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]].
 
<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
#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.
 
===Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format===
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>
<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>
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
 
<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 another 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 be 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===
*Give Nintendo DSi its own page ([[Talk:Nintendo DS#Talk Page Proposal: DSi and 3DS. Split or Merge|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' October 20th, 23:45 UCT


==New Features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
==Removals==
===Move Episodes from Article to Subpage===
''None at the moment.''
This proposal is kind of like BMB's last proposal, except it is proposing to move the episodes of appearance of a character, as long as the character has many of these appearances, into a subpage of the article. I'm not going to go in depth in the description but this will save loading time on longer articles for those people who don't want to see every appearance of Character X in Series Y. For the people who do, there will be a link :)


If you don't get it, [[User:Marioguy1/Test]] is my awesome example page :P
==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'']].


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Voting Start:''' October 12, 2010, 22:00 EST<br>
'''Deadline:''' October 18, 2010, 23:59


====Seperate====
====Support====
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - This can reduce loading time on many articles without making too many subpages like BMB's former proposal would have.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Cosmic Red Toad}} - per BMB's old proposal and this one. i dont care about... episodes or whatever?
#{{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|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Well, same as before, yet his is more logical I guess. Also, do realize that the Gallery Proposal is much like this, as it is a sub-page of the character, and we do have to best guess whether it should be a sub-page for some characters.  
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{user|Tucayo}} -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|LeftyGreenMario}} I was thinking about this when I typed up the Mario episodes. I thought we have to cover every single appearance of Mario, so there, a billion episode descriptions. The making of the subpages will help the loading time greatly.
#{{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|New Super Mario}} Per proposal


====Remain in Articles====
====Oppose====
# {{User|Bowser's luma}} If we were to do that, why not make a subpage for game appearances as well? The point of an article is to have a lot of info in one place, not to be a map of subpages. I can understand a subpage for the likes of images, but written information belongs in the article.
#{{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|Arend}} Do we need of ''every'' page a subpage? Galleries were enough for me. Besides, some featured articles have much info ''because'' of the length and inclusion of important sections - Game appearances, personality etc, relations, other info, misc. I bet that those might be unfeatured after this proposal passes. Also, per Bowser's luma.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|Basurao Pokabu Waribiaru Zeburaika Zuruguu A}} You've got to think of things from a reader's viewpoint. This ruins a reader's ease in reading pages. Let's say they want to read the whole Mario article. Now, they'd have to go to a separate page to see his episode appearances? Not to mention the test page basically shows episode summaries.
#{{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.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Well, if we did something like this to Mario, wouldn't it be consistent to do it with every other character from the cartoons? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
@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, pretty much. As long as they appear in multiple episodes, or something like that. It's basically up to the user's best judgement to determine whether or not a sub-page is required. {{User|Marioguy1}}
: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)
::@Bowser's luma: Did I ever say anything about a subpage for games? This proposal is an alternative to the recently failed proposal about making subpages to games. Please don't extend the content of my proposal beyong what I put there, I am opposed and always will be opposed to subpages for games. Yes, articles are meant to cover the content of a character, but we do not need a complete listing of the episodes that the character appeared in, rather a general statement of their overall role in the episodes will suffice and if anyone cares to delve deeper, we have a link for them. It shortens the page for all those who don't want to see every single time '''Mario''' has appeared in a series entitled the Super '''Mario''' Bros. Super Show. Chances are that he appeared in more than a lot of episodes. For those who want to read the article as a whole, we have a paragraph describing how he was the hero in the shows and he fought against Bowser and yadayadayada, we list the abnormal episodes and say how they were abnormal and then the reader moves on, knowing what Mario did in that series. If they want to read about his appearances there and they specifically target that section, we have a link for the odd reader who does want that kind of thing. But for the other two types or readers, who are much more common, we have a general overview. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::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)
:::@Arend: Fed up with subpages? Why? Do you just find them annoying? Personally, I find that subpages help move some of the content that people may not want to see which will take up a very extensive portion of the article, away so that only those who want to see it will see it. And if any FAs were featured because of any good qualities, I would like a list of them so I can create unfeature noms for them all. Perfection is not a representation of how many good things an article has, perfection is a representation of how many bad things it does not. If any articles were featured because they have a "long, descriptive section in the middle" then they should be unfeatured. They are not perfect (or as close to perfect as possible) if they have a big section in the middle and many errors everywhere else. If they have no errors anywhere and a big section in the middle, taking away the section won't do anything bad to them. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::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)


I don't like the idea of only doing this to the main characters' articles. It's much more consistent to do this with all character articles from the cartoons, no matter how minor. Deciding what characters are main and what characters are minor is mostly based on opinions if you ask me. I always thought of [[Oogtar]] as an important and major character, but I'm sure not everyone can agree on that because he doesn't appear in many episodes as far as I know. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
===Include the show's title in home media releases of various ''Mario'' cartoons where it seems to be intended===
:What I mean by that is for characters like [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], etc. there would be a subpage. Maybe for characters with multiple appearances like [[Mouser]] but for a character like [[Pine]], there is no need to split it into a subpage so it won't be split. Whether there is need or not is up to the user editing the article but I would personally never do it for someone who appeared in only one episode and never anything else. {{User|Marioguy1}}
{{Early notice|February 24}}
::@The guy with the long name: I ''am'' thinking from the typical reader's viewpoint. What you just described was an atypical and less common type of reader. Someone who wants to read the entire Mario article will have to click one link, and all the others who ''don't'' won't have to scroll through 11 paragraphs of text just to skip one section. And if someone wants to know what Mario's appearance in that series is, there is a paragraph describing what he does. {{User|Marioguy1}}
Okay, the title may be a bit confusing, so let me aloborate myself.


==Changes==
''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'', ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' and ''[[Super Mario World (television series)|Super Mario World]]'' all have [[List of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! home media releases|home]] [[List of The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 home media releases|media]] [[List of Super Mario World (television series) home media releases|releases]] that include various episodes on a single VHS or DVD. Most of these releases are named after an episode included within it, with the show's name/logo appearing before it, however, we seem to omit the show's name for no reason?
=== The Lists on the Left Side Below Mario Knowledge ===
[[File:The Bird The Bird front VHS cover.jpg|right|100px]] I've got an example here. This VHS here is clearly intended to have the title ''{{fake link|The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: The Bird! The Bird!}}'', as evidenced by the cover. However, we've just title the article as [[The Bird! The Bird! (VHS)|''The Bird! The Bird!'' (VHS)]] which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Home media releases of ''[[Donkey Kong Country (television series)|Donkey Kong Country]]'' have it like this. So why are these different?


Pretty simple proposal. You know those lists about [[Characters]], [[Places]], [[Items]], etc.? These lists are split into two: game stuff and non-game stuff. Why are they separate? Due to those canon proposals, shouldn't they be one list? I'm proposing that we merge the non-game stuff with the game stuff in those lists.
Now, of course, if the title of the show is clearly intended to NOT be a part of the title, then we won't include it.


'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': March 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Voting start''': Wednesday 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC) <br>
'''Deadline''': <s>Wednesday 23:59 13 October 2010 (UTC)</s> '''Extended:''' Wednesday 23:59 20 October 2010 (UTC)


==== DO MERGE ====
====Support====
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} ''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: Per all!''
#{{User|Arend}} Per the Kaptain. I've made this same suggestion in [[Talk:Donkey Kong Country: The Legend of the Crystal Coconut#Omit "Donkey Kong Country" from the titles of home media releases of the show|a prior proposal]] on doing the inverse.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} For consistency.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the proposal Arend mentioned; this seems to be how the official releases are titled, so we should follow suit.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} I see no reason not to do this. It only serves to improve clarity, and the show's title is almost always on the actual cover of the home media anyway.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal. This just makes sense for consistency.
#{{User|Pizza Master}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all


# {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} This isn't a matter of organization. We're supposed to update the list according to the previous proposal of merging game with non-game stuff. Besides, A-Z is enough organization we need. If you want to separate things as much as possible, fine, split the character articles into more articles.
====Oppose====
# {{User|Walkazo}} - Per LeftyGreenMario: it's policy to list games and alternate media side-by-side, and anything that doesn't do this is merely outdated, with the exception of certain Navigation Templates (i.e. {{tem|Human}}), which ''need'' the differentiate between series and whatnot. The lists don't need to be separated to show what media they are from, however, because the sources are listed right there on the pages.
====Comments====
# {{User|Marioguy1}} - I usually refrain from voting but here I must vote as it seems my cause will lose (plus Walkazo made me rebuke my idea of "not being able to make a difference"). Per me in the comments I guess but to sum it up, there is no reason for characters, all confirmed as Mario characters, to be seperate on a list of Mario characters.
I'd also like to say that ''[[The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Video]]'' doesn't appear to have its full (or correct) title either, as I explained [[Talk:The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Video|here]]. The front of the box states ''The Biggest Ever Video: The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'', and the back of the box calls it ''The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Super Show Video''. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:15, February 19, 2025 (EST)
# {{User|JF}} Per all.
# {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per all.
# {{User|Mathew10}} Per all.


==== DON'T MERGE ====
===Merge introduction/ending sections for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section===
{{Early notice|March 1}}
Back in 2013, there was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Get_rid_of_pointless_Mario_Party_Minigames_beginnings_and_endings|a proposal]] to cut intro/ending descriptions for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles the proposer deemed pointless, which was rejected by the community. However, with over ten years passing since the original proposal and some discussion I had with some staff on the Discord server regarding the sections/descriptions, I would like to revisit the idea of addressing these sections and the issues that commonly plague them.


# {{user|Tucayo}} - I am a firm supporter of separating games and non-games as much as possible, so, naturally, I oppose this proposal. Why? Well, they are different media, and that is enough reason for me. But if it isn't for you, well, then, most of the other media is not even fully made by Nintendo, and most of the characters have completely different roles, appearances, etc.
TL;DR: This proposal, if passed, would merge the Introduction and Ending sections of articles for ''Mario Party'' minigames into the Gameplay section, which itself may be renamed to Overview to reflect a more all-encompassing coverage of the minigames if the community supports such an idea. For explanations and more, read on.
# {{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! It will be easier and more organized if we didn't merge them. Zero signing out.
# {{User|Commander Code-8}} I'm not sure that merging them would help. Per all.
# [[User:Lu-igi board|Lu-igi board]] the top two proposals raise great points.
# {{User|Wayoshi}} - Parsing out stuff into divisions is the best organization.
# {{User|Fuzzipede27}} - Per all.
# {{User|Bowser's luma}} In my mind I try to keep things as seperate as possible, and for some things I do, that would impose a major hassle for myself, and others as well. Per all.
# {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Per all.
# {{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all.
# {{User|New Super Mario}} Per all. It's just more work for people to find something in the list
# {{User|T.c.w7468}} Per Tucayo.


==== Important Neutral Stuff ====
While the descriptions for the intros and outros of the minigames can help our readers who need tools like screen readers, many of said descriptions are often riddled with issues, some common problems including, but not being limited to:
*Excessive descriptions of minor details or other forms of filler/content bloat that do not meaningfully contribute to the article: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Eyebrawl&oldid=4500992 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sugar%20Rush%20(minigame)&oldid=4509228 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Flip_the_Chimp&oldid=4715460 3]
*Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=On-Again,_Off-Again&oldid=4744643 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Chain_Event&oldid=4513579 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Blazing%20Lassos&oldid=4746544 3]
*Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sick_and_Twisted&oldid=4504726 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Platform_Peril&oldid=4744623 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Burnstile&oldid=4494938 3]


I'll say something that is on everybody's mind right now. Huh?!?!? {{User|Marioguy1}}
One of the most important rules of keeping readers interested is to keep one's writings as concise as possible, and it goes without saying that including details that are insignificant to what defines the minigame like what characters, enemies etc. are in the background or the exact angles or motions or positions the camera is in will clutter information that is actually relevant and important to the minigame, thus reducing the quality of the pages for readers. Even if all the filler were to be cleaned up, the descriptions, especially ones of the aforementioned "the winners/losers do their respective animations" type, tend to be so short that it does beg the question as to whether the minigames really need dedicated sections for their intros and outros. Plus, a lot of people who read the minigame articles are more likely to do so for information like how it plays or what game it appears in, not what happens to the winners or losers in a minigame like [[Glacial Meltdown]].


Well, if you see [[Characters|here]], the characters are divided to two groups: game and nongame. I want to merge the two since, well, because of one question: canon or not? Sorry for presenting an opinion unclearly; I'm notorious for doing that '-_- {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
This is where I propose we merge the contents of the Introduction and Ending sections back into the Gameplay section of the minigame articles, of course cleaning them up of filler and other unnotable details where needed. The Introduction sections can be repurposed to serve as the opening line of the Gameplay section while the Ending sections can serve as the conclusion.


Otherwise, tell me, why are they separate? Shouldn't the list be one big list? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
On the Discord server for the wiki, @Mario has also suggested the idea of renaming the Gameplay section to Overview to satiate any concerns or other desires from our userbase to keep the Gameplay section being, well, about the gameplay of the minigames. This will be provided as an alternate option for those who favor that option more than the mere section merge. If you do not agree with either proposal, a "No change" option (Option C) has additionally been provided.


: Ah, now I see :) In my personal opinion, the current format is horrible. They should either be split into two lists or merged into one, not semi-merged, semi-split as they currently are. {{User|Marioguy1}}
If you have any other ideas on how to address the issues I’ve listed or have any questions, criticisms, comments or concerns, feel free to suggest or otherwise fire away.


:: Yes, these lists should be one, according to this proposal. Remember those canon debates? I think these lists haven't been modified yet. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|ToxBoxity64}}<br/>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


::: Yeah, a lot of things regrettably fall through the cracks each time we change the organization standards... - {{User|Walkazo}}
====Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section====


Tucayo: Well, they are different media, but I don't see why the two lists are split, yet the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Sections of an Article|Manual of Style]] wants articles to include both game information and other media information in the same section. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
====Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"====
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Mario5 (opening) - MP6.png|18px]] These sections have always suffered from poor writing and serve mostly to pad the article (why are there such egregious descriptions of how the camera behaves in these articles?). There is some utility in these to contextualize the minigames, so this information should be kept in many instances (though ones with the standard win/lose endings shouldn't be mentioned, only the ones where a funny consequence happens like Wario getting his butt destroyed in [[Piranha's Pursuit]]), but they don't need to be in their own section. I think overview is a better broader way to name these sections.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Mario.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} The intro/outro sections are long overdue for some merging. Mentioning them is all fine and good, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to exactly one sentence that amounts to "the camera zooms in and the winner does a funny dance" on articles like [[Burnstile]]?
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't agree that "minor" or "uninteresting" information should be removed (like, if we did remove all of the "they do their victory animations" descriptions, that would leave us with some minigame articles that describe the endings while others don't, which is not helpful to readers at communicating the information and just makes it look like information is missing). But merging the sections is fine, they can be very short.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per everyone.
#{{User|BMfan08}} But who could forget such classics as "the winning player attempts to do a winning pose as the player wins" or "the other team is sad that they lost the game"? Ahem. Anyway, per all.


Zero777: The list is organized well enough. What, alphabetically isn't enough? It's slightly harder to navigate because the list is split. Again, this proposal deals mostly with the grouping of game and non-game stuff. The lists are outdated, and we need to change it to the standards. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
====Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)====


Luigi-board: Your vote is invalid. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
====Comments====
I dunno. The sections are pretty poorly done, but part of ''Mario Party 8''{{'}}s brand of humor is having humorous endings to minigames so a header calling them out makes a certain kind of sense. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 15:28, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of [[Crops 'n' Robbers]] was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]] and [[Photo Finish]] from Mario Party 4; [[Merry Poppings]] and [[Head Waiter]] from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like [[Picture Perfect (minigame)]] or [[Flip the Chimp]]. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)


I'm neutral for this. This proposal is balanced in advantages (organization) and disadvantages (tons of moved internal links). {{User|Mathew10}}
===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.


: It shouldn't be that hard to move the links. It might be tedious, but it isn't hard. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
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 really hope nobody opposes anything because it is too "hard", obviously the creator is volunteering to do the work themselves so it won't be hard at all for the person opposing. {{User|Marioguy1}}
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:]]
<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>


Again, it's not like alphabetized isn't organized enough. I can live with only 1 list. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
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.


I don't understand why we should merge the game and non-game things TBH. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
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.


: Previous proposals. We are supposed to place game and non-game things in the same spot so we don't go in this canon debate. I thought we agreed to place non-game things and game things in the same spot, so I don't know why people oppose. This seems logical to me. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
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:
*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>


:: Can you at least provide a link for evidence of such? {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
<references/>


Check [[MarioWiki:Coverage#No Canon|the coverage policy]] and [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|canon policy]]. The split of the lists seems like the games are "more" canon than the nongames. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


===Image Gallery or Gallery===
====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====
On some articles, the header that leads to the article subject's gallery either says Image Gallery or Gallery. This doesn't look professional to have one header on one page that says Image Gallery and another header on another page that says Gallery. We need to fix this.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br>
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
'''Voting start''': Wednesday 8:08, 6 October 2010(UTC) <br>
#{{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.
'''Deadline''': Wednesday 23:59 13 October 2010 (UTC)


====Put Image Gallery on articles====
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
#{{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.


====Put Gallery on articles====
====Don't make a standard====
#{{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} I think it should just be Gallery. Image Gallery just sounds too... i don't know. Doesn't sound right.
#{{User|Garlic Stapler}} Gallery, Image Gallery? Let's just leave it at gallery, short and to the point of where it links to.
#{{User|Sgt.Boo}} I don't really think it matters too much, but it should stick to one thing. Gallery is short and simple and hits the nail on the head in terms of what to put.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} The "Image" part is ''pointless'' and a waste of space. Gallery is best.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - It would be like saying large big, they literally mean the same thing here. Don't go be like Mario Mario, as we only need 1. Also, it is already Gallery, so lets keep it from being POINTLESS.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Same thing as the term "the reason why...is because...". Too much unnecessary words.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! What else will you be thinking on a website that says "gallery". Zero signing out.
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} "Image" is kind of obvious. Just "gallery" is good, in this case "Image Gallery" is rather redundant. Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per all.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} Per all those with the word "pointless" on their minds...
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per all.
#{{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
Guys just a reminder, i'm talking about the headers on articles that link to the subject's gallery, not the actual gallery itself.{{user|Mileycyrussoulja}}
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)


Will this have to be done manually, or can it be done with DPL text replace? {{User|Ralphfan}}
===Add the namespace and anchor parameters to {{tem|iw}}, {{tem|wp}}, and {{tem|fandom}}===
:The text replace function has no DPL in it, and this wiki does not have it so, yes, manually would be a good choice. {{User|Marioguy1}}
The <nowiki>{{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}}</nowiki> templates are missing the namespace and anchor parameters. In this case, I'm just wondering if there's a possibility to add those parameters.


===Make a Gallery Template===
The new parameters for the templates are as follows:
I just thought how easy it would be to have a Gallery template so new users could easily find more galleries when they access one and even editors could easily access their favorite galleries without having to go through the trouble. We could make a template for Character galleries and a template for Game galleries. Anyone think this is a good idea? I am thinking about making sections for Characters, Species, Bosses, and Games.
*<code>ns</code> – Used for inserting namespaces.
*<code>a</code> – Used for inserting anchors.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br>
Here are both what the templates will look like and some examples for the <code>ns</code> and <code>a</code> parameters:
'''Voting start''': Monday 7:54, 11 October 2010(UTC) <br>
'''Deadline''': Monday 23:59 18 October 2010 (UTC)


====Make a Gallery Template====
;<nowiki>{{iw}}</nowiki>
#{{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Per myself. If this proposal passes, then I will truly make a gallery template.
<pre>
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Hey! Here's a good idea! Per Mileycyrussoulja.
[[:{{{1}}}:{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{2|}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&amp;nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&amp;#35;{{{a}}}}}|{{{3|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}]]
#{{User|Mathew10}} Great idea! I wonder why that hasn't been added yet.
</pre>
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Great idea! I love it!


====Don't make a Gallery Template====
<code><nowiki>{{iw|strategywiki|Gravity Rush|ns=Category}}</nowiki></code>
:{{iw|strategywiki|Category:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush}}


====Comments====
<code><nowiki>{{iw|jiggywikki|Banjo-Kazooie|a=Gameplay}}</nowiki></code>
Although we already have links to Galleries within most articles, I notice a few have galleries but don't link to them such as [[Waluigi]] and a few other characters that appear to have no link to their galleries. Although while back on subject, a gallery template on gallery pages would be nice. A segment of the template, for humans, species, bosses.{{User|Garlic Stapler}}
:{{iw|jiggywikki|Banjo-Kazooie#Gameplay|Banjo-Kazooie}}
:Do you have any example of this? Examples are commonly needed on this proposals. {{user|Tucayo}}
;<nowiki>{{wp}}</nowiki>
::This could be difficult...I'll work on something :) {{User|Marioguy1}}
<pre>
{{iw|wikipedia|{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{{l}}}:}}{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&amp;nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&amp;#35;{{{a}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}
</pre>


Is this proposing to make something like a navigation template for galleries? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
<code><nowiki>{{wp|Nintendo 3DS|a=3DS family comparison table}}</nowiki></code>
:From what I understand, yes. Like a big list of galleries. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:{{wp|Nintendo 3DS#3DS family comparison table|Nintendo 3DS}}
::OK. I'd really like to see an example of this, though it sounds pretty good. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}


Remember, supporters, saying any variation of "I like this idea!" is not a valid reason to support. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
<code><nowiki>{{wp|WikiProject Video games|ns=Wikipedia}}</nowiki></code>
:I really want to see an example of this, I don't feel comfortable allowing something this difficult to pass. This is something that could actually be pretty hard... {{User|marioguy1}}
:{{wp|Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games|WikiProject Video games}}
::OK, [[User:Marioguy1/Test#Ignore this|is this]] what you're thinking of? I think it looks good...granted it's not in a template but if you want it in a template, I could try that. {{User|Marioguy1}}


===Categories on Boss Articles===
;<nowiki>{{fandom}}</nowiki>
OK, this proposal, obviously, has to do with the categories on the boss articles, something like this was recently stated on the talk of the main page however I think that to be an official policy, it must be proposed and passed by the community. So, currently, ~all (or so I am told) boss articles have three categories in them, Enemies, Bosses and Characters. I propose that we use those categories much more strictly, AKA for the following reasons:
<pre>
*[[:Category:Enemies|Enemies]] - This category will only be used on characters that are unnamed individually and are simply known as members of a certain species. Like Goombas, not [[Goomboss]], not [[Red and Blue Goomba]], just the members of the species that are generic and anonymous. Examples include [[Goomba]], [[Koopa Troopa]], [[Spiny]] and [[Nitpicker]].
{{plain link|https://{{urlencode:{{{1|www}}}}}.fandom.com/{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{urlencode:{{{l}}}}}/}}wiki/{{urlencode:{{{2|Main Page}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&amp;nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&amp;#35;{{{a}}}}}|WIKI}}|{{{3|{{{2|}}}}}}}}
*[[:Category:Bosses|Bosses]] - This category would only contain enemies with different variants, like different music, different size, solo text where they state they are "superior" or "notable", different coloration, etc. Examples include [[Goomboss]], [[Baron Brrr]], [[Lakilester]] and [[Bowser]].
</pre>
*[[:Category:Characters|Characters]] - This category will only contain named characters. If the being in question is named and not just a generic member of a species then it would be considered a character. Examples include [[Mario]], [[Yoshi (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)|Yoshi]], [[Bowser]] and [[Goompapa]].


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br>
<code><nowiki>{{fandom|spongebob|Incidental 6|a="Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!"}}</nowiki></code>
'''Voting Starts:''' October 12, 21:00 EST<br>
:{{fandom|spongebob|Incidental 6#"Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!"|Incidental 6}}
'''Deadline:''' October 18, 23:59


====Use this Category System====
<code><nowiki>{{fandom|spongebob|Battle for Bikini Bottom|ns=Map}}</nowiki></code>
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - When looking for enemies, people want to see enemies, i.e. the different species that bosses fall into, not bosses in general.
:{{fandom|spongebob|Map:Battle for Bikini Bottom|Battle for Bikini Bottom}}
#{{User|Supershroom}} - I completly agree. What's the point of having a bosses category if they are all found in other categories. However, you suggest that Bowser would be in the Bosses category, when he is a character as well. I mean, if someone was asked to name some major Mario characters, I'm sure they would mention Bowser. So, if they then came here, and wanted to see some Mario characters, they would think that there would be a mistake in the category if they didn't find Bowser there. For most of the other bosses, like those who have been seen once, would be fine in their own Bosses Category. On the other hand, some people might lke to see a page with all the named characters (the lazy blobs could jus click links to other pages though), so this might be why there is so much disagreement about this topic. Oh and what Marioguy1 says. I only really disagree about Bowser, and other important characters like the Koopalings and Kamek (and so on and so forth) only being in the bosses category, when they are charcters too. Take [[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story]], for example. You fight Bowser (three times, if you count Bowser X as the third), which makes him a boss, yet you also play as him, mking him a character. I could go on for ages, (I aready have XD) but I can't be bothered to type any more. I broke my finger a few days ago, and I think I'm making it worse. Finally, per proposal.
#{{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all.


====Continue Using Current One====
If this proposal passes, then we'll be able to add the <code>ns</code> and <code>a</code> parameters to the <nowiki>{{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}}</nowiki> templates. It's important to tell about the extra parameters can be handy. That way, we won't need to worry about inserting both either the <code><namespace></code> or the <code>#</code> on the first parameter and displayed text on the second parameter.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Bosses are characters as well as enemies. All current categories apply, some of which are just more specific than others. It is like so: Characters>Enemies>Bosses. Bowser is a boss, but that doesn't remove him from the categories of "Enemies" or "Characters."
#{{User|GalacticPetey}} Per Bowsers Luma


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
So you are saying Bosses =/= Characters? I would think that characters may be like a "mother category", with many other ones branching out, like Bosses, Enemies, Allies, etc. {{user|Tucayo}}
'''Deadline''': March 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:Actually, I think most (if not all) boss articles would also be character articles. What I'm saying is that not all character articles would also be boss articles. I'm just trying to set category standards in this small area of the category tree. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::The boss category is a specific sub-category of "enemies". It applies to those enemies that are fought in a "boss battle", bosses are defined as enemies but you don't meet up with Bowser on the road and (forgive the Pokemon reference) have "A wild Bowser appeared!" flash onto the screen. He's slightly more sinister than a casual, oh look, it's ''another'' one of those things. And if Bowser is a character AND a boss, he will be categorized as a character AND a boss, I don't see the dilemna with having two categories. {{User|Marioguy1}}


===Merge [[Mario Tennis]] Characters===
====Support: Add the extra parameters====
I've been checking the Project Unstubify page and quite a few of the character pages and notice that almost all of them have only one or two setences and a stub template put onto them. I think that they should all be merged as one page since there is literally no one to expand those stubs at all.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Gives us more options for cases where we might need it.</s>


'''Proposer''': {{User|Garlic Stapler}}<br>
====Oppose: Keep as is====
'''Voting start''': October 13, 9:15 EST<br>
#{{User|Nintendo101}} This is not necessary, and potentially further complicates piping and templates where it is not necessary. The current system is intuitive and helpful enough as is.
'''Deadline''': October 20, 23:59
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} It's already possible to do this without making these changes.
 
#{{User|Arend}} Per all + see comments. How is it any more beneficiary for us to type <code>Incidental 6'''|a='''"Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!"</code> when <code>Incidental 6'''#'''"Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!"</code> still works just as fine AND takes less time to type? Similarly, how is <code>Battle for Bikini Bottom'''|ns='''Map</code> any more beneficiary when you can simply copypaste <code>Map''':'''Battle for Bikini Bottom</code> to get the same result?
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Arend
#{{User|Garlic Stapler}} - Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Beecanoe}} - You know, this could be the start of something new.  Not only could we merge the Mario Tennis character articles, but merge articles about other really minor elements, too (such as the Mario & Sonic Olympic events, sure they're not as short as the Mario Tennis characters, but they're stubs, nonetheless).  I pity the foos who think that idea is a bad one.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} I oppose because this is the MARIOWIKI and each character is supposed to have their own article.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per MSS. Not Mario Super Sluggers, hahaha.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} I have both Mario Tennis games for the Game Boy systems and each of those character have a slightly different role and personality (from what I remember). Per all.
#{{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - We are the mariowiki, we do not limit our content based on our writing capabilities, we wait for someone with better experience with the game and character to come along and do it. We do our best, even if that's not the best. We cannot give up because of a minor impass, take te easy road and limit our content. We must challenge ourselves to make it better and only then can we call ourselves an encyclopedia. For the wiki!
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} This is a foo who thinks this idea is a bad idea. Pity her. Per all.
 
====Comments====
If you don't like the fact that they are stub articles, why not write more? {{User|Bowser's luma}}
:To be honest I've played the games a couple of times, really isn't much more you can write about them to be honest. =[ {{User|Garlic Stapler}}
How about we just don't have those articles at all? No one cares about those characters anyway. {{User|Beecanoe}}
:We are the MarioWiki, we have articles on all characters, major or minor from the Mario series. ESPECIALLY if they are playable. {{User|Marioguy1}}


Beecanoe: Please don't call other people "foos" just because they have a different opinion than you. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
====Comments (wiki linking)====
IS it really necessary? Typing out <nowiki>{{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}}</nowiki> to get you to link {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}} works just fine... {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:05, February 24, 2025 (EST)
:It really IS necessary to me. Typing out <nowiki>{{iw|bulbapedia|0001Bulbasaur.png|ns=File}}</nowiki> to get us to link {{iw|bulbapedia|0001Bulbasaur.png|ns=File}} works better than either typing out <nowiki>{{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}}</nowiki> to get us to link {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}} or <nowiki>{{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png|0001Bulbasaur.png}}</nowiki> to get us to link {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png|0001Bulbasaur.png}} because it will take a short time to type out what works better. {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 18:50, February 24, 2025 (EST)
::In the example you provided, <nowiki>{{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}}</nowiki> takes fewer characters to type than <nowiki>{{iw|bulbapedia|0001Bulbasaur.png|ns=File}}</nowiki>. How does the latter take a shorter amount of time to type out if it is literally longer? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:14, February 24, 2025 (EST)
:::...I ''think'' I get it. GuntherBayBee basically wants an easy way to provide a link to an interwiki file page ''without'' showing the namespace in the link (as in without repeating the file page for the piping), but failed to convey this properly in his proposal. Still unsure if it's truly necessary in the long run though. {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:36, February 24, 2025 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 19:37, February 24, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, February 25th, 00:37 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 "Oppose" 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)
Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes, PaperSplash (ended February 23, 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)
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)
Split the SMRPG Chain Chomp from Chain Chomp, Kirby the Formling (ended February 22, 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

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.

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)

Include the show's title in home media releases of various Mario cartoons where it seems to be intended

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 24 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Okay, the title may be a bit confusing, so let me aloborate myself.

The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World all have home media releases that include various episodes on a single VHS or DVD. Most of these releases are named after an episode included within it, with the show's name/logo appearing before it, however, we seem to omit the show's name for no reason?

Front cover for "The Bird! The Bird!" VHS

I've got an example here. This VHS here is clearly intended to have the title The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: The Bird! The Bird!, as evidenced by the cover. However, we've just title the article as The Bird! The Bird! (VHS) which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Home media releases of Donkey Kong Country have it like this. So why are these different?

Now, of course, if the title of the show is clearly intended to NOT be a part of the title, then we won't include it.

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: March 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: Per all!
  2. Arend (talk) Per the Kaptain. I've made this same suggestion in a prior proposal on doing the inverse.
  3. Jdtendo (talk) For consistency.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the proposal Arend mentioned; this seems to be how the official releases are titled, so we should follow suit.
  5. Fun With Despair (talk) I see no reason not to do this. It only serves to improve clarity, and the show's title is almost always on the actual cover of the home media anyway.
  6. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal. This just makes sense for consistency.
  7. Pizza Master (talk) Per all.
  8. Rykitu (talk) Per all

Oppose

Comments

I'd also like to say that The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Video doesn't appear to have its full (or correct) title either, as I explained here. The front of the box states The Biggest Ever Video: The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, and the back of the box calls it The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Super Show Video. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 13:15, February 19, 2025 (EST)

Merge introduction/ending sections for Mario Party minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay 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 1 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Back in 2013, there was a proposal to cut intro/ending descriptions for Mario Party minigame articles the proposer deemed pointless, which was rejected by the community. However, with over ten years passing since the original proposal and some discussion I had with some staff on the Discord server regarding the sections/descriptions, I would like to revisit the idea of addressing these sections and the issues that commonly plague them.

TL;DR: This proposal, if passed, would merge the Introduction and Ending sections of articles for Mario Party minigames into the Gameplay section, which itself may be renamed to Overview to reflect a more all-encompassing coverage of the minigames if the community supports such an idea. For explanations and more, read on.

While the descriptions for the intros and outros of the minigames can help our readers who need tools like screen readers, many of said descriptions are often riddled with issues, some common problems including, but not being limited to:

  • Excessive descriptions of minor details or other forms of filler/content bloat that do not meaningfully contribute to the article: 1 • 2 • 3
  • Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: 1 • 2 • 3
  • Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": 1 • 2 • 3

One of the most important rules of keeping readers interested is to keep one's writings as concise as possible, and it goes without saying that including details that are insignificant to what defines the minigame like what characters, enemies etc. are in the background or the exact angles or motions or positions the camera is in will clutter information that is actually relevant and important to the minigame, thus reducing the quality of the pages for readers. Even if all the filler were to be cleaned up, the descriptions, especially ones of the aforementioned "the winners/losers do their respective animations" type, tend to be so short that it does beg the question as to whether the minigames really need dedicated sections for their intros and outros. Plus, a lot of people who read the minigame articles are more likely to do so for information like how it plays or what game it appears in, not what happens to the winners or losers in a minigame like Glacial Meltdown.

This is where I propose we merge the contents of the Introduction and Ending sections back into the Gameplay section of the minigame articles, of course cleaning them up of filler and other unnotable details where needed. The Introduction sections can be repurposed to serve as the opening line of the Gameplay section while the Ending sections can serve as the conclusion.

On the Discord server for the wiki, @Mario has also suggested the idea of renaming the Gameplay section to Overview to satiate any concerns or other desires from our userbase to keep the Gameplay section being, well, about the gameplay of the minigames. This will be provided as an alternate option for those who favor that option more than the mere section merge. If you do not agree with either proposal, a "No change" option (Option C) has additionally been provided.

If you have any other ideas on how to address the issues I’ve listed or have any questions, criticisms, comments or concerns, feel free to suggest or otherwise fire away.

Proposer: ToxBoxity64 (talk)
Deadline: March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section

Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"

  1. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
  2. Mario (talk) Mario from the opening cutscene of Mario Party 6 These sections have always suffered from poor writing and serve mostly to pad the article (why are there such egregious descriptions of how the camera behaves in these articles?). There is some utility in these to contextualize the minigames, so this information should be kept in many instances (though ones with the standard win/lose endings shouldn't be mentioned, only the ones where a funny consequence happens like Wario getting his butt destroyed in Piranha's Pursuit), but they don't need to be in their own section. I think overview is a better broader way to name these sections.
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer and Mario.
  4. Power Flotzo (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) The intro/outro sections are long overdue for some merging. Mentioning them is all fine and good, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to exactly one sentence that amounts to "the camera zooms in and the winner does a funny dance" on articles like Burnstile?
  6. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  7. Technetium (talk) Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
  9. Hewer (talk) I don't agree that "minor" or "uninteresting" information should be removed (like, if we did remove all of the "they do their victory animations" descriptions, that would leave us with some minigame articles that describe the endings while others don't, which is not helpful to readers at communicating the information and just makes it look like information is missing). But merging the sections is fine, they can be very short.
  10. Nintendo101 (talk) Per everyone.
  11. BMfan08 (talk) But who could forget such classics as "the winning player attempts to do a winning pose as the player wins" or "the other team is sad that they lost the game"? Ahem. Anyway, per all.

Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)

Comments

I dunno. The sections are pretty poorly done, but part of Mario Party 8's brand of humor is having humorous endings to minigames so a header calling them out makes a certain kind of sense. Salmancer (talk) 15:28, February 22, 2025 (EST)

It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of Crops 'n' Robbers was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in Avalanche! (Mario Party 4) and Photo Finish from Mario Party 4; Merry Poppings and Head Waiter from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like Picture Perfect (minigame) or Flip the Chimp. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:49, February 22, 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.

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)

Add the namespace and anchor parameters to {{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}}

The {{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}} templates are missing the namespace and anchor parameters. In this case, I'm just wondering if there's a possibility to add those parameters.

The new parameters for the templates are as follows:

  • ns – Used for inserting namespaces.
  • a – Used for inserting anchors.

Here are both what the templates will look like and some examples for the ns and a parameters:

{{iw}}
[[:{{{1}}}:{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{2|}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&#35;{{{a}}}}}|{{{3|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}]]

{{iw|strategywiki|Gravity Rush|ns=Category}}

Gravity Rush

{{iw|jiggywikki|Banjo-Kazooie|a=Gameplay}}

Banjo-Kazooie
{{wp}}
{{iw|wikipedia|{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{{l}}}:}}{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&#35;{{{a}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}

{{wp|Nintendo 3DS|a=3DS family comparison table}}

Nintendo 3DS

{{wp|WikiProject Video games|ns=Wikipedia}}

WikiProject Video games
{{fandom}}
{{plain link|https://{{urlencode:{{{1|www}}}}}.fandom.com/{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{urlencode:{{{l}}}}}/}}wiki/{{urlencode:{{{2|Main Page}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&#35;{{{a}}}}}|WIKI}}|{{{3|{{{2|}}}}}}}}

{{fandom|spongebob|Incidental 6|a="Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!"}}

Incidental 6

{{fandom|spongebob|Battle for Bikini Bottom|ns=Map}}

Battle for Bikini Bottom

If this proposal passes, then we'll be able to add the ns and a parameters to the {{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}} templates. It's important to tell about the extra parameters can be handy. That way, we won't need to worry about inserting both either the <namespace> or the # on the first parameter and displayed text on the second parameter.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: March 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Add the extra parameters

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Gives us more options for cases where we might need it.

Oppose: Keep as is

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) This is not necessary, and potentially further complicates piping and templates where it is not necessary. The current system is intuitive and helpful enough as is.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) It's already possible to do this without making these changes.
  3. Arend (talk) Per all + see comments. How is it any more beneficiary for us to type Incidental 6|a="Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!" when Incidental 6#"Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!" still works just as fine AND takes less time to type? Similarly, how is Battle for Bikini Bottom|ns=Map any more beneficiary when you can simply copypaste Map:Battle for Bikini Bottom to get the same result?
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) per Arend
  5. Sparks (talk) Per all.

Comments (wiki linking)

IS it really necessary? Typing out {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}} to get you to link File:0001Bulbasaur.png works just fine... ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 16:05, February 24, 2025 (EST)

It really IS necessary to me. Typing out {{iw|bulbapedia|0001Bulbasaur.png|ns=File}} to get us to link 0001Bulbasaur.png works better than either typing out {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}} to get us to link File:0001Bulbasaur.png or {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png|0001Bulbasaur.png}} to get us to link 0001Bulbasaur.png because it will take a short time to type out what works better. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 18:50, February 24, 2025 (EST)
In the example you provided, {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}} takes fewer characters to type than {{iw|bulbapedia|0001Bulbasaur.png|ns=File}}. How does the latter take a shorter amount of time to type out if it is literally longer? - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:14, February 24, 2025 (EST)
...I think I get it. GuntherBayBee basically wants an easy way to provide a link to an interwiki file page without showing the namespace in the link (as in without repeating the file page for the piping), but failed to convey this properly in his proposal. Still unsure if it's truly necessary in the long run though. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 19:36, February 24, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4754688"