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.
===Introduce a new type of proposal===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|this proposal]], which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 this old proposal attempt] for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?
##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.
My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named '''poll proposals'''.
*Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.  
*Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
**Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
*Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
*Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
*Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.


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


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EST)'''</span></center>
I've written down a [[User:EvieMaybe/Poll proposal|mockup poll proposal]] for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".


==New Features==
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
''None at the moment.
'''Deadline''': February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==Removals==
====Support====
==="Relationship with other characters" sections===
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Neat idea, per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.


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:
====Oppose====


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


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


'''Proposer''': {{user|Blitzwing}} <br>
==Removals==
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2009 17:00'''
''None at the moment.''
 
====Slash 'Em====
#{{user|Blitzwing}} - Because I'm a totally voting against my own proposal.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Blitz
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per Blitz, let's burn them '''AGGRESIVELY''' =3
#{{User|Uniju :D}} I always wondered why those exist...
#{{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.
 
====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.
#{{User|Shrikeswind}} Per all.  Look, while ALOT of the information bites the big one, the Interactions sections can be done WAY better.  You can see it under Waluigi, in fact, who only has three characters, Wario, Luigi, and Daisy, who are all associated with him in some way (Wario, his partner, Luigi, his nemesis, and Daisy, his apparent love interest.)  He has interacted with Mario and Bowser on numerous occasions each, but has no information regarding them because Mario and Bowser are not major connections.  Only Wario, Luigi, and Daisy are.  Also, calling something poorly written is a mark of low motivation.  If it can be fixed and needs to be fixed and you can fix it, then why not fix it?  A poorly written article is an easy fix.
 
====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}}
:Then we can place the good informations in a note in the relevant game or in a Trivia section. --{{User|Blitzwing}}
 
: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}}
::THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY. --{{User|Blitzwing}}
 
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}}
 
:::Blitzwing: Don't spam. Anyway, as I said in my vote, the really major developments can get sections of their own. And as Blitzwing said in his first post, notes can be made in the proper games for the more minor aspects. They're part of the "Biography" section, after-all, and for things like Mario-Rosalina, the game is all there is to them. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::::Yeah, that makes more sense.  But then this proposal seems irrelevant, as some relationship sections will have to be retained, such as Mario-Peach and Luigi-Daisy.  There is nothing wrong with taking the initiative and writing articles better, even if that includes deleting repeated or unnecessary writing (such as some aspects of the Relationship sections). -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
:::::It's not irrelevant. Deleting ''all'' the relationships on ''all'' the articles (excpet Mario-Peach, Bowser-Peach (on Bowser's article only), Luigi-Daisy and perhaps Wario-Mario) is a pretty big thing, and if Blitzwing just did it someone would probably make a stink about him not getting community feedback first (heck, that's why ''I'' haven't done it yet). Plus, the proposal makes the whole thing more structured; it's not just a couple Users fed-up with the one-liners, but a new way to approach inter-character relationships. It also gets more feedback on which relationships ''do'' merit sections, so no one can say, "you just made a Daisy-Luigi section because you want them to be together! >:P" - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
::::::Yeah, I guess some users might get upset, although I personally wouldn't care as long as the edits were of better quality than the originals.  I say its "irrelevant" because, regardless if it passes or fails, the outcome will likely be the same - more focused relationship sections.  So I guess it's good that attention was brought to the issue, although it probably could have been done on the main talk page. =) -- {{User|Son of Suns}}
 
==Splits & Merges==
''None at the moment.


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


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


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


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Son of Suns}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' December 30, 2008, 17:00
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Son of Suns}} -- Per my reasons stated above.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Daniel Webster}} - Per SoS (now I wish I hadn't revised that Importance Policy image since it's outdated, but oh well).
#{{User|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
#{{User|Tucayo}} Per SoS
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Cobold}} - should remove more speculation on "canon"
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{User|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|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{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|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per SoS, we need new importance policy. It lasted us 3 years, almost, I guess, it's time for a change.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|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|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|Paperphailurethemariomonster99}} - SOS, Look at the weather! Partly cloudy with a chance of good ideas!
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
#{{User|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|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|White Knight}} - Per SoS
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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}}
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
: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}}
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.


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


Who knows if someone from Warioware isn't going to appear in the DSI Pyoro game?
====Merge none (do nothing)====


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}}
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====


Some responses:
===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'']].


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.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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.
====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.


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


Also consider the official profiles for these characters.
====Comments====
 
@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)
'''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."
: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)
 
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.
 
'''Conker''' (page 24):
"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.
 
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.


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


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


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}}
====Split both====
: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}}
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense


::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.
====Only split screenshots====


::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}}
====Only split assets====


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.
====Leave image quality alone====
: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}}


::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}}
====Comments on image quality proposal====
:::Alright! Thank you so much for the second clarification. It cleared it up a lot. Cheers! {{user|Bloc Partier}}
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
<gallery>
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)


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

Latest revision as of 23:01, February 7, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, February 8th, 09:26 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Introduce a new type of proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

Comments on proposal proposal

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

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

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

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

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)

Split the image quality category

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

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

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

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

Split both

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

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

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

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

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

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

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

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

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4724581"