MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Wednesday, January 1st, 00:12 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

• Merge Cascading Stone, vanishing platform, and moon platform with Falling Platform (discuss) Deadline: January 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename the NES Template (discuss) Deadline: January 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split the theme songs from the list of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Mario & Sonic (series) to Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (series) (discuss) Deadline: January 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Shadow to Shadow (enemy), and rename either Shadow (character) or Shadow (disambiguation) to Shadow (discuss) Deadline: January 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Decide what to do with Category:Siblings and Category:Twins (discuss) Deadline: January 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Candy Block with Hard Block (discuss) Deadline: January 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Merge ON/OFF Conveyor Belt with Conveyor Belt, or expand to cover all reversible conveyor belts (discuss) Deadline: January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• What to do about Wiggler Family (discuss) Deadline: January 11, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Repurpose Template:Stub (discuss) Deadline: January 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split the Ink Bomb (discuss) Deadline: January 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split the Giant Bowser battle Refreshroom (discuss) Deadline: January 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Keep or Delete File:Spiny Shell PMTTYD.png (discuss) Deadline: January 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Tighten Category:Thieves (discuss) Deadline: January 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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)

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)

Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 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.

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
5. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
7. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per proposal, as long as Waluigi Time's feedback is taken on board.

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

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.
7. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.

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.
11. Blinker (talk) Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.

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. It's me, Mario! (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. Ray 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. It's me, Mario! (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.
8. Sparks (talk) Per all.

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.