MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Wednesday, November 6th, 09:24 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. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). 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.

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 {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. 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. 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}}.
2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
3. Proposals end 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. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
5. 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 administrators.
   • 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.
6. 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 "(banned)" 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.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. 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.
9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
10. 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 the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
11. 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 can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
12. 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.
13. If the administrators 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.
14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first six days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
15. 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.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must 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 replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

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 "#{{User|[add 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 just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. 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. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
2. 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:
3. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
4. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Split sections between Tanooki Mario and Kitsune Luigi (discuss) Deadline: November 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Determine what to do with Jamboree Buddy (discuss) Deadline: November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Cursed Mushroom from Poison Mushroom (discuss) Deadline: November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Orbs that share names with pre-existing Mario Party series items with those items (discuss) Deadline: November 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create a number of articles for special buildings in Super Mario Run (discuss) Deadline: November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Deep Cheeps' appearance in the Super Mario Maker series a design cameo rather than a full appearance (without Blurps being affected) (discuss) Deadline: November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Mushroom, Dash Mushroom, and most of Super Mushroom (discuss) Deadline: November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT

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, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.

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)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 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)

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)

Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Standardize the coverage of elements from guest appearance titles

As brought up by an earlier cancelled proposal, the current coverage of The Legend of Zelda series is very inconsistent, and the worst offender is Bombite. Unlike Spiked Thwomp, Stone Elevator or Mega Thwomp, it has no direct or implied connection to the Mario franchise, but has an article anyway, solely based on its appearance.

MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest_appearances permits giving individual articles for subjects "unique to the [guest appearance] game while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise". I propose to more clearly define on MarioWiki:Coverage what elements from guest appearance titles should be given their own pages:

1. The subject is clearly derived from or based on the Super Mario franchise, as confirmed by Nintendo. (Nintendo Land minigames, Thwomp types exclusive to The Legend of Zelda, etc.)
2. The subject is distinct enough to justify its own article. (Cannot be merged with an existing page. BowWows or Cheep-Sheeps don't get individual articles because they're not distinct enough from their Mario counterparts)
3. Subjects exclusive to Mario-themed stages or minigames (Chili plate, Blue check mark, etc. Monita still doesn't get her own page, despite her role in the Luigi's Ghost Mansion minigame)
4. If the subject derived from the Mario franchise appears in a Nintendo-published or endorsed media that isn't considered guest appearance, a proposal is required before creating a page. (If Nintendo ever releases a game with a unique Mario subject that can't otherwise be considered a guest appearance title, wiki editors have an option to consider if it's worth covering anyway)

This is where Bombite comes into play:

Option 1: Similar appearance isn't enough to justify creating a new article. This option would result in the deletion of Bombite, its contents will be merged with the Zelda section of Bob-omb's article

Option 2: Similar appearance is a good justification for creating a new article for a distinct enemy. Bombite's page remains

Proposer: Axis (talk)
Deadline: July 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. Axis (talk) Per proposal
2. Hewer (talk) Connecting Bombite to Bob-omb does feel like a stretch, so yeah it doesn't need an article.
3. JanMisali (talk) Per Hewer.
4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.
5. Arend (talk) As I already stated here, Bombite being covered here with its own article is really strange, even if it does resemble Bob-omb, and the game it's from references Mario a lot. Rest of the proposed guidelines also check out, per all.

Comments

How is "Option 2" any different from "Oppose"? Doesn't this proposal just decide whether Bombite stays or goes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It's about standardizing it so there's something to refer to in case something like this comes up again. Both options support the new standart, the difference is whether or not visual similary qualifies as a connection Axis (talk) 08:31, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

A somewhat recent proposal about the coverage of the Rhythm Heaven series decided that Rhythm Heaven minigames with WarioWare characters in them (including Kung Fu Ball from Rhythm Heaven Fever, the debut of Cicada) should not get dedicated articles. Would this new definition overturn that decision? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 08:33, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It is not within the scope of this proposal, no Axis (talk) 08:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Relatedly, though I did vote against Monita having a page a couple years ago, I have started to reconsider a bit. She's a bit of an edge case, but not having a page on her creates a gap in our otherwise full coverage for Luigi's Ghost Mansion. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:56, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Side note, would Togezo also be affected by the scope of the proposal? It's currently being covered on the Spiny article as if it's the same thing, even though it only vaguely resembles a Spiny (read: it's a black ball with two Kirby feet, dot eyes and a Spiny Shell helmet), and even had the Japanese and English name for Spiny swapped at first. Even with Doc's explanation in this discussion, I'm still unsure if Togezo was meant to be the same creature as Spiny, or anything more than a simple reference to Spiny (it honestly looks more like Spiky, or even Bumbleprod). The Spiked Beetle, in comparison, resembles Spiny much more, especially in the Switch version of Link's Awakening. rend (talk) (edits) 12:09, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Whether part of this proposal or not, we should absolutely stop considering Togezo to be Spiny, it's patent speculation and the enemies don't even look alike besides having spiky shells. For all we know, they could've been created entirely separately from each other and coincidentally ended up with the same spike-based names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I agree with Hewer, unless any of the guides say otherwise. Either way, it should be handled by a different proposal. (Also, I don't think any of the Kirby games are considered guest appearance anyway? So it isn't related, really) Axis (talk) 14:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Y'all keep neglecting to bring up the "rolling into ball" bit as well as Spiny having the same black face in their prior appearances in SMB3 and SMW. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I really don't see how that changes anything. Neither aspect is uncommon among Kirby characters. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:18, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Later Kirby characters. Remember, Spinies were introduced to Kirby in that series' second game, and those attributes didn't become "common" to that series until after it was suspiciously phased out... not unlike how Capsule J was phased out for being a Twinbee clone. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I still think it's too much of a stretch based entirely on conjecture. We have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes with Kirby enemy designs over the years, we weren't there with the developers, and even if they did base it on Spiny, that doesn't mean it has to be literally the same character. And I don't see what's "suspicious" about it no longer appearing (which is yet another trait not uncommon among Kirby enemies), or why its vague Spiny resemblance would have anything to do with that fact. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:34, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA Zelda games, which themselves heavily borrow from Link's Awakening - particularly Four Swords Anniversary Edition having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. Axis (talk) 14:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

Create a list of official hashtags

This proposal targets the creation of an index for social media hashtags that:

1. relate to the Mario series;
2. were used or otherwise disseminated by Nintendo, a representative, or any other official partner in the context of a Mario product.

If a hashtag meets these two criteria, it's eligible for inclusion no matter which social media network it's used on. It could be YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, you name it.

These hashtags count as official content, so I figured what's not to gain from having them gathered up in a historical record? I haven't seen anyone complain about the current list of fonts, which has a similarly huge scope and I assume is currently inexhaustive.

You can see how I envision the list's appearance in my sandbox, but this aspect is not enforced by the proposal and I am open to feedback. As you can see here, the list explains the context of each hashtag, cites references, and includes imagery appended to the hashtags upon use when applicable.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: July 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create a list of official hashtags that only relate to Mario specifically

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) #perproposal
2. Hewer (talk) anything to improve our Wiggler Wednesday coverage Sure, per proposal.
3. Mario (talk) Weak support. Seems really particular and niche, but if someone is willing to do the motions for this, okay. I guess someone will find this useful, but I'm not really a social media user.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Eh, why not.

Comments

I think we're underestimating just how often Play Nintendo uses hashtags. I wouldn't be surprised if a big portion of them are one-offs. Axis (talk) 08:38, July 14, 2024 (EDT)

I don't really see the problem there. I like the idea of being as comprehensive as possible with our coverage. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:43, July 17, 2024 (EDT)

The only thing I fear is that eventually people will stop maintaining this list, really. Axis (talk) 09:31, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

I'm hopeful given our very thorough coverage of other online promotional stuff. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:35, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

TBH that was mostly maintained by me, Axis, and LuigiMaster123 lol -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:34, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

As I'm looking for hashtags to fill up that page, I discover that Nintendo has seemingly only ever made one tweet with the hashtag "#Waluigi" across all of their Twitter accounts with "Nintendo" in the name. Just throwing this out there. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:11, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

#WaluigiWednesday lives on in our hearts Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:28, July 20, 2024 (EDT)