MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

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


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==New features==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
''None at the moment.''
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#Proposals can not be made about [[MarioWiki:Administrators|System Operator]] promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].
 
The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights).  If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
 
__TOC__
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EST)'''</span></center>
 
==New Features==
''None at the moment.


==Removals==
==Removals==
==="Relationship with other characters" sections===
''None at the moment.''


Most (All?) of our articles about major characters have sections detailing how they interacts with other major characters, I could do a tl:dr rant explaining why these sections irks me, but I will be short here:
==Changes==
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


*They're poorly written. ([[Mariowiki:BJAODN|"In Mario Party 6, Wario and Toadette's team name is named Secret Friends. This may refer that Wario and Toadette were once friends, secretly.']])
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
*They're unneeded. The Mario sub-section on the [[Bowser]] page could be basically summed up as "Bowser really hates Mario but team-up with him anyway"... something that anyone with half-a-neuron could have learned from reading the article. Beside, do you think anyone come on this site thinking "I'm a So wanting to read about Peach being friend with Toadette!"?
*They're the perfect breeding ground for speculations (X and Y have [Z] team name in Mario Party! THEY'RE MUST BE A DEEPER CONNECTION!!!) and idiot wars ("Daisy is Lugi ture luv!!!" "NO ROSALINA IS!!!!!")


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


'''Proposer''': {{user|Blitzwing}} <br>
====Oppose====
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2009 17:00'''
#{{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.
====Slash 'Em====
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{user|Blitzwing}} - Because I'm a totally voting against my own proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Blitz
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per Blitz, let's burn them '''AGGRESIVELY''' =3
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Uniju :D}} I always wondered why those exist...
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Blitzwing, 99% of these sections are a waste of time. For the other 1%, just add the information as a stand-alone section: to use Son of Sun's example, I'm sure a Mario-Peach Relationship section wouldn't seem out-of-place in either of their articles.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
 
====Keep 'Em====
#{{User|CrystalYoshi}}Why can't we just keep them and make sure that they're free of nonsense? I think the sections are good information about the character.
#{{User|Son of Suns}} - Some of the official comments from Nintendo placed in those sections would not make sense anywhere else (such as commentary on Mario and Peach's relationship).  It does not make sense to outright delete them, but instead work (re-writing, cutting, editing, etc.) on them to make them better.  If we just deleted things because they are poorly written, we should probably delete most of the articles on this wiki.
#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per Son of Suns.


====Comments====
====Comments====
While most of these sections I run across seem to be poorly-written, speculative, and sometimes way too extended (I hear rumors there was a Diddy Kong entry in the Mario relationships section?), that does not mean they cannot (in the future) be well-written, informative, and kept to a close circle of important character relationships. It could be a great place to provide all the official connections between two specific characters. For example, the [[Mario#Princess Peach|Princess Peach section in the Mario article]] does a decent job of listing all those comments made by Nintendo about their ambiguous relationship. I found it to be very helpful, and I would not want that information to suddenly disappear. If it could just listed under a general "Relationships" section (instead of one sub-divided into many sections about individual characters) we could focus on a few key relationships - relationships Nintendo has provided a lot of commentary on, such as the Mario-Peach relationship, as opposed to the [[Mario#Rosalina|Mario-Rosalina relationship]] listed in the article, which is basically a plot summary of ''Super Mario Galaxy'', but doesn't tell us anything about their relationship. So basically, I don't think we should completely delete these sections, but find a way to highlight those specific relationships Nintendo has actually offered commentary on. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
@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)
:Then we can place the good informations in a note in the relevant game or in a Trivia section. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 19:22, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
 
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:So that means the Mario-Peach information would be unorganized and scattered throughout the article, or a three paragraph entry in the Trivia section?? -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
 
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
After additional thought and EBAL PEER PRESSURE I have come to the conclusion I do not clearly support either position and will thusly abstain from voting. {{User|Snack}}
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


==Splits & Merges==
===Merge introduction/ending sections for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section===
''None at the moment.
{{Early notice|March 1}}
Back in 2013, there was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Get_rid_of_pointless_Mario_Party_Minigames_beginnings_and_endings|a proposal]] to cut intro/ending descriptions for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles the proposer deemed pointless, which was rejected by the community. However, with over ten years passing since the original proposal and some discussion I had with some staff on the Discord server regarding the sections/descriptions, I would like to revisit the idea of addressing these sections and the issues that commonly plague them.


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


This proposal would replace the current Importance Policy with a less hierarchical, more inclusive policy based on [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]]. The proposed new policy can be found here: [[User:Son of Suns/Sandbox#MarioWiki: Importance Policy|'''New''' Importance Policy]]. This would serve as the basis for the new policy and could be revised as necessary.
While the descriptions for the intros and outros of the minigames can help our readers who need tools like screen readers, many of said descriptions are often riddled with issues, some common problems including, but not being limited to:
*Excessive descriptions of minor details or other forms of filler/content bloat that do not meaningfully contribute to the article: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Eyebrawl&oldid=4500992 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sugar%20Rush%20(minigame)&oldid=4509228 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Flip_the_Chimp&oldid=4715460 3]
*Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=On-Again,_Off-Again&oldid=4744643 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Chain_Event&oldid=4513579 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Blazing%20Lassos&oldid=4746544 3]
*Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sick_and_Twisted&oldid=4504726 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Platform_Peril&oldid=4744623 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Burnstile&oldid=4494938 3]


As you can tell, the [[MarioWiki: Importance Policy|'''current''' Importance Policy]] is extremely convoluted, as we are trying to base our wiki on levels of connections between series, which itself is a highly speculative act. Based on the chart, series such as ''Mario Kart'' may actually be of "secondary" importance, as it is a spin-off of the main ''Mario'' series, while ''WarioWare'' would be of "tertiary" importance, as it is a spin-off of a spin-off (''Mario'' series to ''Wario Land'' series to ''WarioWare'' series), and the new ''Pyoro'' series would be of "quaternary" importance, as it would be a spin-off of a spin-off of a spin-off.  As you can tell, this gets extremely subjective based on your own personal point of view.  We should have a more flexible policy that does not establish superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance.  Just as there is no recognized canon, we should not have a hierarchy of supposed importance.  Instead this new policy establishes what is and what is not allowed based on all official sources approved by Nintendo, and also allows for "less connected" subjects to be merged, organized, etc. as deemed necessary by the community. Ultimately I feel this new policy makes more logical sense than our old policy.
One of the most important rules of keeping readers interested is to keep one's writings as concise as possible, and it goes without saying that including details that are insignificant to what defines the minigame like what characters, enemies etc. are in the background or the exact angles or motions or positions the camera is in will clutter information that is actually relevant and important to the minigame, thus reducing the quality of the pages for readers. Even if all the filler were to be cleaned up, the descriptions, especially ones of the aforementioned "the winners/losers do their respective animations" type, tend to be so short that it does beg the question as to whether the minigames really need dedicated sections for their intros and outros. Plus, a lot of people who read the minigame articles are more likely to do so for information like how it plays or what game it appears in, not what happens to the winners or losers in a minigame like [[Glacial Meltdown]].


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Son of Suns}}<br>
This is where I propose we merge the contents of the Introduction and Ending sections back into the Gameplay section of the minigame articles, of course cleaning them up of filler and other unnotable details where needed. The Introduction sections can be repurposed to serve as the opening line of the Gameplay section while the Ending sections can serve as the conclusion.
'''Deadline:''' December 30, 2008, 17:00


====Support====
On the Discord server for the wiki, @Mario has also suggested the idea of renaming the Gameplay section to Overview to satiate any concerns or other desires from our userbase to keep the Gameplay section being, well, about the gameplay of the minigames. This will be provided as an alternate option for those who favor that option more than the mere section merge. If you do not agree with either proposal, a "No change" option (Option C) has additionally been provided.
#{{User|Son of Suns}} -- Per my reasons stated above.
#{{User|Daniel Webster}} - Per SoS (now I wish I hadn't revised that Importance Policy image since it's outdated, but oh well).
#{{User|Tucayo}} Per SoS
#{{User|Cobold}} - should remove more speculation on "canon"
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per SoS and Cobold. As long as this won't flood the place with ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' articles, I'm fine with it (series pages are just fine).
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - Per Walkazo. And if it clears anything up about my vocality on this matter, I'm not new user. I'm InfectedShroom who got a name change.
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per SoS, we need new importance policy. It lasted us 3 years, almost, I guess, it's time for a change.
#{{User|Jaffffey}} - Per SoS, the current policy is just plain ridiculous (okay, not everything, but you know what I mean). This new one looks much better.
#{{User|Paperphailurethemariomonster99}} - SOS, Look at the weather! Partly cloudy with a chance of good ideas!
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Son of Suns. A lot of sections in the Importance Policy are either highly outdated, or conflicts with statements made earlier in that page, or in other rules enforced throughout the site. If we change the Importance Policy to be more explanatory, and more accepting to partner series, writing will be much clearer for new users, as well as older ones that have seen big changes.
#{{User|White Knight}} - Per SoS


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


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|ToxBoxity64}}<br/>
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that this proposal breaks one of the rules for proposals.  Your New Importance Policy says "...we cover all franchises, series, games, etc. that have emerged from or spun-off from the original Donkey Kong arcade game, Mario's first appearance in any media. This includes all Nintendo-authorized video games about Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario, Yoshi, '''Banjo, Conker'''...."  The last rule for proposals says "...no proposals calling for the creation of '''Banjo, Conker''', or Sonic series articles are allowed..."  So, doesn't this need to be changed? {{User|White Knight}}
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


:This proposal is not calling for the creation of ''Banjo'' or ''Conker'' content, as such content is already allowed under [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] and is available on the wiki.  This proposal would only clarify the rules regarding such content. Personally I feel that rule should be eliminated, but this proposal is ''not'' calling for the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles, which is banned by the rule based on previous failed proposals. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
====Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section====


Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. I will still have to think my vote over for a bit though. {{User|White Knight}}
====Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"====
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Mario5 (opening) - MP6.png|18px]] These sections have always suffered from poor writing and serve mostly to pad the article (why are there such egregious descriptions of how the camera behaves in these articles?). There is some utility in these to contextualize the minigames, so this information should be kept in many instances (though ones with the standard win/lose endings shouldn't be mentioned, only the ones where a funny consequence happens like Wario getting his butt destroyed in [[Piranha's Pursuit]]), but they don't need to be in their own section. I think overview is a better broader way to name these sections.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Mario.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} The intro/outro sections are long overdue for some merging. Mentioning them is all fine and good, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to exactly one sentence that amounts to "the camera zooms in and the winner does a funny dance" on articles like [[Burnstile]]?
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't agree that "minor" or "uninteresting" information should be removed (like, if we did remove all of the "they do their victory animations" descriptions, that would leave us with some minigame articles that describe the endings while others don't, which is not helpful to readers at communicating the information and just makes it look like information is missing). But merging the sections is fine, they can be very short.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per everyone.
#{{User|BMfan08}} But who could forget such classics as "the winning player attempts to do a winning pose as the player wins" or "the other team is sad that they lost the game"? Ahem. Anyway, per all.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all


I would like suggest that the Importance Policy should be moved to MarioWiki:Coverage if this passes since the phrase "Importance Policy" seems to call upon classes and rankings, and coverage implies more of classless, equal information (which is what we're going for here). {{User|Daniel Webster}} 12:40, 23 December 2008 (EST)
:Soooo.... Please excuse my stupidity; would this proposal allow the "...mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles..." on the wiki? It seems to me that it would. [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]] says nothing particular about Banjo and Conker. Or maybe I'm completely missing the point, which is entirely possible. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
::It would allow individual articles on the ''Mario'', ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', ''Wario'', ''Banjo'', ''Conker'', and ''Pyoro'' series equally, so, yes it would. However, the Banjo and Conker articles can only be ones that Nintendo authorized, so ''Conker: Live and Reloaded'' and ''Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts'' would have no place here other than some mentions in other articles. {{User|Daniel Webster}} 13:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)
:::Got it. So, just trying to clarify here, but we would include information on Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, and Conker: Bad Fur Day, among others. Is this correct? {{user|Bloc Partier}}


Actually we already have articles about the [[Banjo (series)]] and the [[Conker (series)]], which is the minimum requirement that can be allowed under the new [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] (which was re-written after the former proposals passed).  Any content from an officially licensed Nintendo game (Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Banjo-Pilot, Banjo-Kazooie: Grunty's Revenge, Conker's Pocket Tales, and Conker's Bad Fur Day) is allowed, but not content from Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts - those would count as unofficial appearances, but would be notable enough for some mention in a trivia section or a summary at the end of the series articles or something like that. And this proposal '''would not explicitly''' allow the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles.  We can add as much official '''content''' to the wiki, but that does not mean the creation of '''articles'''.  So if this passes, separating the merged Banjo series and Conker series may require a seperate proposal, or a discussion on their respective talk pages. This proposal only reinforces that such content is allowed, but not the form it takes (i.e. merged series article vs. individual articles), as the last section in the new policy discusses.  Basically, content is okay, but whether everything in the series gets individual articles, categories and templates is a matter that will have to be resolved later. At the very minimum we would have the general series page with individual entries on characters, items, etc. -- {{User|Son of Suns}} P.S. And yes, "Coverage" is a better term than "Importance Policy."
:Alright. It's clear now. Thank you. {{user|Bloc Partier}}


'''Son of Suns''': there's a couple holes in your argument against the [[:Image:Importancetree.png|Importance Policy Chart]]. As explained in the text of the [[MarioWiki:Importance_Policy#Primary_Focus|Importance Policy Page]], "Mario" meant everything that had "Mario" in the title (including ''Mario Kart'', etc.,) not just the mainstream ''Mario'' titles; it also infers ''WarioWare'' is covered under ''Wario'', so in that case, ''Pyoro'' would still be a tertiary game. I'd also like to point out something that no one (to my knowledge) has addressed: Banjo and Conker ''aren't'' from a "Donkey Kong" title, but from ''[[Diddy Kong Racing|'''Diddy Kong''' Racing]]''; so by your argument, they'd be quaternary, just like ''Pyoro'' (though I'm still siding with the Importance Page and saying they're tertiary, and ''Diddy Kong Racing'' secondary). However, I totally agree that the "Importance Levels" are a bad way to try and organize the Wiki (I especially don't like how the crossovers are quaternary, as they are at least as important at the spin-spin-offs (''Banjo'', et al.), in my opinion). I think this would be a better way to go about things, but I also think the ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Pyoro'' aspect should be clarified a bit more. The aforementioned chart had much to be desired, but the nebulous nature of this new policy means it is wide open to interpretation, which we do not want; if we're going to enact a new policy, we should know ''exactly'' what will happen and what ''will'' or ''will not'' be created. I'm all for series pages and ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Pyoro'' content therein, but this opens a back-door to creating individual articles down the road - something I'm against. My reasoning, and my own suggested "Coverage Chart" can be seen [[User:Walkazo/Essays#How I'd Organize the Content of the Super Mario Wiki|here]]. There are no levels of importance, but ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Pyoro'' are allotted less coverage on the grounds that they aren't as interconnected with the other ''Mario'' series. I also discuss an enhanced coverage of crossovers, but I am fine with your own suggested method - my only beef is with the uncertain future of ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Pyoro''  content. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:OK, just a small interjection here: why are we thinking so much into the Pyoro "series?" The so called series is simply a recurring minigame of the ''WarioWare'' series. Yes, I do know that it will soon have it's own game in the DSi Ware thing (for, what, 300 points?), but I still don't think that it will ever become it's own freely standing series. We are thinking way too far into the future, if you ask me. Also, I think that, as a recurring minigame and not a series, we should include as much information on it as we can. I mean, what other wiki will have information on it? Just my thoughts.


:Also, I removed my vote because I'm having trouble deciding. I actually like the "...extremely convoluted...superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance..." and the "...hierarchy of supposed importance..." Call me an idiot or whatever, but I'll decide later. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
.
::I think the real issue is about (as always) ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'', but this whole thing was brought up again when an issue about the ''Pyoro'' game was brought-up, [[Talk:Main Page#Pyoro and Paper Plane|here]]. Since they're all in the same boat as far as spin-spin-offs go, we're now including ''Pyoro'' when we discuss ''Banjo'' and ''Conker''. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 19:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)


I feel we (or at least I) do want interpretation.  I do want flexibility.  I do want the ability to change the wiki as needed by the community without recreating policies every couple months.  The problem with a few past proposals and policies is that they dictate a certain way articles must be created/organized based on random criteria.  This proposal is more flexible in order to accomodate the needs of the changing community.  This proposal would only reinforce the Banjo and Conker series pages - if a majority of users would later want to create individual articles, so be it.  That '''should not be denied''' because you personally feel they should not be created.  The matter should be subject to a democratic vote, not a dictatorial policy. As we have not had any proposals on Pyoro, as many articles about that mini-series can be created, unless the communty decides otherwise.  Perhaps they will be merged on day.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps Banjo will be unmerged and Conker will stay merged.  I feel it should be for the wiki to decide on an individual basis, not based on a strict policy, which leads to assuming certain series are more important than others (which your Coverage Chart does on some level by placing series under other series and thus should not have more artcles - it is very similar to the current speculative Importance Policy).  The decision for article creation should not be part of an official policy, but community decision (based on proposals, talk pages, etc.). Personally I feel Banjo and Conker should have more articles than WarioWare, because there are clear geographic and historical links between Donkey Kong, Banjo, Conker, Diddy Kong, Squawks, and Mario; the same can not be said for WarioWare (besides Wario). Banjo and Conker are more interconnected with the greater Mario franchise than WarioWare, and thus should have as many articles or more than the WarioWare series.  But that's my personal opinion, and should not be reflected in an official policy, just as your opinion about them having less importance should not be used to justify less articles for Banjo and Conker content.  By offering flexibility, we can change the wiki based on new circumstances, instead of being stuck in stasis. -- {{User|Son of Suns}} P.S. To Bloc Partier, we'll still have hierarchies of sorts, but they will be established by the community, not by a subjective overarching policy in place for all time.  I added a section about our [[User:Son of Suns/Sandbox#Current Regulations|current regulations]] to the new policy.  This policy will not destroy barriers between Mario and other series - it only removes the speculation of what is more canonical.  The wiki can still decide what the wiki's focus is collectively while keeping official information.
====Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)====


To Walkazo, perhaps that was too harsh wording.  Your essay seems open to change as well, which is why I feel we should just keep the policy open. Perhaps at the bottom of the policy we could list major proposals that have passed to provide the specifics regarding each series, but also note these rules is subject to change (but must be obeyed until they are changed).  In regards to Banjo and Conker content, they are to remain on their individual series pages unless the wiki decides otherwise at a later date. Again, Pyoro is up in the air, as there has been no proposal about it.  A section keeping track of proposals regarding article creation would give explicit instructions without affecting the main policy. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
====Comments====
I dunno. The sections are pretty poorly done, but part of ''Mario Party 8''{{'}}s brand of humor is having humorous endings to minigames so a header calling them out makes a certain kind of sense. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 15:28, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of [[Crops 'n' Robbers]] was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]] and [[Photo Finish]] from Mario Party 4; [[Merry Poppings]] and [[Head Waiter]] from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like [[Picture Perfect (minigame)]] or [[Flip the Chimp]]. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)


Also, this policy would not mean we couldn't create series articles based on other franchises.  Again, as long as the content is retained, it can be organized any way we agree upon.  So your Star Fox and Sonic series articles are a definite possibility, although I think the main series of Itadaki Street is actually Dragon Warrior. =D -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
:Yeah, of course we'll decide how much coverage ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' get democratically (and if we ''were'' a dictatorship, '''''I'''''<nowiki>'</nowiki>d hardly be the one making the rules); I was merely voicing my concerns, just as this proposal is ''you'' voicing ''your'' ideas. Personal pronouns have a nasty habit of making one seem like an egomaniac who only cares about what ''they themselves'' want, but it's hard to not use them in response to certain types of proposals - I don't know if people share my view: I can only speak for myself. Now, about my Coverage Chart: it's based on a web I drew (on a piece of paper) showing how the series branch off from each other. Wiki syntax makes 2D representations kinda hard, so I compromised with the indenting on the chart - it's meant to represent a family tree, not a hierarchy. Moving on... You raise a good point about ''WarioWare'' being less connected to the other games as ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' as far as in-game aspects go (if you ignore all the ''Mario''-themed [[microgames]]), however ''WarioWare'' is trademarked by Nintendo, whereas ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' were never directly owned by Nintendo - they were, and still are, [[Rare]]'s creations. That's why they went with Rare when it was bought-out by Microsoft (whereas things like ''Donkey Kong'' remained with Nintendo), which is another source of problems surrounding the inclusion of ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' material. You say ''Conker: Live & Reloaded'' and ''Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts'' aren't "official" because they were made during Microsoft's ownership of Rare, but I ask you, why? They aren't fangames or black-market swag, they're legal, valid aspects of the ''Banjo'' and ''Kazooie'' series. My opinion on this matter is solely a result of reading [[Wikipedia:Rare_(company)|this article]], so I could be way-off, but as I see it now, whether it's Nintendo's fish by way or Rare, or Microsoft's fish by way of Rare doesn't matter, it's still a fish, and it's still Rare's catch. The whole thing confuses the issue of what is and isn't official (one of the reasons I'd just as soon stay away from ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' for now), but most people don't actually care about who owns what, and would just notice the lack of recent ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' information... - {{User|Walkazo}}
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.


I'm currently neutral on this proposal, but are the ''Banjo'' and ''Kazooie'' series really spin-offs of ''Diddy Kong Racing''? As far as I know, the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' games were already in development before ''Diddy Kong Racing'''s release, and the two characters were put in for advertising the future games. Would anyone call ''Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi'' a spin-off of ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'' because [[Roy (SSBM)|Roy]] appeared first in the latter game? [[Banjo]]'s article also tells that he starred in ''Diddy Kong Racing'' for advertising ''Banjo-Kazooie''. The user [[User:KingMario|KingMario]] pointed that out. Not that this would change something to this proposal, just wanted to tell, since the series articles say they are spin-offs which might be incorrect. --{{User|Grandy02}}
If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.


Who knows if someone from Warioware isn't going to appear in the DSI Pyoro game?
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.<br>The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.</blockquote>


And as Bloc Partier pointed out above, Pyoro was alway a recuring character in Warioware (Storyline-wise, he's even the reason the series exist), meanwhile, Banjo and Conker were only two guys put in a spin-off of a spin-off to advertise their own games and who were taken out of the remake. The Pyoro\BanjoConker comparison is full of holes. --{{User|Blitzwing}}
In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: '''fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion.''' The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at [[Stretch_Shroom#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.


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


1) This proposal is not about Banjo and Conker, which cannot be denied under the current [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] policy (this would have to be changed to make Banjo and Conker content from official Nintendo games illegitimate). This new Importance Policy will instead ensure such content is placed in two articles (in a database of close to 9000) instead of hundreds of articles being created and Banjo content being placed in Mario categories, etc. This policy serves as clarification - a place where the rules developed in proposals can be seen and thus followed.
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


2) Actually Banjo and Conker were "owned" by Nintendo at one time, just as Mario was "owned" by Philips at one time.  Rare was a second party owned by Nintendo and was given official approval to create Diddy Kong Racing, the Banjo series, and the Conker series and were allowed to create those connections, establishing a clear link between all three.  Similarly, Philips was allowed by Nintendo to create Mario games such as Hotel Mario. If we decide to base articles ''solely on the present'' instead of actions in the past, we would have to eliminate most of the articles on Super Mario RPG, as the characters are now owned by Square-Enix (a third party company), not Nintendo. This is shown by Geno's inclusion in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. He is a copyright of Square-Enix, and thus should not have an article if we include only characters "owned" by Nintendo.  Nuts & Bolts and Live & Reloaded would not be included here based on [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]], which only allows content from licensed Nintendo products, which those two games clearly are not.
<references/>


3) I'm not actually sure where the Pyoro "comparison" came in, as it is not part of the proposal but part of the old Importance Policy which this proposal is trying to change.  Again, Banjo and Conker have established connections both in the games and in the fictional universes, and thus have a "label" of "spin-off" (which is as artificial as calling Mario Kart a "spin-off" - it's just a label).  What is important is that there are clear connections between the three series as established by Diddy Kong Racing.  Based on [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] and [[MarioWiki: Chronology]], remakes are no more "true" than the original, so just because Banjo and Conker were not in Diddy Kong Racing DS makes no difference to their relative importance (but may be important for how we organize such content).  Just as we don't get rid of connections made in Super Mario 64 because it has been remade, the same applies to Diddy Kong Racing DS.  And the label of "spin-off" does make some sense based on the clear connections made in the fictional universe.  This is made explicit in the story of Diddy Kong Racing (as described by the official instruction booklet).  When Wizpig attacks Timber’s Island, Timber sends a letter to Diddy Kong asking for help.  Diddy Kong responds by writing letters to his friends Banjo and Conker, asking then to come along on his adventure.  Diddy Kong then has Squawks personally deliver the handwritten letters to Banjo and Conker.  This establishes a clear historical and geographical connection between Diddy Kong, Banjo and Conker.  They don’t simply meet for the first time in this game, they have been friends for a some amount of time before.  Also, the parrot Squawks is able to fly to Banjo and Conker, establishing that they all live relatively close together.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Also consider the official profiles for these characters.
====Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.


'''Banjo''' (page 24): "Even before the start of his future partnership with Kazooie, Banjo isn’t one to turn down the chance of an adventure. So when Squawks brings the message from his pal Diddy Kong, the Honey Bear stuffs a few things into his trusty backpack and takes to his heels."
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.


As above, this establishes a connection between Banjo, Diddy Kong, and Squawks. This references also indicates that Diddy Kong Racing chronologically takes place before Banjo-Kazooie, that this part of the Donkey Kong series is a part of the same continuum as Banjo’s timeline.
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Club Nintendo Classic SMB2 01.png|70px]]  Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.


'''Conker''' (page 24):
====Don't make a standard====
"Another friend made by Diddy Kong on one of his endless adventures with Donkey Kong.  Conker is also an exploration nut who’ll jump at any chance to break free of a squirrel’s less than exciting routine.  He’s eager to join up with Banjo as the bear passes through."


Conker not only has an explicit connection with Diddy Kong and Banjo, he is also connected to Donkey Kong himself. All four of these characters met before the events of the game, establishing the geographical and historical connections made above.
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production here], they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|other non-numeric parts of a source}} that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)


There are also some more minor references that not only establish links between the worlds of Donkey Kong, Banjo, and Conker, but to Mario’s world as well.
===Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section===
{{Early notice|March 6}}
I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.


*The character Tiptup is in both Diddy Kong Racing and Diddy Kong Racing DS, as well as Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie.  Tiptup and Banjo first met in Diddy Kong Racing, and would chronologically later meet up again twice in the Banjo series.  His relatively major presence in all these games indicates a strong link between all four titles, even if Banjo and Conker were not included in Diddy Kong Racing DS.
Some subjects ([[Taily]], for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely {{iw|pikipedia|Pikmin_family#Naming|Pikipedia}}, {{iw|inkipedia|Inkling#Etymology|Inkipedia}} and {{iw|bulbapedia|Bulbasaur_(Pokémon)#Name_origin|Bulbapedia}}, and push this a step further?
*In Banjo-Kazooie, the character "Gnawty the Beaver" looks exactly like the Gnawty enemy from Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong 64.  Gnawty could be considered a representative member of his species, just as Yoshi is to the Yoshis and Toad is to the Toads.
*In Banjo-Kazooie, a picture of Conker’s girlfriend Berri can be found in Rusty Bucket Bay.  Gruntilda also mentions Conker the Squirrel in her quiz at the end of the game. Additionally, not only Donkey Kong but the original Donkey Kong Mario battled, Cranky Kong, is mentioned by Gruntilda.
*In Banjo-Tooie, the character Goggles has a Donkey Kong doll.
*In Banjo-Tooie, the toilet character Loggo is clogged up with paper.  Kazooie tells him to call a plumber, then suggests that Mario might be free.  Loggo then states he doesn’t think Mario is in that line of work anymore.  This conversation indicates that it would be possible for Mario to travel to Loggo’s location if needed, and that there is awareness in Banjo’s world that Mario’s profession has changed throughout his many adventures in the Mushroom Kingdom.


4) The last point is, regardless if Banjo and Conker were in development, Nintendo '''did not have to release the games.'''  They owned Rare and did not have to license their products nor did they have to create connections between Donkey Kong, Banjo, Conker, Diddy Kong and Mario.  New characters are always being created to promote new franchises.  Wario was created and placed in a Mario game then immediately had his own series, just like Banjo and Conker. Ultimately Nintendo '''made a choice''' and established this connection and approved the continuation of the Banjo and Conker series.  We should respect that choice, just as we respect Nintendo's choice to make a game about a jumping carpenter and a stubborn ape instead of a game about Popeye and Bluto. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:
*The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
*The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call [[Blooper]] by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
*Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of [[Mario & Luigi: Brothership|''Brothership'']]'s translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
*Internal name table, if applicable
*The "names in other languages" table


I agree that ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' have more connections story-wise to the main ''DK/Mario'' series we cover than ''WarioWare''. But also ''WarioWare'' has some, the by far strongest one being Wario himself, who is a very important recurring character in the ''Mario'' series (that can't be said about Banjo and Conker), but Diamond City and the Wario Bike have also appeared in the ''Mario Kart'' series. In terms of story-unrelated references, ''WarioWare'' surely has more content (all those ''Mario''-related microgames and mini-games and the ''Mario Paint'' content). Anyway, if I understand this proposal right, it does '''not''' mean that we create articles on everything in ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'', but can also have just one article per series instead? I'd go with the latter one, because of the lack of appearances of Banjo and Conker in the ''Mario/DK'' series, unlike Wario, who is a recurring character in the ''Mario'' series (and Pyoro being a recurring character in ''WarioWare'' again). But then it should also include the Microsoft-published titles, even if they aren't authorized by Nintendo, they are still official for the two named series. So, please tell if understand this proposal right. --{{User|Grandy02}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
:I think you understand the proposal (and if you don't, then I don't either), and I also agree that the Microsoft games should be included. After all, by allowing the trademarks for ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' to remain with Rare, in a way, Nintendo ''was'' sanctioning the creation of future ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' titles. Nintendo leases out its characters all the time (i.e. the aforementioned ''Hotel Mario''), and this time it sold its characters instead. As for the ''Super Mario RPG'' example, that sounds more like a double-standard than a justification of keeping the Microsoft content out: if the ''SMRPG'' characters owned by the third-party company Square Enix are still "official", why not the ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' characters now owned by Microsoft? If we include those series at all, we're making a judgement call concerning canonicity: the characters started out in a ''Mario'' (spin-off) game, therefore they are canon, and everything they do is canon. "Everything" includes ''Conker: Live & Reloaded'' and ''Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts'' - if we're dealing with canonicity (and have already established these games are legal commodities, not fan creations), why bring Real World economics into it at all? Also, the [http://banjokazooie.wikia.com/wiki/Banjo-Kazooie_Series ''Banjo-Kazooie'' Wiki] doesn't discriminate between the pre- and post-Microsoft games, so why should we? Moving on, most of the cross-references between the ''Banjo'', ''Conker'' and ''Mario'' series that Son of Suns kindly provided us, seem, to me, no more major than the many [[Video game references|''Zelda''-''Mario'' connections]]. Video game companies like to establish links between their franchises - it's fun (and it's free advertising), but compared to Grandy02's ''WarioWare'' appearances in ''Mario Kart'', it's not very significant. - {{User|Walkazo}}
'''Deadline''': March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


::I am afraid that this proposal will go too far, which is why I hove not yet voted. It seems to me (currently, my opinion could possibly change) that it is just a quite complex mask to bring back ''Banjo'' and ''Conker'' articles. I don't want that to happen. I love ''Banjo-Kazooie'' and its sequels, but I do not want articles about them here. And I ''really'' don't want ''Conker'' stuff here, for the same and different reasons. I believe that the series articles are fine, but this proposal seems to hint that the wiki will go much further than just the series articles if it passes.  
====Retool====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section <small>(we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon.")</small>, so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
#{{User|Fakename123}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
#{{User|PopitTart}} As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I like this idea.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Better organization of naming info. Can we [[Template_talk:Foreign_names#Retitle|retitle]] the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per ałł.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.


::Also, I don't see why we can't cover more ''WarioWare'' stuff. To me, Mario and WarioWare are clearly related, and only by complicated, legalistic logic can we deduce that Mario, Conker, and Banjo are somewhat related. Yeah, I understand the tier thing, with Mario at the top, then Yoshi, Wario, DK, then Banjo/Conker and WarioWare, but if anything, that's screwed up. You can argue that the Wario series are spin-offs of Mario, and the WarioWare series is a spin-off of Wario, but I fail to see how that puts the WarioWare series on the same tier as the Banjo & Conker series because the former is clearly closer related to the Mario series than the latter. So yeah, that's just my opinions and reasoning. Please excuse my lack of italics. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
====Do not retool (status quo)====


I think all three of you stated things perfectly. Banjo and Conker are '''definitely''' less related than WarioWare, and that's why they are only allocated series pages (as listed in the [[User:Son of Suns/Sandbox#Current Regulations|regulations section]]).  They aren't that important, but that does not mean they are completely un-important to the Mario franchise and thus should be left out.  The Banjo and Conker series pages are good compromises - providing coverage of a connected series but preventing the creation of hundreds of Banjo and Conker articles (this is stated in the policy, based on the comments provided by Walkazo).  Addressing Bloc Partier's concerns, this policy would do away with complicated degrees or tiers of seperation and connection between series, which is very speculative. So while Banjo, Conker, and WarioWare may be on the same "tier" (based on certain interpretations), we can say Banjo and Conker are less important than WarioWare, which means all Banjo and Conker content gets stuck in two articles, whereas WarioWare are given individual articles, showing their greater importance to the Mario franchise. As far as Microsoft titles are concerned, the series pages features sections about games for Microsoft systems, but under [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]] it would be hard to say whether the two Microsoft-only titles could be represented here, as they are not directly licensed by Nintendo nor was the production of the games approved, as Microsoft can do whatever it wants with Banjo and Conker (probably), whereas I am sure Phillips had restrictions on what it could do with Mario (i.e., couldn't make a game about Mario shooting up drugs or something). So those games would have some mention, but MarioWiki: Canonicity would likely prevent complete coverage, as the Mario franchise is controlled by Nintendo and Nintendo has no say in what Microsoft does. -- {{User|Son of Suns}} P.S. Looking over [[MarioWiki: Canonicity]], information from the two Microsoft games could count as ''notable mainstream appearances'' of Banjo and Conker, and thus such content could be allowed on the series pages.  However, such content would not be completely protected - if the wiki agrees the content is not notable enough for inclusion, then the content may be dropped. The other games are licensed by Nintendo, and thus their inclusion is allowed under MarioWiki: Canonicity.  What is "notable" outside Nintendo's licensing is subject to debate.
====Comments in other languages====
:Sounds good. You're earlier comment stating that the proposal "would not '''explicitly''' allow the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles" and that that "'''may''' require a separate proposal" (emphases my own) particularly worried me ("weasel words", and all that), but now that you've clarified they will ''only'' have series pages, I'm fine with the policy. Perhaps we can make another Proposal concerning the Microsoft games, so they're not floating around in the limbo of uncertain notability (once this one runs its course and tells us exactly what policy we'd be building upon, that is). - {{User|Walkazo}}
I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:::yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::::I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)


::Right. Bad choice of words on my part. This policy is only about content, not articles. As stated at the end of the policy, article creation would be dependent on proposals, then listed at the end of the policy so everyone has quick access to decisions regarding what the community has determined deserves articles and what does not deserve articles. -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:::Alright! Thank you so much for the second clarification. It cleared it up a lot. Cheers! {{user|Bloc Partier}}


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

Latest revision as of 09:22, March 1, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, March 1st, 14:22 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Rename Dark Horse Comics to "Dark Horse Books", Nintendo101 (ended February 26, 2025)
Tighten Category:Power-ups and its subcategories, SolemnStormcloud (ended February 27, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



.

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

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

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

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

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

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

Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 6 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.

Some subjects (Taily, for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely Pikipedia, Inkipedia and Bulbapedia, and push this a step further?

This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:

  • The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
  • The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call Blooper by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
  • Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of Brothership's translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
  • Internal name table, if applicable
  • The "names in other languages" table

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Retool

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section (we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon."), so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
  5. Fakename123 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
  7. PopitTart (talk) As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me!
  9. Nintendo101 (talk) I like this idea.
  10. Power Flotzo (talk) Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
  11. Super Mario RPG (talk) Better organization of naming info. Can we retitle the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
  12. Mushroom Head (talk) Per ałł.
  13. Sparks (talk) Per all.

Do not retool (status quo)

Comments in other languages

I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)

considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)

Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4762985"