MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Friday, November 22nd, 04:20 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 one or 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 autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
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. 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 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.
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 "(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.
8. A proposal 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.
   • Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
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 can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
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. If the wiki staff 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.
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 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 22, 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 for proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by the additional rules below:
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

• Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 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)

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.

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)

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)

List of talk page proposals

• Split Category:Super Mario 64 into Category:Super Mario 64 and Template:Fakelink (discuss) Deadline: Passed

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Splitting Large Galleries

As I mentioned here, Mario's gallery page is incredibly large; over 87,000 bytes, which makes loading take a significant amount of time. The following proposal wouldn't just effect Mario's gallery, but all gallery pages in general.

Once a gallery page reaches a certain number of bytes, around 50-60K, it starts to lag on loading time. So I'm proposing we split those pages up once they reach that amount into separate pages to help cut down on loading times and lessen the strain on our computers, as well as making navigation easier. The page would be split into the following pages like this:

• Gallery:(name) artwork and scans

This gallery page would contain all the artwork from various games as well as scans of the subject from books, magazines, manga, etc. I'm grouping them together as these two things seem to coincide with each other, and it doesn't seem right to split them.

• Gallery:(name) sprites

This gallery page would contain the many sprites of the subject.

• Gallery: (name) screenshots

This gallery page would contain all the screenshots from games and animation we've captured of the subject.

In the case of the original gallery page, it would become a disambiguation to guide users and readers to the proper location. Additionally, sample images relating to the linked page can be included to give readers an example of what to expect. In Mario's case, the page would look like this:

"Due to the size of this gallery, it has been split to reduce loading times.

• For artworks and scans of Mario, see [[Gallery:Mario artwork and scans|here]].

<gallery><image><image><image></gallery>

• For sprites of Mario, see [[Gallery:Mario sprites|here]].

<gallery><image><image><image></gallery>

• For screenshots of Mario, see [[Gallery:Mario screenshots|here]].

<gallery><image><image><image></gallery>

• For the gallery of images relating to Mario's younger form, Baby Mario, see [[Gallery:Baby Mario|here]].
• For images relating to Mario's powered-up forms, see [[:Category:Forms|here]]."

I don't know if the opening statement really needs to be there, but it'll help users who weren't aware of this proposal to split (should it pass) explain why this gallery page is different from the rest.

Should this proposal pass, the MarioWiki:Galleries page should be updated to reflect this change. The {{galleries}} navbox would also have to be updated to reflect the change, for example: "Mario (Artworks and Scans · Sprites · Screenshots)"

Proposer: Alex95 (talk)
Deadline: Friday, January 27^th, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Alex95 (talk) Per my proposal above.
2. Shokora (talk) – Per proposal.
3. Tails777 (talk) Sounds like a good idea to me. Especially since Mario gets like 4 or 5 pieces of individual artwork per game.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) – Per all.
5. Tucayo (talk) - This is definitely needed, per proposal.
6. Mario jc (talk) - Per all.
7. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Splitting pages to curb length and loading time strain is relieving and sometimes even necessary considering that browsing through high-traffic pages can be overwhelming both for the browser and the reader. In addition to this, splitting upon length alone is a much easier task with galleries than it is with articles, because they're, well, image repositories. The only things I feel need to be covered are how the {{galleries}} will be edited accordingly to this change and where or whether we should draw the line for gallery sizes, but other than that, everything looks fine, so per Alex95.
8. Yoshi the Space Station Manager (talk) Per all. (Note: I am wondering which galleries are above 50GB? It will help the proposal.)
9. Jazama (talk) Per all
10. Bazooka Mario (talk) Anything to keep loading times more bearable. Sure thing except finding appropriate Mario images to shitpost in the forums will be more of a challenge tho. Now, what do we do with those Bowser and Mario pages in this wiki...
11. SK64 (talk) Per all. Hopefully this can happen on most of the larger galleries.
12. Luigi 64DD (talk) Per all.
13. MKS1675 (talk) Per All
14. Ghost Jam (talk) Per all.

Comments

Let me get one thing straight, while the Wiki-code for Gallery:Mario is 87KB, the generated HTML (i.e. the code that actually gets loaded) is 997KB (which is compressed to 95KB when sent to your browser).
Including the images, the size (compressed) will be 21MB, which is the actual culprit of the loading time (1+ minute). (On mobile devices this is even 58MB / 2 minutes)
Lakituthequick 18:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I, uh... didn't know the technical stuff. I just knew the page was taking too long to load and I wanted to do something to fix it. 13:38, 20 January 2017 (EST)

The problem is valid though, even if the effective numbers come from a somewhat different source. (Also, just an info, you can vote and support in your own proposals.) Lakituthequick 23:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, completely forgot to do that. I'm out of it today... 18:22, 20 January 2017 (EST)

Could it be worth to have a small sample of each gallery on the main Gallery page instead of it just being a disambiguation page? Or maybe link to all pages from the main article? I'm just trying to save some users a click. --™ The 'Shroom 18:56, 20 January 2017 (EST)

Some example images are perfectly fine, yeah, I added that in. And doesn't the disambig example list all the pages already? I just showed the coding so users would know what to include. 19:03, 20 January 2017 (EST)

@Toadette the Achiever (talk), you bring up a point I completely forgot about: the {{galleries}}. I've seen other templates use the following format whenever there is a grouped subject, e.g.: Mario (Artworks and Scans · Sprites · Screenshots). Would that work? 19:39, 20 January 2017 (EST)

Yes, that probably would. I'm not sure what else to say here other than, yes, it's important to be consistent, especially with navbox templates. ^(T|C) 21:09, 20 January 2017 (EST)

Consistency is important! 21:18, 20 January 2017 (EST)

@YtSSM, the only gallery I've found so far above 50KB is Mario's, but Luigi's is getting close and probably the Mushroom's? Regardless, this will effect a gallery should it end up beyond 50KB. 22:42, 20 January 2017 (EST)

@Alex95 – I think that gallery template format would work fine for the most part. The only problem I can think of is the entry being separated to another line, The alternative would be to link to the "hub" gallery only, which leaves the subject with a single link on Template:Galleries. Because thinking ahead, it would be confusing to see split parenthesis lines throughout the template. – Shokora ^{(talk · edits)} 05:37, 21 January 2017 (EST)

Only linking to the "hub" gallery would make it easier, sure, but makes an extra step in navigating. Should there be an "Additional Galleries" section on the template? I can see the original idea working fine, but... sheesh, I don't know anymore :P I'm open to ideas, but I'm having trouble finding ways to make them all work correctly... 12:35, 21 January 2017 (EST)

Prohibit Converting Between GIF, JPEG, and PNG Formats

Introduction

Converting between image formats is pointless and unconstructive maintenance. Why? Quality doesn't improve at all. There's also some misunderstandings how each image format works. JPEG to PNG preserves the JPEG artifacting (known as lossy compression). GIF to PNG keeps all the same pixels just to have a smaller file format because PNG compression is better than GIF compression (yes, there is a compression algorithm to GIF), which means improper colors are preserved because GIF is limited to 256 colors.

What this proposal applies to

PNG is the best format out there for web images but requires care to be wielded properly. It makes things harder to identify what needs replacing if improperly used. JPEG to PNG directly is improper use in general. This is especially true if it just to apply transparency that JPEG isn't capable of doing, which could fall under violation of a proposal prohibiting bad/fan transparency. The image that is in need of transparency should have a version that is officially applied by Nintendo, such as a press kit release. If it doesn't exist, don't convert to PNG (or edit the clean image if it is found to exist but not transparent). The file size will just be bloated at that point without affecting the quality at all.

What this proposal doesn't apply to

This doesn't apply to sprite rips or custom 3D model renders because the aliasing makes it super easy to apply so there is no potential for bad transparency. If there is a mistake, it can be corrected without affecting the overall image.

This doesn't apply to replacing images if a clean version of that image exists or can exist. I replace screenshots and sprites often, especially if they are in the wrong format or improperly taken. You can see my images to see just how they compare to the image I was targeting to replace at the time.

If the image is found to be released in PSD or a similar format and it doesn't have transparency with all exposed layers, it might be possible to apply the transparency without it violating the bad transparency proposal.

Sometimes images are in the BMP format or some other raw format. That is OK to convert to PNG. No quality loss there.

Exceptions

However, if the PNG is seen to be too large for upload, even after compression optimization (10MB max at this time for each file), exceptions can be made to allow PNG to JPEG conversion. At that point, the JPEG will be of lower space requirements but the lower space requirements means lossy compression took place.

Conclusion

In short, keep the original format and don't convert directly. Do things properly. If this proposal passes, MarioWiki:Image use policy needs to be amended to reflect the change. This applies to future uploading only. If it can be spotted that an image already uploaded is in violation of this policy change, deal with it on a case by case basis as things are discovered. No need to massively go through each an every image uploaded all at once.

Proposer: Wildgoosespeeder (talk)
Deadline: January 30, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Per proposal
2. Alex95 (talk) - Per Wildgoosespeeder

Comments

Anything unclear? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 22:45, 22 January 2017 (EST)

I think {{image-quality}} suffices to tell other editors that the image in question has JPEG artifacts or GIF 256-color limits. There are benefits of keeping things in a single format when the image size is small. When I created the list of Star Pieces in Paper Mario, I first used the screenshots from a 100% Paper Mario run on the Internet, which were similar to JPG, then replaced them with GIFs from the Star Piece guide on RPGClassics and finally retook them myself for successively higher quality. Since things were done in PNG at first, this saved the work of replacing all the images two times, with the additional benefit of preserving all the older versions for historical reference. --A gossip-loving Toad (Talk) 00:42, 23 January 2017 (EST)

There has been much debate over the use of that tag. I think it's best to just prohibit future uploads from converting the images so that way new debates if the tag should be placed on those images don't get started and existing debates can get resolved ASAP (any affected images that currently occupy Category:Quality requested). --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 01:10, 23 January 2017 (EST)

What if someone takes a screenshot from a YouTube video, like a Nintendo ad? I would save it as PNG to avoid another layer of compression, but the result would still be PNG with lossy compression. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) --A gossip-loving Toad (Talk) 09:54, 23 January 2017 (EST)

Even though the content is definitely heavily lossy compressed, compressing it as JPEG would cause further losses in quality, furthermore it can be subsequently replaced with a proper PNG screenshot without renaming. If no uncompressed or at least high bitrate lossy compressed source video can be found I would therefore say that in this case it is fine saving as PNG, stating that the source is a video and possibly including a link to the actual video.--Mister Wu (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2017 (EST)

I don't think those kinds of images apply to the proposal. This is more for artwork, screenshots, or other images obtained by means through someone else rather than through the submitter's own doing, like if the image they find through a Google Image Search is in the JPEG or GIF format and they submit it as a PNG instead. In general, I find that kind of practice plagiarism, unless the source is specified and there is no way for the submitter to replicate the result. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 15:41, 23 January 2017 (EST)

Changing the Super Mario Wiki Logo!

It's time for the wiki to get a facelift and receive a brand new logo. The matter was brought up on the forums recently and I've been discussing it with several users, including Porplemontage. I presented a proposed design for the logo, and after a few adjustments I can now present it here:

This new logo is simple. Rather than displaying a piece of Mario himself, it shows the iconic mushroom. The mushroom is a symbol of the Mushroom Kingdom as a whole, similarly to how the wiki covers the entire franchise as a whole, even when Mario isn't the focus of a game. The current logo (seen at the top left of the page) is very dated, featuring artwork and screenshots from games that came out almost a decade ago. The proposed design is unique in that it won't become dated in a few years by each game that comes out.

What do you think? Should we change the logo to this new design, or keep the current logo?

Proposer: Eldritchdraaks (talk)
Deadline: February 1, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Switch to New Logo

1. Eldritchdraaks (talk) Per proposal
2. Alex95 (talk) I'm honestly going to miss the old one, but I agree, it's long overdue for a change.
3. Glowsquid (talk) I like it!
4. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) The design looks really good and everything Eldritchdraaks said about it symboling the Mushroom Kingdom instead of just Mario is really accurate. In other words, I like it enough for it to be the new logo. Per all.
5. Yoshi the Space Station Manager (talk) Per all.
6. Baby Luigi (talk) Preferably should be drawn with vectors, though
7. Jazama (talk) Per all

Keep the Current Logo

1. Tails777 (talk) At the risk of sounding picky, I kinda like the current logo better. I have nothing against the one shown, but it's a matter taste and I just like the current one. If I need a reason why I like the current one, I like the screenshots behind Mario and the logo itself. While they are kinda hard to see, they do show a bit of the various games in the series overall.

Comments

The original file IS drawn with vector... mostly. It's x1500px.-- 22:45, 25 January 2017 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.