MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear="all">
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
''None at the moment.''
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==New features==
===Introduce a new type of proposal===
While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|this proposal]], which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 this old proposal attempt] for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named '''poll proposals'''.  
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
*Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.  
#Users then start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. ('''All times GMT''').
*Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
**Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
#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]].
*Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
*Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
*Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.
#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 cannot 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 [[wikipedia:GMT|GMT]], 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 Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.
This allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B".  


===Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format===
I've written down a [[User:EvieMaybe/Poll proposal|mockup poll proposal]] for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".
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]".
-----
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[describe what you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]</nowiki>


<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
<nowiki>'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br></nowiki><br>
'''Deadline''': February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki>
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.


<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
====Oppose====
 
<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
-----
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.
 
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: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</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 chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). 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. Place {{tem|TPP}} under the heading.
#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. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
#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===
*Split [[SSX on Tour]] from [[Video game references]]. ([[Talk:SSX on Tour|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''   
*Split [[Mushroom]] (Super Mario RPG info) into [[Mushroom]] and {{Fakelink|Mushroom (Status effect)}} ([[Talk:Mushroom|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Merge [[Rainbow Boost]] into [[Boost Pad]]. ([[Talk:Rainbow Boost|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Split [[Dragon]] into {{fakelink|Dragon (Yoshi series)}} and {{fakelink|Dragon (species)}}. ([[Talk:Dragon|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Split [[Entei]]'s info into [[Pokémon]] and {{fakelink|Trophy Tussle}}. ([[Talk:Entei|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Split [[Dark Koopa]] into [[Dark Koopa]] and {{fakelink|Dark Koopa (Super Paper Mario)}}. ([[Talk:Dark Koopa|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Merge [[Yo'ster Isle]] with [[Yoshi's Island (place)|Yoshi's Island]] ([[Talk:Yo'ster Isle|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Merge [[Pale Piranha]] into [[Piranha Plant]]. ([[Talk:Pale Piranha|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 3 April 2010, 23:59
*Split {{fakelink|Piranha Plant (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)}} from [[Piranha Plant]]. ([[Talk:Piranha Plant|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 3 April 2010, 23:59
 
==New Features==
===Notable "Unofficial" Games===
Why isn't there a section for notable "unlicensed" games? The page on [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|Canonicity]] states that "fan creations, such as fan-fiction, fan-made video games, or fan-theories, are not to be referenced within our articles". I understand the "no-fanfiction" part, but I've seen what seems to be fan theories on several pages ("he is possibly a ... , but this is uncertain") and the page on ''[[Super Mario Bros. Special]]'' mentions the unofficial NES port.
 
My suggestion is not referring to crappy recolors or "Super (word) Bros." or the like. I refer to well-received fan-hacks such as...
* The games of Dahrkdaiz (NES): I especially refer to ''Mario Adventure'', a hack of ''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' that essentially rebuilt the game from the ground-up.
* The ''Super Mario Bros. Deluxe'' series (SNES): A series of three ''[[Super Mario World]]'' hacks that import the levels of ''Mario 1'', ''2'', and ''Lost Levels'' respectively plus a few bonuses &ndash; such as [[World-e]] in ''Lost Levels Deluxe''.
* ''Kaizo Mario World'' (SNES): Hack of ''Super Mario World'' that has become rather well-known for its insane difficulty.
* ''Mushroom Kingdom Fusion'' (PC): A massive crossover-game featuring Mario and Sonic characters among many, '''many''' others. Has [http://mkfusion.wikia.com/wiki/Mushroom_Kingdom_Fusion_Wiki its own Wiki].
 
I also refer to "pirated" games that, although unofficial, have nonetheless been well-noticed by the fan community.
* ''Super Mario 3 Special'' (GBC): Port of ''Super Mario Bros. 3'' that, although very accurate in some respects, does not control very well. Uses a rather obscure mapper, which renders the game unplayable in most Game Boy (Color/Advance) emulators.
* ''Super Mario World'' (NES), aka "Mario World NES": A 1995 release that ported quite a chunk of its source material despite the NES' limitations (no [[Banzai Bill]], sorry!) &ndash; including the original game's "magic", as it were. There are two versions of this game, one of which ''may'' be a prototype of the other.
* ''Kart Fighter'' (NES): A ''Super Mario Kart''/''Street Fighter II'' hybrid that predates (and may even have inspired) ''Super Smash Bros.'' Released by Hummer Team (same company that made "Mario World NES").
* ''Somari the Adventurer'' (NES): A hack/port of ''Sonic the Hedgehog'' starring Mario, with a lot being ported from the source material. Released by "Somari Team".
* ''Super Boy'' (Sega Master System/MSX): A series of four games that use Mario sprites and music.
* ''The Great Giana Sisters'' (Commodore 64/DS): Game series that was a direct attempt to rip-off ''Super Mario Bros.'' Apparently these were "official" (not pirated) games, with the latter licensed by Nintendo.
 
And there are other games &ndash; such as ''Super Donkey Kong'' (NES), ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' (NES), ''Super Mario 4'' (GB), ''Mario Lottery'' (NES), and a few others &ndash; that capture the spirit of the games in this Wiki while still being unlicensed.
 
Basically, I propose that this site should devote articles to at least a few of the games which, although unofficial, are rather noteworthy in their own right (and in the positive sense, for the most part). If anyone wishes to know more about any of the aforementioned games, please let me know &ndash; but '''I won't link to ROMs'''.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|WarioMario}}<br>
'''Voting start''': 24 March, 2010, 18:20.<br>
'''Deadline''': 31 March 2010, 23:59 (GMT).
 
====Some "unofficial" games should be included (please state which)====
 
====No "unofficial" games should be included====


====Comments====
====Comments on proposal proposal====
No fanon should be allowed. We should only talk about official and stuff that are true in the Mario series. The only content we accept is stuff sponsored by Nintendo. Plus, this site isn't made for fanon. Make a wiki, or something else that deals with this. We are here for official Mario stuff only. I don't want fanon flooding pages either. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a ''lot'' more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of <nowiki>{{For}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Against}}</nowiki> templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use <nowiki>{{User}}</nowiki> to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into [[Category_talk:Music#Proposal:_Reorganize_this_category|three]] [[Category_talk:Musical_groups#Change_into_a_category_for_musical_groups|separate]] [[Category_talk:Sound_tests#Rename_to_.22Sound_tests.22|ones]] myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave], but I can't really envision what [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|your other example]] would look like as a poll proposal. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)


==Removals==
==Removals==
===Delete FA Nominations that are going nowhere===
''None at the moment.''
While checking the FA nominations I noticed some noms have been there for like 2 years(!) and they aren't going anywhere. Lets see, the Luigi nomination, one of the most popular Nintendo characters, and who naturally, has a LOT of fans. The nomination vote says "Dude this artical rocks!!!!! If you don't choose it I will!!!!!!!!". Is that a vote? Well, sadly, by our standards, it is. That nomination has been there for a lot of time because naturally, all the fan boys support, and while many users oppose, the nomination can't get deleted after it isn't edited 1 month, which doesn't happen at all, because some random day, one of these fanboys come and add a vote. And so we have to wait for another month, and the same thing happens each time, so it won't get removed. Believe, I have seen MANY users that register just to support an FA nomination, which leads me to another thing I will propose in the admins board....<br>
What I propose, is that if after '''2 months''' the article hasn't become featured, we archive the nomination, because it won't become featured! Who are we trying to fool? And I also propose the article is not ellegible for re-nomination before 2 months, and JUST IF MAJOR CHANGES HAVE BEEN APPLIED. So, what do you think?<br>
'''Proposer:'''{{user|Tucayo}}<br>
'''Voting Starts:''' Monday, March 23th 21:00<br>
'''Deadline:''' Monday, March 30th 2010, 23:59


====I can see those nominations are not going anywhere====
==Changes==
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per me.
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
 
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
====Let the artical nominations stay forever====
{{User|Raphaelraven497}} Per the comment of mine that is below.
 
====Comments====
Tucayo, shouldn't the headers be non-biased (and you spelled "article" wrong)?. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:They are not biased, they are ''creative'', but they are non biased, still. And that is a pun from the nomination reason for Luigi :) {{user|Tucayo}}
::I do think the first one is biased. More opinions? {{User|Time Q}}
If the nomination page gets deleted, someone will simply renominate it. And if you point out the thing about the major changes, that someone will simply argue for hours with you. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:Well, they will have to wait 2 months, and I think everyone can see what major changes are. It will be obvious if the article has changed since it was last nominated. If you have any suggestion please tell me :) {{user|Tucayo}}
 
...Isn't that the rule already? Except, I thought the current rule kept the nominations for only one month... I could be wrong. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
:There is, IIRC. This proposal proposes to change it to 2 months :) {{user|Tucayo}}
::Um, but why would you change it if you're trying to delete the nominations? I guess I'm missing something here. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
:::Nominations are deleted if they are not edited for one month. However, there's no rule to delete nominations that are frequently edited but don't pass. {{User|Time Q}}


I don't think this is a good idea. 2 months seem too short to me. Also, your proposal doesn't consider special cases; for example, say after 1 month and 25 days, there are no opposes and at least 5 support votes, which means the nomination will pass after one week. However, according to your proposal the nomination would be deleted because 2 months have passed. This is obviously bad. Also, nominations with only one single oppose vote would be treated the same as nominations such as [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N/Luigi|Luigi]] with lots of opposes. Do we really want that? I think it would be a better idea to find a system that allows us to delete nominations based on the amount of support and oppose votes. However, this needs to be discussed carefully, best on the FA talk page, rather than proposing a rule in a hurry that could have bad consequences. {{User|Time Q}}
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.


Tucayo, this is exactly what i asked you. Badges, Geno, mama Mario, all those articles that have been featured latley you could not vote for! {{User:Raphaelraven497}}
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."


==Changes==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
===Change Featured Images Archive Formatting===
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Yesterday, I checked the archive for the Featured Images, (as a guest), and the page was like huge, probably bigger than the Princess Daisy page. We already did it to the MarioWiki:Proposals/archive, why can't we do it with the FI archive page??? It would be similar to the test4 that RAP is creating.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|KS3}}<br>
'''Voting start''': 21 March 2010, 13:00<br>
'''Deadline''': 29 March 2010, 23:59


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|KS3}} Per proposal.
#{{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|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Green Star.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments====
I don't think this needs a proposal. Yes, we should split the archives, that's common sense. It's just that nobody has done it yet. {{User|Time Q}}
{{@|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)
:Yes, per Time Q. I can get to this tomorrow. {{user|Tucayo}}
: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)


===Create Separate Articles for Super Mario Advance Remakes===
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)
Ok, we seriously need to unmerge the "Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World" and "Super Mario World" articles, as well as the "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3" articles.  First of all, there is plenty of room on this wiki to create a couple new articles to accommodate these SEPARATE games.  Second of all, it creates the illusion (or disillusion) to Mario Wiki readers that these are the same games, just different ports.  They are NOT the same game!  Let's take the former, for instance. The GBA ramake has more levels, updated graphics, play as Luigi, et cetera the list goes on and any honest person knows what it is. The latter, among the updated graphics, how about all those new E-Reader levels?  They are not the same game and should not be merged together like that. Why not merge "Super Mario 64" and "Super Mario 64 DS" together then?  The status quo with the GBA and NES/SNES games is just as stupid, if not more stupid.  A remake isn't the same game.  "Super Mario Bros. Deluxe" is NOT "Super Mario Bros.", people!  It's NOT the real game!  Third of all, tons of younger gamers who were were either pooping themselves or not ever born yet when the original games came out were introduced to the games through these remakes and they deserve articles to read about the games that they were introduced to.  I'm not saying the GBA games were bad. I think they were brilliant.  Putting nostalgia aside, in all honesty I think they are BETTER than the originals.  But they are not the same games!  They're different!  They need their own articles!
: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)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Marwikedor|}}<br>
: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)
'''Voting start''': March 20, 2010, 4:26<br>
::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)
'''Deadline''': March 27, 2010, 23:59
::{{@|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)


====Create separate articles for these separate games====
{{@|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)
#{{User|Marwikedor|}}- Per above
#{{User|KS3}} per proposal. If this stays merged, then Super Mario 64 DS should be merged into Super Mario 64.
#{{User|Byllant}} - We should, you see, we have the article for [[Super Mario All-Stars]] and even [[Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World]] and those are compilations of remakes.
#{{User|BrickBuster85}} - I agree with the proposer. The way it is now seems very inconsistent.
#{{User|Mr.C}} - Per all.
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per all.
#{{User|Silver Eevee}} Super Mario Advance 3: Yoshi's Island would be better off merged with Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island if anything. I say split 'em.
#[[User:Sonictoast|Sonictoast]] Support


====Leave as is====
{{@|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)
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} I have played three of the SMA games, and they are almost exactly the same as the originals, besides the fact that some things were added. Since they are very similar to the originals, they do not deserve their own article, and would be better off merged with the SMB2, SMW, SMW2, or SMB3 articles (depending on which Super Mario Advance it is).
:[[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)
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Per FF65 with the facts of that their is not enough differences for them to be their own articles. You will be pretty much copying the original articles themselves, just with the differences added in. It would be more consistant to have them together, since they are big enough to be separate articles.
::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)
#{{User|Vellidragon}} - There is little more to say about the Super Mario Advance games than what [[Super Mario Advance (series)]] already covers - that being everything in which the remakes differ from the originals, which is all the unique information we could possibly put into their individual articles. I see no point in splitting that article into four stubs, it works well the way it is.
:::{{@|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)
#{{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}} What would we put in the articles of the remakes? The [[Super Mario Advance (series)]] article already has a bunch of info on them, like Vellidragon said. Also, per Fawfulfury65 and Baby Mario Bloops.
:::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)


====Comments====
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
The ''Super Mario Advance'' games already have a seperate article (for the whole series, since there's not that much to say about the games that isn't already said in the original game's article): [[Super Mario Advance|Here]]. I looked at the ''[[Super Mario World]]'' article though and it indeed has a "changes in the GBA version" section; how is that necessary with the GBA remake being covered in the other article? Also, some variations of the SMA games' titles still aren't redirecting to the correct article (though I already fixed some of them); I'm guessing that's where the proposer got the idea that they didn't have their own article. I guess it's redirect fixing time again.--{{User|Vellidragon}}
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
*[[List of implied species]]
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
*[[Soybean civilization]]
*[[Hooroglyphs]]


:Well, each and every SERIES has its own article encompassing the whole series (Such as "Mario Party").  But I still think each GBA game is good enough, unique enough, and different enough to enjoy the benefits of its own article. Think of all the younger gamers introuduced to these games through the GBA. They may want to look up an article for any said individual game.  A unique article for, say, "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3".  The status quo is all just really, really confusing for such people.  There is plenty different in the different games, plenty plenty plenty.  Enough to say that they are not the same games at all.  Each of said GBA games should have their own unique article as if the original (S)NES game never existed. I'm not saying don't mention they are remakes in the articles, but you get what I mean. --{{User|Marwikedor}}
Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue [[Hoohooros]], but also [[Hooroglyphs]] and [[Beanstone]]s. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in ''March 2007'', actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.


::I would like to point out that the articles were once separate. A proposal decided to make the one page and mention each remake in the NES articles. I would find the proposal, but I'm too lazy at the moment. If you mentioned the other proposal in yours, please excuse my comment. Also, please use ":" when indenting; It makes the page look much cleaner. Thanks. ;) {{user|Bloc Partier}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


:Where does it say there is a rule against overturning a previously passed proposal?  I just want to say that I find it so daft to include blurbs about the GBA remakes in the articles (I do think they should be mentioned and linked to in the NES articles, but they should both have their own articles) for wonderful classics like [[Super Mario Bros. 3]] that essentially made the world love [[Mario]] in the first place way back when, and simultaneously neglect to give the awesome GBA remakes their own articles under the pretension that they are the same games when they are different in so many ways.  As I mentioned, the graphics are improved in the GBA remakes, among many other things.  If, say, [[Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World]] had its own article, it would be filled with screen shots unique to that game.  That's just one of endless examples and reasons that Mario wiki users should not stand for the status quo.  If I mentioned all the reasons it would fill the entire page.  --{{User|Marwikedor}}
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
::Since the previous proposal was long enough ago, you may now post this proposal to overturn the previous decision. Yes that is correct.
#{{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]].
::We would still like to hear all those reasons. I see no problem in having two kinds of screenshots that are of different kind of graphical quality coexisting within the same article - the game [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)]] has two kinds of screenshots, one when played on the Game Boy, the other in color when played on the [[Super Game Boy]]. There is no problem with the screenshots there. You shouldn't worry about the length, it's your proposal and you may support it with as many words as you want to.
::What do you think makes the GBA remakes more worthy of an article than [[New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis]]? - {{User|Cobold}} 08:55, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
:Cobold, I know you did not just compare my proposal to that piece of crap "New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis".  The quick answer is that MPT and NPC: MPT and the exact same games, except the latter has crappy controls.  MPT was a solid title for the Nintendo GC, and I think Nintendo was just being greedy releasing the so called title which you speak of.  The release of the inferior version a short time ago did not just occur by happenstance; it is a clear cut case of avarice.  It was a case where the Wii controls just did not work.  Other than a new epic phail control scheme, it was the same game etirely.  Not a darn thing different about it.  [[Super Mario 64 DS]] is its own article.  Why is that?  Because it would be absurd to combine the DS remake with [[Super Mario 64]].  And combining the NES and GBA versions of the aforementioned games is every bit as absurd in my humble opinion.  Almost every single argument for allowing the DS version of SM64 to have its own article can be made for the NES/SNES games (the GBA/NES games might be even more disparate!  The original SNES/NES games didn't have any voice overs!  Charles Martinet's voice was added to the characters in the GBA versions) like more playable characters(Luigi in the GBA games), more levels, updated graphics (more so in the GBA games to its NESSNES counterparts, although the DS graphics were slightly better than the 64's in SM64DS), more Dragon coins (and more [[Stars]] in 64DS, 150 to the original's 120.  and SMA:SMB3 had even more added levels than SMA:SMW with the E-Reader!  and they were remarkable levels!  Unique levels!).  So as you see, the argument for allowing said games to have their own articles is even GREATER than SM64DS having its own article (which it does).  CASE CLOSED.  --{{User|Marwikedor}}
::Ah, my apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't continue this proposal. Go right ahead! {{user|Bloc Partier}}
KS3, the second part of your support vote doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would Super Mario 64 DS need to be merged into Super Mario 64 if these stay merged? The Super Mario Advance games are only merged with one another, not with the games they are remakes of. Super Mario 64 DS can keep its own article as long as the Super Mario Advance games aren't part of the articles on the original games, which they currently are not. Stating the [[Super Mario Advance (series)]] article should be split because of Super Mario 64 DS not being part of Super Mario 64 makes no sense to me.--{{User|Vellidragon}}
:::Vellidragon, no one is saying that if this doesn't pass that means SM64 should be merged with SM64DS.  Were saying it would be completely stupid to merge 64 with 64DS because they are two totally different games.  And if you nay sayers would have read my earlier comments, you'd had seen that there are even MORE reasons to give each GBA remake its own article because they are even more different. If a movie is remade, is the remake of that movie the same movie?  NO! Could you play as Wario, Yoshi, or Luigi in the original 64?  Nope!  God knows, gamers spent until 2004 looking for luigi in the original 64 all in vain!  It was all fake!  There were no giant turnips in the original American SMB2!  I know a lot of people who hated the original and loved the GBA remake (of American SMB2 only, of course.  All the other original NES/SNES were remarkable classics).  And I never even mentioned Super Mario Adance: SMB2 before, which would be covered by the passage of the proposal.  For comments on other games, see above.  To say that these new articles would be stubs is absolutely ridiculous!  Those wonder GBA games, the finest games to be found anywhere on the Game Boy Advance!  Nintendo at its FINEST!  You dare insinuate those wonderful classic articles would be stubs?  That is an insult to Mario, an insult to Nintendo, and an insult to all Mariowiki users.  Is the "Super Mario 64 DS" article a stub?  NO!  That's a remake!  A remake comparable to the original.  But its not the original.  Its not the same game, and neither is any of the GBA remakes!!  --{{User|Marwikedor}}
::::I was replying to KS3's support vote, which clearly states that "If this stays merged, then Super Mario 64 DS should be merged into Super Mario 64", so yes, somebody is saying that :3 I wasn't replying to the proposal itself, sorry.--{{User|Vellidragon}}


If this proposal passed, would there also be separate articles on DKC GBC, DKC GBA, DKC2 GBA and DKC3 GBA? They have as many or even more differences to the orignal games. Is that really needed? --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 16:17, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.


:Grandy, to answer your question, this proposal's passage will not affect any DKC games.  There are not as many differences in those, I think they are more just handheld ports.  However, if someone sometime in the future decided it would be best for the wiki that those DKC games get their own articles, I would read the proposal and all the arguments for and against in the comments section, and then ponder my decision, and then, based on which decision I feel is best for the wiki, vote based on that decision.  But DKC games are irrelevant.  Focus on the issue at hand.  Just as SM64DS is different enough to merit its own article, so do these games, as you are aware from what are have said, differ even more rigorously.  --[[User:Marwikedor|Marwikedor]]
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====
::Well, these are the major changes I remember from the games (excluding visual and acoustical changes):
::*SMA: Several new objects, enemies (including one new boss) and areas, score added, Ace Coins and Yoshi Challenge. Game can be saved.
::*SMA2: Collecting all Dragon Coins replaces them by Peach Coins, checklist for the levels, Luigi has different abilites.
::*SMA3: Six new levels.
::*SMA4: e-Reader support for new levels, items and enemies.
::And now in the DKC remakes:
::*DKC GBC: One new level, three new mini-games, Game Boy Printer support, collecting hidden stickers for printing.
::*DKC GBA: Two new mini-games, behaviour of all bosses changed more or less, collecting photos in an album, time attack mode, "Videogame Hero" mode.
::*DKC2 GBA: One new boss, three new mini-games, a feather in every level, collecting photos in an album, time attack mode.
::*DKC3 GBA: One entirely new world, one new boss, three new mini-games.
::From what I remember, there are actually more differences in the DKC remakes than in the remakes of SMW and YI. Correct me if I'm wrong. But if it is true, the DKC remakes would need separate articles as well for the sake of consistency. --{{User|Grandy02}}
:::There's more changes in SMA2; there's a feature for saving anywhere on the overworld, dragon coins can be found in castles, there are new block types (like question blocks which several coins pop out of that fall to the ground) and Yoshi's abilities are changed (he can spit out a lot of enemies which he previously swallowed immediately). There are also some other minor changes in level design (mainly making the levels a tiny bit easier) in SMA2 and in SMA4 as well. Not that it matters much which remake has more changes in comparison to another. Any remake with an amount of changes comparable to the Super Mario Advance games would each need its own article as well if this passes, and the changes in the DKC remakes are quite numerous, so I do agree this would apply to them.--{{User|Vellidragon}}


===Split all Super Smash Bros. moves into separate articles===
====Merge none (do nothing)====
Before I start, let me say that I am aware of [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_10#Smash_Bros._Moves the proposal that merged them]. With that said let me continue.


For about two years now, all the moves that belong to a character in the Super Smash Bros. franchise (such as [[Rollout]], [[Flare Blade]] and [[Final Cutter]]) have been merged to their respective characters. But now I ask this one simple question: Why do we have an article for [[Twist Dunk|every]] [[Water Bomb|single]] [[Ultra Hammer|other]] [[Splash Bros.|move]] and the SSB moves are all merged? All moves aer just an major and important as the other, so I don't see why SSB moves have to be merged. The SSB franchise should be treated exactly like the Mario franchise, so I'm proposing to split all the SSB moves into their own articles.
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====


'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br>
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
'''Voting start''': 21 March 2010, 14:00<br>
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].
'''Deadline''': 28 March 2010, 24:00


====Split Moves====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per proposal.
#{{User|KS3}} Per proposal.


====Do not Split Moves====
====Support====
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} -- Please view my first comment below.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Now, I think that's uncalled for. They don't need separate articles, and it was good that they were merged. If this is a consistency issue, then we should take this on the other way around, since many move articles are stubs.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per all.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Four words: '''A crapload of STUBS!''' and per all.
#{{User|4DJONG}} Well, there would be many stubs, and they would have to be remerged together.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
 
====Comments====
And there was a failed attempt [[MarioWiki:Proposals/2010/11|here]] {{User|KS3}}
:That wasn't a failed attempt, he just deleted it. {{User|Reversinator}}
::Well, for at least three of your examples (Twist Dunk, Water Bomb, Splash Bros), I would recommend making a single page for all moves from the same game. Ultra Hammer would be kept separate because it's an item, but having a single page for the other three examples would certainly be better. However, keeping Smash moves on each person's page would be far more efficient since the moves are unique to each character and having one page for all the moves would be just giant. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
:::Wait wait wait! I thought that it says into separte article'''s'''! It wouldn't be one page, it would simply be into separate pages. And if you still mean what I just said, they would merely be bigger than most small pages that aren't stubs. That is all I have to say. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::::Calm down. I know what the proposal is for. I'm saying that I do not support because it's more efficient to have them on the character articles, and that my suggestion about his three examples would not work for the Smash moves. It's highly inefficient to have to keep clicking back and forth just to see individual moves. So... I shall continue to oppose. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
:::::I'm never angry, I was just making sure that you didn't think of it as one page. Yes, I agree with the facts of merging the pages that should be merged (the offensive moves together, defensive moves together, etc). But, I do like the idea of having them split from the main characters page, since they are so anxious. So, with my thoughts, I'm going to stay neutral. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
 
===Change the structure of the main character articles===
As many of us are aware, the Super Mario Wiki has joined forces with {{BP|Main_Page|Bulbapedia}} and {{ZW|Main_Page|Zelda Wiki}} and created the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance. As an active user of both Bulbapedia and the SMW, it has come to my attention that the quality of Bulbapedia's Pok&eacute;mon articles (eg. {{BP|Bulbasaur_(Pok&eacute;mon)}}, {{BP|Marill_(Pok&eacute;mon)}}, {{BP|Riolu_(Pok&eacute;mon)}} etc) are of much higher quality (in terms of structure) than the Super Mario Wiki's main character articles (eg. [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], [[Princess Peach]], [[Yoshi]] etc.).
 
The structure of Bulbapedia's Pok&eacute;mon articles can be found {{BP|Bulbapedia:Project_Pok%C3%A9dex#Structure|here}}. I propose that, now that the Super Mario Wiki has allied with Bulbapedia, we should raise the standard of our articles to a similar standard to that of Bulbapedia, starting with the main characters.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Silver Eevee}}<br>
'''Voting start''': 22 March 2010, 19:33<br>
'''Deadline''': 29 March 2010, 23:59
 
====Support====
#{{User|Silver Eevee}} per what I wrote above.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per SE. I like specifically the part where it splits games, comics and TV shows :)
#{{User|Mr.C}} - Per SE and Tucayo.
#{{User|KS3}} Per SE, Tucayo, and Mr.C
#{{User|Not Bugsy}} The example is MUCH more organized than the jumbled mess of game appearances we have...
#{{User|4DJONG}} Well, the examples are about minor characters and are better than our main character articles, It is illogical to wait any longer to fix the articles.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - ''Mario'' and ''Pokémon'' are incomparably different, and reformatting our wiki to be like Bulbapedia would not work. We have to deal with many more games than they do and have been given much less structure to do it with by Nintendo; we can't make nice [[Bulbapedia:Canon|Canonicity]] statements because we have no canon to work with besides release dates, and we can't afford to make "History" a place to talk about character development when there's so many appearances we have to deal with first. But even if we do leave the development in the "Characteristics" section (currently known as "Character Information" on the more up-to-date pages), simply put the appearances in "History" as they're set up now, set aside the fact that your template doesn't include any mention of Stats, Tattles and other minutiae which currently go at the bottoms of our pages, and ignore the entire "Alternate Media?" debate, the new template still requires us to reorganize almost ''every single page in the entire Super Mario Wiki''. Like the Sysops said last time a proposal was made about the History Organization Standard, we haven't even finished reformatting this place based on the last change or even the change before that, and making another, even more radical change is not a wise move - not until we're done playing catch-up. The last thing NIWA needs in its first few months of existence is for one of the founding wikis to turn itself inside-out. Maybe we could look into making a few smaller changes, but a complete overhaul of ''everything'' is NOT feasible, and changing the "main character articles" only would be extremely inconsistent and would make us look very disorganized.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per Walkazo and his mighty wall of text.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per Walkazo. She seems to be right about this, I think.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|RAP}} - Per Walkazo. It appears that were still not done with the reformatting for the majority of the articles.
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - Per Walkazo. It's a good idea, but it is too drastic and it doesn't make sense in this context.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Per all. Change over the way the character articles are shown currently is an unexpected twist and a cumbersome work on redoing them all by other new means. Just because we made an alliance that doesn't mean we must follow all the ways that the other wikis propose. Bulbapedia has a way to show an information and the Zeldawiki has its own way likewise.
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Walkazo.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Hmmm..... remember that we can't use thing as "Gender differences", "habitat", "diet" and those things :/ {{user|Tucayo}}
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, the BP article structure is tailored for Pokémon information. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


@Silver Eevee: Perhaps you could show us an example of what an article might look like in the new format. This will allow us to see exactly the format you're proposing. Just a suggestion. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
===Split the image quality category===
:@ Bloc Partier: Sure, I'll get one up in my sandbox straight away. {{User|Silver Eevee}}
'''Issue 1:''' [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]] is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. '''Issue 2:''' All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:
::Okay, it's done. '''Please go [[User:Silver Eevee/sandbox/Proposal|here]] {{User|Silver Eevee}}
*'''Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
:::Hm. Characteristics being at the top I agree with, personally; I always thought it was a bit odd when a character's physical appearance etc. is listed below their appearances games. As for games, I like how those are currently arranged by series, and it enables one to sum up all of a character's appearance in a sub-series like the ''Super Mario Kart'' series where there are often not too many differences between a character's role in individual games; if we split them up into individual titles rather than series, those would all need a different sub-section. I also don't think we need seperate sections for cartoons and comics like on Bulbapedia. Neither any cartoons nor any comics based on the Mario series have a comparable degree of prominence as the Pokémon Anime and Manga. The frequently used "in other media" section encompassing everything that's not a game does the job quite well. As for names in other languages, I disagree with those being part of the Trivia section. Names in non-English languages are hardly trivia; Bulbapedia does not combine those sections either, in fact.--{{User|Vellidragon}}
*'''Assets to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as [[:File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png]].
::::Thank you! Well. Hm. This is quite a drastic change. I'll certainly have to think about this one. I will, however, point out to everyone that this is an extremely drastic proposal and that any voters should ''very carefully'' consider the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal; if it succeeds, it will overturn countless proposals before it that have changed the ordering of articles. In fact, some articles have not yet reached the standards of the last massive reorder. Just a warning.
Additionally, [[Template:Image-quality]] will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.


::::I also have one question for the proposer: Will this affect tiny articles such as [[Dark Paratroopa]]? If so, would we have all that initial information, like appearance and whatnot, in the article? And what about the games the character appears in? Just curious. {{user|Bloc Partier}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
:::::Thanks everyone for your interest. As for [[User:Bloc Partier|Bloc's]] question: no, probably not, as the smaller articles like that are still important but all the categories and stuff isn't nessecary. {{User|Silver Eevee}}
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
::::::Ok. Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree on this one. {{user|Bloc Partier}}


==Miscellaneous==
====Split both====
===Characters' Order===
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
I notice when I read a bunch of articles on different characters and games they  have a section on their list of characters, and the order of each character on every different article is different and disorginized, so I came up with an idea.... well three ideas of how to orginized these characters on every article: (I will use characters from Super Mario Galaxy as an example on all ideas)
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense


*'''Chronological Order (Games Only):''' In this one, the first character to appear in gameplay will be first, then the next character will be second, then the third one, and so on. If two or more characters appear at the same time then it will go on alphabetical order. ''Example: Mario, Peach, Bowser, Rosalina, Bowser Jr., and Luigi''
====Only split screenshots====


*'''Importance:''' This one will make the order out of the character's overall importance in all Mario games. ''Example: Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, Bowser Jr., and Rosalina''
====Only split assets====


*'''ABC:''' In this one all the characters will be organized alphabetically. ''Example: Bowser Jr., Bowser, Luigi, Mario, Peach, and Rosalina''
====Leave image quality alone====


'''Proposer''': {{User|Zero777}}<br>
====Comments on image quality proposal====
'''Voting start''': 22 March, 2010 12:00<br>
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
'''Deadline''': 29 March, 2010 12:00<br>
<gallery>
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)


====Chronological====
==Miscellaneous==
====Importance====
''None at the moment.''
====ABC====
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Seems the most objective way. And there can't be different opinions on how to order them
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} It's the most helpful for people who doesn't play the Mario series, or at least the game. It could also be helpful for people who regularly plays the games too!
#{{User|Reversinator}} I have no idea how it will work chronologically, and importance will be full of oppinions.
#{{User|KS3}} per all.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! I change my mind, chronological will get confusing and importance, well the list will obviously go as: Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, and either Daisy or Bowser Jr., after that there will be a bit of a debate. Zero signing out.
====Leave The Characters' Order As Is====
====Comments====
I'm not sure if I understand the "chronological" thing. The character to appear in gameplay first? Do you mean arranging them by when they debuted, and then by when they appear in that game if several debut in the same one (e.g. Mario and Donkey Kong)? Even then, several may appear at the same moment. A chronological order of sorts would make sense though seeing how that is how the games are arranged. I'm tied between that and alphabetical order at the moment. Maybe a combination of both even; by date of debut, and then alphabetical if muliple characters debuted at the same time? May be too needlessly complicated that way though. "Importance" I am against, since deciding which character is more "important" is an extremely subjective matter, and subjectivity doesn't belong here.--{{user|Vellidragon}}
:I agree with Vellidragon about the importance thing. If I had to pick one, I'd think alphabetical order would be the trustiest way to handle this, because it is the most objective one. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
::I am Zero! Vellidragon I like your thinking of a Chronological Alphabetical order I'll change the rules for the chronological one. Well using SMG as an example again chronological basically mean, the first character you see in gameplay is obviously Mario, he goes to the castle to see Peach, she'll be second, then Bowser attacks, he'll be third. And what I mean by imprtance for example is not like I like Luigi better then Mario so I think he is more important, it is more like their participatience in each game put together. Zero signing out. {{User|Zero777}}
<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
&nbsp;

Latest revision as of 18:04, February 7, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, February 7th, 23:04 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Introduce a new type of proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
  3. PopitTart (talk) For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.

Oppose

Comments on proposal proposal

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

That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --PopitTart (talk) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

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

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

Split the image quality category

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

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

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

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

Split both

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

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

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

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

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

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

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

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

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4724347"