MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg</center>
{{/Header}}
<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>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''


<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.
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.
#*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.
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#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.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Sysop]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#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.
#There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#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]].
#If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.


The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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.
Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.


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


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''


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


==New Features==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
''None at the moment.
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==Removals==
====Support====
===Luigi and Boo FAs===
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
I was on the featured articles page recently and I saw that the [[Luigi]] and [[Boo]] articles are still nominated. You wouldn't ''believe'' how many fan votes there are on the Boo one, and Luigi's has been there for over a year. I propose that the nominations should be deleted because of those things and can be started up again if the articles improve.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.


'''Proposer''': {{User|McQueenMario}} <br>
====Oppose====
'''Deadline''': October 13, 2009, 17:00
 
====Remove Luigi and Boo FAs====
#{{User|McQueenMario}} - See above.
 
====Keep Luigi and Boo FAs====
#{{User|Time Q}}: Nah, keep those pages. We have no right to delete them. Nomination pages are only deleted if they stay unchanged for one month.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - It is currently against this wiki's rules to delete those articles unless they are (as Time Q said) unchanged for one month. Breaking the wiki's rules is not what you propose here, here you propose to change those rules.
#{{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}} Per all.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per all.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} They can get improved so they can get worthy of an F.I. status.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} If you do this, you might as well change how the FA system operates. Per all.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Though I am greatly against fan votes, they are no reason to delete the whole nomination. There might be some really thoughtful and intelligent comments under the support votes, even if they tend to get submerged by all the nonsense. You never know.
#{{User|Phoenix Rider}} It won't matter anyway. The FA system is in place for a reason.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Note that this happened a while ago for the [[Bowser]] FA. {{User|McQueenMario}}
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:I can't remember that happened. And I don't think so, otherwise I would have protested against it :P {{User|Time Q}}


You saw Tucayo's proposal yet? Unless this is something different. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
===Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork===
This proposal will address the bloat some image categories have and make them easier to navigate.


No, wait a minute. You want to delete old nominated FA's, right? Sorry {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
Why is this useful? It makes adding to galleries or finding images to replace much easier. If you want to retake screenshots from a game, you can go to the screenshots category to find them. If you have sprite rips to replace, there's a category for that. The same goes for finding images from a game that aren't on the gallery already and being able to sort them more efficiently. This is also how we divide up character galleries already, such as [[Gallery:Mario (2010-2019)]].


==Splits & Merges==
Now, I can see a few edge cases, like when games have screenshots of themselves for credits images (i.e. ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)]]''). I would still classify these as assets, since they are ripped from the game. Artwork that is used in smaller forms in-game, such as in ''[[Super Mario Maker 2]]'', would be classified as artwork if externally released or an asset if it was ripped from the game files. Edge cases shouldn't be too common and they're easy to work out: it's not too different from how we license images or put them in character or subject galleries.
===Platformer levels articles===
Some platforming levels (like [[Super Mario World]] articles) has whole article. Some has section in world (like SMB3). These in articles aren't short, but they sound like walkthroughs ([[Donut Ghost House]]). Also they contain basic errors (for example in [[Iggy's Castle]] we hear "Hitting the Yellow P-Switch will cover up some of the holes in the ground."). Where is yellow P-Switch? SMW has only Blue and Gray P-Switches.


'''Propeser''': {{User|era64}} <br>
I think the name "assets" would be more useful in shorthand than "sprites and models," in addition to covering textures, so I propose for the category to be called that, but I can change it if there's opposition. The global images category can still exist in the case there's scans, merchandise, video screenshots, or such images that cannot be further categorized.
'''Deadline''': October 14th, 2009 17:00PM


====Each world article contains all levels in world====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Merging the levels into the worlds would streamline navigation and cut back on stubs and red links. Yes, there are many good level articles, and yes, with enough effort they can ''all'' be good, but that's a long way away, and in the meantime, the case-by-case policy isn't cutting it: it just looks sloppy. Merging would '''not''' remove any information from the Wiki or undo what hard work has been done - it would simply move the level pages in their entirety (templates and all) to sections of the world articles. There shouldn't be a stigma about whether or not something gets a page: the important thing is the information, not the presentation. Also, I personally disagree with the name-vs-number rationale: just because a level (or anything else, for that matter) has a name shouldn't mean it is any more pageworthy than one which happens to be identified with numbers instead of words: that merely reflects the arbitrary style the designers decided to go with for that particular title. In a perfect world everything (both named and numbered) would have an article, but we're not there yet, and merging would make that less apparent.
'''Deadline''': January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}} Walkazo's sounds more reasonable. If we expand these sections, they can end up being split later.
#{{User|Phoenix Rider}} As Walkazo said it is about the information. If the levels have little information on them it's much easier to read a comprehensive list than to have to click on each one individually.
#{{User|Knife}} - I'm going to have to agree that we are getting biased about articles with names vs. numbers.


====Every level has article about it====
====Support====
#
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I support this in principle, as long as there's room for discretion on what gets split and what gets left alone. A game with only ten or so pieces of artwork doesn't need a separate category for them, they can just stay in the main images category for that game. Otherwise, this seems useful, I just don't want users to go overboard by purely following the letter of this proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I've tried to see if an image I wanted to use was already uploaded via the category, which would encourage me to make the text and get the article up. Due to the sheer number of images, this is a bad idea. This proposal will make that less of a bad idea for cases where an asset or artwork is being searched for.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} hell yea


====Continue like is actually====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Time Q}}: Probably this isn't the best solution actually, but IMO it's the best we can do now. Even if I'd love to see in-depth articles on ''Mario'' levels, I guess it's okay to merge some of them in world articles (as we do with the ''Super Mario Bros.'' games and probably more). But levels in more recent games are often complex enough to give them separate articles (especially if they are named, not just "World 1-2", but actual names. Those in ''Super Mario World'' are actual names for me as well). To sum it up: I think "case by case" is the solution here, rather than a general decision.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Sorry but as [[User:Lu-igi board|another user]] said before me: ''If something 'aint broken, don't fix it''! These articles just need some help.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Aside from the fact that I created about 60 articles for Wario Land 2 levels and worlds, and I would be really annoyed if they were all merged: I concur with Marioguy1. I am currently at it to revamp the articles for SMB3, and once I'm finished with that, I will take a look at SMW. These articles just need some maintenance/rewrites. Perhaps making a PipeProject would be meaningful, but don't make the situation more complicated with rashly decided merges/splits/etc.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}}Per all.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} &mdash; I think the original reason we kept things this way is because those levels didn't have a 'name' per se, like ''Super Mario World'''s levels did. Either way, per all.
#{{User|Yoshario}} &ndash; Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
<s>I abstain from voting on this proposal.</s> I feel that we need a uniform way to have these articles, but we would end up with many more stubs, which would take up space on our server as well as make us look unorganized. <s>I feel before any action is taken, we need to expand these little stub sections. After that, we can reconsider making it with each article.</s> {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}}
This is already being done (e.g. [[:Category:Mario Kart Tour item icons]]). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 11:02, December 23, 2024 (EST)
:I change my mind. I think Walkazo has a point. {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}}


Walkazo: "Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki" - Yes, it would. For example, we could not categorize the levels separately. {{User|Time Q}}
==Removals==
:I concur here. I can tell that I constructed my Wario Land 2 level articles as independant articles. If they are simply tacked together, they will get stupid and repetative. And if they are rewritten to be less stupid and repetative, then it can no longer be said that my work wasn't reverted in any way. I can also see that parts of my articles get ripped apart and re-combined with other parts, and... I just don't think that's necessary :/ - {{User|Edofenrir}}
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Change FA removal of votes rules===
===Broaden the scope of the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template and its variations===
Well, if you have seen the Luigi nomination page, it is full of votes from the kind of "ZOMG LUIGI PWNS!!!" which are not valid reasons, and to remove them, we must go throught the sloooow process of getting 5 votes to remove them, which is as slow as annoying. So I propose any admin has the right to remove those votes who do anything but help. Who supports?
With the [[Template talk:Unreferenced#Delete or be more specific|previous proposal]] having passed with being more specific as the most voted, I've come up with a proposal about the possibility to make the {{tem|rewrite}}, {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, and {{tem|rewrite-remove}} templates more specific. As you can see, these templates are missing some smaller text. As such, I am just wondering if there is a possibility to have the smaller text added to the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki>, and <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> templates.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Tucayo}}<br>
First of all, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
'''Deadline:''' October 13, 2009, 17:00
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


====Get rid of those votes====
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per me.
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten'''.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Instant per for Tucayo.
</div>
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Luigi wouldn't be a featured article any time soon, but I think the fan votes are a waste of space and should get stopped immediately.
----
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per all.
However, once the proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template will read as follows:
#{{User|FunkyK38}} Users should have a good reason to vote, not LUIGI PWNS! Per Tucayo.
----
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Although sometimes not all the time I would consider that an actual vote, your right there needs to be a good reason why the article should go up. Zero signing out.
<pre>
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Fan votes are completely harmless, but I dislike to see them cluttering the whole page like that.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
#{{User|Mariofan459}} - Per Tucayo.
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} - Per everyone.
</div>
#{{User|Monteyaga}}- Per everybody.
</pre>
#{{User|Totodile3456}} - per Tucky
#{{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}} How is saying "How can Luigi not be featured?! He PWNZ!!!" a valid reason? Or this: "Boo is teh total PWNAGE!!!" This sounds like the person is not even considering the article. He's probably just supporting because he thinks Luigi "Pwnz". And saying "Luigi PWNZ!!!" isn't any different than saying "Why unfeature Luigi? He PWNZ!!!"
#{{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}} Wow, I changed my vote three times O.o Anyway, I feel that Tucayo has a point. Just as support votes for proposals must have good reasoning, I feel Featured Article nominations should have rules eliminating these fan votes. It only makes us look like a noob wiki, which we are not. Per Tucayo.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I have switched my vote because I can finally see light into this. As long as admins have to talk about it first, they have done well in the past and I have a feeling the will do will now. Even admins mess up but they became admins because when they do mess up, they fix it (unless they just deleted an image in which case, oh-oh)


====Keep those votes====
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
#{{User|Time Q}}: OK guys, before going "ZOMG, fan votes suck, let's remove them", please read this. First of all: You '''can't''' remove support votes from FA nominations, even if 5 users agree. And there are good reasons for that. "Fan votes", as you call them, do no harm. It simply doesn't matter if there are 5 or 500 support votes. As long as there is a single valid oppose vote, support votes don't matter. So why care about them? What's even more important is the point that what a fan vote actually is is unclear. I saw many people removing votes they believed were "fan votes" (probably in good faith), but most of the votes could actually refer to the page and thus were perfectly valid. For example, a vote such as "ZOMG LUIGI PWNS" looks like a "fan vote", but who are you to say the voter just talked about the character, not the article [[Luigi]]? Maybe he thinks that the article "pwns"? It would be unfair to remove those votes. Oh, and another point: '''Supporters are not even required to give "valid" reasons''' when supporting an FA nomination (what would such a reason look like anyway? Think about it - it could only consist of a listing of the FA requirements, which would be really redundant). Thus, you have no right to remove "fan votes" (votes without reasons just count as much as such with valid reasons, so why remove "fan votes"?). Sure, at first glance this looks like a proposal you can't oppose, but please think about it twice.
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}}.</small>
#{{User|Pie Shroom}}Per Time Q. And didn't it get changed from 5 to 3?
</div>
#{{user|Yoshario}} &ndash; Per Time Q.
----
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per Time Q, They don't do much harm, but see my comment below.
And another thing—the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
#{{User|Castle Toad}} - Per Time Q
----
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} &mdash; One "Luigi sux0rz!" vote on the opposing side would actually be harmful to the nomination, as opposed to fifty different "omg Luigi pwnz <3" votes on the supporting side. Per Time Q.
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>
 
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
</pre>
 
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
----
Lastly, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>
 
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have <u>content</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): ???
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s):{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
</pre>
 
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have content '''removed''' for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
----
That will be a perfect idea to make the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template and its variations as more specific as the {{tem|media missing}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} templates. That way, we'll be able to add smaller text to the remaining [[:Category:Notice templates|notice templates]] in the future.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to December 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Altendo}} As far as I can tell, the proposal that was linked added parameters that allowed what was supposed to be referenced to be referenced. This one simply adds a subtitle to the bottom of each template. "Be more specific" does not mean saying general information and helpful links, but rather exactly what needs to be done; in terms of that, the existing templates not only all already have parameters, but [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Discourage drive-by templating|filling them out is enforced]]. As [[User:Nightwicked Bowser|Nightwicked Bowser]] said, "Be more specific - Similar to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Discourage drive-by templating|this proposal]], what exactly needs references must be specified in the template when putting it in the article. A parameter for this will still need to be added." This only adds a subtitle and does not make this "more specific". As for the changes, this is actually harmful in some way, as the <nowiki>(tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})</nowiki> tag will be added to the subtitle, rather than the main body, which could make it more confusing in my opinion. Feel free to update this and add in what "more specific" actually means, or just change this to "add subtitles" and change the location of <nowiki>(tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})</nowiki> to the main body, but until then, my vote is staying here.
#{{User|Mario}} Best to keep things simple with these improvement templates.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Mario.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Is it even allowed to remove supporting votes? The last time I tried that, SPMB reverted my removal votes and said it isn't valid. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:It isn't valid, and it shouldn't be. {{User|Time Q}}


I'm just wondering, but what happens if you had a valid reason to vote, but the administrators removed it anyway? - {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
Here's how I would fix some things:
:Leave the admin a note on his/her talk page I'd assume. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


Pie Shroom: You're right, it did. However only for oppose votes (support votes still can't be removed). {{User|Time Q}}
First of all, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


Time Q: That's what I meant. {{User|Pie Shroom}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten'''.
</div>
----
However, once the proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite}}</nowiki> template will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>
</pre>


Who and why were my headers changed {{user|Tucayo}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:I changed them because they were biased. Please don't use biased headers for proposals, but neutral ones. {{User|Time Q}}
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' for the following reasons:<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}}.</small>
</div>
----
And another thing—the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


TQ and Mg1: Do you know how many users join just to vote and never come back?{{User|Tucayo}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:Yes - so what? Do their votes count less than those of people who are more contributive? Why should we make any difference here? {{User|Time Q}}
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.
::And surely even sockpuppets {{user|Tucayo}}
</div>
:::If support votes do not need to have a valid reason, and they have no actual impact on the nomination... Then '''why are we even keeping them?''' They just consume server space and make the page overly long (and don't tell me that 40 lines of "OMGWTF CharaXY pwns da sh-, yo!!!" are of any use for the wiki). - {{User|Edofenrir}}
----
::::So you think we shouldn't have support votes at all? I'm not sure I got you right here, that's why I'm asking. {{User|Time Q}}
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-expand}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
:::::In case they don't have impact on the discussion, yes. However, if someone makes a support vote that is thoughtful and even adds a new view to the discussion, that is perfectly fine then. Having 50 votes saying "Shroom Crepe in PM pwns!!!12" shows us that we have to change something, though. Therefore: Fan vote prohibition to save the server! - {{User|Edofenrir}}
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


TimeQ, if someone says that "LUigi PWNSSS!!!!" it sounds very much like the person loves Luigi. If he/she likes the article, he/she should specify it. Besides, like I said, fan votes are no way going to make a nominated FA an FA, but they take up tons of space. Besides, a lot of those fan votes (e.g. Luigie PWNZ!) doesn't make our Wiki sound very, uh "professional"? - {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:Yes, it sounds very much like it, but we can't just assume that the voter loves Luigi and doesn't care about the article itself. We simply don't know it. You may be right about the "professional" part, but I think this is the prize we have to pay for staying fair and not just assuming wrong actions from our users. {{User|Time Q}}
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information for the following reasons:<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
::I disagree. If someone says "LUigi PWNSSS!!!!", then by common sense it is the only right assumption to think that the autor loves Luigi and not the article. As LGM said: If the autor likes the article, he or she can say that and give a reason to verify it. The opposite votes are required to do the same thing, and nobody complains about that either! - {{User|Edofenrir}}
</div>
:::So you just assume that users are doing something wrong without actually being able to prove it. Even if you might be right in most of the cases, that's just wrong in my opinion. I commented on the "why oppose votes need to be reasoned and support votes don't"-thing below. {{User|Time Q}}
----
::::In my opinion it is not too much to ask to add a reason to a vote. I don't demand an essay of 2000 words, but a simple reason why the support vote is given. If a vote is deleted because it has no reason, it can simply be put up again with a reason attached. It's not like the user is losing his right to comment after one of his comments was removed. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
Lastly, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> currently reads as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>
</pre>


Cobold: Now you voted on both sides :) {{User|Time Q}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have <u>content</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): ???
</div>
----
However, once this proposal passes, the <nowiki>{{rewrite-remove}}</nowiki> will read as follows:
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed''' {{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reasons:{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>
</pre>


TimeQ: use your common sense! Many of the users dont even care about the wiki, they dont even know the FA standards, they dont know what are they voting for, as we are not proposing the character to become an FA, we are proposing the article. Tell me why they dont do that in articles list List of Shops in Super Mario RPG, becuase they dont know about that. {{user|Tucayo}}
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
:This vote once again discriminates against non-admins like me or other users. How do you think we feel with them aloud to delete votes and us not, I'm guessing bad. P.S. If both my proposal and yours pass then there could be a problem...{{User|Marioguy1}}
It has been requested that this article be '''rewritten''' to have content '''removed''' for the following reason(s):<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this article}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
::So you think it's discriminatory that admins can do more things than normal users? Sorry but... that's the point of having admins. Having some powerful guys around that keep order. If you don't agree with an admins decision, go to the admins talk page and say why. It's as simple as that. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
</div>
:Tucayo: My common sense tells me that it's wrong to judge people based on assumptions rather than facts. {{User|Time Q}}


OK guys-- This is what I think-- Since support votes don't matter enough, esp. with the case with Luigi, I don't think we should remove the fan votes entirely. Instead, I think we should remove the vote '''description''' of these votes, because these get emotional and very annoying. I think sysops should be able to remove the vote description, however retaining the vote (leaving only the voter's name on but nothing else). This will keep the FA page looking decent while preventing anger from people who put their fan votes one. However, I strongly support removing the descriptions, often they are emotional, redundant, and unappealing. {{User|T.c.w7468}}
This should fix some things, and I also recommend you change the title or at least context of this proposal. If so, then I might change my vote. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 19:58, December 9, 2024 (EST)
:If Tucayos proposal is not going to pass, this would be a solution I can accept either. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:I {{plain link|https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=4457576|fixed this problem}} for you. How does it look? {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 09:40, December 10, 2024 (EST)


Just to clarify-- with "admins", you mean sysops and bureaucrats, right? {{User|Time Q}}
===Decide what to do with Template:Move infobox===
:That is just to leave me out, right? {{user|Tucayo}}
A while ago (November 4th, specifically), I created [[Template:Move infobox]]. After all, we had templates for essentially all the Browse tabs on the wiki sidebar, except for moves. There WERE templates about specific types of moves, such as [[Template:M&L attack infobox]], but no general template in the same vein as items, characters, species, games, locations, etc.  
::No, of course not. It's because ''[[MarioWiki:Administrators|"Administrators are Mario Wiki users who have Sysop rights"]]'' and I just wanted to clarify that. {{User|Time Q}}
::TimeQ: see comments like these: "LUIGI ISN'T FEATURED EITHER?! My God! What has come to this world!", "If Luigi isn't Featured then the world has become sick and twisted!!!", "It's Luigi... what else do I have to say? ", Mario has had enough in the spotlight, hand it over to Luigi for once! ", "Hello!!!!!!! its LUIGI!", "Luigi rulzz!! He deserves to be on the main page. He wants to be a hero! Go Luigi", "If Luigi isn't the best then there's no justice in this universe. ", "IT IS LUIGI COME ON", "It's Luigi! Nuff said! ", "How could Luigi, who just so happens to be Mario's brother, not be a featured article?!?! ", "I'D say that Luigi should be a featured article because he is so cool! ", "Luigi deserves some attention, after all...HE'S THE GREEN THUNDER", "We need more Luigi! I support this idea completely! Go Luigi! ", "Go weegie! Go weegie! ", "Luigi is such a good character. Way better than Mario. I mean we had featured articles that were so dumb, like Mama Mario or Teacup Palace or any of that junk. Everyone! Support Weegee", "Luigi is awesome!!! ", "Luigi should be featured because Mario[[1]] is. " "Luigi rocks and he has been under the shadow of Mario for to long", "hey guys I have Luigi's Mansion and I like him he's AWESOME!!!!!!!!", "Go Luigi! Green RULES!", "Yeah, I mean cmon it's WEEEEGEEE! Luigi is super-pimp. ", "Cmon everyone vote for weegee because no one pays attention to WEEGEE", "DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT!!!!!!!!!", "WEEGEE WILL STARE AT YOU IF YOU DONT!", "'m-a Luigi Number 1! Luigi rocks! I'm a new Mario Freak and I absolutely think Weegee is AWESOME!", "Luigi's awsome. No questions.", "Luigi's been in his brother's shadow for too long now. MAKE HIM FEATURED!!!". I hope you see my point. {{User|Tucayo}}


Stooben Rooben: Doesn't make much sense to me. How is "Luigi sucks!" harmful, when "Luigi pwns!" is not? They're basically the same, except that one expresses love and the other expresses hate for Luigi. I don't get the fact why people make a distinction there. - {{user|Edofenrir}}<sup>The comment section seems on the verge of explosion with that many comments.</sup>
I discussed it on the Discord briefly, nobody said no, and a bit of feedback later about how it should look and what it should have, I created it. It has since been applied to exactly four pages at the time of writing, half of which I was the one to apply it to. In hindsight, this could've used with a proposal instead of me just making it, so here's a belated one.


Time Q: The definition of "Administrator" actually varies: It depends on interperatation. I personally feel that "Administrator" is a blanket-term for Patroller, Sysop, or Bureaucrat. {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}}
Should we keep '''Template:Move infobox''' around? If we do keep it, is it good as is, or does it need changes?
:Time Q: Ditto {{User|Marioguy1}}
:SPMB: Not really. See my link, it clearly says that admins are users with sysop rights. Do you have any source that says patrollers are admins as well? {{User|Time Q}}
::I guess if you want, you can see patrollers as semi-admins. But Time Q is right, we are no full-fledged admins, we're an interstage between users and admins. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


'''Edofenrir''': Because the oppose votes are the ones that...er, I can't think of the right word, so for right now, I'll use "matter". If you have 20 support votes for the Luigi article that are all detailed and actually support the article's quality (not the character), but you have just '''one''' oppose vote with valid reasoning, that oppose vote will keep that article from being featured until someone changes the article to meet the opposer's requirement. Opposers don't have to meet the requirements of a supporter's vote because they see nothing wrong with the article. That said, the exact same would apply if all 20 of those support votes were "I like Luigi" votes.
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 1st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


And I don't really like the fact that the Admins are going to be taking action over something the entire community can handle; the only time Admins (solely) should handle something, is if it is an Administrative matter or is pivotal to the wiki in some way. (Ex: De/promotions, some policies, etc.) Administrators are no better than a normal user, nor are they more valuable. So why should it be up to them if a fan-based support vote gets removed? That makes it seem like the Admins are the only people whose opinions matter in an FA nomination. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
====Keep Move infobox, as is====
:True that second part, but at least some admins should observe this, so we can ensure that votes aren't removed because of personal reasons (e.g. I don't like that guy, so I'll remove his vote and claim that it was a fan-vote). - {{User|Edofenrir}}
#{{User|Sparks}} I can see this template working really well for moves that aren't in every ''Mario'' game, like [[Spin]]. This has lots of potential!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We don't see why not--having a dedicated Moves infobox could come in handy, especially if we get any more Mario RPGs in the wake of the weird little renaissance period we've been getting with the back-to-back-to-back SMRPG remake, TTYD remake, and release of Brothership. Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It would bring more attention to our move pages. I'm down for that.


===Change FA rules part 1===
====Keep Move infobox, but with changes====
I have seen many FA rule changing proposals/problems recently so I'd like to clear everything up with some different rules that accommodate almost everyone.<br>
'''Rule:''' The rule that states you cannot remove support votes, I propose that rule be changed to "You need five users to agree that this vote is a fan vote before deleting it" so that Tucayo's problem with the fan-votes can be solved. '''Reason:''' Tucayo said it all in his proposal, some of these votes are just wrong.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}} (With ideas from {{User|Tucayo}})<br>
====Delete Move infobox====
'''Deadline:''' October 14<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (17:00.00)


====Allow Support Vote Removal====
====Move infobox Comments====
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Read the proposal
Considering the nature of the attack infoboxes, wouldn't it be weird to have moves all in purple but a Mario & Luigi attack use yellow and green and a Paper Mario attack use white and green? Should there be variants of the Move infobox to match the color schemes of existing templates? If an article is covering multiple related moves, how will the infobox work? (ex. [[Handstand]], [[Cap Throw]], [[Roll]], [[Slide Kick]]... there's more of these than I thought). What happens when a move is referenced in somewhat less "move-y" ways? Okay, that last one is kinda strange, but basically I mean "dashing" in Super Mario Run is just a fancy animation, Mario & Luigi Dream Team has an animation where Giant Luigi crouches (with posing and skidding clearly meant to be a platformer callback), to slide under an attack. Do these instances get incorporated into the infobox? Continuing the train of thought, what about sports games? Yoshi can Flutter Jump as his special action on Mario & Sonic games. Does that count as a method of input for a Flutter Jump? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - This is really needed, the wiki should not be one-sided when removing votes!
:that's a lot of very interesting questions!
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Apart from my opinion that even three votes would be enough, I fully agree with this proposal. Fan votes don't have use for the wiki at all and there's no reason to keep votes that don't add new views to a discussion. They're just like comments, and comments do not count as votes as well. Also, per Baby Mario Bloops: Equal rights for both sides!
:*i went with purple to set it apart from the already taken light red (game), green and white (character), blue (level), pink (location), grey (item) and navy/grey (species) infoboxes. changing the color could be a good idea.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} - I told you, fan votes clutter up the support section. When somebody says, "Boo is teh reulz!" it's probably a fan vote and it sounds like our wiki doesn't know grammar or spelling. If the voter fears to have his/her vote removed because someone thinks it's a fan vote, then he/she should say how the article deserves to be an FA.
:*as for sorting which moves "count" or not, we have to decide these things for other types of subject too, after all, and they get infoboxes. it's a valid concern, though! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 15:09, December 20, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}} good idea. Per all.


====Keep All Support Votes====
#{{User|Time Q}}: Since fan votes do no harm (see my arguments on the previous proposal), I'm against removing them. I can imagine very well a situation when 5 users agree to remove a perfectly valid vote just because it seems "fan-ish".
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} I can see what would happen if 5 users decide to remove every single fan vote (and there's more than 20, usually) at a time. Also per TimeQ. The fan votes do relatively no harm, but they do take up space.
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} See my comment on proposal above.
#{{User|Dry Luigi}} Per Time Q.
#{{User|Castle Toad}} Per Time Q again
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per Time Q. I pretty much have the same reasoning here as I did with the proposal living directly upstairs.


====Comments====
The reason why we can remove oppose votes, but can't remove support votes is simple. There are [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles#Featured Article Standards|requirements]] that FAs must meet. Any article that meets all these requirements is of FA quality, but any article that fails to meet at least one of the requirements should not be an FA. So opposers of a nomination have to show which requirement is not met (i.e. they need a valid reason). Oppose votes that do not have such a valid reason can (and should) be removed. But how could support votes be reasoned? The only way to have a really "valid" support vote would be to list all the criteria, with comments like "fulfilled", "fulfilled", etc. Since this doesn't make sense, support votes don't really need reasons. Thus, they can't be removed either. {{User|Time Q}}
:Then support votes should be mainly used to question opposing votes, or to prove them wrong. And too many fan votes without reason do harm the wiki. They consume server space. It's the same reason why we disabled comments for the BJAODN pages: because comments without content weight the server down. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::Server space, shmerver space. Sorry, but I can't hear that anymore. ;) With this reason, you can question everything. Cut down on the size of the articles? Sure, they just consume server space. Etc. And no, support votes should not question opposing votes. That's what the "Removal" section is for. Support votes come from users who think that an article should be featured, not more, not less. {{User|Time Q}}
:::Then tell me why we disabled the comments at BJAODN, or why I just cannot add "I think Ganondorf stinks and he shouldn't be an FA 'cause he's green in the face!" on the Ganondorf FA oppose section. Equal rights for everyone, but it is just not right like it is now. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::::Hm, obviously I didn't explain the difference between support and oppose votes well enough. The opposers' task is to prove the supporters' points (= "this article is FA-worthy") wrong, by stating what is bad about the article. So they ''need'' reasons. Supporters, however, don't need those, because-- how would such a reason be like? "The article is FA-worthy, because it meets all the requirements." This would be the only possible "valid" reason. We can't force people to put that, it would be pointless.
::::Compare the Unfeature system. Here, both sides need valid reasons. Why? Because the supporters are of the opinion that an article is not FA-worthy, i.e. they have to point out what is bad about an article (similar to the opposers of FA nominations). UnFA opposers need to give reasons as well in order to prove the supporters' points wrong. Do you see the difference? {{User|Time Q}}
:::::Ok, that makes sense. But then tell me why it isn't just enough to have one person to nominate the article. Why have, like, sixty people to jump on the already rolling train? I see no use in that, and unless someone states a significant advantage to have it like that, I cannot change my mind. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::::::You make a good point here. Support votes really have very little impact on a nomination, so it's a good question why we even need them. The only reason I see is that they prevent a nomination that nobody really cares about from becoming featured. Imagine someone nominates an article about a very minor topic. If no one cares about it, that means that probably no one will oppose it and the article is featured (despite perhaps being not that good). If we require 5 support votes, however, we prevent this situation. We need 5 users who at least ''care'' about the article and support it before it can get featured. {{User|Time Q}}
:::::::Maybe we could have someone to check the FA nomination category and check the significance of the article. Or maybe we just go ahead with the suggestion above, maintaining support votes but remove their reasons in case they neglect the article and just focus on the character. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:::And besides: Comparing removing useless, baseless fan votes with removing valuable information from articles? I hope this is a joke. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


===Change FA rules part 2===
Here is the second part of my three part proposal<br>
'''Rule:''' The rule that says it will take a month of no editing to remove a nomination, I propose that this is changed to a month of no voting OR three months with no verdict AND more than five users opposing. '''Reason:''' Some nominations have way too many fans that just won't quit so get rid of the votes if there is a REAL reason to delete them (in other words if five people are opposing, they all agree)


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}} (With ideas from {{User|McQueenMario}})<br>
===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
'''Deadline:''' October 14<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (17:00.00)
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?


====Delete Noms After 3 Months====
Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Proposal


====Keep The Long Noms====
This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} &mdash; I personally don't think the wiki needs to be cluttered up with any more dead nomination pages than there are already. I remember when I originally nominated [[Mario (series)|this page]] for FA status. The nomination page was thriving with activity for a while, but after progress on the actual article slowed down, so did the nomination page. Besides, it's not like someone can't re-nominate an article to be featured.


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
Maybe it's just me, but I don't quite understand this one... what do you mean by, "with no verdict"? {{User|Time Q}}
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:I think he means that a nomination should be removed if we can't decide wheter to feature an article or not (if the votes even each other out). - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::Ok, I guess that makes sense, thanks. Not sure if I can support this though.. {{User|Time Q}}
:::This'll get rid of those dumb articles clogging up the FA page and some server stress too! {{User|Marioguy1}}
:I don't know which side to support: Could you explain your proposal in-depth? {{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}}
::Basically, I want to remove all of the nominations like Luigi's that have taken three months to decide. So I am proposing to impose a deadline so that the nominations don't remain on the wiki forever because let's face it, the Luigi nom is never going to be deleted. {{User|Marioguy1}}


===Change FA rules part 3===
====Blank support====
And finally, I'll finish off my proposals with this<br>
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
'''Rule:'''Change the rule that says needs all appearances of the character to needs all '''mario''' appearances of the character. '''Reason:''' This rule is redundant with another rule that states that articles cannot have any unmario appearances, if this rule stays; it will cancel about the featurability of the non-mario articles even if they are the best articles on the wiki!
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
#{{User|PopitTart}} <small>(This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)</small>
#{{User|Altendo}} <small>(Look at the code for my reasoning)</small><!---It might not seem annoying, but over time, or answering multiple proposals at once, it can start putting stress. Copy-pasting can be done, but it is just much easier to not type anything at all.---->
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}}
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really ''are'' just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at ''all.'' <small>(Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)</small> <!---Silent per all.---->
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
#{{user|TheDarkStar}} - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
#{{user|Ninja Squid}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}} (With ideas from {{User|Time Q}})<br>
====Blank Oppose====
'''Deadline:''' October 14<sup>th</sup>, 2009 (17:00.00)
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
#{{User|Technetium}} I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone ''does'' provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} {{color|white|Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type ''two words''.}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all <small>(is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)</small>
#{{User|Axii}} Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides ''some'' insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
#{{user|DesaMatt}} Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.


====Needs All "Mario" Appearances====
====Blank Comments====
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Proposal
I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Just making the MarioWiki only have Mario stuff (plus Yoshi and DK parts) and ONLY the Mario stuff makes MarioWiki look like a "one trick pony".
:I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Time Q}}: I'm copying this from the FA talk page: ''"What is wrong with the current rule in my opinion is that since we're the Mario Wiki, nobody expects to read non-''Mario'' content here. If people come here to read an article about, say, Kirby, they don't expect any information that has nothing to do with Mario. There are other sources of information then. See: Kirby's or Ganondorf's role in the Marioverse is bigger than some original Mario character's. It would be unfair to reject FA status for characters like Ganondorf when the only reason is that they originated from a different series. Articles should cover ''Mario'' content, that's our task. And any article that meets this requirement should get the chance to become featured."''
::There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Castle Toad}} Per all
:::My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} &mdash; Per all.
::::My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the  odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Super Paper Mario Bros.}} Per all.
:{{@|Mario}} I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Ihadchortles47}} Per all


====Single Out Some Articles====
Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} Why not, I mean, they are as active with this article as many other mario-related articles. Just because they are non-mario doesn't mean that it can no be a FA (my opposion was because it had many errors in it). Lets bring some equality between Mario and non-Mario on this Wiki, like many other Wiki's.
:Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Dimenshi Knight}} Per BMB!
:There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Gamefreak75}}-Per all.


====Removal of Support/Oppose Votes====
I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring ''a'' written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)
'''Baby Mario Bloops''''
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - His vote supports my points yet it is in the oppose section, that is totally wrong.


====Comments====
===Set Vector-2010 to the default wiki skin===
BMB: What do we care about wikia wikis? We're the mariowiki and if our content is good, who cares what zeldapedia thinks? We care about the ''community'', '''our''' community, not zeldapedia's, not Kirby Wiki's and not Wikipedia's {{User|Marioguy1}}
This proposal is about setting the 2010 [[mw:Skin:Vector|Vector]] as the default wiki skin ([https://web.archive.org/web/20160207064154/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/44/Logo_new-vector_screenshot.png screenshot here]) for desktop users, with the focus being on people who are new to wikis in particular, while obviously keeping the existing MonoBook skin as an option. What made me think to create this proposal is when I made a [[Talk:Main Page]] proposal about the to-do list tasks and how they are more accessible than clicking the "Wiki maintenance" on the sidebar, I had to uncomfortably squint to find "Wiki maintenance" on the wiki sidebar. But Vector-2010 has the sidebar links slightly larger and a bit more spaced out. With the existing interface, there could be some who may struggle to find options listed on the sidebar.
:MG1: Think about the first sentence I said, "What if you were in their shoes?" I'm surprised you even say that about other Wiki's! The way you stated that was very cruel, because I help out with other Wiki's along with other users on this Wiki, and they would probaly agree with me on this. Our community has many things to do with Kirby, Zelda, Samus, and all the other characters. That's why we need them to stay in this wiki, they are very important to our Wikia!!! {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::Just to add, there is a DK, Wario, and Yoshi Wikia, so, in your words, your saying we should get rid of them because they are techically non-''mario''. Is that what you want? {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
:::I'm sorry if I add more confusion-spice to this stew of discussion, but isn't MG1s point just to lighten the requirements for an article to become an FA? To me it sounds like he's just saying "An article can become a FA, even if the article cannot contain all the infos related to the chara (such as Ganondorf)". Am I misinterpreting things? - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::::Thank you edo, you hit the nail on the head! BMB: Sorry, I shouldn't have been so strict, what I meant was I think that we should not discriminate, this is just racism in another form. No matter how you put it this is like gamism, very very bad :( Stop the gamism, feel the power!!! {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::::Yeah, I thought for a sec a read it wrong. Sorry! Yes, lets stop the Wikism here (just made it up). Probaly should change my vote a little bit (talk to Dim. Kn. (he probaly just agreed with what I said)). I'm sorry, but I am still opposing this. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::::::Time Q, there is mostly Mario content on the non-mario articles! We need to balance it out a little by adding some information about them being non-mario. Seriously, you got to admit that we do need to balance stuff out by adding a little bit of themself, read the above, and you'll see my reasons... {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
:::::::Hm, no, the characters' roles outside the Marioverse simply don't matter for our wiki. It can shortly be mentioned in the introductory sentence, but not more. Actually, I don't really understand why you're opposing this proposal. Your reason sounds like you would support it... {{User|Time Q}}
::::::Well, what do you mean by that! I don't really understand what you telling me! I love other series! They have a right to be here, because that is what a wikia is! It shows all the stuff included in it. Yes, they should not have too much stuff about there origin, but at least a background section, about a paragraph (maybe two at most), be added to their article!!! {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}


Um, some characters like Ganondorf only appeared alongside with Mario exclusively in the Super Smash Bros. series, which I don't really consider it to be part of the Mario series. The Donkey Kong series and the Yoshi series are branches off the Mario series, but Super Smash Bros. isn't from what I assume. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
While we're clearly different from Wikipedia (that's why I'm not Vector-2022, since it'd be too much of a departure and likely uncomfortable for several), I do want to refer to [http://web.archive.org/web/20180213165624/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/05/13/a-new-look-for-wikipedia/ this page], which summarizes why Wikipedia transitioned to it. Though it is vague, they cite accessibility as the reason, which I think this wiki has been taking steps toward doing.
:"Mario appearances" means everything that our wiki covers. This includes ''Super Smash Bros.'' as well (no matter if you consider it part of the ''Mario'' series or not). {{User|Time Q}}


===Did You Know...===
I'll cite my reasons for preferring Vector and applying this to possible people who are visiting a wiki for the first time. The text is larger, which is especially important for larger screen monitors, some of the lesser used tabs are collapsible on the sidebar, summarizing the most commonly used options, and the user links at the top right are also more noticeable and less close to the body of the article where the content is read.
...that there are quite a lot of proposals here at the moment? This one's the seventh one, so lets hope that lucky 7 will guide this proposal on its way to a good decision.


Anyway, you all know the "Did You Know" section of the main page. This page is currently updated by me and it shows three more or less interesting facts from recently created articles. However, some voices have arisen, claiming that it might be better to change the sources of info for this section. That would mean that the trivia in there could be from every article that was ever created here, regardless of age. Using this policy would make room for witty, interesting trivia in that section, but it would also rob recently created articles of their base to be showcased.  
Though it could take time getting used to the Edit button being on the right (not to mention the search button), the button is at least larger, making it more usable on even lower quality screen monitors, and I like how it's separate from the Page and discussion options, meaning that options that involve viewing articles are on the left while options that involve editing or changing the page in some form are on the right.


This proposal's purpose is to give those arisen voices a chance to be heard, as well as potential opposing voices to arise as well.
If this proposal passes and others don't like the change, they can always return to the MonoBook option in their [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering|preferences]].


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Edofenrir}} (Inspired by {{User|Stooben Rooben}} and {{User|Walkazo}})<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' October 17. 2009, 8:00 pm.
'''Deadline''': January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Put trivia from every article ever created in that section====
====Support====
#{{User|FunkyK38}} I think this is a good idea. Making the trivia section longer will help the main page to be less lopsided (Every time we switch featured articles, or get a new piece of recent news, it looks weird.) I'm all for beefing up the main page.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Monteyaga}} - Per Funky.


====Put only trivia from recently created articles in that section====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Admittedly, this vote is largely a matter of preference--we just don't like Vector that much--but we can't think of any real reason to switch to Vector 2010 as the default over the current Monobook beyond the mentioned text spacing; while that is a nice boon, we personally find the weird gradient buttons for the various tabs up top a little grating looking, and we're a fan of the more compact design that Monobook provides--though, this is likely a byproduct of our personal preference for more neatly packed web design. And uh, the less said about the other two options (Vector 2022, and. Timeless. <s>Which is the most dated theme possible, namely to mid-2010s mobile web design.</s>), the better. If you like Vector 2010, that's great, and we're fine with that! Heck, if anyone likes Vector 2022 or Timeless, that's cool too, and more power to them! Variety is the spice of life, after all. But switching it to the default is something that should not be taken lightly, and the reasons for a switch in this proposal feel a little too loosey-goosey for us, we're sorry.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I like how MonoBook looks a little more than Vector. It is what I am comfortable with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
#{{User|Drago}} Per Nintendo101. I actually prefer the smaller text of Monobook since you can see more of the page at once. I also want to point out that although logged-in users like us can change the skin in preferences, we'd still be forcing the change on logged-out users.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Drago.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Nintendo101 and Drago. I just don't see any reason to make this change.
#{{User|Altendo}} I'm saying this as a Vector-2010 skin user, and I'll say that people have their preferences. I live Vector-2010 because that is how Wikipedia at least used to look before they switched to Vector (2022); On Wikipedia, Vector was renamed to Vector legacy (2010), while Vector 2022 is named Vector (2022). Although I do prefer Vector-2010, I know a lot of people that prefer Monobook, and even if not, this can be changed in the preferences. No need to change the default skin. I get that IPs can't change their appearance, but aside from that, users can, and what they see doesn't have to be default on the wiki. Everyone can change what they specifically see.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I will leave this proposal here first and vote later on. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
{{@|Camwoodstock}} That is true that it's a major change. It's based mainly upon impression from newcomers from them seeing a more prominent edit tab, slightly larger text size, and other minor details like tab names that are easier to read (including a collapsible feature for the lesser used tab). The skin change was based on old Wikipedia research at the time (like how WikiLove was a result of their research). I have no strong feelings whether this passes or not. Although it's vague, since there's no way to tell the statistics (and the wiki's already successful at the moment), I still have a feeling it could help some, but to each their own. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:32, December 18, 2024 (EST)
 
:We feel like if anybody would be capable of providing any statistics on skin usage, it'd be Porple, but even then, we don't actually know if that's one of the things he tracks, and it feels a little silly to pester him over this of all things... ;p {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:55, December 18, 2024 (EST)
FunkyK38: You know that this proposal just deals with where the trivia parts will be taken from, do you? The change will not affect how long the main page will be. Maybe I should rewrite that part. It's misleading... - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
Well, that does help, but the main page does look a bit lopsided. Maybe you could make the trivia a bit longer, too? Just for when we are lacking in information on one side. To make it look better. I'm still behind you on this, though. {{User|FunkyK38}}
:I could try to adjust it within my possibilities, but the mainpage's appearance also depends on the five other templates. If one of these template gets changed, the adjustment will be in vain again... {{User|Edofenrir}}
::Well, if we need to fix it, we can. I'm only saying we put more trivia in to even things out. {{User|FunkyK38}}


I like the idea of using only the most recent articles as a source for the Did You Know section. However, I think that if there's really not enough notable facts in the most recent articles, we should take them from other articles as well. But the main focus should still lie on our new articles, in my opinion. {{User|Time Q}}
I'm okay with opposition, but in case of misunderstanding, this proposal isn't about personal preferences so much as what I believe to be a more ergonomic interface to a wider audience. I know we're not Wikipedia, but there's also the consideration that they've used the Vector skin longer than they had for MonoBook. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 13:45, December 19, 2024 (EST)
:If it's what "you believe", then it ultimately (and probably unavoidably) is about personal preferences. Anyway, another consideration is the fact that people often prefer what they're used to. I feel like how long this wiki has used its skin is more relevant than how long Wikipedia has. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:39, December 19, 2024 (EST)
::{{@|Hewer}} I suppose I'm overthinking the ergonomic interface. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:19, December 20, 2024 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.
''None at the moment.''
 
<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
&nbsp;

Latest revision as of 23:51, December 25, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, December 28th, 10:20 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

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

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

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

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)
Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 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)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

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

Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork

This proposal will address the bloat some image categories have and make them easier to navigate.

Why is this useful? It makes adding to galleries or finding images to replace much easier. If you want to retake screenshots from a game, you can go to the screenshots category to find them. If you have sprite rips to replace, there's a category for that. The same goes for finding images from a game that aren't on the gallery already and being able to sort them more efficiently. This is also how we divide up character galleries already, such as Gallery:Mario (2010-2019).

Now, I can see a few edge cases, like when games have screenshots of themselves for credits images (i.e. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)). I would still classify these as assets, since they are ripped from the game. Artwork that is used in smaller forms in-game, such as in Super Mario Maker 2, would be classified as artwork if externally released or an asset if it was ripped from the game files. Edge cases shouldn't be too common and they're easy to work out: it's not too different from how we license images or put them in character or subject galleries.

I think the name "assets" would be more useful in shorthand than "sprites and models," in addition to covering textures, so I propose for the category to be called that, but I can change it if there's opposition. The global images category can still exist in the case there's scans, merchandise, video screenshots, or such images that cannot be further categorized.

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) I support this in principle, as long as there's room for discretion on what gets split and what gets left alone. A game with only ten or so pieces of artwork doesn't need a separate category for them, they can just stay in the main images category for that game. Otherwise, this seems useful, I just don't want users to go overboard by purely following the letter of this proposal.
  3. Salmancer (talk) I've tried to see if an image I wanted to use was already uploaded via the category, which would encourage me to make the text and get the article up. Due to the sheer number of images, this is a bad idea. This proposal will make that less of a bad idea for cases where an asset or artwork is being searched for.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) hell yea

Oppose

Comments

This is already being done (e.g. Category:Mario Kart Tour item icons). Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:02, December 23, 2024 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Broaden the scope of the {{rewrite}} template and its variations

With the previous proposal having passed with being more specific as the most voted, I've come up with a proposal about the possibility to make the {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite-expand}}, and {{rewrite-remove}} templates more specific. As you can see, these templates are missing some smaller text. As such, I am just wondering if there is a possibility to have the smaller text added to the {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite-expand}}, and {{rewrite-remove}} templates.

First of all, the {{rewrite}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

However, once the proposal passes, the {{rewrite}} template will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article.

And another thing—the {{rewrite-expand}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information.

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-expand}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by filling in the missing details.

Lastly, the {{rewrite-remove}} currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): ???

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-remove}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s):{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by removing the unnecessary details.

That will be a perfect idea to make the {{rewrite}} template and its variations as more specific as the {{media missing}} and {{unreferenced}} templates. That way, we'll be able to add smaller text to the remaining notice templates in the future.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to December 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Altendo (talk) As far as I can tell, the proposal that was linked added parameters that allowed what was supposed to be referenced to be referenced. This one simply adds a subtitle to the bottom of each template. "Be more specific" does not mean saying general information and helpful links, but rather exactly what needs to be done; in terms of that, the existing templates not only all already have parameters, but filling them out is enforced. As Nightwicked Bowser said, "Be more specific - Similar to this proposal, what exactly needs references must be specified in the template when putting it in the article. A parameter for this will still need to be added." This only adds a subtitle and does not make this "more specific". As for the changes, this is actually harmful in some way, as the (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}}) tag will be added to the subtitle, rather than the main body, which could make it more confusing in my opinion. Feel free to update this and add in what "more specific" actually means, or just change this to "add subtitles" and change the location of (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}}) to the main body, but until then, my vote is staying here.
  2. Mario (talk) Best to keep things simple with these improvement templates.
  3. Technetium (talk) Per Mario.

Comments

Here's how I would fix some things:

First of all, the {{rewrite}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

However, once the proposal passes, the {{rewrite}} template will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten for the following reasons:
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article.

And another thing—the {{rewrite-expand}} template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information.

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-expand}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information for the following reasons:
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by filling in the missing details.

Lastly, the {{rewrite-remove}} currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): ???

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-remove}} will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed''' {{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reasons:{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s):
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by removing the unnecessary details.

This should fix some things, and I also recommend you change the title or at least context of this proposal. If so, then I might change my vote. Altendo 19:58, December 9, 2024 (EST)

I fixed this problem for you. How does it look? GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 09:40, December 10, 2024 (EST)

Decide what to do with Template:Move infobox

A while ago (November 4th, specifically), I created Template:Move infobox. After all, we had templates for essentially all the Browse tabs on the wiki sidebar, except for moves. There WERE templates about specific types of moves, such as Template:M&L attack infobox, but no general template in the same vein as items, characters, species, games, locations, etc.

I discussed it on the Discord briefly, nobody said no, and a bit of feedback later about how it should look and what it should have, I created it. It has since been applied to exactly four pages at the time of writing, half of which I was the one to apply it to. In hindsight, this could've used with a proposal instead of me just making it, so here's a belated one.

Should we keep Template:Move infobox around? If we do keep it, is it good as is, or does it need changes?

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: January 1st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Keep Move infobox, as is

  1. Sparks (talk) I can see this template working really well for moves that aren't in every Mario game, like Spin. This has lots of potential!
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We don't see why not--having a dedicated Moves infobox could come in handy, especially if we get any more Mario RPGs in the wake of the weird little renaissance period we've been getting with the back-to-back-to-back SMRPG remake, TTYD remake, and release of Brothership. Per proposal.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Salmancer (talk) It would bring more attention to our move pages. I'm down for that.

Keep Move infobox, but with changes

Delete Move infobox

Move infobox Comments

Considering the nature of the attack infoboxes, wouldn't it be weird to have moves all in purple but a Mario & Luigi attack use yellow and green and a Paper Mario attack use white and green? Should there be variants of the Move infobox to match the color schemes of existing templates? If an article is covering multiple related moves, how will the infobox work? (ex. Handstand, Cap Throw, Roll, Slide Kick... there's more of these than I thought). What happens when a move is referenced in somewhat less "move-y" ways? Okay, that last one is kinda strange, but basically I mean "dashing" in Super Mario Run is just a fancy animation, Mario & Luigi Dream Team has an animation where Giant Luigi crouches (with posing and skidding clearly meant to be a platformer callback), to slide under an attack. Do these instances get incorporated into the infobox? Continuing the train of thought, what about sports games? Yoshi can Flutter Jump as his special action on Mario & Sonic games. Does that count as a method of input for a Flutter Jump? Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

that's a lot of very interesting questions!
  • i went with purple to set it apart from the already taken light red (game), green and white (character), blue (level), pink (location), grey (item) and navy/grey (species) infoboxes. changing the color could be a good idea.
  • as for sorting which moves "count" or not, we have to decide these things for other types of subject too, after all, and they get infoboxes. it's a valid concern, though! eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 15:09, December 20, 2024 (EST)



Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

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

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

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

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

Blank support

  1. Mario (talk) Per all.
  2. Ray Trace (talk) Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
  3. PopitTart (talk) (This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)
  4. Altendo (talk) (Look at the code for my reasoning)
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk)
  6. OmegaRuby (talk) While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really are just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at all. (Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)
  7. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
  8. TheDarkStar (talk) - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
  9. Ninja Squid (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Tails777 (talk) It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.

Blank Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
  2. Technetium (talk) I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone does provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type two words.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all (is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)
  6. Axii (talk) Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
  7. Pseudo (talk) Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
  8. Hooded Pitohui (talk) I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides some insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
  9. Mister Wu (talk) Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
  10. DesaMatt (talk) Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.

Blank Comments

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

I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
@Mario I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)

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

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

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

Set Vector-2010 to the default wiki skin

This proposal is about setting the 2010 Vector as the default wiki skin (screenshot here) for desktop users, with the focus being on people who are new to wikis in particular, while obviously keeping the existing MonoBook skin as an option. What made me think to create this proposal is when I made a Talk:Main Page proposal about the to-do list tasks and how they are more accessible than clicking the "Wiki maintenance" on the sidebar, I had to uncomfortably squint to find "Wiki maintenance" on the wiki sidebar. But Vector-2010 has the sidebar links slightly larger and a bit more spaced out. With the existing interface, there could be some who may struggle to find options listed on the sidebar.

While we're clearly different from Wikipedia (that's why I'm not Vector-2022, since it'd be too much of a departure and likely uncomfortable for several), I do want to refer to this page, which summarizes why Wikipedia transitioned to it. Though it is vague, they cite accessibility as the reason, which I think this wiki has been taking steps toward doing.

I'll cite my reasons for preferring Vector and applying this to possible people who are visiting a wiki for the first time. The text is larger, which is especially important for larger screen monitors, some of the lesser used tabs are collapsible on the sidebar, summarizing the most commonly used options, and the user links at the top right are also more noticeable and less close to the body of the article where the content is read.

Though it could take time getting used to the Edit button being on the right (not to mention the search button), the button is at least larger, making it more usable on even lower quality screen monitors, and I like how it's separate from the Page and discussion options, meaning that options that involve viewing articles are on the left while options that involve editing or changing the page in some form are on the right.

If this proposal passes and others don't like the change, they can always return to the MonoBook option in their preferences.

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

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.

Oppose

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Admittedly, this vote is largely a matter of preference--we just don't like Vector that much--but we can't think of any real reason to switch to Vector 2010 as the default over the current Monobook beyond the mentioned text spacing; while that is a nice boon, we personally find the weird gradient buttons for the various tabs up top a little grating looking, and we're a fan of the more compact design that Monobook provides--though, this is likely a byproduct of our personal preference for more neatly packed web design. And uh, the less said about the other two options (Vector 2022, and. Timeless. Which is the most dated theme possible, namely to mid-2010s mobile web design.), the better. If you like Vector 2010, that's great, and we're fine with that! Heck, if anyone likes Vector 2022 or Timeless, that's cool too, and more power to them! Variety is the spice of life, after all. But switching it to the default is something that should not be taken lightly, and the reasons for a switch in this proposal feel a little too loosey-goosey for us, we're sorry.
  2. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) I like how MonoBook looks a little more than Vector. It is what I am comfortable with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  4. Drago (talk) Per Nintendo101. I actually prefer the smaller text of Monobook since you can see more of the page at once. I also want to point out that although logged-in users like us can change the skin in preferences, we'd still be forcing the change on logged-out users.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Drago.
  6. Technetium (talk) Per Nintendo101 and Drago. I just don't see any reason to make this change.
  7. Altendo (talk) I'm saying this as a Vector-2010 skin user, and I'll say that people have their preferences. I live Vector-2010 because that is how Wikipedia at least used to look before they switched to Vector (2022); On Wikipedia, Vector was renamed to Vector legacy (2010), while Vector 2022 is named Vector (2022). Although I do prefer Vector-2010, I know a lot of people that prefer Monobook, and even if not, this can be changed in the preferences. No need to change the default skin. I get that IPs can't change their appearance, but aside from that, users can, and what they see doesn't have to be default on the wiki. Everyone can change what they specifically see.

Comments

@Camwoodstock That is true that it's a major change. It's based mainly upon impression from newcomers from them seeing a more prominent edit tab, slightly larger text size, and other minor details like tab names that are easier to read (including a collapsible feature for the lesser used tab). The skin change was based on old Wikipedia research at the time (like how WikiLove was a result of their research). I have no strong feelings whether this passes or not. Although it's vague, since there's no way to tell the statistics (and the wiki's already successful at the moment), I still have a feeling it could help some, but to each their own. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:32, December 18, 2024 (EST)

We feel like if anybody would be capable of providing any statistics on skin usage, it'd be Porple, but even then, we don't actually know if that's one of the things he tracks, and it feels a little silly to pester him over this of all things... ;p ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:55, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm okay with opposition, but in case of misunderstanding, this proposal isn't about personal preferences so much as what I believe to be a more ergonomic interface to a wider audience. I know we're not Wikipedia, but there's also the consideration that they've used the Vector skin longer than they had for MonoBook. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:45, December 19, 2024 (EST)

If it's what "you believe", then it ultimately (and probably unavoidably) is about personal preferences. Anyway, another consideration is the fact that people often prefer what they're used to. I feel like how long this wiki has used its skin is more relevant than how long Wikipedia has. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:39, December 19, 2024 (EST)
@Hewer I suppose I'm overthinking the ergonomic interface. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:19, December 20, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4472551"