MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear="all">
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black" ( The new Picture url http://www.mariowiki.com/File:Wikipedesketch1.png )
''None at the moment.''
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==New features==
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
I have several pitches for you.
#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.
<big>'''''OPTION ZERO'''''</big><br>
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. <s>It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.</s>


===Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format===
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''
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>
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><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>
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.


<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
-----
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.
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".
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.


__TOC__
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.


<!--<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>-->
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.


''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''


<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.


<br>
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.


==Talk Page Proposals==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
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.
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT


===How To===
====Option Zero====
#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.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#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:
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#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.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
#{{User|Arend}} Per Porple.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per porplemontage.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.  


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
====Option One====
*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
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
*Make Articles for the Instruments in the Conservatory ([[Talk:Conservatory|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' October 23rd, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Salmancer}} There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.


==New Features==
====Option Two====
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.


==Removals==
====Option Three====
===Move Episodes from Article to Subpage===
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
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 :)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.


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


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br>
====Comments====
'''Voting Start:''' October 12, 2010, 22:00 EST<br>
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)
'''Deadline:''' October 18, 2010, 23:59


====Seperate====
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "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." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - This can reduce loading time on many articles without making too many subpages like BMB's former proposal would have.
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Cosmic Red Toad}} - per BMB's old proposal and this one. i dont care about... episodes or whatever?
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{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.  
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per proposal.
#{{user|Tucayo}} -Per all.
#{{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|New Super Mario}} Per proposal
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! There are high chances that they're not going to make a new Mario cartoon so putting it in a sub-page will'nt be a bad idea. It can give more room to upcoming game info. Zero signing out.


====Remain in Articles====
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)
# {{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|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|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|Reversinator}} Per all


====Comments====
==Removals==
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}}
''None at the moment.''
: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}}
::@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}}
:::@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}}
 
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}}
: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}}
::@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}}


==Changes==
==Changes==
=== The Lists on the Left Side Below Mario Knowledge ===
===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'']].


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.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br>
====Support====
'''Voting start''': Wednesday 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC) <br>
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
'''Deadline''': <s>Wednesday 23:59 13 October 2010 (UTC)</s> '''Extended:''' Wednesday 23:59 20 October 2010 (UTC)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.


==== DO MERGE ====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{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.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Pertendo101.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{user|wildgoosespeeder}} Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon <nowiki>[[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']]</nowiki>, unless you mean to use <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}</nowiki>, which does work on the category page.
#{{user|Fun With Despair}} Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
#{{User|Arend}} I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki>, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced  by the system to be displayed in italics when they're ''redirects'' (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were ''all'' displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.


# {{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.
====Comments====
# {{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.
@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)
# {{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.
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
# {{User|JF}} Per all.
::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)
# {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per all.
:::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)
# {{User|Mathew10}} Per all.
::::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)


==== DON'T MERGE ====
@wildgoosespeeder: The intention of the proposal is just to add italic titles to the category pages themselves.<br>@Fun With Despair: I don't see how copy-pasting a template onto a bunch of categories is such a big ordeal? We've certainly had proposals that'd take [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Require citations for names in other languages|way more work]] that have passed, I don't think it's a good reason for opposing something.<br>@Arend: Everything you said about categories not displaying the italics in certain contexts or only displaying them if they're redirects also applies to articles, and yet those are allowed to have italic titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:51, March 11, 2025 (EDT)


# {{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.
===Introducing the crossover article===
# {{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! It will be easier and more organized if we didn't merge them. Zero signing out.
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:
# {{User|Commander Code-8}} I'm not sure that merging them would help. Per all.
#'''See the publication of the drafted ''Zelda'' article''' discussed in this proposal, titled "{{Fake link|crossovers with ''The Legend of Zelda''}}." (The draft can be viewed [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|here]].)
# {{User|Wayoshi}} - Parsing out stuff into divisions is the best organization.
#'''Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to ''Zelda'' on the wiki to the published ''Zelda'' article''' (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like [[Link]] would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future ''Mario Tennis'' or something like that).
# {{User|Fuzzipede27}} - Per all.
#'''Move details pertaining to ''Zelda'' from list articles on the site to this one''' (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|list of fighters debuting in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'']] article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. ''Zelda'' info on the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published ''Zelda'' one when they reach that section of the list article).
# {{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.
#'''Establish a navbox for crossover articles''' (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
# {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Per all.
#'''Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the ''Super Mario'' franchise has crossed-over.'''
# {{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all.
#'''Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]]''' that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
# {{User|New Super Mario}} Per all. It's just more work for people to find something in the list
#'''Note that this framework exists on the the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|crossover section of our coverage policy]]''', and provide a link directing readers to it.
# {{User|T.c.w7468}} Per Tucayo.
#{{User|Cosmic Red Toad}} Per Tucayo


==== Important Neutral Stuff ====
The ''Super Mario'' franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, ''Super Mario'' as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. ''Duck Hunt'', ''Punch-Out!!'', ''Exictebike'', ''Metroid'', ''F-ZERO'', ''Animal Crossing'', ''Pikmin'', ''Splatoon'', etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s ''EarthBound'', HAL Laboratory's ''Kirby'', Game Freak's ''Pokémon'', etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.


I'll say something that is on everybody's mind right now. Huh?!?!? {{User|Marioguy1}}
A lot of coverage of ''Super Mario'' references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of [[Super Mario Bros.#Notes|dedicated game articles]], or in ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|are not wholly about ''Super Smash Bros.'' anyways]]. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that ''Super Mario'' has made references and ''is'' referenced in many other franchises outside of ''Smash Bros.'' contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how ''Mario'' has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where ''Splatoon'' and ''Mario'' have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.


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}}
[[File:LA Wart.gif|right|200px|frog man!]]
[[File:SM3DW WS-1 2nd Green Star.jpg|right|200px|green lad!]]
To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, and I have been drafting what I would like to call a "<u>crossover article</u>" using [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise as an example]] (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the {{iw|smashwiki|Mario (universe)|universe articles}} from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the ''Zelda'' draft, consist of the following sections:
*'''Overview''' : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to ''Mario''. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For ''Zelda'', this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because ''Mario'' had a lot of direct influence on ''Zelda'' as a series.
*'''Recurring crossover subjects''': for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside ''Mario''-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with ''Mario'' highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with ''Mario''.
*'''History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise''': a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself.
*'''History in the subject series/franchise''': a history section for the inverse, where ''Super Mario'' is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is ''Zelda''.
*'''Shared history''' (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, ''Tetris'' series, ''NES Remix'' series, or other media.


Otherwise, tell me, why are they separate? Shouldn't the list be one big list? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
''Zelda'' is uniquely related to ''Mario'' and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with ''Super Mario'' within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to ''Super Mario'' or have elements inspired by it, such as ''Celeste'', ''Gears of War'', or ''Astro Bot''.


: 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}}
I offer three options:
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''


:: 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}}
I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted ''Zelda'' article! It is in my "<u>community</u> garden" sandbox for a reason.)


::: Yeah, a lot of things regrettably fall through the cracks each time we change the organization standards... - {{User|Walkazo}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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}}
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. death to the smash bros lists
#{{User|Mario}} Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} 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}}
====Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave ''Smash Bros.'' lists alone====
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Sophie.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per Soph
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
#{{User|Arend}} Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per Sophie.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Second opinion.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering ''Zelda'' subjects had ''[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|Link's Awakening]]'' failed!
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Hmm, so I'm going to do this because technically each of a character's special moves gets a sentence to itself on their article/Smash list entry and those just aren't going to fit in a crossover article
#{{User|Pseudo}} Secondary choice.


Luigi-board: Your vote is invalid. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====


I'm neutral for this. This proposal is balanced in advantages (organization) and disadvantages (tons of moved internal links). {{User|Mathew10}}
====Crossover comments====
I also happened to start a [[User:PopitTart/Sandbox#Pikmin (franchise)|draft for a Pikmin series article]] the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... '''much''' rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)


: It shouldn't be that hard to move the links. It might be tedious, but it isn't hard. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} thank you for the kind words! - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)
:[[File:LinkCN.jpg|50px]] {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)


:: 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}}
Question: One of the proposed points is to "''Move'' details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be ''cleared''". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?<br>Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through ''Smash Bros.'', such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within ''Smash Bros.'' have only crossed-over with ''Mario'' within ''Smash Bros.'', and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ''ARMS'' is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, {{@|Arend}}? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in ''Smash'', but it would be strange to do with ''ARMS'' considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ''ARMS'' regardless, considering how most of the ''ARMS'' development team is basically ''Mario Kart 8'' alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with ''Kingdom Hearts''. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.<br>Anyway {{@|Nintendo101}}, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for ''Mario'', one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular ''Smash Bros.'' info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about ''Zelda'' in ''Smash Bros.'' and less about ''Zelda'' with ''Mario'' in ''Smash Bros.'', but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of ''Smash Bros.'', would be retained.) For example, in my ''Zelda'' draft, [[User:Nintendo101/community garden#Ganon|Ganon]] is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Mario Artist: Paint Studio'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant ''Zelda'' info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)
So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my ''Zelda'' draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how ''Zelda'' engages with ''Mario'' in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular ''Smash Bros.'' info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.<br>Another thing I just thought of: we already have [[Pushmo (series)]] and [[Just Dance (series)]] as guest appearances, and [[Talk:List of references in Nintendo video games#Split Animal Crossing|this proposal]] passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe {{@|Kaptain Skurvy}}, {{@|Nelsonic}}, and {{@|Mushzoom}} can provide their two cents. Would you want the ''Pushmo'', ''Just Dance'', and ''Animal Crossing'' articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:<br>Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, {{iw|rhythmheaven|WarioWare (series)|Rhythm Heaven}}, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe [[Balloon Fighter|Balloon Fight]], maybe [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Clu Clu Land]], maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would [[Minecraft|probably be redundant to split]]<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken<br>No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts<br>I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::Forgot about [[Starfy|The Legendary Starfy]], that would qualify. There's also [[I Choose You!]] from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Nintendo101}} Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of ''Super Mario'' content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] or the [[list of references in third-party video games]]. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. ''{{wp|Drill Dozer}}'' or ''{{wp|Borderlands 2}}''), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'']] or ''[[Mobile Golf]]'').  [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)


Again, it's not like alphabetized isn't organized enough. I can live with only 1 list. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
:Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)


I don't understand why we should merge the game and non-game things TBH. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
===Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one===
{{early notice|March 17, 2025}}
When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for [[Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards)]].
It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.


: 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}}
To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one.
That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.


:: Can you at least provide a link for evidence of such? {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion.
If this proposal passes, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Gallery_talk:Donkey_Kong_Card_Game_(trading_cards)&oldid=4730155 the aforementioned page] would look [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Jdtendo/Bacassab&oldid=4776920 like this].


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|Jdtendo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT


===Make a Gallery Template===
====Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one====
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.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal
#{{User|Technetium}} Good idea
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems useful for navigation!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all! very good idea
#{{User|LadySophie17}} per all. That has always bothered me.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Very good to establish consistency.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all. Finally consistency.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}}<br>
====Oppose: don't add headings to topics====
'''Voting start''': Monday 7:54, 11 October 2010(UTC) <br>
'''Deadline''': Monday 23:59 18 October 2010 (UTC)


====Make a Gallery Template====
====Comments (first topic heading)====
#{{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Per myself. If this proposal passes, then I will truly make a gallery template.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Hey! Here's a good idea! Per Mileycyrussoulja.
 
====Don't make a Gallery Template====
 
====Comments====
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}}
:Do you have any example of this? Examples are commonly needed on this proposals. {{user|Tucayo}}
::This could be difficult...I'll work on something :) {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
Is this proposing to make something like a navigation template for galleries? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:From what I understand, yes. Like a big list of galleries. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::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}}
: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}}
::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}}
:::I think what he means is one of those little boxes at the bottom of the page. It could group galleries of characters like Bowser, Bowser Jr., etc. or Mario, Luigi, etc. {{User|Bowser's luma}}
 
===Categories on Boss Articles===
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:
*[[: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]].
*[[: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]].
*[[: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>
'''Voting Starts:''' October 12, 21:00 EST<br>
'''Deadline:''' October 18, 23:59
 
====Use this Category System====
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - When looking for enemies, people want to see enemies, i.e. the different species that bosses fall into, not bosses in general.
#{{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.
#{{User|Cosmic Blue Toad}} &ndash; Per proposal and myself in the comments.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Bosses are not enemies, and to be honest I expected that common sense would make that obvious. Both of these terms are distinct roles in video game jargon, and in the usual case they are exclusive to one another. These two categories should never appear on the same article, except in the very specific case that something is encountered as a boss AND a regular enemy. Do not mix this up.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} I agree with Edo's comment.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Finally, a comment that helped me decide my vote. Thanks, Edo! Per Edo.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Took me a while to decide, but per all.
 
====Continue Using Current One====
#{{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
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} Per Bowser's Luma.
 
====Comments====
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}}
: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 a 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 dilemma with having two categories. {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
Look, the branch of "being" categories are kinda like this in my eyes:
*Species - Races of different beings. Some are usually nice (Allies), some are usually evil (Enemies).
*Characters - (Important) members of different species, which usually have a name.
*Heroes - The good guys, who usually save worlds, characters and important items. Mario (a Character) is a Hero, Yoshis (a species) are too.
*Allies - Nice characters or species which help heroes on their way, and are against enemies. The character Toad is an ally, and so are his species. Mario is sometimes an ally too.
*Villains - Usually the bad guys. They usually kidnap certain characters, steal important items and take over worlds. Villains are usually characters, not species. Bowser is a villain
*Bosses - The term "Boss" is used on characters who are need to be fought, or are leaded by a villain, or eventually ARE the leaders of a branch of enemies. Villains can be bosses as well. Bowser is not only a villain, but also a boss. Hammer Bros. (a species) are (mini)bosses too.
*Enemies - This could be anything that is bad. Evil species, villains AND bosses. So Hammer Bros. are also enemies, and Bowser thus too. And so are Goombas.
A little complicated, and maybe a little hard to understand. {{User|Arend}}
 
:Well, I think of them like this:
*Species - '''All''' different '''races''', ''good or evil'' (such as [[Goomba]]s, [[Bub-ulb]]s,  [[Lakitu]]s,and [[Yoshi (species)|Yoshi]]s)
*Enemies - '''Evil''' or mean '''species''' ''that can'' usually ''be fought'' (such as [[Koopa Troopa|Koopa]]s, [[Bombshell Bill]]s, [[Magikoopa]]s, and [[Mawful Mole]]s)
*Allies - '''Good''', supporting, or helpful '''species or''' minor '''characters''' ''that'' usually ''assist you or you'' need to ''rescue'' (such as [[Toad]], [[Toad (species)|Toad]]s, [[Luma (species)|Luma]]s, and [[Luma (character)|Luma]])
*Characters - '''Anyone''', ''good or bad'', who has been '''specifically named''' (such as [[Fawful]], [[Toadette]], [[Bowser]], and [[Waluigi]])
*Bosses - '''Evil characters''' who ''you fight in a'' '''boss battle''' (such as [[Red Ninjakoopa]], [[Bowser Jr.]], [[Dark Fawful]], and [[Tatanga]])
*Heroes - '''Good''', major '''characters''', not allies, ''who'' usually do their best to ''help save the day'' (such as [[Mario]], [[Yoshi]], [[Lakilester]], and [[Rosalina]])
*Villains - '''Major bosses''', ''usually the final boss''es, which the entire game leads to their defeat (such as [[Dark Fawful Bug]]/[[Dark Bowser]], [[Shadow Queen|The Shadow Queen]], [[Smithy]], and [[Bowser]]
 
<small>Recap:<br>
'''Species''':''All races'', good or evil ([[Dryite]]s)<br>
'''Enemies''':''Evil species'' that can be fought ([[Octoomba]]s)<br>
'''Allies''':''Good species or characters'' that assist you or you rescue ([[Tayce T.]])<br>
'''Characters''':''Anyone specifically named'', good or bad ([[Starlow]])<br>
'''Bosses''':''Evil characters'' you fight in a ''boss battle'' ([[Kammy Koopa]])<br>
'''Heroes''':''Good characters'' who help save the day ([[Luigi]])<br>
'''Villains''':''Major bosses'', usually the final boss ([[Super Dimentio]])</small>
 
Well, that's what I think. {{User|Cosmic Blue Toad}}
 
A boss is an opponent, usually one of a kind, who is fought under special conditions. In action games a boss is usually introduced somehow, commonly with a cutscene, and you fight it in an arena of some sorts. In an RPG those often have their own separate battle theme or something else that sets them appart from the enemies. An enemy on the other hand is one of the many common nuisances you encounter in a level. They are usually not unique or specially introduced, and you often encounter more than one of them in one level. These are set roles in video game jargon, keep that in mind.
 
So apparently there are people saying the Bowser article should have the Enemy category on it. Now let me ask you a question: Where, even in one single game, has Bowser ever been encountered as a common enemy? In which game did he roam a level like a Goomba, or Koopa, or any other enemy? That's right, never! This is why the Enemy category has no place on the Bowser article, and neither does it have one on any other boss article.
 
This whole Enemies-Bosses constellation has been formed because of the assumption that most bosses hold a grudge against Mario (read: They are his enemies). However, this is not what the Enemy category is for. It is for common enemies '''only'''! We can't just stretch the scope of a category because of semantics like "You can use the word 'enemy' in a sentence with them, so they have to be enemies". We don't put Category:Bosses on [[Princess Peach]] because she is the ruler (read: the boss) of the Toads. The example sounds ridiculous? Well, the whole argument is the same if you think about it long enough.
 
The scope of a category needs to be clear and precise. Don't dilute it with semantics that contradict logic and the fundaments of video game principles. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
===Merge [[Mario Tennis]] Characters===
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.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Garlic Stapler}}<br>
'''Voting start''': October 13, 9:15 EST<br>
'''Deadline''': October 20, 23:59
 
====Support====
#{{User|Garlic Stapler}} - Per proposal.
#{{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|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.
#{{User|Fuzzipede27}} Per all.
#{{User|Mariomaster228}} Per all. Even if an article is a stub, it still has the potential to grow. Mario and Luigi each have their own articles, so same thing here.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Specify on who do you mean by "Mario Tennis characters" and I might change my mind. Zero signing out.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{User|Emperor Yoshi}} Well, we should not limit our content on our experience with the game, it would make us look like a amateur encyclopedia, thus, we should wait until someone with more experience with the games to add to the pages.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Per all. I pity the foos who think that idea is a good one.
 
====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}}
:Yea, even though I can't expand and I support my own idea, don't call people "foos", kind of demeaning. {{User|Garlic Stapler}}
:::Foos. Is that like foosball? {{User|Bowser's luma}}


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===Grammar Team===
''None at the moment.''
 
Many people have different ways of typing things, most of the time mixing up grammar. I propose that we have a team who will check and edit any grammar mistakes. This may be changing words, adding letters, etc.
 
Example:
 
THIS is A ExAMpLE LINE oF TexT Four thiS.
 
Edit -: This is a example line of text for this.
 
'''Propser:''' {{User|LuigiMania}} <br>
'''Voting Start''' 12:00, October 18th <br>
'''Deadline''' 12:00, October 25th
 
====Make a Grammar Group====
 
#{{User|LuigiMania}}: Per my idea.
 
====Don't make it.====
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per comments below. I think that such a group is unnecessary for grammar errors.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per comments below.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Per comments below.
#{{User|Garlic Stapler}} Not a good idea to make a group about something users correct anyways.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per all. We don't need a group for something as simple as that.
 
====Comments====
While this seems to be a great policy to have, I have a slight feeling that there may be arguements caused by this over Americanized spellings and non-Americanised spellings. For example, one of my earliest edits was edited, without my knowledge, shortly afterwards to change my English spellings to Americanized spellings: "colour" to "color". And that, frankly, is pointless. {{User|Rise Up Above It}} 13:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:There are a lot of many ways, such as form and forme, colour and color, and so on and so forth. But the proposal is stating that we have just one group of users do all the grammar issues. I don't approve of this idea as there are over 3,000 users that have the job of editing and improving the page, and just limiting the grammar stuff is like taking away nearly all the work needed on this wiki. We can't just have a group of people be in charge of it, as it is too much for just that. If you really want this, I say you should make this a Pipeproject (if there isn't one about this kind of issue). {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::I see your point BMB, and I agree with it; however my point was about the possibility of disagreements and edit wars(maybe) over what spelling scheme ought to be used. Because if this proposal did pass, then wouldn't every article have to adhere to one uniform spelling and grammar scheme? {{User|Rise Up Above It}}
::I agree with BMB, we don't need to limit this to certain users, all users should be allowed, and encouraged, to fix grammar mistakes. If you wish to change a policy, do that, but making a specific team won't stop bickering throughout the team. If this proposal does pass, it won't make anything in addition to what we currently have. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::Per. This is pointless. Anyone is welcome to fix the grammar mistakes they find. We don't need a team for it. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
 
People who care about grammar will fix it on their own accord. Creating a silly group monicker that has no pratical tool for the job won't do snuff. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
For the record, anyone changing a British spelling to American or vice-versa is in the wrong, as both are allowed on the wiki to reflect the international nature of the wiki. (In fact, if I catch someone changing a word, I revert it, even if they were changing it to my country's spelling; if the change was part of an overall rewrite, it's fine, imho.) - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
This could make a good BJAODN bad proposal section, aside from that this is probably one of the worst and poorly done proposals so far. Also per all above and what they have said. {{User|Garlic Stapler}}

Latest revision as of 12:19, March 12, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, March 12nd, 16:19 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 essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its a two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". 

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. The proposal is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

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)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
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)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
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)
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)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 7, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to these pages. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?

I have several pitches for you.

OPTION ZERO
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.

EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a current policy — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.

OPTION ONE
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of the Brown Yoshi proposal would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)

The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed right now, we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later

I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.

OPTION TWO
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they are added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.

This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it is introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.

OPTION THREE
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.

This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to this proposal, but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.

EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.

OPTION FOUR
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.

The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option Zero

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) perple montage
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the worst thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the whole wiki. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
  5. Arend (talk) Per Porple.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per porplemontage.
  7. Salmancer (talk) Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.

Option One

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive and that the status of each one is visible on the page.
  2. Salmancer (talk) There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.

Option Two

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) See my note about Option One.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.

Option Three

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.

Option Four

Comments

@Camwoodstock — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "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." --PopitTart (talk) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--PopitTart (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I feel like this is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (some change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list several things to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think slightly slanted text is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that is there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
  4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  5. Salmancer (talk) It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
  6. Hewer (talk) The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put Template:Italic title on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Hewer
  8. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) sure, for consistencies sake
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer, then.
  10. Scrooge200 (talk) Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.

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.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) Pertendo101.
  10. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  11. wildgoosespeeder (talk) Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon [[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']], unless you mean to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}, which does work on the category page.
  12. Fun With Despair (talk) Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
  13. Arend (talk) I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced by the system to be displayed in italics when they're redirects (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were all displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.

Comments

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

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 (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 (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 (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 (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)

@wildgoosespeeder: The intention of the proposal is just to add italic titles to the category pages themselves.
@Fun With Despair: I don't see how copy-pasting a template onto a bunch of categories is such a big ordeal? We've certainly had proposals that'd take way more work that have passed, I don't think it's a good reason for opposing something.
@Arend: Everything you said about categories not displaying the italics in certain contexts or only displaying them if they're redirects also applies to articles, and yet those are allowed to have italic titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:51, March 11, 2025 (EDT)

Introducing the crossover article

The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

  1. See the publication of the drafted Zelda article discussed in this proposal, titled "crossovers with The Legend of Zelda." (The draft can be viewed here.)
  2. Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to Zelda on the wiki to the published Zelda article (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like Link would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future Mario Tennis or something like that).
  3. Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. Zelda info on the list of references in Nintendo video games article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published Zelda one when they reach that section of the list article).
  4. Establish a navbox for crossover articles (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
  5. Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the Super Mario franchise has crossed-over.
  6. Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the MarioWiki:Manual of Style that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
  7. Note that this framework exists on the the crossover section of our coverage policy, and provide a link directing readers to it.

The Super Mario franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, Super Mario as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. Duck Hunt, Punch-Out!!, Exictebike, Metroid, F-ZERO, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Splatoon, etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s EarthBound, HAL Laboratory's Kirby, Game Freak's Pokémon, etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.

A lot of coverage of Super Mario references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of dedicated game articles, or in Super Smash Bros. articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and are not wholly about Super Smash Bros. anyways. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the Super Smash Bros. series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that Super Mario has made references and is referenced in many other franchises outside of Smash Bros. contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how Mario has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where Splatoon and Mario have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.

frog man!
green lad!

To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, and I have been drafting what I would like to call a "crossover article" using The Legend of Zelda franchise as an example (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the universe articles from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the Zelda draft, consist of the following sections:

  • Overview : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to Mario. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For Zelda, this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because Mario had a lot of direct influence on Zelda as a series.
  • Recurring crossover subjects: for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside Mario-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with Mario highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with Mario.
  • History in the Super Mario franchise: a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the Super Mario franchise itself.
  • History in the subject series/franchise: a history section for the inverse, where Super Mario is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is Zelda.
  • Shared history (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the Super Smash Bros. series, Tetris series, NES Remix series, or other media.

Zelda is uniquely related to Mario and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with Super Mario within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to Super Mario or have elements inspired by it, such as Celeste, Gears of War, or Astro Bot.

I offer three options:

  1. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.
  2. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the Super Smash Bros. series should be left alone.
  3. Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.

I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted Zelda article! It is in my "community garden" sandbox for a reason.)

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Link costume pose in Super Mario Maker
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
  8. PopitTart (talk) It has always felt absurd to me that Captain Olimar's presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in Luigi's Mansion, WarioWare: D.I.Y., Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, Mario Kart 8, and WarioWare Move It!
  9. Jdtendo (talk) Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter Smash Bros. list articles, it's even better.
  10. Arend (talk) As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
  11. Nelsonic (talk) Makes perfect sense.
  12. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Sounds good to me.
  13. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. death to the smash bros lists
  14. Mario (talk) Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
  15. OmegaRuby (talk) The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
  16. Pseudo (talk) I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
  17. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.

Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave Smash Bros. lists alone

  1. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Sophie.
  3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Soph
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
  5. Tails777 (talk) Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
  6. Arend (talk) Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
  7. Okapii (talk) Per Sophie.
  8. Nelsonic (talk) Second opinion.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering Zelda subjects had Link's Awakening failed!
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  11. Salmancer (talk) Hmm, so I'm going to do this because technically each of a character's special moves gets a sentence to itself on their article/Smash list entry and those just aren't going to fit in a crossover article
  12. Pseudo (talk) Secondary choice.

Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles

Crossover comments

I also happened to start a draft for a Pikmin series article the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... much rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--PopitTart (talk) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)

@Koopa con Carne thank you for the kind words! - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)

Link -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Question: One of the proposed points is to "Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?
Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through Smash Bros., such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within Smash Bros. have only crossed-over with Mario within Smash Bros., and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ARMS is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, @Arend? - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in Smash, but it would be strange to do with ARMS considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ARMS regardless, considering how most of the ARMS development team is basically Mario Kart 8 alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with Kingdom Hearts. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.
Anyway @Nintendo101, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for Mario, one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular Smash Bros. info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about Zelda in Smash Bros. and less about Zelda with Mario in Smash Bros., but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of Smash Bros., would be retained.) For example, in my Zelda draft, Ganon is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like Super Mario Maker, Mario Artist: Paint Studio, Yoshi's Woolly World, and the Super Smash Bros. series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant Zelda info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)

So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the Super Mario franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my Zelda draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the Super Smash Bros. series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how Zelda engages with Mario in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular Smash Bros. info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.
Another thing I just thought of: we already have Pushmo (series) and Just Dance (series) as guest appearances, and this proposal passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe @Kaptain Skurvy, @Nelsonic, and @Mushzoom can provide their two cents. Would you want the Pushmo, Just Dance, and Animal Crossing articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:
Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, Rhythm Heaven, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe Balloon Fight, maybe Clu Clu Land, maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would probably be redundant to split
Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles
Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken
No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts
I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
Forgot about The Legendary Starfy, that would qualify. There's also I Choose You! from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
@Nintendo101 Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of Super Mario content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the list of references in Nintendo video games or the list of references in third-party video games. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Drill Dozer or Borderlands 2), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Punch-Out!! or Mobile Golf). Nelsonic (talk) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)

This is probably a separate proposal, but should the Link's Awakening article be outright merged with the new crossover one? LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 17, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards). It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.

To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one. That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.

The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion. If this proposal passes, the aforementioned page would look like this.

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal
  2. Technetium (talk) Good idea
  3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Seems useful for navigation!
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all! very good idea
  7. LadySophie17 (talk) per all. That has always bothered me.
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) Very good to establish consistency.
  9. Nelsonic (talk) Per all.
  10. Rykitu (talk) Per all. Finally consistency.
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Oppose: don't add headings to topics

Comments (first topic heading)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4779829"