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" ( The new Picture url http://www.mariowiki.com/File:Wikipedesketch1.png )
''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==
''None at the moment.''


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==Removals==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
''None at the moment.''
#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''').
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
#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 his/her own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Sysop]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals 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.
==Changes==
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


===Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
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 issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]</nowiki>


<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
====Support====
<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>
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
====Oppose====
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
 
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
 
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
-----
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
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.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
 
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
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 and 4 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.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
 
===List of Talk Page Proposals===
 
*Split {{fakelink|Pumpkinhead Goomba}}/{{fakelink|Jack O' Goomba}} from [[Goomba]].  '''Passed'''
*Change [[Sunglasses Salesman]] into [[Accessory Pianta]]. '''Passed'''
*Merge all the Rocs into the [[Roc]] article. '''Failed'''
*Merge [[Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World]] into [[Super Mario World]]. ([[Talk:Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 2 2010, 24:00
*Merge [[Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3]] into [[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]. ([[Talk:Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 2 2010, 24:00
*Merge [[Super Mario Advance]] into [[Super Mario Bros. 2]]. ([[Talk:Super Mario Advance|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 3 2010, 24:00
*Split {{fakelink|Undergrunt}} from [[Monty Mole]]. ([[Talk:Monty Mole#Split Undergrunt from Monty Mole |Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 3 2010, 23:59
*Merge [[Davy Bones' Locker]] into [[Davy Bones]]. ([[Talk:Davy Bones' Locker|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 3, 2010, 24:00
*Merge all '''Status Ailments'''. ([[Talk:Confused|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 3, 2010, 24:00
*Split {{fakelink|Kreepy Krow}} from [[Krow]]. ([[Talk:Krow|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 4 2010, 23:59
*Merge [[Fire Necky's Nest]] into [[Fire Necky]]. ([[Talk:Fire Necky's Nest|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 4, 2010, 24:00
*Merge [[Star Coin Sign]] into [[Star Coin]]. ([[Talk:Star Coin Sign|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 5, 2010, 24:00
*Delete [[Princess Peach's Crown]]. ([[Talk:Princess Peach's Crown|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 5, 2010, 24:00
*Merge all '''Super Strikes''' into the [[Super Strike]] article. ([[Talk:Super Strike|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 6, 2010, 24:00
*Merge [[Risky Reef]] into [[Aqua World]]. ([[Talk:Risky Reef|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 8, 2010, 24:00
*Split [[1-Up Super]] from [[1-Up Mushroom]]. ([[Talk:1-Up Mushroom#Split 1-up Super from 1-up Mushroom|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' <s>July 10 2010, 24:00</s> August 8 2010, 24:00
*Merge [[Star Power (Paper Mario)]] to [[Star Power]]. ([[Talk:Star Power (Paper Mario)#Merge Star Power (Paper Mario) to Star Power (which leads to Star Power (disambiguation), so we can move that page to Star Power). READ BELOW|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 8 2010, 24:00.
*Merge [[Shroob Castle Cellar]] into [[Shroob Castle]]. ([[Talk:Shroob Castle Cellar|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 10, 2010, 24:00
*Merge [[Puzzle Panel]] into [[Puzzle Panic]]. ([[Talk:Puzzle Panel|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 11, 2010, 24:00
*Merge Offensive Power Shots into [[Offensive Power Shot]] and Defensive Power Shots in [[Defensive Power Shot]]. ([[Talk:Offensive Power Shot|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 11, 2010, 24:00
*Merge all of the fields in [[Super Mario Strikers]] into one article. ([[Talk:Mario Smash Football|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 11, 2010, 24:00
*Merge [[Save Album]] into [[Save Block]] ([[Talk:Save Album|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 11, 2010, 24:00
*Delete [[Engine Size]] '''OR''' merge it into the [[Mario Kart (series)|Mario Kart series]] aticle. ([[Talk:Engine Size|Discuss]]). '''Deadline:''' August 12, 2010, 24:00
*Merge [[Super-Whomp]] into [[Whomp]] ([[Talk:Super-Whomp|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' August 13 2010 24:00
*Delete [[Plane Mario]] ([[Talk:Plane Mario|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' August 14 2010 24:00
 
==New Features==
===New Logo===
This proposal has came up every now and then, but why no change? I believe that our new logo shouldn't be Mario but mushrooms. There would be several pictures of different types of mushrooms,(this includes bee mushroom,green mushrooms,etc)through out the ages of Mario games. Each picture would be randomly picked for each page every time users visit the page. That way seeing the same old picture, every time you visit the homepage and any other page, is the thing of the past.Its the mushrooms the fans want and without it,Mario will be like any other platformer.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Hyper1025595}}<br>
'''Voting start''':  19:00, August 1, 2010 <br>
'''Deadline''': 19:00, August 8, 2010
 
====I agree====
 
====I disagree====


====Comments====
====Comments====
Well, wasn't there a proposal like this one, two or three weeks ago, so if I am correct in my assumptions, this proposal can not exist yet. {{User|Emperor Yoshi}}
@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)
:Didn't someone propose changing the logo to Mario's head, and it resembled Starship Mario and was made out of puzzle pieces? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Did you guys know that there is a code for your monobooks that allows you to change the logo on the top left? We also can't start copying everyone's logos even if they look cool, that is not right.
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
::: You want a new logo, then make one and change it yourself. Mario4Ever: Yes. I proposed it too, but using a monobook instead was a much better idea. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


===New Video Page===
===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
I don't know if this is really a proposal (it is more like an idea) but why not make a page where Users can post videos of gameplay etc. I think it would be cool to show people new skills, action, and ideas.
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.


'''Proposer''':{{User|New Super Mario}}<br>
If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.
'''Voting start''':12:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC) <br>
'''Deadline''': 24:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


====I like it====
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
#{{User|New Super Mario}} I think this is a great idea. It may be a lot like youtube but, some people don't go on youtube.
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.<br>The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.</blockquote>
#{{User|Koopayoshi}}That is a really good Idea!
#{{User|Mukumukuluma}} Per all.
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} The channel will be called MarioWiki:Videos and per all.
#{{User|BobombFuses}} Good idea anyway.
#{{User|WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135}} Great idea! We could have rules on what content you can and can't put in videos (i.e. you can say "crap" but not any cuss words). If someone puts something offensive in a video people can flag it. If the video gets flagged sysops can review the video, delete it and give the user who posted it a warning.
#{{User|Iramatak}} Per all.


====I dislike it====
In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: '''fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion.''' The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at [[Stretch_Shroom#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} This idea has been suggested before and opposed to. We have YouTube for this. Go to YouTube and upload videos there. If people also want to view videos, they shouldn't be here.
#{{User|Marwikedor}} Horrible idea to have Youtube videos on our wiki per BLOF.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} I hate Youtube, though. Per all.
#{{User|Booderdash}} We had this before. Stupid idea. Mariowiki isn't as famous so it NEEDS a youtube page anyways. People can just create individual accounts.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! That is a horrible idea, why do we need that; the SMW is not a chat/forum to share stuff on large scales. Zero signing out.
#{{User|LuigiMania}} Basically per BLOF. Though the OTHER one had 3 users vote for to have it, that (I think) was outmatched by 16. And my comment as well goes for a matter... (The LOADING TIME! Videos would more or likely slow to a browser time-out.)
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} If we do this, I will probably not be able to browse the wiki as much on my DSi Browser (it can't load videos very well). And per all.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Per All. Apart from LGM, because I love YouTube. If people want to learn new skills, it's much more fair that they can find them out for themselves
#{{User|4DJONG}} Well, we do not need a page of YouTube videos, we are not a social website, we are an encyclopedia. If we were to make a page like that, it would be decremental to our quality as an encyclopedia.
#{{User|Yoshi's Island}} Per 4DJONG.
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all.
#{{User|Tomz123}} You could just have another window.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|Dry dry king}}Per LuigiMania, Marwikedor, 4DJONG, Booderdash, BabyLuigiOnFire, Gamefreak75, and Zero777!
#{{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; This is a factual Wiki. Link to your YouTube profile on your userpage, but don't create a page for this stuff.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} That would basically kill the whole purpose of this wiki.


====Comments====
I noticed that some users prefer to '''instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced'''. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.
I don't actually dislike the idea, but the idea of the video is not needed here. You should change the headers. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:Or delete this proposal and put the youtube videos onto your userpage. {{User|KS3}}
::@KS3: What makes you think those places allow youtube videos? I know ZW and youtube do and IDK about WK but I know UP doesn't. {{User|Marioguy1}}
I am Zero! Would this be considered a joke proposal? Zero signing out. {{User|Zero777}}
 
Seems pointless...and if we even HAD one, the loading time would go haywire...{{User|LuigiMania}}


Why just youtube though? Youtube is a worse source than wikipedia, and admins call wikipedia a bad source for things like release dates and the such. {{User|Booderdash}}
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:
:That's the only video site I know. There are tons of others out there. The internet is not only limited to YouTube. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


No, this is a horrible idea because there are A MILLION videos of Mario out there, and people will try to post a million different videos on the page; its just not worth it. Go on youtube itself and search it up. {{User|Booderdash}}
<references/>


===Set a day for the DYK section to be updated===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
The original proposer got his account banned and his proposal deleted because of that privilege. However, this proposal brings up a good point, that's why I'm reproposing this. It's just as exactly the same as the last one, just that I'm proposing this. What day shall we update the DYK?
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}<br>
====Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section====
'''Voting start''': 23:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)<br>
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
'''Deadline''': 24:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


====Set day for DYK section to be updated====
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.


=====Monday=====
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
#{{User|Booderdash}} Start of the week, perfect. Besides whats so "groggy" about it? Its just a DYK.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|GalacticPetey}} per Booderdash. it just seems right.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per Booderdash, I was going to say Tuesday because of the same reason as the other proposal but your right it's just DYK, just a small section, it's not like the whole main page. Zero signing out.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
#{{User|Dry dry king}} per zero.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} How long does it take to do it anyway? Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Club Nintendo Classic SMB2 01.png|70px]]  Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} No reason to stray from Wikipedia's system IMO if it works.


=====Tuesday=====
====Don't make a standard====


=====Wednesday=====
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production here], they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|other non-numeric parts of a source}} that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)


=====Thursday=====
===Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section===
{{Early notice|March 6}}
I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.


=====Friday=====
Some subjects ([[Taily]], for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely {{iw|pikipedia|Pikmin_family#Naming|Pikipedia}}, {{iw|inkipedia|Inkling#Etymology|Inkipedia}} and {{iw|bulbapedia|Bulbasaur_(Pokémon)#Name_origin|Bulbapedia}}, and push this a step further?


=====Saturday=====
This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Weekdays are too busy with school, most users can edit more on this day.
*The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} i agree with fawfulfury65. That or sunday is good.
*The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call [[Blooper]] by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
#{{User|Emperor Yoshi}} Well, since weekdays have school, and most of our users are children, we should should use a day where they have the most time available to them.
*Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of [[Mario & Luigi: Brothership|''Brothership'']]'s translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
#{{User|LuigiMania}} Per EY.
*Internal name table, if applicable
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Per all.
*The "names in other languages" table


=====Sunday=====
'''EDIT:''' If a subject doesn't have anything about its name to talk about (such as a generically-named subject like [[bubble]] or a literal name like [[Mayor Penguin]]), the section can be titled simply "Names in other languages" as we've been doing. This is to avoid non-sentences like Bulbapedia's "Iron Valiant is literally ''iron valiant''." name explanations.


====Keep upgrading DYK section randomly====
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Comments====
====Retool====
BLOF, you still have to describe it in the descriptions, so people who haven't read the old one can understand this. {{User|Booderdash}}
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section <small>(we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon.")</small>, so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
#{{User|Fakename123}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
#{{User|PopitTart}} As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I like this idea.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Better organization of naming info. Can we [[Template_talk:Foreign_names#Retitle|retitle]] the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per ałł.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Hm.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per all. I'm personally partial to how {{iw|fireemblem|Fire Emblem (concept)#Etymology and other languages|Fire Emblem Wiki}} labels them collectively though. "Etymology ''and'' other languages".


Saturday, the school-free day. Definitely the best choice for most users when summer is over. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
====Do not retool (status quo)====


Not for everyone, I heard alot of people have school on Saturday too. How about Sunday? Or do people go to church too much on that day? {{User|Booderdash}}
====Comments in other languages====
I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:::yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::::I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)
:::::...an example is literally linked in the proposal body... {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:21, March 1, 2025 (EST)
::::::I just get a weird pop-up when I try to follow it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:35, March 1, 2025 (EST)
:::::::What is it you see? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 11:45, March 3, 2025 (EST)


I'm usually busy on Sundays. Also, I've never heard of anyone who goes to school on weekends. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)


Are you serious? Most european people do, and asian people do too. Plus American people who want to be really successful in life do too, but those are like 4% of America. {{User|Booderdash}}
==Miscellaneous==
:In America, you don't even get a choice as to what days you go to school until after high school (12th grade), so you cannot assume that Americans are unsuccessful just because they do not go on weekends. It also depends on how you define successful.{{User|Mario4Ever}}
::To go in a top 10 college is my definition. But alot of americans are successful, I never mentioned that they weren't. {{User|Booderdash}}
:::Ok, sorry, but you did imply that 96% of Americans have no desire to be successful. Even if one does end up going to a top 10 college, there's not much one can do with a degree if factoring in the present state of the economy. I'm just saying that it's incorrect to classify a mere 4% of America of wanting to be really successful. I'm done being off-topic now. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:Here in England no-one goes to school on Saturday/Sunday. In France they definitely do, but only for half a day. Not sure about the rest of the UK and the rest of Europe. {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}}
 
I've never heard of that, I'm not European or Asian. But I did hear of very few schools that have classes on weekends. Most of the users here are from North America, though, so most of us don't have school on weekends. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
 
Still, though its a international wiki and some of our own sysops came from places other than North America. (Grandy02} {{User|Booderdash}}
 
:Yeah, I heard Europeans don't go to school on Wednesdays or Sundays, but go there every other day, but then again, I could be wrong. People that have school on Saturday (in USA) are usually (not ALWAYS!) failing students. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
 
Not those people who are "nerdy" and work their buttocks off 7 hours a day. {{User|Booderdash}}
 
Why do we care who edits more? This is the DYK. As far as I know, its Steve who does it.Anyways, for Monday we get the pleasure if looking at it for a real week, Saturday is awkward and new users might get confused. {{User|Booderdash}}
 
:"''Not those people who are "nerdy" and work their buttocks off 7 hours a day.''" -_-' ReallY?
Saturday school is for those people who failed classes and are trying to earn credits in order to not have to retake the class again. Anyways, let's get back on topic, please. {{User|Gamefreak75}}
 
What about those ace people who do extra work on weekends for extra credit to get a good scholorship to get into harvard or one of the top 10 colleges? But I think we can go back on topic. I mean its just a DYK.{{User|Booderdash}}
 
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''
==Changes==
===Merge all sport moves for each character to their respective articles.===
People have been asking this for a long time so I'll just put it here. All individual sport moves each character has like [[Iron Hammer]] should be merged into their respective article that the sport move is, which in this case is [[Offensive Power Shot]]. This will help prevent stubs and can make navigating alot easier. The main thing is to prevent stubs however, and most of them can't be expanded anymore.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Booderdash}}<br>
'''Voting start''': : 7/30/2010 1:00 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': 8/6/2010 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{User|Booderdash}} Per proposal
#{{User|New Super Mario}} I'll say yes
#{{User|Emperor Yoshi}} Well, it would get rid of a few stubs.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Duh, I made a talk page proposal about this.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per proposal and per all. Zero signing out.
#{{User|Dry dry king}} Per all. It would also be a lot easier to access. Once when I was trying to view all the special moves in ''Mario Super Sluggers'', I had to click all these links to find them. So frustrating!
#{{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - The users that did all those pages did a great job, but do we really need them? Sorry to compare them to the Mushroom Proposals I did, but they are stubs and are depended on their main aricles.
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} It will get rid of a lot of stubs.
====Oppose====
#{{User|BluePikminKong497}} Per Knife in the TPP. It would affect much too many articles. also, if we already have a TPP, can this be deleted?
====Comments====
BPK, yes, it affects too many articles hence why its now a MAIN PAGE PROPOSAL! It was bad in a talk page proposal because it affected too many but its perfectly fine for a main page proposal. {{User|Booderdash}}
==Miscellaneous==
===Revamp [[MarioWiki:PAIR|PAIR]] system===
Not really sure where to put this... Anyways, some of you old users might know that we used to have a way to review articles known as PAIR. However, it was put on hiatus for some reason. It was a really great way to review articles for FA, and, due to the lack of ''good'' FA nominees latley, I am proposing we restart the PAIR system with a whole new team of users.
'''Proposer:''' {{User|BluePikminKong497}}<br>
'''Voting Start:''' 21:36, 29 July 2010<br>
'''Deadline:''' 23:59, August 5, 2010
====Support====
#{{user|BluePikminKong497}} Per proposal.
#{{User|New Super Mario}} Sounds great even though I haven't done it before.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per New Super Mario. Revamping the PAIR system would ensure that only the best articles (quality-wise) get nominated, resulting in fewer objections.
#{{User|Dry dry king}} Per proposal. I have seen way too many unfeatures recently. If the articles could just be the best from the start,  they could stay featured! Sure, there would be less featured, only the very best, but they could stay featured!
#{{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Booderdash}} Old, not needed, fas are doing fine without it, and its too complicated to get it up and going. Way too hard to do, mainly only sysops will be working on this
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; You say that you're going to revamp the system. How, exactly? Also, it didn't really work the first time, and we had editors just as dedicated to the wiki as the current ones. I just don't see it working.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - May I just ask why we would need them right now? I have not seen many FA's that were not meant to be an FA. Sure a user is going left and right and nomination pages as if they were bunnies, but that is not a reason for PAIR reviews. And Booderdash is correct that it is way to sophisticated to do.
====Comments====
What are we going to revamp? (P.S. If this proposal passes, make sure the list thingy follows the No-signature  policy. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:We're revamping PAIR. {{User|BluePikminKong497}}
:: I know we are revamping it, but WHAT part of PAIR is needing a revamp? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:::Pretty much all of it. You guys know how many articles KS# nominated.... {{User|BluePikminKong497}}
...This is incredibly old. Saudy is there and hes been banned for more than 2 years. {{User|Booderdash}}
:Thats cause its OLD. If you will do something as big as this, then you have to say what you will do to improve it. {{user|Tucayo}}
What about new users like me? What is the PAIR system? {{User|New Super Mario}}
:Read [[MarioWiki:PAIR|this]] to find out. {{User|BluePikminKong497}}
@Booderdash: Too complicated? I said i would start it all up myself. {{User|BluePikminKong497}}
::No offense BPK, but you're 11, you were complaining that you didn't know the rules on Tucayo's page that you were just 11, yet you can all of a sudden want to do this huge task? {{User|Booderdash}}
:::It's not ''that'' huge, and besides, your only 12, and age doesnt matter. i'm very smart for my age. {{User|BluePikminKong497}}
:::: I'm sure you are and as am I, but since you were complaining on how young you were on his page, I thought you wouldn't be up for this. -_-. {{User|Booderdash}}
Um, try not to pass judgements on people based upon their ages. It's not nice to say "You're too young" - if he's up for the task, let him do it. {{User|Marioguy1}}
I know, I'm not stopping him, just wondering. {{User|Booderdash}}
I think this is like the third time there's a proposal to ressurect PAIR: Our current policy is "Do it if you want" - but you just can't force people to do it. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 14:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't it go on hiatus because nobody was interested in it? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
And it isn't needed. Our Fas are fine as it is. This is just like Narce's make Fa rules stricter thing. We'll have to unfeature most of our fas. {{User|Booderdash}}
:Or we can just fix them so they don't ''need'' to be unfeatured. {{User|Dry dry king}}
::'''@Dry Dry king''': Or we can't do it just like Wikipedia since we don't have millions of people viewing it everyday, thousands upon thousands of users, and that anyone can edit!!!!! Also, not all nom's are bad, yes the KS3 (no offense KS3) nominated are not prepared, but not ALL of them. NARCE was just used to Wikipedia, and if we followed NARCE, then we would be all blocked for a year. I just saying, you can't call all nom's bad. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::: I'm not calling all nom's bad, I'd just like a chance to try it. I think it's worth a shot, and it doesn't seem too sophisticated or complicated to me. But then again, it's only my opinion. {{User|Dry dry king}}
Guys, the PAIR system isn't here to criticize the FAs, nor is it to make stricter rules. It's here for people to review how they are before they are nominated. Then we wouldn't have so many terrible nominations. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::I still don't see the need for this. For instance, if we had had this, many articles like Dry Bones, Sir grodus, and Shadow Queen wouldn't be nomianted in the first place,  but since its already featured, when someone nominates it for unfeaturing people would say there's no need for unfeaturing, there's problems but it can be fixed, but when its in the PROCESS of nominating, people would oppose it for problems that can be fixed. Besides most votes are fan votes anyways. {{User|Booderdash}}
<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
&nbsp;

Latest revision as of 11:46, March 3, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, March 3rd, 21:06 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."

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its own two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines 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]". 

===[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}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

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

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)
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)
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)
Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species, Camwoodstock (ended February 13, 2025)
Make Dark Mode available to everyone, Pizza Master (ended February 20, 2025)
Make about templates on New Super Mario Bros. U courses and New Super Luigi U courses link to each other instead of a disambiguation page, but keep the disambiguation page, Salmancer (ended February 21, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
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 Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Rename Dark Horse Comics to "Dark Horse Books", Nintendo101 (ended February 26, 2025)
Tighten Category:Power-ups and its subcategories, SolemnStormcloud (ended February 27, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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 Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 6, 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.
  5. Salmancer (talk) It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
  6. Hewer (talk) The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put Template:Italic title on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Hewer
  8. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) sure, for consistencies sake
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer, then.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. Pseudo (talk) 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 A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)

Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using {{Italic title}}, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do not serve a utility purpose, such as the various "users that know a given language" categories.
As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be that hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]" instead of just "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "[[Category:" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)

even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use Template:Italic title in the category pages. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)

I thought that was the whole proposal. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)

Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at MarioWiki:Citations

The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.

If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.

I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. These were my observations:

I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found this (studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd)) for MLA and this (libguides.up.edu) for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.
The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.

In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion. The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at Stretch Shroom and Big Penguin. The template {{cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.

I noticed that some users prefer to instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.

Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system, per Nintendo101 (talk)'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:

  • one instance[1]:18
  • another instance[1]:20
  1. ^ a b Smith, John (1985). Super Mario Bros. Official Guide. McPublisher Publishing ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.

Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my suggestion below.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) makes sense!
  6. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
  7. Mario (talk) Mario in Club Nintendo Classic. Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
  8. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  9. PaperSplash (talk) No reason to stray from Wikipedia's system IMO if it works.

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

On Wikipedia, as demonstrated here, they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)

I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even other non-numeric parts of a source that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)

Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 6 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.

Some subjects (Taily, for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely Pikipedia, Inkipedia and Bulbapedia, and push this a step further?

This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:

  • The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
  • The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call Blooper by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
  • Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of Brothership's translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
  • Internal name table, if applicable
  • The "names in other languages" table

EDIT: If a subject doesn't have anything about its name to talk about (such as a generically-named subject like bubble or a literal name like Mayor Penguin), the section can be titled simply "Names in other languages" as we've been doing. This is to avoid non-sentences like Bulbapedia's "Iron Valiant is literally iron valiant." name explanations.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Retool

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section (we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon."), so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
  5. Fakename123 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
  7. PopitTart (talk) As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me!
  9. Nintendo101 (talk) I like this idea.
  10. Power Flotzo (talk) Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
  11. Super Mario RPG (talk) Better organization of naming info. Can we retitle the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
  12. Mushroom Head (talk) Per ałł.
  13. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  14. Mario (talk) Hm.
  15. PaperSplash (talk) Per all. I'm personally partial to how Fire Emblem Wiki labels them collectively though. "Etymology and other languages".

Do not retool (status quo)

Comments in other languages

I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)

considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)
...an example is literally linked in the proposal body... — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:21, March 1, 2025 (EST)
I just get a weird pop-up when I try to follow it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:35, March 1, 2025 (EST)
What is it you see? - Nintendo101 (talk) 11:45, March 3, 2025 (EST)

Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4765733"