in that series' second game, and those attributes didn't become "common" to that series until after it was suspiciously phased out for the remake and onward... not unlike how Capsule J was phased out for being a Twinbee clone. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I still think it's too much of a stretch based entirely on conjecture. We have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes with Kirby enemy designs over the years, we weren't there with the developers, and even if they did base it on Spiny, that doesn't mean it has to be literally the same character. And I don't see what's "suspicious" about it no longer appearing (which is yet another trait not uncommon among Kirby enemies), or why its vague Spiny resemblance would have anything to do with that fact. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:34, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

(ec) Not particularly convinced we should have the Kirby enemy Togezo lumped with the Mario enemy in the Spiny article and in the gallery for the Spiny. Differences are too significant. The dark face in a sprite seems to just be a coloration quirk; they're not dark in official art and the whole rolling up into ball is just probably just a coincidence since they're both round enemies anyway. How they become a ball is so vastly different; in the original games, Spinys are balls while being thrown out; Togezo patrols areas, rolls into a ball, bounces, and spins around like a hedgehog. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Later games give Spiny the ability to roll on a whim, like Paper Mario and NSMB. And I find it too unlikely that they'd happen to share both a name and basic appearance plan with an iconic creature from their creator's parent company's primary money-maker - especially when Kirby Super Star from the same dev team as Kirby's Adventure (ie, the Sakurai-headed one rather than the other one the so-called "Dark Matter saga" games had) went all-out on Nintendo cameos. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Later Spiny abilities (and in games with no relation to Kirby). And was Spiny really that iconic as of Kirby's Adventure, to the point that there's no way they could've made their own separate spiked-shelled enemy? At best Togezo warrants a mention in trivia or something on Spiny's page for possibly being inspired by the Mario character. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:54, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Any SMB1 enemy I'd count as fair game, to be frank. Granted, last I checked Sakurai was fairly open on social media so I suppose someone could ask him if it was an intentional cameo. Either way, we both know that if that ever gets a proposal itself, we'll have forgotten (conveniently or otherwise) each other's points by that point, so no point wasting our keystrokes here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Well, if we would've forgotten each other's points if it ever gets a proposal by itself, why not strike while the iron's hot, then? rend (talk) (edits) 19:59, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

A friend once asked this very question, Doc, but all we got was a curious like from the programmer of Gimmick! LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:00, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Gimmick also had a similar-looking enemy (in fact, it looked right in between those designs), but its only deal was flipping over when hit and having the feet function as a tiny conveyor belt. And that game was entirely 3rd party, and the enemies in that game seem to be unnamed. Here it is. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:05, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA Zelda games, which themselves heavily borrow from Link's Awakening - particularly Four Swords Anniversary Edition having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. Axis (talk) 14:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.