MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Archiving)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear="all">
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
===Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3===
|'''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.
This was spurred by the introduction of the to-do bar. Thanks, to-do bar! Anyways, if you look at [[Special:WantedCategories]], at the moment, it's all entries with 3 or fewer items each; this makes sense, given we have a policy that suggests [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope|categories are kept to only 4 or more items]]. However, for a good portion of the 3-itemers, these are all fairly featured images from sources like various short flash advergames, or more niche subjects like the [[MediaBrowser]] which came in a series of, well, 3 web browsers. In comparison to the 1-or-2 entry, well, entries, these have a bit more substance to them, basically waiting for a fourth image to be taken at some point; and while in some cases, that image can come up, in others... Well, what are the odds a fourth MediaBrowser is releasing when they went bust back in 2001, y'know?
*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]].
While we don't feel strongly about what happens to the 1 or 2 entry categories, we do think there is ''just enough'' to these 3-entry categories to warrant a closer look our current policies are not providing. Should we lower the cutoff to 3? Or is 4 the magical number for categories?


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
#*Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
#*Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
#*Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#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. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#"<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.
====Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves, of course. We don't see any particular harm in this when, as of submitting this proposal, this would only create, what, 10 categories?
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me, especially because, if an individual is uploading images to the wiki for a source that currently has no images, there's a solid chance that that person will upload three images. {{wp|Rule of three (writing)|It's a popular number}}!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Three is a magic number.


===Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format===
====Keep at 4 (forced to four!)====
This is an example how your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to <u>replace the whole variable including the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple in the comments, image categories don't have this restriction so the proposal seems moot otherwise. I don't see a benefit to reducing this limit across the board, and I'm very hesitant to support without a clearer picture of the implications. (The assertion in the comments that this wouldn't have immediate impact was based on the list on Special:WantedCategories - there weren't any categories there besides image ones because that would require mainspace articles to have redlinked categories that would go against policy if you made them. Obviously, that wouldn't fly.)
-----
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Porplemontage and Waluigi Time.
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Waluigi Time.
<nowiki>[describe what you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]</nowiki>
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Honestly, five would be a better restriction so that it's a well rounded number.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.


<nowiki>'''Proposer:''' {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
====Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)====
<nowiki>'''Deadline:''' [insert a deadline here, f.e. "5 January, 2010, 17:00". Rule 2 above explains how to determine a deadline]</nowiki>
The intent of that restriction is that, for example, if there aren't four articles for [[:Category:Super Paper Mario characters]] then the couple characters would just go in [[:Category:Super Paper Mario]] rather than create the subcategory. Image categories are different since moving up the tree in the same way would be undesirable (there would be a bunch of random images at the bottom of [[:Category:Game images]] rather than those categories being redlinked). We can create image categories with as few as one entry; I updated [[MarioWiki:Categories]]. If you still want to change the number needed for articles, up to you. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 22:38, January 21, 2025 (EST)
:Oh! We didn't know that, good to know! We'd like to proceed with the proposal, even if we don't think it'd have any immediate impact under these rules--all the 3-item categories have to do with images at the moment. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki>
==New features==
''None at the moment.''


<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
==Changes==
-----
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
 
To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> 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 anoother user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
 
__TOC__
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
<br>
==Talk Page Proposals==
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.
 
===How To===
#All active talk page proposals must be listed below in alphabetical order. All pages effected must be mentioned in the ''brief'' description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "({{fakelink|Discuss}})". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{tem|fakelink}} to communicate its title. The '''Deadline''' must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.
#All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3, 4 and 5, as follows:
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one.
#Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#After two weeks, a clear majority of three votes is required. Without the majority, the talk page proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM".
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
 
===List of Talk Page Proposals===
''NOTE: Disorganized talk page proposals created before the current system may be running much longer than the standard two week voting period. In place of a deadline, these are marked as "overtime" and require immediate attention and resolution.''
 
*Merge [[Cobalt Shard]] into [[Cobalt Star]]. ([[Talk:Cobalt Shard|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 6 January 2010, 17:00
*Merge [[Dancing Spear Guy]] into [[Spear Guy]]. ([[Talk:Dancing Spear Guy|Discuss]]) '''Overtime'''
*Merge [[Dried Blooper]] into [[Bubble Blooper]]. ([[Talk:Dried Blooper|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 5 January 2010, 17:00
*Merge [[Elevator Key (X-Naut)]] into [[Elevator Key]]. ([[Talk:Elevator Key (X-Naut)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 9 January 2010,  20:00
*Merge [[Fiery Bubble]] into [[Podoboo]]. ([[Talk:Fiery Bubble|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 9 January 2010, 20:00
*Merge the ''Luigi's Mansion'' elemental ghosts. ([[Elemental Ghosts|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 3 January 2010, 15:00
**[[Fire Elemental Ghost]]
**[[Water Elemental Ghost]]
**[[Ice Elemental Ghost]]
*Merge [[Gadd Science, Incorporated]] into [[List of Implied Organizations]]. ([[Talk:Gadd Science, Incorporated|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 9 January 2010, 20:00
*Merge [[Item Block]] into [[Used Block]]. ([[Talk:Item Block|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 17 January 2010, 15:00
*Merge [[Mario's Shirt]] into [[Mario]], or simply delete it and ban the creation of any other page concerning clothing that does ''not'' affect gameplay. ([[Talk:Mario's Shirt|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 9 January 2010, 20:00
*Merge [[Maude]] and [[Flo]] into a single page, {{fakelink|Maude and Flo}}. ([[Talk:Maude|Discuss]]) '''Overtime'''
*Reorganize the "Metal" pages so that all information pertaining to the forms in general are found on [[Metal Mario]], whereas metal characters get stand-alone articles. - '''Overtime'''
**Merge [[Metal Wario]] into Metal Mario. ([[Talk:Metal Wario|Discuss]])
**Split Metal Mario into {{fakelink|Metal Mario (form)}} and {{fakelink|Metal Mario (character)}}. ([[Talk:Metal Mario|Discuss]])
**Move form aspects of [[Metal Luigi]] into Metal Mario, leaving information pertaining to the character in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'' on the Metal Luigi article. (Mentioned in above Discussion pages.)
*Merge [[Tentacle]] into [[Blooper]]. ([[Talk:Tentacle|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 15 January 2010, 20:00
*Merge [[Ultra Shroom]] into [[Ultra Mushroom]]. ([[Talk:Ultra Shroom|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 5 January 2010, 17:00
 
==New Features==
===Miis===
I am new here and not sure If I'm doing this correctly, but I propose to extend what this wiki covers to a greatly overlooked part of the Mario universe. Miis.


The reasons for this are, 1) They could be considered crossover from other series. 2) I think that they may play a larger part in the Mario series in the future.
If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.


To help back this, I wish to point out that Sonic and DK have numerous pages dedicated to them. These barely make the cut, and so, I think this is precedence enough to add these and other overlooked series characters part of the wiki.
This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."


'''Proposer:''' {{User|MiiMe}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 4 January 2010, 17:00
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Our current coverage of [[Mii]]s is fine; they have all of their appearances listed, and their article is featured. They do not originate in the Mario series, so they don't need any more coverage. And if they will become more important in the future, then the future will be the right time to expand this info. As for now, we live in the present.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per Edofenrir.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} - First of all, did you know that the ''Mario Series'' is actually a sub-series of the ''Donkey Kong Series''? That's why we cover Donkey Kong games and characters. We don't cover, the ''Sonic Series'', except the Sonic characters that appear in [[Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games]]. So right there, you know why we have all those articles dedicated to those series. If that's not enough, per Edo.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} &mdash; Per Edo.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per the fury of Fawful.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|GigaMetalLuigi}} As said time and time again, our current [[Mii]]s article covers them enough. Indeed we have multiple pages for DK and Mario characters as they appear in multiple places as different things. We're not dedicated to Miis or any of that such. Until then we don't need any other Mii articles added.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per EdO!!! <small>and I dont like miis....</small>
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Cobold}} - per Tucayo.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} - Per All
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! The coverage of the Miis are fine as they are; all third party characters (Miis can sort of be considered third party) only have info covering there cross over (not including there info boxes), and the information given about the Miis conserning there appearence in the Mario series is just fine. Zero signing out.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} PEr all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
#{{User|FunkyK38}}- Sonic and DK BARELY make the cut? What? Those are two incredibly important characters! Plus, we already cover Miis just fine. They aren't major charaters like Mario, or even minor characters like Toadette, so they really shouldn't have a huge fuss made over them. Per Edo and FF65.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - Wait! Hadn't I voted before? Anyways, per all.
 
====Comments====
Fawfulfury65: Really? I thought it was vice versa regarding the Donkey Kong thing. Still, something that splits off the main series would still be allowable on the Mariowiki, such as the Yoshi games. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:Well, Mario first appeared in ''Donkey Kong'' so... {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
What are we even voting on? What would happen if the proposal passes? Have a list of possible Mii faces? That's not even realistically doable. - {{User|Cobold}}
 
If the proposal does pass, we will probably have to make articles on things like Wuhu Island and all those games featuring miis. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
 
@Zero: Miis were made by Nintendo. Thus, they are not third party. {{User|Reversinator}}
:I'm pretty sure he was just using "third party" as a way to refer to character originating outside the ''Mario'' series (is there an ''actual'' term for those? "Third party" nor "Crossover" seem like accurate titles). '''BabyLuigiOnFire''' and '''Fawfulfury65''': the original ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'' titles are not considered part of the recent ''Donkey Kong'' series (i.e. ''Donkey Kong Country'', ''DK: King of Swing'', ''Donkey Konga'', etc.), and are usually organized so that the emphasis is on their relation to the ''Mario'' series (see {{tem|DKGames}} and {{tem|Mariogames}}). At most, the two series are equally spun-off of the original ''Donkey Kong'', but that does not make ''Mario'' a spin-off of the ongoing ''Donkey Kong'' series. - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
I go now from this wiki. {{User|MiiMe}}
 
@Walkazo It's second party. {{User|Reversinator}}
 
I propose this proposal get deleted as MiiMee has left...:/ {{User|Gamefreak75}}
:We can't do that. {{User|Garlic Man}}
::I know, but I think we know the outcome now...{{User|Gamefreak75}}
:::Just let it fall through normally; patience is a virtue. '''Reversinator''': thanks! - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
How little you all know.
I am never fully gone...
{{User|MiiMe}}
 
Huh? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:What, are you going to come back as a vandal, spam the crap out of us and then get shamelessly banned? {{User|Reversinator}}
::Please do not comment this any further. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
===Mario Wiki Pulse===
I suggest to put a new section on the main page, it shall be called the "Mario Wiki Pulse". Basically it's just something that shows either the top five or twelve articles most seen in that week.
 
<small>'''''note:''''' ''if this is not possible to do then remove this proposal.''</small>
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Zero777}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 7 January 2010, 15:00
 
====Give it a Pulse====
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Well there wasn't that much to say since it is so simple but it is a good idea. Zero signing out.
 
====Let it pass....... away====
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} A really bad article may end up getting on the front page which may give the wiki a bad reputation. There is a reason why we have featured articles, it's to make us look great. But having bad articles on the main page isn't so great. Besides, there may be a possible repeat of the featured article on the list. And I don't see any point on what article gets seen the most. We are here to provide information, not to showcase what articles were the most viewed this week or whatsoever.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - The basic idea is good, but there might be a slight problem. I think most people come here for, well, the main content. What would we do to prevent articles like [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], [[Bowser]], [[Wario]], or the most recently released game from occupying the list overly long? I'm gonna think aloud for a moment: Perhaps we could take on this matter the other way 'round. Instead of highlighting the articles that already have tons of attention, we could highlight some really obscure and overseen articles. It could even benefit the wiki itself, if our editors come across these articles and improve them. My (weird) thoughts to that subject.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Changed my mind. Per BLOF.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - We already have FAs, so adding another list of pages people should look at to the crowded Main Page seems like overkill. The Wiki Community box already lists pages and projects that need contributors, so Edofenrir's reverse idea is also unnecessary. It just seems like extra work with very little to show for it; we'd be better off focusing on fixing the pages straight away.
 
====Comments====
Fawfulfury65: Sorry, but "I like this idea" is not a reason why you should support. Please list your reason why you support this proposal. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
 
I think I like this idea, this could be interesting. BLOF, I don't think there's a problem with having bad articles on the Main Page. There's already the "Pages Seeking Contributors" section where we list bad articles, after all. Also, our [[Mario|most important article]], which may be the most-viewed one, is quite bad actually. It may help to improve those articles, so why not? There's still one problem though: We already have a lot of stuff on the Main Page. A way to solve this would be to get rid of the Featured Image section. We hardly had any new nominations recently, looks like we're running out of good images, so I think it's time to say good-bye to it. If you modify your proposal so that we replace the Featured Images with the "Pulse", and if it's realizable technically, you have my vote. {{User|Time Q}}
 
@Edo: Not a bad idea either. Another idea that comes to my mind is to put articles on the Main Page that have the most increasing number of views compared to the previous week (so we wouldn't have articles like [[Mario]] that always have a large number of views but rather articles about current topics of interest). But I doubt this is possible technically. {{User|Time Q}}
 
@Walkazo: I wasn't talking about pages without many contributors, I was talking about pages that get overlooked by our visitors because they are too obscure (don't confuse it with badly-written). Pages with very few views. It doesn't matter though, because I wanted to open new possibilities for this didcussion. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
Edo: I feel like that idea would likely result in a list of(or very similar to a list of) the newest articles in the wiki. The real target for your idea would be pages that have been around for months/years that have only been viewed a few hundred times, correct? {{User|Garlic Man}}
:Yes, old pages that nobody visits (probably because their existence is not well-known). What I was trying to say is, if we're going to highlight something (please note the "if"), then it should be those articles. Because, why should someone advertise something that already has masses of attention? - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::People might not be visiting those pages because their topics aren't very interesting, in which case asking people to come to them is futile because they'll probably just leave again. Also, if a page's subject matter isn't well-known, it will be difficult for most people to write about it, and again, calling their attention to the article will not help things very much. "If you build it, they will come" is the cliché that comes to mind for these pages: people who are interested in the obscure things will find their way to the articles on their own (a stub will still register in Google searches); it may take some time, but someone will show enthusiasm for editing the neglected pages eventually. - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
===Talk Pages Needing Answers===
Not the best name for it, but that's all I can come up with. Anyways, this proposal is to add a little part in the MarioWiki Community section that addresses two [[:Category:Unresolved talk pages|talk pages who have an unanswered question]]. Some of these questions have been on the Mario Wiki for at least a year now, and I'm pretty sure somebody will be able to answer these questions. The thing is, there aren't many talk pages with the [[Template:talk|talk template]], and it's hard to figure out which ones have a question. So, since we already address articles that are stubs, I feel that without this, more and more questions will come-and stay-unanswered.
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Reversinator}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 9 January, 2010, 20:00
 
====Add Feature====
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per proposal.
 
====Leave as it is====
 
====Comments====
Y'know, theoretically we already have [[:Category:Unresolved talk pages]], which lists talk pages with open questions. The practical problem you mentioned, concerning that many of talk pages with questions lack [[Template:Talk]], can hardly be solved by a Proposal. You need to encourage the users themselves to use this template with more confidence. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:I know about the category. But the thing is, a lot of people don't know about the template and as a result, don't know about the category. My proposal would bring more awareness to them. And I'm not saying that my proposal will answer the questions. I'm just saying it would address them in a more visible fashion. And how do I encourage users? What, I go up to their talk page and say "Hey, if you have a question, make sure to use Template:Talk"? {{User|Reversinator}}
I don't think another link to unresolved talk pages is necessary, since as far as I know they're already linked to on the Wiki Maintenance page. I do agree that the template is probably not used enough though. Not sure how possible this is, but maybe it could be mentioned in [[Help:Communication]]; the help page is linked to in the welcome template and tells people how to use talk pages, but as far as I'm aware does not currently mention the Talk template. It wouldn't seem out of place imo for the template to be mentioned there; just a suggestion though.--{{User|vellidragon}}
:I think this is a good idea.
:And about the whole issue itself: I don't think a Proposal about this subject is necessary (yet). Everything you've addressed could also be put into a suggestion on the respective talk page. If a Sysop sees your suggestion and likes your idea, it might get realized shortly after. We (including myself) tend to hold a lot of Proposals for such things that easily could be suggested otherwise lately. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::I felt free to apply vellidragon's suggestion to [[Help:Communication|this page]]. I hope it looks appropriate for everyone this way. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
We could get rid of the "... have at least one section under construction" line on the MarioWiki Community template and replace it by unresolved talk page questions. Naming articles under construction on the Main Page makes no sense at all IMO, since usually someone is working on them and they do NOT need other contributors at the moment. {{User|Time Q}}
:If I recall correctly there are construction templates on pages that remained untouched for quite some time, but that's beside the point. You are basically right, we should consider to swap those. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
==Removals==
===Remove Featured Images From Main Page===
I propose to set the Featured Images project on hiatus - that is, to cancel the process of selecting a Featured Image each week and featuring it on the Main Page. I'm well aware that many users like this project, so please consider my arguments before voting:
*The project was extremely inactive lately. For example, the last non-maintenance edit on the FI page was three days ago, compared to dozens of edits a day some time ago. The last nominated image was added even 15 days ago, when we had several new images a day some time ago. And currently we have only 4 nominated images, in contrast to 15 or more images some time ago. It simply seems like we're running out of good images to feature which - if we don't do anything about it - will lead to the situation that we have to feature a bad image just because there are no better ones available.
*The idea of Featured Images is questionable in itself. While it makes sense to feature articles (because they're our own work as a wiki), it makes little sense to feature images which are only the work of Nintendo or other companies, but not of our wiki.
You may wonder what we will do with the new-won space on the Main Page if this proposal passes. Well, I do not propose anything, but there's already a lot of stuff on the Main Page so we don't necessarily have to replace the FI by anything. But of course we can put something different in its place if anyone has a good idea.
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Time Q}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' January 10, 2010, 15:00
 
====Get Rid of It====
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per the reasons given above.
#{{User|Cobold}} - the images are not our work, so we should not just pic a "good image" and upload it there. It does not compare to featured articles this way. Maybe we could use the gained space to advertise the wiki a bit more, e.g.: what tells us apart from the Mario Wikia or what subjects are still eagerly looking for contributors (like most of the Game Boy games), as new visitors are likely to only scan through the most popular games and find that they are all already done.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - I agree with Cobold. I also never really grew accustomed to the FI nomination system in general.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. I always thought it was unnecessary.
 
====Keep It====
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} I think the FIs give the main page a colorful touch. To me, it seems like there are still many great pictures out there that are just waiting to be featured, and as more games are released, so will more great artwork. Without FIs the main page would look too bland for me.


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


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


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


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


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


==Changes==
===Merge the Tortes===
===Create Gallery Pages===
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
The [[merchandise]] pages have been in a mess for a while. I propose a change to the current system by merging together merchandise pages into gallery pages. The only merchandise not affected by this proposal are books, publications, and Mario themed games since there is a lot of information to be covered. The gallery system has worked on a few pages like [[Figurines]] and [[Toys]]. Of course, the galleries won't be exactly like those pages. The descriptions will be more neutral and organization will be by manufacturer or type.
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
* [[Chef Torte]]
* [[Torte]]


Reasons why this change would benefit the wiki:
The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the [[Jellyfish Sisters]], or [[Cork and Cask]]--and given they are the ''only'' Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct articles.


#Many stubs and short pages would be removed.
In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move [[Apprentice (Snifit)]] over to [[Apprentice]], and give it the <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template.
#Many dead-end pages would removed.
#Easier to read about multiple merchandise objects at once.
#More organization and easier for editors.
#Fan-made or fan-named products won't have separate articles.


The gallery pages to be created are as follows:
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


*'''Clothing''' &ndash; Anything that is designed to be worn.
====Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)====
*'''Food''' &ndash; Anything consumable or used in consumption, like Mario themed gummy worms or Mario themed plates.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of ''Superstar Saga''.
*'''Toys''' &ndash; Anything that can be interacted with, like yo-yo,r McDonald's promotional item, or plushiess.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
*'''Miscellaneous''' &ndash; Things that just don't fit anywhere else, like a Mario Neon Sign.
#{{User|Sparks}} Merge!
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.</s>
====Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least ''have'' unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with [[Talk:Iron_Cleft#Merge_with_The_Iron_Adonis_Twins|last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins]].
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Waluigi Time.


Things that will be done if this proposal passes:
====Do nothing (It's gourmet!)====


#All the merchandise images will organized by the above categories.
====Comments (It's... Alive???)====
#All the previous merchandise pages will be deleted since the redirects will serve no purpose.
This can easily be ''four'' birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki>. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)
#New merchandise pages will be deleted and any images will be relocated to appropriate galleries.
:Good observation, actually! Went and added this. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)
#The Merchandise page will be organized like [[User:Knife/Draft|this]].


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Knife}}<br>
@Doc: On that note, because of [[MarioWiki:once and only once|once and only once]], that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)
'''Deadline:''' 4 January 2010, 17:00
:I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)


====Support====
By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs]]? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Knife}} &ndash; Per my proposal.
:Not any more than [[Cork and Cask]] does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, {{@|Camwoodstock}}, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Knife.
::We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! When I looked at the merchandise article you are right, it is a mess, it will be a good idea to do that. Zero signing out.
:::Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of [[Snifster]]s are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per Knife.
::::Well they don't really have names, they have numbers. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:51, February 2, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - Per Knife.
:::::Well, by that logic, the Tortes don't really have names, they have job titles. Point is, they're identical-looking characters with identical in-battle names, but distinct out-of-battle names and personalities. (even if No. 1 and 2 don't seem particularly different in English, I'm trusting the Legends of Localization playthrough) [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]])
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} There's nothing to say when it comes to merchandise, so placing this on a gallery page is needed. I deem this proposal necessary.
#{{user|Redstar}} - Per proposal
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per Knife
#{{User|FunkyK38}}- Good idea. Per Knife.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Knife.


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


====Comments====
Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue [[Hoohooros]], but also [[Hooroglyphs]] and [[Beanstone]]s. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in ''March 2007'', actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.
Um...what is that proposals thing in the draft? {{User|Marioguy1}}


Ignore that part. {{User|Knife}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
:I know, I was just letting the general public know {{User|Marioguy1}}
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


I think Toys and Collectibles should just be one page (as "Toys"), since it's hard to draw a clear line between them; some people collect anything and everything, while others simply play ("interact") with it all, especially kids (when I was little, I didn't care if my dinosaurs were "models", "figurines" or "action figures" - they were all just toys to me). Board games could probably fit in Toys too, and then anything that absolutely could not be played with (like neon signs or collector's cards) could go in Miscellaneous. Also, will [[Nintendo Monopoly]] be merged into the galleries? It seems substantial enough to keep its own separate page. - {{User|Walkazo}}
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].


Points taken.--{{User|Knife}} 23:47, 29 December 2009 (EST)
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.


Listen, while this idea may be good on the short term -- in the long term, we will realize that some of the items like Nintendo Monopoly, and possibly other notable items may have enough info to create their own article. Info would have to include: the official name (if it has one), how it was promoted in some way, which company did they make this product, when it was released, and all that info that is good for creating an entry for a merchandise item. I had some plans that have to do with merchandising, but I'm focusing on the following things: Userspace, and the  Mario Party 1, 2, and/or 3 mini-game articles. {{User|RAP}} 02:18, 30 December 2009 (EST)
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====


====Merge none (do nothing)====


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


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===Use Present tense for In-game elements/events===
''None at the moment.''
As I edit articles, I see in-game events being told in past tense(ex. "Level 4 consisted of these enemies..."), present tense(ex. "The boss of Level 4 is..."), and even future tense(ex. "The player will then encounter Donkey Kong..."). Some articles use multiple tenses in the same paragraph which, obviously, is grammatically incorrect and looks unproffesional. Of course, actual events in real life that happened in the past or will happen in the future should be their respective tenses. But in-game events, which happen each time somebody plays the game, should be in present tense.
 
<s>To enforce/clarify this, creating a policy may be a good idea as well should the proposal pass.</s>(Read EDIT below) This would help people to write articles in present tense when creating a new one, as well as edit existing articles to match the policy.
 
'''EDIT''': Should the proposal pass, a guideline will likely be added to the existing [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] policy, rather than a separate policy.
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Garlic Man}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 6 January 2010, 17:00
 
====Support====
#{{User|Garlic Man}}
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - I have waited a long time for such a proposal! Splendid! Per Garlic Man!
#{{User|vellidragon}} - I was thinking about making this exact proposal earlier today, but I wasn't sure if there was already a guideline like this. I've come across unfitting past tense phrases in a lot of articles, mainly those about recurring enemies. Using past tense to describe how an enemy acts in a game makes it seem as if that game didn't exist anymore, or nobody could play it anymore, which is obviously not the case. I've been fixing some of it here and there, but there's a lot more of it still. If no guideline like this exists yet, there definitely should be one.
#{{User|Grandy02}} - I admit that I wrote several articles in past tense (especially when related to the ''WarioWare'' cutscenes), but my views have changed. Pure fiction should be handled as such and there really needs to be a guideline.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} I'm always wondering what tense should I write in when it comes to revising articles (most of the time, I use past tense, because I probably think that the game event already happened). This proposal is necessary.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Hmmm I never notice that, but you are correct, using a combination of past, present, and future <s>ghost</s> tense is very unprofessional. Zero signing out.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} per LeftyGreenFatMan (not an insult, I know my sister, she won't take that as an insult). No variety is allowed when it comes to tenses, according to the grammar rules. I was pondering what tense to write in, and this is the solution.
#{{User|Redstar}} - Per my annoyance at in-article tense-jumping and not knowing which way to standardize it.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
I don't see what's wrong with the future tense example in your proposal description. IMO, some variety can't hurt. {{User|Time Q}}
 
Look at the talk page for [[Lou Albano]]. Apparently, with real life people, if they die, then the article must be changed to the past tense. {{User|Reversinator}}
 
Time Q: Grammar doesn't allow variety when it comes to tenses. If it's present tense, for example, then the whole article has to be present tense. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
 
Well, I think we should use the tense that is used [[Yoshi's Island 1|here]]. I rewrote that article because it was in present simple and sounded really bad. I think that some sentences as :"''The MEssage Block provides''" are correctly written in present, but some other as "''The fourth Dragon coin can be found''" should use that tense. Present perfect, IIRC. ANyways, both are presents. {{user|Tucayo}}
:"...can be found" is simple present as well, it's just a passive construction. Present Perfect is a construction with "has/have", i.e. "has been found". Present Perfect can also be used in a Simple Present text quite well; "after Mario has [done something], he can" etc. It's mostly a matter of how tenses are used really; "Mario has completed the level" etc. could ''not'' be used in a Simple Present text. I guess the guideline/policy/whatever shouldn't limit the tense to Simple Present (that would actually exclude Present Progressive as well, which can be useful in some cases), but simply require that the overall text should be in the "present".--{{User|vellidragon}}
::Nice, thanks. And also, the article said before things like :"''After a couple of more Rex and the second Dragon Coin, a Super Mushroom pops out of a bush when the player passes.'' That sounds ''really'' bad, as well as unprofessional. Wll those things be allowed? {{user|Tucayo}}
:::The fact that that sentence sounds bad doesn't seem to have much to do with the tense. It should go without saying imo that articles should be well-written; the proposal's point appears to be that in-game events should be treated as such, taking into consideration they're going to occur everytime someone plays the game.--{{User|vellidragon}}
 
Reversinator: Biographies and such that describe real life events that happened in the past should be past tense(ex. "''Brawl'' was released the following year..."). {{User|Garlic Man}}
 
But what would you put if you want to say Mario will fight a boss after going through an area full of spikes? {{User|Supermariofan14}}
:"The player then must fight a boss after going through an area full of spikes". {{User|Garlic Man}}
::I used "will" several times in the last articles I wrote. For example "They will not leave their place until Wario comes near", "When the treasure hunter does so, Shieragutchi will quickly move up", or "For defeating a Yukiotoko, Wario will be rewarded with a Bronze Coin." Would these sentences have to be rewritten as well? --{{User|Grandy02}}
:::Yes. They would become something along the lines of these: "They do not leave their place until Wario comes near", "When the treasure hunter does so, Shieragutchi quickly moves up", and "For defeating a Yukiotoko, Wario is rewarded with a Bronze Coin." A good example of what the proposal is aiming for is the plot section of the ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'' article. -{{User|Garlic Man}}
The proposal has a minor change. I just remembered about the Manual of Style policy, and that's where this rule would go, not a policy in itself. {{User|Garlic Man}}
 
I agree with Time Q in that variety can't hurt - as long as it is done well, which it usually isn't, sadly. I'm not against setting standards, since they'll increase the overall appearance of the articles, however I don't think any one tense will do all the information justice. Reading present-tense ''History'' sections would feel odd (in school we learn that [[wikipedia:Genghis Khan|Genghis Khan]] ''invaded'' the Middle East and China, not that he ''is'' invading); so if we have to chose a conjugation for Level Articles and History sections of larger articles, it should be past tense. However, that would also seem inappropriate in Character Page introductions and sections such as Personality ("Princess Peach ''was'' a loving ruler." ...So, what is she ''now''? A tyrant?): therefore, we should be able to use present tense in those sections. The stuff concerning the real world is going to be formatted this way (past, present and future in appropriate situations), if I understand Garlic Man correctly, and if we can make that work, we can make the fictional stuff work too. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:The problem is that we're dealing with in-game stuff here which is going to repeat every time someone plays the game. Yes, "Genghis Khan invaded the Middle East and China" - it has happened, and he's not going to invade it again because he's dead. But "Parakoopas appear in Yoshi's Island" and "lose their wings when you jump on them", not "appeared in Yoshi's Island" and "lost their wings when you jumped on them" - the latter format is currently used for way too many enemy/species articles and would imply that they're not in the game anymore, and you can't jump on them to make them lose their wings anymore, which is of course not true; yes, the game was released in the past, but unless your game cartridge is broken, they're still going to be there and will be defeatable like that every time you play the game. In-game happenings aren't real world events; they don't only happen once.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 10:07, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::@Walkazo: You're right, histories and biographies should be written in past tense(E.g. Princess Peach made her first appearance in ''Super Mario Bros''). Also, as Vellidragon also explained, Genghis Khan was a real man who existed in the past. As such, human biographies (e.g. Shigeru Miyamoto, Deanna Mustard, etc) would be written in past tense. However, if you're talking about something in a game, such as a plot of a game, it should be written as if you're going through the game, not as if you've already finished the game. If it's written in past tense, it seems like it would never happen again. Of course, when you're not necessarily speaking about in-game elements, this wouldn't apply. For instance, in the trivia section of a game article, you may see "The release date for ''Example Game'' was delayed twice before its final release", and this is OK, because it refers to the game as a real life object, rather than the content inside the game. (sorry if my explaination is confusing...) --{{User|Garlic Man}}
 
Since the events happening in the Mushroom World are fictional, the sections in articles describing in-game events (aka the plot itself) are basically summaries. I don't know how this is handled in America, but here in Germany, it is a general rule that summaries have to be written in present tense. This is commonly what is teached in schools (and any deviance is hit with penalty). On a personal note: I think by using present tense, we could show our still-lasting respect for old games. Past Tense seems to imply that they are already forgotten (something I don't want to stand for). - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:I wasn't formally taught about tenses in respect to fictional works at all; looking at my old assignments, it was mostly in present, with some past tense mixed in (usually dealing with things that were described as being past events by the book itself, but also when talking about early plot points). In response to vellidragon and Garlic Man, I already understood that we'd be using past tense to describe RL events (the first part of the last sentence of my first comment, though perhaps I should have made it more than an aside), and in my vote I mentioned that ongoing things like Paratroopas losing their wings should be deal with in present tense (again, I should have been more explicit). I didn't like the idea of dealing with the games as if we're going through the games because that sounds a bit too much like walkthroughs, whereas past tense would be more like the articles are narratives in themselves. However, I've decided that I don't really oppose the standard enough to vote against it. I do have one final concern/question: in Character Pages containing Background sections in their Histories (dealing with preludes to RPGs, or overviews of their lives prior to their first chronological appearance going by release dates), could past tense be used in the Backgrounds or will it need present tense like the actual appearances' expositions? - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
&nbsp;

Latest revision as of 14:28, February 4, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, February 5th, 04:47 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

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)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Merge Hurricane (move) into Gale Force, EvieMaybe (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3

This was spurred by the introduction of the to-do bar. Thanks, to-do bar! Anyways, if you look at Special:WantedCategories, at the moment, it's all entries with 3 or fewer items each; this makes sense, given we have a policy that suggests categories are kept to only 4 or more items. However, for a good portion of the 3-itemers, these are all fairly featured images from sources like various short flash advergames, or more niche subjects like the MediaBrowser which came in a series of, well, 3 web browsers. In comparison to the 1-or-2 entry, well, entries, these have a bit more substance to them, basically waiting for a fourth image to be taken at some point; and while in some cases, that image can come up, in others... Well, what are the odds a fourth MediaBrowser is releasing when they went bust back in 2001, y'know?

While we don't feel strongly about what happens to the 1 or 2 entry categories, we do think there is just enough to these 3-entry categories to warrant a closer look our current policies are not providing. Should we lower the cutoff to 3? Or is 4 the magical number for categories?

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves, of course. We don't see any particular harm in this when, as of submitting this proposal, this would only create, what, 10 categories?
  2. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me, especially because, if an individual is uploading images to the wiki for a source that currently has no images, there's a solid chance that that person will upload three images. It's a popular number!
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Three is a magic number.

Keep at 4 (forced to four!)

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple in the comments, image categories don't have this restriction so the proposal seems moot otherwise. I don't see a benefit to reducing this limit across the board, and I'm very hesitant to support without a clearer picture of the implications. (The assertion in the comments that this wouldn't have immediate impact was based on the list on Special:WantedCategories - there weren't any categories there besides image ones because that would require mainspace articles to have redlinked categories that would go against policy if you made them. Obviously, that wouldn't fly.)
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Porplemontage and Waluigi Time.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Honestly, five would be a better restriction so that it's a well rounded number.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  7. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)

The intent of that restriction is that, for example, if there aren't four articles for Category:Super Paper Mario characters then the couple characters would just go in Category:Super Paper Mario rather than create the subcategory. Image categories are different since moving up the tree in the same way would be undesirable (there would be a bunch of random images at the bottom of Category:Game images rather than those categories being redlinked). We can create image categories with as few as one entry; I updated MarioWiki:Categories. If you still want to change the number needed for articles, up to you. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 22:38, January 21, 2025 (EST)

Oh! We didn't know that, good to know! We'd like to proceed with the proposal, even if we don't think it'd have any immediate impact under these rules--all the 3-item categories have to do with images at the moment. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge the Tortes

Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:

The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the Jellyfish Sisters, or Cork and Cask--and given they are the only Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct articles.

In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move Apprentice (Snifit) over to Apprentice, and give it the {{about}} template.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of Superstar Saga.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
  3. Sparks (talk) Merge!
  4. Blinker (talk) Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.

Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.

Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least have unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins.
  4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
  5. Paper Plumm (talk) Per all.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Waluigi Time.

Do nothing (It's gourmet!)

Comments (It's... Alive???)

This can easily be four birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an {{about}}. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)

Good observation, actually! Went and added this. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)

@Doc: On that note, because of once and only once, that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)

I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)

By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against MarioWiki:Minor NPCs? --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)

Not any more than Cork and Cask does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, @Camwoodstock, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. Blinker (talk) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of Snifsters are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? Blinker (talk) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)
Well they don't really have names, they have numbers. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:51, February 2, 2025 (EST)
Well, by that logic, the Tortes don't really have names, they have job titles. Point is, they're identical-looking characters with identical in-battle names, but distinct out-of-battle names and personalities. (even if No. 1 and 2 don't seem particularly different in English, I'm trusting the Legends of Localization playthrough) Blinker (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

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

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4721238"