MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>[[File:Proposals.png]]</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear=all>
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
''None at the moment.''
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.
 
This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
 
<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
#If users have 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 the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used.
#The voting period begins 24 hours after the proposal is posted (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed). Proposers are allowed to support their proposal immediately, but all other users may only edit the Comments section during that initial 24 hours. Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. ('''All times GMT.''')
#*For example, if a proposal is added on Monday, August 1, 2011, at 22:22 GMT, the voting starts at 22:22, 22:00 or 23:00 on Tuesday, August 2, and the deadline is one week later on Tuesday, August 9, at 23:59 GMT.
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with 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. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#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, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an [[MarioWiki:Administrators|admin]] 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 an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There should not be proposals about creating articles on an 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 promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administration]].
#If the admins 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.
 
<h3 style="color:black">Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format</h3>
This is an example of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to <u>replace the whole variable including the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".
-----
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
<nowiki>'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br></nowiki><br>
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
 
<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
-----
Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.
 
To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
 
__TOC__<!--
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
 
 
 
<br>
-->
 
<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
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.
 
:''For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see [[:Category:Settled Talk Page Proposals|here]].''


<h3 style="color:black">How To</h3>
==New features==
#All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the ''brief'' description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "({{fakelink|Discuss}})". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{tem|fakelink}} to communicate its title. The '''Deadline''' must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{tem|TPP}} under the heading.
#All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting, so no "Voting Start" line is needed. ('''All times GMT.''')
#*For example, if a proposal is added any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, voting starts immediately and ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
#Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
 
===List of Talk Page Proposals===
*Merge [[Payday Waystation]] to [[Shy Guy's Perplex Express]] ([[Talk:Payday Waystation|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split [[Time Limit#Pre-Race Countdown Timer|Pre-Race Countdown Timer]] from [[Time Limit]] ([[Talk:Time Limit#Split Pre-Race Countdown Timer from Time Limit|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 10, 2011, 24:00 GMT
*Split [[Jungle Japes]] into [[Jungle Japes]] and {{fakelink|Jungle Japes (stage)}}. ([[Talk:Jungle Japes|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Boomerang Bro. (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga)]] with [[Boomerang Bro.]] ([[Talk:Boomerang Bro.|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 13, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split Krochead into Red Krochead and Green Krochead. ([[Talk:Krochead|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': <s>April 8, 2011 24:00 GMT</s> '''Extended''': April 15, 2011, 24:00 GMT
*Split Music Staff and Voice Cast from [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]] into separate sub-article ([[Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Split|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Waluigi Pinball (court)]] with [[Waluigi Pinball]] ([[Talk:Waluigi Pinball (court)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Parabuzzy]] with [[Para-Beetle]] ([[Talk:Parabuzzy|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 21, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*<s>Split [[Ashley and Red]] ([[Talk:Ashley and Red|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''</s> '''Contested:'''
**Leave [[Ashley and Red]] merged. ([[Talk:Ashley and Red#Leave Merged|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 22, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Dry Eye (WarioWare: D.I.Y.)]] with [[Dry Eye]] ([[Talk:Dry Eye (WarioWare: D.I.Y.)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 
==New Features==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
==Removals==
===Remove certain entries in "References in Other Games" sections===
''None at the moment.''
On most of the articles about games, there is a "References in Other Games" section that lists games that reference that game. What's the problem? If an enemy is introduced in one game, and then that enemy is used in a future game, it is considered a reference to the former game. May I ask why? If an enemy appears in another game, that means it is a recurring enemy. The first game just introduced it.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Reversinator}}<br>
'''Voting start''': 5 April, 2011, 10:15<br>
'''Deadline''': 12 April, 2011, 23:59 GMT.
 
====Delete those entries====
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} It should only have major referances
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per proposal. If we were going to allow an enemy that debuts in a game to be considered referenced every time it appears in a game, then, for example, [[Super Mario Bros.]] could have a reference section listing every game [[Goomba|Goombas]] appear in, and their role in those games, the same for [[Koopa|Koopas]], [[Piranha Plant|Piranha Plants]], etc. It doesn't make any sense, and is not really a reference. If a spin-off series mentions something from a game (eg: a sticker in SSBB), ''then'' it could be considered a reference because that is (at least partially) intended to be a reference.
#{{User|Iggykoopa}} Per all however i do feel that it is a reference when something like a [[Spike]] reappears or if say [[Phanto]] or the [[Goomba's Shoe]] ever came back
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Lose it! Per all if you please.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Bop1996.
#{{User|Zero777}} Enemies returning aren't really a reference to any other game if they're in the same series. Keep the ACTUAL references.
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per Bop1996 and Zero777.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per Zero.
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per Bop1996.
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} Per Bop and those who "per" him.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} I did remove this information before. Besides, this is inconsistent if we do have it. Why can't we put Goomba and Koopa Troopas as references to Super Mario Bros. in every darn game they appeared in? What makes other enemies, such as Freezies and Sidesteppers? If this warrants to enemies, I think this should be extended to items as well, such as the POW block.
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} per Zero
 
====Keep those entries====
 
====Comments====
 
But it technically could be a reference to the game since it debuted in an earlier game {{User|Iggykoopa}}
 
Um, I don't think this warrants a proposal. I've seen people deleting those entries lately such as Marioguy1 in something about Freezies and stuff. I've deleted several of these myself. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:Might as well make one in case someone disagrees. {{User|Reversinator}}
 
'''@Reversinator:''' Which types of entries are you proposing to delete? You mentioned one example, and while it makes sense, you have not specified which sections specifically you want deleted. {{User|Bop1996}}
:This proposal is to remove certain entries in "References in other games" sections, not entire sections. I'm talking about removing any entires that say "This enemy reappeared in this game".  {{User|Reversinator}}
::Only those or other entries? {{User|Bop1996}}
:::Maybe if the enemy is minor enough, it can stay referenced. If the Stus from SMS return in another game, that references SMS and Gooper Blooper in Mario Power Tennis is a reference to SMS because he was new and therefore minor back then. Keep that in mind before this passes. {{User|Magikrazy51}}
::::If it was clear that it was meant to be a reference, then I'll keep it. {{User|Reversinator}}
References are not that simple; if they were, a concise rule set would be developed already. But as we do not know what Nintendo was thinking, we can't do this. I ''definitely'' don't think that every game with a Goomba in it is a reference to SMB, or that every game with Mario is a reference to the original DK. But sometimes when enemies appear, it is a reference (i.e. Dino Piranha in SMG is referenced by Peewee Piranha in SMG2 (sorry, couldn't think of anything better)). So it's complicated. And ''then'', to make matters more complicated - music. Sometimes music is remixed music from another game, sometimes it's the same, sometimes it's different, but we can't be sure whether music that sounds like it's from SMB3 is actually a reference to SMB3 or they just ran out of sound files so they remixed something. Like I said, the references to other games sections are very complicated. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:I agree with Marioguy. Nintendo seems to love including nostalgic references to other games, and then not specifying whether it is a reference or not. Where does that leave us? It seems that this is going to be a case-by-case situation. However, I feel that this discussion is clouding the issue a bit. {{User|Bop1996}}


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets===
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the [[galaxy]] articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the [[Melty Molten Galaxy]] article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that ''should'' happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes.
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


'''Proposer''': {{User|Phoenix}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Voting start''': April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT.<br>
'''Deadline''': April 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT.


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Phoenix}} Per myself.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per Phoenix.
#{{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|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Sure. Per all.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Zero777}} 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|Ultrahammer5365}} Per Phoenix.
#{{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|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} <s>I like this</s> Per all.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} - Per Phoenix!


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Per me in the comments section. This proposal will help a grand total of '''two''' galaxy articles; while it will hinder '''all''' the rest of them. I think that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.
#{{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|Iggykoopa}} I don't see the need for this change
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|Bop1996}} After watching the back and forth in the comments section, I decided on which side was right. Per Marioguy. Whenever I read a galaxy article, as soon as I see the name "Starting Planet" I know exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared. Starting Planet is a perfectly good name, except in the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Imagine, if this proposal passes, the starting planet for the [[Tall Trunk Galaxy]] could be named "Giant Tree Planet {Starting Planet}," and this name does a much worse job than just "Starting Planet." Also, just because you have conjectural names for eighty percent of the planets in each galaxy doesn't mean that removing the non-conjectural names is a good idea. To summarize, the name change is unnecessary, and would only help two articles, whereas we have a perfectly good name for the starting planet on 95% of the galaxy articles.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.


====Comments====
====Comments====
This will create conjectural titles for the planets, no? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
@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)
: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)
::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)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


:Well yes, but we've already got conjectural names for all the other planets in every galaxy (which collectively greatly outnumber the total of Starting Planets for each galaxy), why should this be any different? That's what we've got <nowiki>{{conjecturaltext|____}}</nowiki> for. Also, calling them "Starting Planet" is still technically giving them a conjectural name anyway. So, since all the planet names are already conjectural, we can do whatever we want with them, u know? It's not like the names of the planets in question have all been confirmed as "Starting Planet" and we're changing them just to change them... {{User|Phoenix}} 18:59, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
===Merge introduction/ending sections for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section===
{{Early notice|March 1}}
Back in 2013, there was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Get_rid_of_pointless_Mario_Party_Minigames_beginnings_and_endings|a proposal]] to cut intro/ending descriptions for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles the proposer deemed pointless, which was rejected by the community. However, with over ten years passing since the original proposal and some discussion I had with some staff on the Discord server regarding the sections/descriptions, I would like to revisit the idea of addressing these sections and the issues that commonly plague them.


:Does it matter? Almost every planet mentioned in the articles on the various galaxies has a conjectural name. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
TL;DR: This proposal, if passed, would merge the Introduction and Ending sections of articles for ''Mario Party'' minigames into the Gameplay section, which itself may be renamed to Overview to reflect a more all-encompassing coverage of the minigames if the community supports such an idea. For explanations and more, read on.


::The comment wasn't directed toward you or to the proposal. It's a reply to LGM's question, essentially stating that whether or not renaming the Starting Planets makes their names conjectural doesn't matter, since almost every other planet has a conjectural name. I've got no problems with this proposal. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
While the descriptions for the intros and outros of the minigames can help our readers who need tools like screen readers, many of said descriptions are often riddled with issues, some common problems including, but not being limited to:
*Excessive descriptions of minor details or other forms of filler/content bloat that do not meaningfully contribute to the article: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Eyebrawl&oldid=4500992 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sugar%20Rush%20(minigame)&oldid=4509228 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Flip_the_Chimp&oldid=4715460 3]
*Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=On-Again,_Off-Again&oldid=4744643 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Chain_Event&oldid=4513579 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Blazing%20Lassos&oldid=4746544 3]
*Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sick_and_Twisted&oldid=4504726 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Platform_Peril&oldid=4744623 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Burnstile&oldid=4494938 3]


:::No no no, you misunderstood me: I wasn't talking to you, I was replying to his comment as well, I actually started typing it in before ur comment was there, but that's just how it appeared when I saved the page... :) {{User|Phoenix}} 19:24, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
One of the most important rules of keeping readers interested is to keep one's writings as concise as possible, and it goes without saying that including details that are insignificant to what defines the minigame like what characters, enemies etc. are in the background or the exact angles or motions or positions the camera is in will clutter information that is actually relevant and important to the minigame, thus reducing the quality of the pages for readers. Even if all the filler were to be cleaned up, the descriptions, especially ones of the aforementioned "the winners/losers do their respective animations" type, tend to be so short that it does beg the question as to whether the minigames really need dedicated sections for their intros and outros. Plus, a lot of people who read the minigame articles are more likely to do so for information like how it plays or what game it appears in, not what happens to the winners or losers in a minigame like [[Glacial Meltdown]].
::::Conjectural titles are...well, just that! Conjectural. Conjecture means that the title is not officially confirmed and is what we are using to help people identify the object/place/character/whatever. Which means that, naturally, we need to be as accurate as possible. What seems like a "cool name" or what is "consistent" doesn't really apply in this scenario as we are trying to be as descriptive as possible in as few words as possible. Naturally this applies to the term "Starting Planet" - it contains two words and if anyone could please show me ''one'' instance where it could ''possibly'' apply to more than one planet (AKA not be specific), then I would love to see it (aside from comets; which bend reality to make it more convenient for the challenge at hand). But since there is only one planet that you start on, I'd say that the term "starting planet" pretty much narrows it down perfectly... {{User|Marioguy1}}


@Phoenix I see. Sorry about the confusion. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
This is where I propose we merge the contents of the Introduction and Ending sections back into the Gameplay section of the minigame articles, of course cleaning them up of filler and other unnotable details where needed. The Introduction sections can be repurposed to serve as the opening line of the Gameplay section while the Ending sections can serve as the conclusion.


:@Marioguy1 - Well, actually, that happens in the second mission of the [[Honeyhop Galaxy]] ("[[Honeyhop Galaxy#The Chimp's Score Challenge|The Chimp's Score Challenge]]"), in which the player begins the mission on the "Queen Bee Planet" as opposed to the so-called "Starting Planet." Although this level does involve [[The Chimp]] challenging the player, it is not a [[Prankster Comet]] mission. This is also true in the [[Space Junk Galaxy]]: the player starts the first mission on the "Starting Planet," and starts the next two missions on a yellow [[Starshroom]]. None of these missions involve Prankster Comets either. Lastly, there's the [[Dreadnought Galaxy]], where the player actually starts on three different planets, one for each of the galaxy's three main missions. Only one planet in the article is marked as the starting planet, and it's none of these three...  
On the Discord server for the wiki, @Mario has also suggested the idea of renaming the Gameplay section to Overview to satiate any concerns or other desires from our userbase to keep the Gameplay section being, well, about the gameplay of the minigames. This will be provided as an alternate option for those who favor that option more than the mere section merge. If you do not agree with either proposal, a "No change" option (Option C) has additionally been provided.


:Anyway, I'm not making this proposal just so that every planet will have a cool name just for the sake of having a cool name; I just think that we've become too wrapped up in our own policies and classifications. I mean, what about galaxies like the [[Flipswitch Galaxy]], the [[Drip Drop Galaxy]], the [[Bigmouth Galaxy]], and the [[Stone Cyclone Galaxy]], all of which only consist of one accessible planet? The accessible planets in these galaxies are all called the "Starting Planet," which is all well and good, until one considers the fact that it's the only planet in the entire galaxy, so though one starts there in the mission(s), there are no other planets to go to after it, so where does it lead? For all intents and purposes, one may now call it the "Ending Planet" instead.
If you have any other ideas on how to address the issues I’ve listed or have any questions, criticisms, comments or concerns, feel free to suggest or otherwise fire away.


:Then there are galaxies like the [[Throwback Galaxy]], that use "Starting Planet" to describe the first planet, when a perfectly acceptable name has already been given to it previously ([[Whomp's Fortress]]). In this case, we've actually got a conjectural name where a confirmed name could easily be implemented instead. If this proposal did pass, we could now get rid of at least one conjectural name in favor of one that we know for a fact is correct. 
'''Proposer''': {{User|ToxBoxity64}}<br/>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


:Then we've got galaxies like the [[Beat Block Galaxy]] and the [[Rolling Coaster Galaxy]]. The former deals with more of a starting path than a starting planet, and the latter is just one big long track leading to a very small separate planet at the end. Are we really going to classify something that comprises 99% of the entire galaxy as the "Starting Planet" just because the whole thing is connected? Normally, when [[Mario]] leaves the "Starting Planet" of a galaxy, he is at least relatively close to the ''beginning'' of a mission. When the player leaves the "Starting Planet" in this galaxy, they are essentially already at the end of the mission! Anyone else see a problem here?
====Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section====


:This is why the amount of space in a galaxy that is implied by the term "Starting Planet" is far too narrow, and can be extremely misleading; the first planet or area encountered in a galaxy could be anything from the smallest possible planet you could think of to something that takes up almost the entire galaxy. It would therefore be inappropriate to describe the first planet or area encountered in ''every'' galaxy as the "Starting Planet" or "Starting Area." Normal planet names do not imply anything about the amount of space taken up in the area in which they are positioned, they simply state what is there. The passing of this proposal will prevent problems such as long paths or other areas with long expanses in certain galaxies being incorrectly labeled as the "Starting Planet." {{User|Phoenix}} 02:34, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
====Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"====
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Mario5 (opening) - MP6.png|18px]] These sections have always suffered from poor writing and serve mostly to pad the article (why are there such egregious descriptions of how the camera behaves in these articles?). There is some utility in these to contextualize the minigames, so this information should be kept in many instances (though ones with the standard win/lose endings shouldn't be mentioned, only the ones where a funny consequence happens like Wario getting his butt destroyed in [[Piranha's Pursuit]]), but they don't need to be in their own section. I think overview is a better broader way to name these sections.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Mario.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} The intro/outro sections are long overdue for some merging. Mentioning them is all fine and good, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to exactly one sentence that amounts to "the camera zooms in and the winner does a funny dance" on articles like [[Burnstile]]?
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't agree that "minor" or "uninteresting" information should be removed (like, if we did remove all of the "they do their victory animations" descriptions, that would leave us with some minigame articles that describe the endings while others don't, which is not helpful to readers at communicating the information and just makes it look like information is missing). But merging the sections is fine, they can be very short.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per everyone.
#{{User|BMfan08}} But who could forget such classics as "the winning player attempts to do a winning pose as the player wins" or "the other team is sad that they lost the game"? Ahem. Anyway, per all.


Replying to ''his'' comment? Are you talking about me? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
====Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)====


...uh...yes...you're not a boy, are you? {{User|Phoenix}} 20:09, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
====Comments====
 
I dunno. The sections are pretty poorly done, but part of ''Mario Party 8''{{'}}s brand of humor is having humorous endings to minigames so a header calling them out makes a certain kind of sense. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 15:28, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:First off, I see what you mean in the cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies (however in the Honeyhop one, the Chimp's mission would fall under what I was implying by "prankster comet") and I think possible exceptions could be made for those galaxies. However what this proposal will do is (a) legitimize and (b) encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which. Having a consistent, accurate, precedent will allow all people surfing the galaxy articles to identify the planets labeled "starting planet" with much less difficulty than if we were to use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of; an action that this proposal will inevitably cause.
:It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of [[Crops 'n' Robbers]] was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]] and [[Photo Finish]] from Mario Party 4; [[Merry Poppings]] and [[Head Waiter]] from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like [[Picture Perfect (minigame)]] or [[Flip the Chimp]]. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)


:Second, in the case of the Galaxies with only one planet, we could choose one of either two things. The common, aforementioned, precedent of "starting planet" would be most convenient due to the aforementioned points of consistency, accuracy, etc.. However if you really wish to press forward with the point that the only planet in the galaxy does not require any form of identification as it is one of a kind (which really only eliminates the point of accuracy, consistency and ease of location still remain), then I would consider supporting a proposal which is worded so that it achieves that purpose. However this proposal is generalizing ''all'' galaxies, not just the ones with one planet or multiple starting planets (of which, only the cases where there are multiple starting planets require a different name for planets where Mario begins).
===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.


:Third, the meaning of "starting planet" is irrelevant to the percentage of the galaxy/mission that it comprises. If people wish to have a stereotypical mindset that the starting planet must be near the beginning of the level, then so be it. However that does not make it true; the starting planet could refer to any amount of space in a level - up to the end of the level in fact!
If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.


:In conclusion, there are very few cases in which the term "starting planet" would actually fail to achieve the goals that a conjectural title should wish to achieve (accuracy in identification of the character, location or object). So far you have only presented two galaxies where this proposal would improve the quality of the articles, [[Space Junk Galaxy]]/[[Dreadnought Galaxy]], and on the contrary, this proposal will ''decrease'' the quality of all other galaxy articles. If you can prove that there is any trouble identifying a "starting planet" in a majority of galaxies then I would support this proposal. As is, I will only support if this proposal is reworded to only refer to those galaxies where there are multiple starting planets OR, possibly, the galaxies where there is only one planet total.
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.<br>The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.</blockquote>


:'''tl;dr:''' You have only shown two examples of where this proposal will help us more accurately define a planet (the Dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies) and if you read the long post above, you will see the reasons why I say that it does the opposite to all other planets. So if you reword the proposal to only affect those two planets, I will support. I am also willing to negotiate the galaxies with only one planet in them. {{User|Marioguy1}}
In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: '''fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion.''' The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at [[Stretch_Shroom#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.


:Assuming that's not directed at me... {{User|Marioguy1}}
I noticed that some users prefer to '''instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced'''. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.
::It isn't. Phoenix thought LGM was a boy. {{User|Mario4Ever}}


::@Marioguy1 (again) - Okay, I'll admit that you make a lot of valid points, but you also say that "this proposal will inevitably cause" people to "...use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of..." While this may partly be true, I'm also proposing that we leave (Starting Planet) next to the new names of the planets in addition to the name change. Also, I don't really think that anyone will have to go through too much trouble to "identify the planets labeled 'starting planet' with much less difficulty," as these planets are always the first planet that is seen in the list of planets for a galaxy, so it should be pretty easy to spot. This fact, together with the (Starting Planet) that I'm proposing we leave there, should make these planets relatively obvious.  
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


::In addition, you also say that the proposal will "encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which." It seems to me that no greater confusion will arise as a result of the passing of this proposal than has already been caused by the continual name-changing of almost every planet on the majority of the galaxy articles by users. That is to say, users often take it upon themselves to randomly change the names of many of the other planets in galaxy articles without warning regardless. These sporadic decisions are often based, at least from my perspective, solely on the decision that a new name would better describe the planet than the previous one. Though this is seemingly helpful to the article in the long run, when the names of many planets on galaxy articles are constantly changing, it can be extremely confusing to readers. My point is that users are going to be constantly changing the names of planets or areas in galaxies regardless of whether this proposal passes or not, simply because one may invent a better or more-fitting title as time goes on. I'm sure that the passing (or lack thereof) of this proposal will not in any way encourage users to change the names of planets more frequently than they already have in the past, and are currently. {{User|Phoenix}} 21:20, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
<references/>
:::@Phoenix (encore): Adding the (Starting Planet) in brackets just seems like we are putting the other name of the planet there to make the planet's name sound cool - the "Starting Planet" is the only part that is necessary, and when writing conjectural titles, useless fluff that "sounds cool" is not included. And the list order helps, but sometimes editors to the article may become confused while editing when the planet is not clearly labeled.


:::As to your second point, maybe this proposal should be changed to reflect a solution to that problem. As what you are proposing will definitely not fix that problem - it might even do the opposite (in giving users another planet to enact their constant renaming of planets on). Maybe this proposal should be "lock all conjectural titles until an agreement is reached on the talk page" - I would support that. But as is, all your proposal does, which I repeat from above, is help identify the planets in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxies. {{User|Marioguy1}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


::::How come the other planets have "fluff" names then? Couldn't they just be called "second planet" and "third planet" and so on? [[User:Volatile Dweevil|Volatile Dweevil]]
====Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.


:::::That's exactly my point! If the other planets all have "actual" names, then why not the "Starting Planets" as well? But to maintain their given position as the first planets in a galaxy, we leave (Starting Planet) next to their new name...simple. {{User|Phoenix}} 15:47, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.


I'm wondering, but are there any levels that go in a slightly different sequence of planets? Then, the names for the planets (planet 1, planet 2, etc.) would get messed up. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
:@Volatile Dweevil: Because almost no galaxies actually have that linear format. Most galaxies begin on only one planet, there only being ~2/40 exceptions. However if we make it Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, we will have the naming conflict problem with ~30/40 galaxies; which is a significantly greater percentage (5% < 75%). If it were possible to have Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, etc. in a non-confusing way then I'd be all for it! Unfortunately here the con outweighs the pro (the opposite of the scenario with "starting planet").
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Club Nintendo Classic SMB2 01.png|70px]]  Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.


:@Phoenix: So you want us to go through all the galaxies in the entire two games and rename all of them, taking time and arguing choices for names, causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best (which you have already complained about) just because you want the names to sound cool? Is that really why you are causing such major changes? Because I see no other points to the positive. {{User|Marioguy1}}
====Don't make a standard====


::@Marioguy (redux) - Well, no. If you review my prior arguments, I have never once actually used the word "cool." I am not proposing 91 name changes so that every planet will have a cool name as opposed to "Starting Planet." I'm doing this because I feel that we could maintain some semblance of order while simultaneously giving the planets names that will not completely ostracize them from the rest of the planets in the article. I mean, if all we're going to do here is name planets for where they are in the galaxy and what they do for the particular mission they are encountered in, we may as well count the number of planets in each mission, and then give the name "Middle Planet" to whatever planet happens to be in the middle, or give the name "Ending Planet" to the last planet encountered in the galaxies in which missions always end on the same planet.
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
 
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production here], they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::Regarding the part about "causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best," what I was trying to say yesterday was that if this was to pass, we would not be creating a whole new set of problems; people are already erratically changing planet names as they see fit and would still be doing so daily even if this proposal had never existed. It would be a very different scenario if I had proposed, for instance, that the conjectural names of all the glitches for several games be immediately changed, which may cause users to flock to those articles and repeatedly change every name to what each one personally desired them to be, thereby creating a whole new cycle of name changes where there had been none before. I highly doubt that changing the name of one planet per each individual galaxy article will draw an overabundance of attention, let alone create a major disturbance across every article. The end justifies the means. {{User|Phoenix}} 21:58, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|other non-numeric parts of a source}} that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:::@Phoenix: OK, so if the "cool name" thing is false, then I see absolutely ''no'' points for enacting this change. And I would not have any problem with "Ending Planet" - however the "Middle Planet" would have to be the middle of the level which could be complicated to find.
::Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)
 
:::And regarding the "loop" again, what ''I'' am trying to say is that this will cause a commotion while users are trying to find new names for the previously-named "Starting Planets". I think this will just be a useless change, will give no benefit and will just cause confusion in the one part of the galaxy articles that is actually static. {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
::::@Marioguy - Wait a minute though, why are you using the fact that I ''don't'' want every Starting Planet to have a "cool" name as the basis for your reasoning that the proposal is now invalid? I thought one of the biggest problems that you had with this proposal in the first place was that I was only renaming the planets to give them "cool" names. If that's the case (the second paragraph about name-changing commotion aside), why are you still saying that you "see absolutely ''no'' points for enacting this change" even after I've said otherwise? {{User|Phoenix}} 23:01, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
@Phoenix: I'm not using that as my basis, my main point here is that this proposal will do absolutely nothing except remove the shred of consistency that remains in these galaxy articles. I have never had a problem with you renaming planets to give them "cool" names; I sure did say that that's horrible reasoning, but I've never said that's why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because this proposal will kill what consistency there is in the articles. And could you please tell me your points? I don't see a place where this proposal would be useful... {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
:Okay, when you say "...tell me your points...", are you asking that I reiterate the ultimate goal of my proposal or that I tell you which areas of the galaxy articles I think this proposal would be useful in improving? {{User|Phoenix}} 00:29, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
::As long as you mention more than just the dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies, that may be the only way you can convince me. {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
:::@Bop1996 - Okay, but even if this proposal did pass, you'd still see the name "Starting Planet" when you went to a galaxy article, just in parentheses (not brackets) next to its new name. In response to "know[ing] exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared," I, personally, usually use the picture of the planet next to the name to identify it more than the conjecural name of the planet anyway, and in addition, the name "Starting Planet" really does not describe any particular unique features of the planets to which they apply, like ''every other'' planet name does (this is part of the reason why I made this proposal in the first place, because I felt that the "Starting Planets" are as such ''not'' easily identified by comparison), which actually makes it harder for readers to know exactly which planet it is, and giving them another name like the other planets helps to describe where it is and what it does, as such names are 1,000x more specific and descriptive than just "Starting Planet." For this reason, I would actually have no problem with the "Starting Planet" in the [[Tall Trunk Galaxy]] being named "Giant Tree Planet <font color=red>(</font>Starting Planet<font color=red>)</font>," which actually suits it pretty well (unless someone could possibly think of a better name at some point in the future), and ultimately does a much ''better'' job of clarification than just "Starting Planet."
 
:::Like I was saying in a previous argument of mine (though I'm not really sure I made it that clear), just giving planets names like "Starting Planet," "Middle Planet," or "Ending Planet" does ''absolutely nothing'' but describe where it is encountered in a particular mission or galaxy, and at the end of the day just makes is that much harder for people to identify which planet in a galaxy it actually is. Finally, you say that "just because you have conjectural names for eighty percent of the planets in each galaxy doesn't mean that removing the non-conjectural names is a good idea." Well actually, "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name just like all the other planet names that we currently have; if you check, you'll see that the name of every "Starting Planet" is marked with <nowiki>{{conjecturaltext_____|planet}}</nowiki> just like every other planet name. So, by the passing of this proposal, we won't be removing any "non-conjectural names," because every planet name is conjectural. We also won't be adding any more conjectural names, and for that matter, we will not be subtracting any conjectural names either; ergo, the number of conjectural names will stay right where it is. {{User|Phoenix}} 17:40, 10 April 2011 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===Split <nowiki>Category:Donkey Kong Levels</nowiki> into Separate Categories===
''None at the moment.''
This is my first proposal. There are many games in the [[Donkey Kong series]]. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example, '''<nowiki>Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels</nowiki>''', etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up  2 pages! We should make one for every game such as [[Donkey Kong Country 2]], [[Donkey Kong Country 3]], [[DK: King of Swing]], etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br>
'''Voting start''': March 23, 2011 24:00<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>March 31, 2011, 24:00 GMT</s> '''Extended''': <s>April 7th, 2011, 24:00 GMT</s>, April 14th, 2011, 24:00 GMT
 
====Make a New Category====
#{{User|DKPetey99}} - It is my proposal and I think it would help the wiki ''and'' other users by making it simple to navigate levels by games.
#{{User|M&SG}} - That sounds like a good idea.
#{{User|Kaptain K. Rool}} - Per M&SG.
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Love it! Per SW and Kaptain K. Rool!
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per all.
#{{User|Akfamilyhome}} That'd make it more simple. Per all.
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} We don't have all the Mario <s>games</s> levels in one category.
#{{User|Yoshidude99}} Per Magikrazy51.
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per Magikrazy51 also.
#{{User|Boowhoplaysgames}} Per All
#{{User|Ilovemarioandtoad}} Per All
#{{User|Lucas777123}} Per All.
#{{User|IGGY7735}} Per all.
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Why not? Per all
#{{User|Allycat0925}} Per all.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per all.
#{{User|YoshiGo99}} Per all.
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per all.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per DKPetey99.
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} Per all
 
 
====Keep Original Category====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Just use the games' navigation templates: they're supposed to have all the levels listed, and generally they'll be arranged by world, which is a much better way to organize the levels than the alphabetical categories. It's better if all games, ''DK'' or otherwise, simply have general categories for all their subjects.
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Walkazo. I don't see why this is necessary.
#{{User|Paper Yoshi}} - Per Walkazo and Fawfulfury65's comment below (although FF65 hasn't voted yet).
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}}- Is this really necessary? It's sort of like going to the characters catagory and complaining about how they don't have a catagory for just characters from cirtian games. I mean, if you know your alphabet, it should be pretty easy.
#{{User|Iggykoopa}}- per Walkazo and isnt Donkey Kong  technically it's own franchise
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - per all.
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per all.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Per Walkazo above and Fawfulfury65 below.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all.
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per my comments and everyone else.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per Walkazo and FF65.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} - Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|Theguywithtwohats}}- per all
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I believe that we tried to get rid of categories that list things that should be in a navbox. That's my way of saying "per Walkazo".
#{{User|Xzelion}} - Per Walkazo
#{{User|Turboo}} - per all
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - per Walkazo.
#{{User|Smasher 101}} - Per all
 
====Comments====
We shouldn't delete the Donkey Kong levels category because it can be useful in finding many DK levels. Also, if we really want to find information about a Donkey Kong Country 2 level or something, why can't we just look in [[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]], or the category for any other game? There's also templates that you can use to easily find levels in one of those games. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
 
MS&G: You know your vote is invalid. You can't simply say, "Good idea" if you want to support. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
 
BabyLuigionfire why can't you just because you have nothing new to add doesnt mean it isnt valid other wise like 20 votes from other propsals that say per all
{{User|Iggykoopa}}
:''If anyone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feels 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 the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used.'' Simply saying "Good idea!" is NOT a strong argument. And please don't backsass me like that, it's very rude. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
 
::@Iggykoopa it doesn't matter that it has its own Franchise, the categories should be made into games {{User|DKPetey99}}
Baby luigi on fire the rules state that Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.{{User|Iggykoopa}}
:::That is still not a strong reason. I suggest the very least was to "per" the user. And leaving a vote blank in the support section is still an agreement, but we still delete it anyway since the reason is not strong enough. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
 
Like I, {{User|Magikrazy51}} said in the opposing section, "WE DONT HAVE ALL THE MARIO <s>GAMES</s> LEVELS IN ONE CATEGORY!".
:@Magikrazy this proposal is to split the enemies catagory of DKC, not the game catagories. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
::Actually, it's for the levels in the game. Read the proposal, we were both wrong. {{User|Magikrazy51}}
 
@Babyluigionfire how is saying per all not the same as saying good idea #{{User|Iggykoopa}}
:Because saying "per all" is like repeating what the users said. Saying "good idea" is just as good as saying nothing when you support/oppose. However, I sometimes see "per all" votes with severe skepticism. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
 
Babyluigionfire how is saying per all any different than saying good idea when your agreeing with a proposal {{User|Iggykoopa}}
:Per all means, "I would say the same thing as everyone else, but it would take up extra space and time." It takes up less time if you read through the votes and say, "Hmm, I agree with what (insert one to three users here) says, so I'll say per all and reference all those votes at once." However, sometimes per all votes are used lightly, which is what I think BLOF said, mostly in cases where there was no vote that had complete reasoning. {{User|Bop1996}}
im confused are there votes invalid are not? {{User|Iggykoopa}}
:The ones that say "I like this idea" or "This sounds like a good idea" have no substance, so a sysop may decide to remove them. The votes that say "Per all" are perfectly valid, so long as someone out there said something valid. {{User|Bop1996}}
 
Speaking of that... @Lucas777123: You vote is invalid. Please add a reason on why you think this is a good idea, or I'll remove your vote. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:@YoshiGo99: Your vote is equivalent to Lucas777123's vote. Lucas has been warned already, so you should change your vote too. {{User|Bop1996}}
 
I think to split the category, because to those who oppose, and this is soley my thought, but: It's like saying let's merge all of the Mario series levels into one category, and list all of them '''''in''''' one category. Then, we list all hte levels, under one category. {{User|Boowhoplaysgames}}
:It took me a while to understand ''what'' you were saying. If you are saying what I think you are saying, which is that if we keep the levels from one series merged, we will eventually list all the levels on the wiki in one category, that is the wrong way to argue. It's known as "slippery slope", and it's when you extrapolate a disastrous outcome eventually based off one or two plausible extrapolations. If not, it's probably circular reasoning, which is self-explanatory. {{User|Bop1996}}
 
[[User talk:YoshiGo99|And you]] [[User talk:BoygeyDude|gotta]] [[User talk:IGGY7735|support me]], [[User talk:Ilovemarioandtoad|too!]] It seems like some people are supporting this just because they were asked to. That's just what it looks like to me. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
:Asking people to vote is fine, and telling people that their objection to a proposal or FA suggestion has been fixed is fine, but I think I saw a sysop ask someone not to ask people to vote a specific side, and promising to do something in return is a little suspicious... {{User|Bop1996}}
::Which sysyop? {{User|Reversinator}}
:::Not sure, I was looking through a bunch of talk pages this morning, but I ''think'' I saw it discouraged. Anyway, it's probably not a good idea to ask people to vote a certain side unless you direct them to a reason seen on the proposal. If you just say "vote support" or "please oppose" it could discourage people to read the proposal and see the arguments against... Not suggesting anything, but it doesn't seem like the greatest idea... {{User|Bop1996}}
 
I greatly discourage anyone to tell another user to vote on a certain side. Supporting a proposal because someone told you to is a horrible idea, but I do feel that some users have been doing this, since a lot of the supporters have been asked to support it. I hope that all of the voters have read through the proposal, thought about it, and have read through the opinions of others, because if not, we may not have what's best for the Wiki. Asking them to vote for the proposal is OK, though, as they might not feel forced to vote on the side they were told. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}

Latest revision as of 12:15, February 25, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, February 26th, 16:08 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species, Camwoodstock (ended February 13, 2025)
Make Dark Mode available to everyone, Pizza Master (ended February 20, 2025)
Make about templates on New Super Mario Bros. U courses and New Super Luigi U courses link to each other instead of a disambiguation page, but keep the disambiguation page, Salmancer (ended February 21, 2025)
Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes, PaperSplash (ended February 23, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Split the SMRPG Chain Chomp from Chain Chomp, Kirby the Formling (ended February 22, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) Hewer (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)

Merge introduction/ending sections for Mario Party minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 1 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of Crops 'n' Robbers was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in Avalanche! (Mario Party 4) and Photo Finish from Mario Party 4; Merry Poppings and Head Waiter from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like Picture Perfect (minigame) or Flip the Chimp. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my suggestion below.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) makes sense!
  6. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
  7. Mario (talk) Mario in Club Nintendo Classic. Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
  8. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

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

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4755790"