MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 15:40, August 10, 2024 by Arend (talk | contribs) (→‎Comments)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, January 3rd, 01:53 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. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. 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.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. 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.
  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 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.
  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 "(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.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, 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}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your 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".

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 header, 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 {{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.

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, 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)
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)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 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)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 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)
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)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)
Merge Candy Block with Hard Block, Nintendo101 (ended December 31, 2024)
Merge ON/OFF Conveyor Belt with Conveyor Belt, PopitTart (ended January 1, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove remaining uses of tabber

This one's probably a long time coming. Tabber is currently only approved for usage in two infoboxes, which is pretty confusing (to make matters worse, the original proposal allowing it for the minigame infobox seemed to only have Mario Party in mind). I've seen users implement these outside of the approved uses, which is a pretty understandable mistake. If you see a template used in one situation, it makes sense to use it in comparable situations, right? You'd have to go to the template page to find out that it's only for very specific scenarios. More importantly, further attempts to allow tabber have failed under heavy opposition, mainly because tabber requires JavaScript to work. If it's disabled or not supported by your device, it displays the content of every tab at once in an unseemly vertical stack.

Based on the general sentiment in the past two proposals and the inconsistent application on pretty arbitrary standards, I think it makes sense to just repeal the original two proposals and remove the remaining uses of tabber completely. Whether tabber is deleted or remains in a deprecated state will be up to the judgment of the staff.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: August 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per me.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - In any case, slideshow is preferable to tabber. Per.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Tabbers not functioning on all devices kills them for me.
  4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. Additionally, I personally find tabbers cumbersome to use as a reader and I am not a fan of how widely they have been integrated into our affiliate ZeldaWiki, where I feel they have substantially degraded the quality of the articles. I would prefer Mario Wiki not go down a similar path, and I think I would support the removal of tabs even if they did not require JavaScript.
  5. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal and courtesy of users without JavaScript.
  6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all.
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. Mario (talk) Something that stuck with me since August 19, 2015: "Tabs are the devil". Even without the javascript issues there's likely fundamental useability issues; tabber I still think(?) is more gimmick than utility. I browse some wikis, I'm usually annoyed to try finding an image I want, only for it to be buried in tabs (ZeldaWiki is an example, the Keese article supplied is a maze of tabs and I actually find it difficult to just easily pinpoint how a Keese looks like in a particular game or across games; Battle Bat does not even provide all images in a gallery section, so I have to click on all these tabs just to see how these bats look like in different games; I'd rather just view all of them).
  9. YoYo (talk) per all.

Oppose

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Perhaps it is overkill to have tabber in every single circumstance, but using it to compare between different iterations of the same thing (like Mario Kart courses or Mario Party minigames) is convenient for quick visual comparison and does not clutter the infobox.
  2. Hewer (talk) I think tabber is fine to use in the two cases we currently use it for, as it allows us to show all the race course/minigame iterations in the infobox neatly and without having to just pick one (I think it always looked weird how we used to prioritise older images for just these infoboxes, but tabber provides a handy solution to that problem). As for the JavaScript argument, to quote Camwoodstock in this discussion, "any system too old to load tabbers are too old to connect to the internet at this point--pretty much only leaving severe bandwidth issues causing them to fail to load outright or devices specially configured to prohibit JavaScript in the first place as the only scenarios where tabbers wouldn't work".
  3. Tails777 (talk) I can understand if tabbers are an issue, but I just agree more with the opposition here, especially with the usage for the Mario Kart tracks/Mario Party mini-games. Per Hewer.

Comments

Waluigi Time (talk), for clarification, what are the two instances where tabbers have been permitted? Do you have examples of other pages where tabber has been overimplemented? - Nintendo101 (talk)

Currently it's approved for the minigame infobox (the original proposal was only for Mario Party minigames, but it's crept over to WarioWare) and race course infobox. Aside from the WarioWare edge case, a couple of mistaken uses of it have been on the Wario Land series and Expert world in MvDK. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:31, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

Which mini-game/race course would get priority in the info boxes should tabbers be removed? Would it return to using the images from their original games or would the newest games get priority? I ask that mostly because the proposal regarding this question was aiming to decide that answer, but the tabber idea passed in general. So I'm questioning which image would get priority. Sprite of Yoshi's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Tails777 Talk to me!Sprite of Daisy's stock icon from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate

I would prefer to take the safe route and revert back to the originals for now, and then a new proposal(s) can be made to deal with them afterwards if anyone wants to. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:05, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

@Nintendo101 Why drag other wikis into this? Why Zelda Wiki in particular? If you take a look, loads of NIWA wikis use tabber. To give a few examples, the Mario article on SmashWiki; the quotes and game pages on WiKirby, the The Forest of Hope on Pikipedia, Marth on Fire Emblem Wiki, Cerebus on the KHWiki. I'm sure there's more. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:42, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

This is tangential, but in a past life, ZeldaWiki was the primary NIWA wiki I contributed to, before they ever incorporated tabs, so I have more baseline familiarity with it than the other wikis, and I also personally believe it is the most egregious example of how tabs could be used. Many of the tabs within their infoboxes are completely empty, varyingly proportioned, or contain screencaps/assets best viewed at smaller resolutions. The tabs also obstruct visual material that otherwise could be readily viewed and compared all at once in a gallery if they did not use tabs, and I guess I prefer having that material more immediately available. I understand Zelda entries often adopt widely different artstyles from one another, but I think it would be healthier for their articles to pick one image curatorially for the infobox, and place the other ones in galleries at the bottom of the page. I do not bring up the use of tabs on that wiki to pick on their community; they are good and hardworking people. But it is immediately where my mind went when I started to see tabs incorporated into infoboxes on Super Mario Wiki, and I would rather not see something like that integrated here.
Their use of tabbers came from internal community discussions and proposals, so it does not really matter what I personally think - they should be the ones deciding how they organize their articles - but I do wish they would reconsider the benefits of incorporating tabs of t-posed models and empty files within their infoboxes. Fire Emblem Wiki and KHWiki are not using tabs to flip between varyingly proportioned images that push the text underneath them around; they are instead being used to provide different pieces of information and I think that looks quite nice.
I am honestly not a fan of the examples you have provided from Pikipedia or WiKirby either because of how they shift the underlying text (it makes it a little cumbersome to passively read, a problem shared with ZeldaWiki), but at least none of their tabs are empty. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:18, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

We're abstaining personally (while we still think tabbers have a use, we do fully acknowledge their use is contentious and it's a bit of a hot button issue where to even draw the line), but we would like to ask that, if this passes, to NOT delete the tabber template outright... Mostly to prevent situations where older page revisions in edit histories just become incomprehensible due to changes in template infrastructure. (Seriously, it's bad enough when infoboxes get renamed, and it would feel a bit silly in this case when one of the reasons for removing them is "they break things if Javascript isn't available"... ;P) Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:58, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

I see one potential good use for tabber, and that is not infoboxes, but rather for character stat tables on game pages... for instance, showing the information on entities for overbloated games like Mario Kart Tour so it can be communicated without severely increasing the vertical space the page takes up. That of course, would be its own discussion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:45, August 9, 2024 (EDT)

Changes

Decide how to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link

Since there are articles about subjects from the Final Fantasy series that have appeared in Mario Hoops 3-on-3, Mario Sports Mix, and/or certain Super Smash Bros. games (Nintendo 3DS / Wii U and/or Ultimate), I'm looking forward to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link. The issue is that there is also a wiki from Fandom (powered by Wikia) that is also named Final Fantasy Wiki. The good news, I've come up with three options:

Option 1
Change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages AND add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link.
Option 2
ONLY add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link (even if confusing).
Option 3
Do NOTHING.

Here is an example on the use of the interwiki link for the Final Fantasy Wiki:

{{iw|finalfantasywiki|Cactuar}}

Cactuar

{{iw|finalfantasywiki|Cloud Strife|Cloud}}

Cloud

That way, we'll be able to use the Final Fantasy Wiki interwiki link once it gets added right after either Option 1 or Option 2 passes, as well as change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages right after only Option 1 passes.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: August 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My primary choice
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Arend (talk) I suppose it makes sense to add it; HOWEVER, SeanWheeler makes a good point that the independent wiki is VERY incomplete and full of red links. For instance, Mario Hoops 3-on-3 features the Mimic enemy and thus should also be covered on our wiki with an article (which we do, but for some godforsaken reason, is shared with the Mimic enemy from Dragon Quest), and would also be useful to link to a Final Fantasy Wiki article covering the same thing. The independent wiki doesn't HAVE an article on the Mimic enemy, but the Fandom wiki DOES. So I should stress that the Fandom wiki links are NOT to be removed when the interwiki link gets added until we find a more complete independent wiki (or this one actually gets completed at some point).

Option 2

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My secondary choice

Option 3

  1. SeanWheeler (talk) The independant Final Fantasy Wiki is full of red links and is incomplete compared to FANDOM's wiki.
  2. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) We shouldn't be adding wikis to the interwiki links just because their independent wikis, they should be added because they contain relevant info. The Final Fantasy wiki mentioned is fairly barren and there is little to no actual activity on there either. The point of interwiki links is so readers can get more informantion on a given topic, by sending them to a wiki that covers franchise we do not, it completely misses the point to link to a wiki that does not have any info in the first place.

Comments

The Fandom wiki is not actually called "Final Fantasy Wikia", not to mention that Fandom not even refers to itself as "Wikia" anymore, to the point that they also dropped that "Powered by Wikia" tagline. Wouldn't it be better to instead refer to it as "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" to differentiate the two wikis? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:40, July 25, 2024 (EDT)

Also, what even is the "text" being referred to in the proposal that needs changing? When do we need to refer to the Fandom Final Fantasy Wiki? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:43, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure they may be referring to External link sections, e.g. here. Currently, the Super Mario Wiki links to specifically the Fandom wiki when it comes to anything Final Fantasy (even outside External link sections), since we don't have an interwiki link for an independent Final Fantasy Wiki yet. I imagine they wouldn't simply replace the Fandom wiki link with the independent wiki link and rather include both wikis. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:50, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
Last week, I replaced "Wikia" with "Wiki (Fandom)." How do you think the proposal looks? GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 10:00, August 1, 2024 (EDT)
Why are you saying this a literal week after making the change, instead of (nearly) immediately after? Wouldn't that make more sense? Or are you asking this only now, because you're either subtly asking me to vote again, or trying to drum up more engagement again, because your proposal did not get any votes?
Either way, while it's good that you applied the change, I'm still abstaining because I'm unsure which option is better. And in case I need to make it clear, I'm NOT obligated to vote, and NOT obligated to say why I'm not voting, and I should NOT be obligated about either option JUST because I engaged in the comment section. As I said before: "no one is forced to vote for an option, even if they're joining in the conversation, so I'd appreciate it if I'm not being pressed into voting for something." And this feels like teetering into just that again.
I'm sorry if this was a genuine question, but after two previous times where you tried to drum up engagement (either by asking commenters to vote, or by bargaining other changes when people weren't disagreeing at all) after no one voted or commented on it, this feels like another feeble attempt to get more votes, and I personally think this vote-bargaining thing is getting really annoying. You probably should've said and asked this "How'd you think the proposal looks now" thing a LOT sooner, and/or at the very least answer Hewer's question (by corroborating what I told him, for example). That way I could suggest what could be added BEFORE the 3-day deadline of being able to change the proposal has reached, AND would've drummed up engagement in a more natural way. NOW, it feels like you're asking people to vote, and someone had gotten blocked for doing just that. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 11:59, August 1, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler I do not think I agree with this option. Even if the independent Final Fantasy Wiki is full of red links and is incomplete, there is still a possibility that the Super Mario Wiki can add the interwiki link to the independent Final Fantasy Wiki. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 19:50, August 7, 2024 (EDT)

You really should try to reply to things a bit sooner, instead of waiting out until the last day of a deadline. That oppose vote is nearly two weeks old. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 04:37, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

By the by, aren't these recent edits jumping the gun a bit? The proposal hasn't even ended with a solid conclusion and you're already replacing Wikipedia links with independent Final Fantasy Wiki links by using the {{plain link}} template. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 05:00, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

Yes. I like to think that the interwiki link to the independent Final Fantasy Wiki would make more sense. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 10:01, August 8, 2024 (EDT)
That's not what I was saying. At all. What I was actually saying is that, with these edits I linked earlier, I'm concerned that you're possibly acting out on the proposal before it has even ended with a conclusion. Some would say that one would only add the Final Fantasy links to the page when it has ended in either of the two option's favor, correct? Given that it's about not only adding the interwiki link to the wiki, but also how to apply them on pages, right? That's literally why Options 1 and 2 are split like that: as it determines whether the interwiki links should replace the Fandom wiki links, or just be added alongside the Fandom Wiki links. And you practically just acted out on the latter, with the the {{plain link}} template . ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 10:15, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

Allow a page for references in mainstream pornography (in observance of the Children's Internet Protection Act)

What I am proposing here stems from two observations:

  • The wiki already features pages dedicated entirely to references to the Super Mario franchise in popular culture. The works invoked in these pages typically need to fulfill some criteria for notability, ranging from having an apparent and indisputable significance to our culture (The Simpsons, Scooby-Doo, Transformers etc.), to simply checking the boxes of social media verification (e.g. the creator of said work has a verification badge on YouTube, see the channels listed here) or being published in libraries and whatnot. A significant amount of adult-oriented works also fall snugly within this range and thus deserve, at least in theory, some acknowledgement on this wiki insofar as their relevance to Mario is concerned.
  • The wiki is already no stranger to documenting vulgar and obscene instances throughout official Mario works and even the aforementioned reference pages. Possibly the most obvious examples of such are the infamous Satellaview broadcasts, the Super Hornio Brothers film, and the accidental use of a slur by Nintendo's social media intern. Less notably, the List of references in music contains two instances of the N-word. There could me more examples of such displays, but so far it's enough to drive the point that has been so thoroughly debated on Bob Hoskins's talk page: the Super Mario Wiki is not set to censor information borne out of sheer impropriety and any attempt so far has crashed and burned tremendously. I will say, though, that I think there should exist a line beyond which certain content is out of question, but it has more to do with potential legal repercussions and is something I believe what I am proposing can easily comply with; more on that shortly.

The gist of the proposal is to allow the creation of a page for Mario-related references in adult-oriented media which is produced or distributed by notable studios, in congruence with the wiki's pages on references in film, video games, publications, and other media. For instance, if a film is a re-enactment of Super Mario Bros. where the actors cosplay as Mario and Princess Peach, such a page would serve to document the film in its own section. Pictures, such as photoshoots and artwork, are allowed as long as they do not depict any sort of age-inappropriate workings; this is to avoid a pit of needles called the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which states that educational institutions should employ a program that restricts internet access from websites that host explicit pictures (something I am positive nobody here would want to happen with mariowiki.com). To better get the grasp of what kind of content will be forbidden even if this proposal passes, please take a look at how CIPA describes content that is "harmful to minors", as copied from the law's Wikipedia article:

Any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that – (i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; (ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and (iii) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.

It is within the wiki's best interest to be as thorough as it can within the premises set, and I believe it can still easily educate the public on a potentially outrageous subject such as "Mario porn" without employing content that isn't compliant to US minor protection acts.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: August 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Course y'all want this, ya Goonies. Goonie.PNGGoonie.PNGGoonie.PNG
  2. Hewer (talk) I guess this makes sense given the wiki's longstanding anti-censorship stance, so per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Blhte (talk) If we allow them then victims will expand to the makers of pornography and even more associated innocent people so what can I say anymore?
  2. Mario (talk) Given the obvious lack of official venues, I don't think it's worthwhile to really open up discussions of said content (imagine if I have to be compelled to vote or weigh in a contentious proposal involving a porno film) particularly the notability of it. We already filter pretty hard the memes and internet culture, don't really cover fangames, don't cover fan animations on YouTube, don't cover bootleg games unless if it's about their existence being handled by Nintendo. And also if this proposal passes I'll find out who's been watching enough pornography to be able to figure out notability enough to contribute to a page of "list of Mario references in porn" (I say this as matter of fact, not to cast judgement; other users will also know). And who's going to also be knowledgeable enough to curate what goes in this page or not...? The first support vote is definitely a brow raiser. This proposal invites more questions than not, with not... great answers.
  3. Technetium (talk) Per Mario.
  4. Sparks (talk) Per all, especially Mario.
  5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Blhte, mainly. This may surprise y'all, but most of the people who make this sort of thing (nowadays at least) are actually very nice, respectful (and honestly normal) people if you actually talk to them - they just have talents in a field most people look down on, and don't like to be shunned in their personal lives because people found out about their... societally-unsavory aspects in an unrelated location. Also, most of said people wouldn't want to call attention to themselves by adding their knowledge of it in said unrelated location, as LGM said.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Mario. I really don't think there has been any pornographic production culturally prolific enough to cover on the wiki other than Super Hornio Brothers anyways, which is already covered in a way I think is serviceable.
  7. Ray Trace (talk) Per all, I think it would open a Pandora's box since most of it isn't even officially curated regardless. Plus, mainstream pornography at least in regards to the Mario series is also an oxymoron, it's the type of stuff you only really know if you're into those circles to begin with which are obviously kept incognito for a reason. Obviously I'm not, and neither should a lot of the target audience who use this site.
  8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Doc Von. We shouldn't raise the age rating of the entire website under the pretense of maybe... like... one extra article, since only Super Hornio Bros. would warrant an article if you ask me; and even in a perfect world where we don't have to worry about age appropriateness or y'know, advertiser revenue, since we are not monetized via donations, it feels a little too much like gawking for its own good.

Comments

I'm neutral to this, on the grounds that no such thing has existed as "mainstream pornography" for almost 30 years (The production industry moved practically entirely to small-timer groups by 2003 at latest), and thus there is nothing to vote on in either direction. Although I see the humor in the extremely "between the lines" "hint-hint"-type argumentations, the situation remains that there's virtually nothing at all to work with. DandelionSprout (talk)

A while ago, I mentioned it would be good to create a notice template that warns the reader for mature/explicit, and/or sensitive material on an article, and also noted that a similar notice template exists on Bulbapedia (used on Lopunny's trivia section, for instance); I believe implementing something like that is much better than outright removing or not mentioning explicit content. Do you all think it's a good idea, or is it unnecessary? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 10:11, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

In this case, the proposal is to make a separate list for explicit content rather than just covering it on the pre-existing reference lists, which I think already serves the purpose of separating the explicit content. We can trust our readers to not click on "List of references in pornography" (or whatever it may end up being titled) if they don't want to see such material. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:18, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
Even so, I think it's still worth considering to make a notice template regarding this subject. Readers might expect explicit content on a hypothetical list of references in porn that this proposal is suggesting, but they're not very likely to expect such a thing on pages such as List of unofficial media acknowledged by Nintendo (which contains information on a porn fangame titled Mario Is Missing: Peach's Untold Tale (which on its own is also a rather unassuming title for porn)), or Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō (which is accessed on official Nintendo material and is licensed by Nintendo). I suppose this may not be the perfect discussion for it and may be better discussed on its own proposal, though. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 16:40, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Under the standards of notability outlined by this proposal (which admitelly, I am not convinced are all that clear when 100% of pornography is not distributed through professional means and the standards we currently use on the References page don't really apply) does this mean we can finally look forward to a mention of beloved Retsupurae running joke "Bowser & Peach Hentai"? I'm asking the real shit you know. --Glowsquid (talk) 10:25, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Where exactly is the line drawn for "mainstream" and "not notable," considering what constitutes as a "notable studio" has become very vague in this age of self-publishing? Obviously, there's a fuckton (no pun intended) of R34 fan art (hell, Peach herself is an utter fetish-magnet mainly for her recognizability and cute design, as Bowsette demonstrated to all the normal people of the world, and that ongoing "Peach's back in her Strikers outfit" thing shows currently). And while most of that is not notable outside of.... very specific circles, then there's stuff like that "Shy Gal" thing that became a major meme in its own right even in more normal circles (becoming a running gag on the SMG4 series, for example), despite (iirc) being made by the infamous porn artist Minus8 - which themself could be considered a "notable studio" through the vague definition considering how prolific they seem to be. Not to mention all the less-than-SFW jokes that have become memes on places like VineSauce... and SMG4 itself, for that matter. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:43, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Who gets to define the line? I imagine those who have an extensive knowledge of the pornography world? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 11:59, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
I'd rather abstain on this proposal (pun non intended)... --Green Yoshi FanOfYoshi 12:21, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
The impression I got from the proposal was that the page would be based on the same standards of notability as the other references lists, and that it's not meant to be "pornography of Mario" so much as "references to Mario in media that happens to be excluded from the other lists for being pornographic". So probably not just random fanart. Though admittedly, I don't have the knowledge to say what the "notable" media may actually be. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:27, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
That's the biggest problem of the proposal, it relies on an oxymoron of "notable pornography", something you know only if you're in the circle to begin with. I'm not aware of any, and none of this has penetrated any public conscious for obvious reasons, even less so than the more known internet fangames you can find on MFGG (like Psycho Waluigi). BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 12:46, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
I'm not sure about that. I'll give you this, porn is something that many people consume, but indeed few are actually willing to talk about. Its presence in everyday talk is intentionally kept low-key due to its inappropriate nature--but that doesn't make it "unnotable" in the same way you'd perceive a low-reaching, local garage band or the average ROM hack to be. The scale of this industry is comparable to others', and relevant works attract enough dedicated fans as to have evolved outside the confines of the product: there are tabloids dedicated to this topic, and there exist entire fan conventions where people can meet and greet their favorite performers in the industry, not unlike Comic Con. That doesn't even get into the parts that have become mainstream, with or without the effort of fans: one way or another, everyone's heard of a certain sinful bald man who is simultaneously a plumber, a doctor, and an astronaut, no? If that isn't enough to make such media notable, I struggle to think of anything else. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:04, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
The intentional incognito nature and taboo of porn is the entire root problem of this proposal, and all that you said is really only popular in *that* specific sphere of influence. Whereas, as for local garage band or ROM hacks, those at least can be freely discussed in clearnet in sites without much repercussion. We're also getting into notability debates when IMO, that's a whole nother can of worms that this proposal didn't exactly have good answers for. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 16:14, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
Hewer (talk) I really doubt conditions since Super Hornio Brothers have changed, in which Nintendo legally intervened in its distribution. The proposal explicitly delineates material "produced or distributed by notable studios", but no major production studio of any medium would incorporate explicit references to another (more powerful) company's popular IP out of fear of legal ligation. I can imagine that is especially true of a children's IP owned by a big company like Nintendo who have the resources to bury any studio if they felt it was necessary. So, the only thing I think would be worth including in an article of this scope is Super Hornio Brothers... which I think is adequately covered elsewhere on its current article. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:47, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
The List of references on the Internet, at least, states in its opening paragraph that it excludes "content with pornography, sex, or other adult-based content", which implies that there is such content that would otherwise be notable enough to cover. But again, I wouldn't know myself. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:59, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
@Nintendo101, Parodies are protected by law in the US. There are parodies of Mario other than Super Hornio Bros. that Nintendo didn't do a thing about. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:04, August 10, 2024 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4325317"