MarioWiki:Proposals

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species, Camwoodstock (ended February 13, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Tighten Category:Power-ups and its subcategories, SolemnStormcloud (ended February 27, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables

Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen here, this is awkwardly written as

  • "[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"

and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of

  • "[number] + (∞ x [number]),"

with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Altendo (talk) - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.

Comments

@Hewer - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

New features

Add WikiLove extension (includes templates)

Inspired by my recently passed Thanks proposal and engagement with editors over time, I think a precedent has been set to add more WikiLove features on to the wiki so that (willing) members may enjoy engaging with one another and feel motivated when others compliment their work, or just personal appreciations.

The main thing this proposal is focused on is the MediaWiki extension, which is called WikiLove. On the rationale of the WikiLove page, it says that lesser experienced users may feel discouraged when looked down upon by more experienced editors as they try to figure out how to do wikis, and this could help motivate not only newer editors, but also more experienced editors.

It says one can make custom WikiLove messages. Being a wiki on Super Mario, I think this wiki could aim to do WikiLove messages themed around the Super Mario franchise. The community can decide on WikiLove messages if this proposal passes (e.g., one message could say like "You're a super star like Mario"), as well as personalized ones toward editors. But if others do not want involvement, the courtesy policy can be updated to reflect this.

I wish there were more images to show, but here's a representative image to show how WikiLove would look. Would it be worth giving this a try?

Edit: For clarity, if this proposal passes, this also means WikiLove templates will be created, like how Wikipedia has them. It can be what the community decides, and categorical examples could include seasonal, animals, drinks, or expressing friendships, and obviously Super Mario.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: September 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) This would be a great form of positive feedback to counter the struggles faced by new and existing editors alike, since learning how to use a wiki is more difficult than you might expect. Ultimately, this should increase the feeling of community around the wiki to keep editing from feeling like a chore.
  3. Derekblue1 (talk) I know people are happy with what I do ever since I update the Discord server on my progress on Mario is Missing!. The WikiLove extension will make people feel more connected. I see this as a boost of encouragement just like the Thanks extension.
  4. Technetium (talk) Seems really fun, especially if we go full on Mario theming with it!
  5. Sparks (talk) Hooray for more positivity!
  6. DryBonesBandit (talk) give me my glass o' milk now This seems like it would be a nice addition to the wiki. Per all!
  7. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) I know I had a rough time when I first joined some of the websites I'm currently on today, so I'm all for this! I just love having the option to thank people and encourage them! Per all!
  8. BMfan08 (talk) Sure! I'm all for kittens (I could even make do with Mario kittens). Per all!

Oppose

Comments

@ThePowerPlayer I realized WikiLove templates could fit into the scope of this proposal, so it's been updated, if your "Support" will count towards voting for those as well. Super Mario RPG (talk) 22:24, September 13, 2024 (EDT)

I really like this, but does Porplemontage know about this proposal? I know he approved and implemented the "Thanks" extension, but I just wanna be sure! link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 22:37, September 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Sparks The proposal is easily viewable on this page. And the proposal basically concerns a WikiLove system in general (since I updated it to also mention templates), so something like MarioWiki:WikiLove page can be set up with the corresponding templates. Super Mario RPG (talk) 08:17, September 14, 2024 (EDT)
Alrighty! Good to know. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 08:52, September 14, 2024 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Rename the remaining baseball teams to their current titles

One thing is certain: Mario Super Sluggers was first released in Japan almost three years after Mario Superstar Baseball was first released in said country. In this case, I humbly suggest that there's a possibility to move the remaining baseball team pages with their Mario Superstar Baseball name to their current name from Mario Super Sluggers. So far, the current names already in use are the Peach Monarchs and Bowser Monsters.

The following of the remaining pages will be affected by the move:

Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to move the remaining baseball teams with their Mario Superstar Baseball names to their current Mario Super Sluggers titles.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: September 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Kept forgetting to do this during my ongoing sports project.
  3. Jdtendo (talk) The most recent names should be prioritized.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Definitely.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per (baseb)all.
  6. Hewer (talk) Don't see why not.
  7. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal. Sounds like a good idea.
  8. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Decide how to handle the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes

Currently, in infoboxes, the "latest portrayal" section of it is inconsistent across characters. When Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door came out, for example, it listed both Kevin Afghani (Mario's current voice actor) and Charles Martinet (who voices Mario in The Thousand-Year Door from original archival voicing) as Mario's latest portrayals, yet Jen Taylor (whose voice clips were also reused) wasn't added to Peach's latest portrayal. Therefore, to make these infoboxes consistent for characters with multiple voice actors, I am proposing several options:

  • Option 1: Only add in the current voice actor for the character (reissues with archival voices from retired voice actors will not be added).
  • Option 2: Only add in the voice actor for the character in the most recent game (reissues with archival voices will overtake the "current" voice actor if the latest one did not record voice lines for the character, the current voice actor will be re-added to the infobox following the release of a game with voices from the current voice actor).
  • Option 3: Add both the current voice actor and the voice actor for the latest release (this puts two voice actors in the "latest portrayal" section if the character is voiced via archival footage from a retired voice actor, but the current voice actor also gets to remain. When a new game comes out with new voice lines from the current voice actor, the voice actor from the previous release will be removed).
  • Option 4: Do nothing (infoboxes with both actors will not change, and same with infoboxes with the current actor even if a game featuring archival voicing from a retired voice actor is the latest one).

With regards to mixed use of voices, if multiple voice actors voice a single character in a single game, the latest person who voiced the character as of the game's release takes priority, meaning that archival voices from retired actors will not appear in the infobox if the character in that game is also (and especially mostly) voiced by the current actor for that character. As for other media (like The Super Mario Bros. Movie), whether or not the game/other media actor takes priority or if both should be listed is also of question, but I will likely wait until the follow-up to create that proposal.

EDIT: With regards to Tails777's vote, I don't know exactly how it will play out if Option 3 passes, although I will say if a game (like a compilation) does have a single character voiced by more than one voice actor who isn't the current one, the latest voice actor whose voice clips are used in the game as of the game's release will be the second option added to the infobox (like Peach in 3D All-Stars, who would've listes Samantha Kelly as her current and Galaxy voice actress, as well as Jen Taylor as her Sunshine voice actress, although I don't think it would be that consistent because it would exclude Leslie Swan, her 64 voice actress, but since Jen Taylor was the more recent of the two, she is the one who is listed).

Proposer: Altendo (talk)
Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Only add in the current voice actor

  1. Altendo (talk) Primary choice. "Latest portrayal", to me, means the person who last voiced the character, and I don't think archival voices should count as this, especially since those voices were recorded before the current voice actor. This also avoids the issues of multiple voice actors voicing a single character in compilations and switching/adding or removing voice actors when reissues and original games come out (as described below).
  2. Shadow2 (talk) Re-using old sound clips has no bearing on a character's "Latest portrayal". Charles does not voice Mario anymore, and to list him as such just because of older re-used sound clips is misrepresentative.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per both, this is the less misleading option (the infobox doesn't specify whether the "latest" voice actor was just re-usage of old voice clips, so listing both Charles and Kevin gives the impression that they're both actively voicing Mario, which is wrong).
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.

Only add in the the voice actor for the "latest" game

  1. Altendo (talk) Tertiary choice. If "Latest portrayal" really means the person who voiced the character in the latest game, regardless of said actor's as-of-game-release status, then maybe archival voices can count because it is the voice of the character in the "latest" game. I do not recommend this option as this will cause a lot of infobox editing and switching voice actors when reissues (particularly ports and remasters) do inevitably come out, and if a compilation game (like Super Mario 3D All-Stars) comes out, multiple voice actors who voice the same character in a single compilation (like Princess Peach, who had three voice actresses in a single compilation) will stack up in the infoboxes. And when a new game comes out, all of that is thrown out the window, reverting to their current voice actor. This is why some were against enforcing the absolute "latest" portrayals in a previous proposal. The only reason why I am for this is consistency.

Add both current and latest voice actor

  1. Altendo (talk) Secondary choice. It feels nice to respect both the voice actor who is currently voicing the character and the person whose voices, even in archival, are the sole ones used in the latest game. However, my point about voice actor switching, while not as big as an issue because archival voice actors will only be added rather than replace the current one, still kind of stands because reissues will add the archival voice actor for one game, only to remove it when a new game comes out. Additionally, if compilations only contain voices from retired voice actors, this will stack it up even more (although for 3D All-Stars, it still wouldn't change much due to Peach's Super Mario Galaxy voice actress still being her current one). Still, this does make the infoboxes consistent.
  2. Tails777 (talk) I agree with this one more; it's best to keep it up to date when it comes to VAs, but it isn't uncommon for various games to recycle voice clips (TTYD once again being a good example). I feel it is best to at least acknowledge if voice clips get recycled in this respect, though I also feel this should be limited to one at a time, in case there are examples where someone had more than even two voice actors.

Do nothing

Comments

I'm conflicted between simply listing only whoever is currently voicing the character vs. potentially opening a can of worms by listing multiple actors from archival clips, even though that would respect the portrayals from the most recent game whether it used newly recorded or archived voices. No matter how this proposal ends up, I think that a future proposal should consider standardizing the "Portrayals" header in the character articles themselves. For Mario, the list of portrayals does a great job at comprehensively documenting everyone who has officially voiced Mario, but falters in conveying the inconceivable magnitude of media in which Martinet has voiced Mario, and how much he has contributed to the character's brand recognition to the point where many people will continue to see him as the voice of Mario, even moving forward as Kevin Afghani takes on that role. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 23:57, September 16, 2024 (EDT)

Revise the "four weeks until counter-proposal can be made" rule

The "four weeks" threshold causes more harm than good, especially when proposals that intend to make wide-reaching changes are stymied by smaller proposals that only deal with a single section on a single page, which can then happen for a similar section on another page, and so on and so forth. With the month-long threshold especially, this can stretch into actually forever. As such, I propose two solutions:

  1. . Lower the threshold of time to two weeks. - Why is it four weeks, anyway? Why that arbitrary amount of time? That's twice as long as it takes a talk page proposal to run its course anyway. There's no benefit to this. I get that the purpose is to avoid a back-and-forth, but it seems unlikely community consensus will have changed within that amount of time unless something new has been brought up or found, in which case sooner is better - see what happened on Ankoopa's talk page for a good example there, when evidence for a third option was only found very late into a proposal and as such, a month had to pass with outright incorrect information being knowingly included on it before it could be reversed. (and for an older example, that time the blue Lava Bubbles were called "Ice Podoboos" because several people confused them with Li'l Brrs).
  2. . Make the rule specific to proposals whose sole/majority purpose (or at least, the sole/majority purpose of one of the options in case of multi-option proposals, and by "majority" I mean "at least 1/4 of what it will do involves the previous proposal") is to overturn another one, and instead have the large-scale omnibus proposals have to wait 1 week instead of 4 to contradict a previous proposal if the previous proposal is only a small part of it (required to be intrinsically related to the rest, not some unrelated amendment) and not a major focus of it. - This is again an issue that occurs in omnibus proposals on related subjects if multiple proposals are created over a period of time. It pads out the time before it can be allowed unnecessarily, especially when combined with the previously mentioned issue - it can prevent the proposal from being made indefinitely, which is obviously unfair; waiting patiently for a month only to get "Your Princess is in Another Castle"d by another one being made before they are allowed to make their own is very disheartening, after all, and infinite loops and vicious cycles are never any good if they can't be broken out of. Now it will still be disallowed to contradict any point of currently running proposals, but downtime is fair game. And of course, all those minor proposals won't need to happen in the first place if the omnibus one is made.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support - Both

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

Support - Just #1

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

Support - Just #2

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

Oppose

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't see any practical argument behind this proposal besides you disagreeing with a proposal that passed and wanting non-Super Mario coverage on a Super Mario wiki. 28 days is plenty of time. Your opening statement makes it clear that this proposal is centered around you wanting to instantly overturn a proposal you strongly disagree with. Also, this proposal ends a day before Sept 25, twenty-eight days after Aug 28, the proposal you want to overturn. Also, what if someone used this rule against a proposal that you strongly supported. Would you support it in all cases, then?
  2. Technetium (talk) From looking through the comments, this seems specific to a conflict between two editors, and the proposal has no real basis beyond this one scenario. I don't think making proposals is the way interpersonal conflicts should be resolved.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We feel like a 28-day delay has a dual purpose of both preventing select repeat topics from clogging the proposals, but also allowing proposals that pass to properly sit in place, so that the changes in place have a proper chance to function. Make it too short, and you both run the risk of repeated proposals about the same subjects running over and over again, and to make it so that even if proposals do pass, they are a bit too easy to undo--and if proposals are too easy to put into place or revert, then they just kind of stop mattering, and the Wiki would just kind of melt into a constant state of flux as the editing standards would keep being changed. It has the very real chance to devolve into edit warring with extra bureaucracy involved, and we feel pretty confident that nobody would want that.
  4. Arend (talk) I have a feeling that this proposal was not entirely made in good faith... by which I mean that the proposal seems to be made with the proposer's annoyance of them being unable to post their proposal in mind, rather than it actually being beneficial to the wiki itself. Ignoring that feeling, however, I feel that the four-week buffer is there to let the proposed changes get properly "baked" into the wiki's design, i.e. let users and visitors get used to these changes; I feel like the idea is that if the wait time to overturn it were any shorter, that would not be enough time for people to get used to the changes in the first place. When it comes to the second proposed option (aside from it being a bit confusedly-worded), that sounds like the proposer wanted to open a loophole opportunity. I can imagine that there will be several proposals made to overturn a previous proposal only a mere day after it was settled, only for these proposals to be allowed because the overturning part is only a minor part of these proposals whilst the primary point of the proposals is, like, something bogus that doesn't really benefit the wiki in a major way – kind of like adding bogus, non-beneficiary multiple options in a proposal just to avoid insufficient consensus due to multi-option proposals working differently, something the same proposer complained about in a prior proposal.
  5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  6. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per the first four oppose voters.
  7. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Super Mario RPG - Yes. Yes I would. Because this restriction is arbitrary and annoying no matter what one's opinion on any other proposals is. And note how you are attempting to push my ability to make my proposal by another month with the separate obstacle and cameo proposals you just made. "Making a proposal to fix a flaw in the rules one is a victim to" isn't about some sort of personal vendetta, it's about fixing a flaw in the rules. And again, if you actually read the proposal made here, it's not about instant overturns, it's about dealing with incidental pieces - and please note the part about "community consensus probably will not have changed unless something major comes up" that I mentioned. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:43, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

There could be endless arguing within short time frames if this rule is changed. This isn't about a "flaw in the rules" so much as you trying to change the system to suit your liking, at least in this circumstance, since it would benefit you directly. But then if there's 50/50 division on proposals on the wiki, this could go badly very quickly. I don't see a single other person filled with nearly this much zeal to keep SSB content. Yes, there is support, but this is going overboard. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:50, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
No it won't. Again, the specifics still keep that from happening. A month is annoyingly long either way, and from what I can tell you are making some amount of effort (consciously or subconsciously) to attempt to put off my ability to make a proposal indefinitely, considering after three weeks of not much happening, you implemented your proposal, I told you my proposal would be next week and then not 20 minutes later you created two piecemeal 2-week talk page proposals right under that statement that would ensure mine would be put off for double the original amount of time, which is an unfair result of the current policy - hell there's a TVTropes page for it. A month is too long, end of story. (Also, I have never seen anyone with as much zeal for removing Smash things as you, so that goes both ways.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:56, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
I'd call myself logical (Super Mario is Super Mario, Zelda is Zelda, Kirby is Kirby), but that may sound condescending. I was more focused on the first sentence of you saying that you vehemently opposed the proposal due to an inconsistency, and that was why I created two proposals to try and resolve it, since a number did support the Pokemon proposal. This proposal will disrupt the democratic process of two "piecemeal" proposals that are already ongoing, so then somehow if they pass, Pokemon will be reinstated but the other removed? It makes no sense. The wiki's not about any single person and what they want. I had failed proposals before. I've moved on. I don't keep hammering on those failed proposals, including those that failed unanimously. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:03, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
Considering you knew what I was planning, you seem to have deliberately timed it so I can't make my proposal without "disrupting the democratic process" on yours, which wouldn't have been an issue if the wait weren't so long. In doing so, you have (deliberately or otherwise) indirectly taunted me and my helplessness from these rules, which I find to be rather rude. Either way, you keep making this be about your proposal rather than the obvious flaw in the rules here. Which only makes it seem further like you are deliberately taking advantage of said flaw at my expense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:13, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
I don't appreciate the assumptions being made about me. You quoted "disrupting the democratic process," admitting there's some footing in that argument to a degree. I didn't taunt you, nor do I appreciate you attempting to play the victim in this circumstance. The two clashing ideals cancel each other out: you made this centered mostly around your strong passion to overturn a proposal you're trying everything to do to overturn, and my argument against this is because it concerns a proposal that I made and that less counterproductivity and edit warring could result if someone tries to overturn proposals within such a short timeframe. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:18, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
I quoted that because that's what you said, the quotes were the equivalent to putting air quotes around something sarcastically. While yes, your proposals catalyzed this, I have more important matters at stake here than what it is you do. Also, "two weeks" is not a "short timeframe," "four weeks" is just an "overly long timeframe." (Honestly, this rule has always annoyed me even when it doesn't affect me, but what better time to do something about it than when it does?) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:21, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
But did this rule always bother you this much? Why didn't you make this proposal earlier then? What's the perceivable benefit to waiting two fewer weeks? Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:28, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
If I made proposals the moment an idea came to me, I'd have made a billion by now. I make whatever affects me most at the time, and usually do so en masse for whatever I can remember (I don't like having to look up the ending date over and over again, so that's why I usually make a bunch of unrelated proposals at once). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:32, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

If the proposal passes, what would the new minimal time required before overturning be? Axii (talk) 16:17, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I thought I put that in the proposal, guess I forgot. 2 weeks, like a TPP. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:21, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Technetium - It's not an interpersonal conflict, it's a rule flaw. Super Mario RPG's just trying to make it one. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:23, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Except the opening sentence in your proposal reads to others that this stems from an interpersonal conflict. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:25, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
It reads that I have had to deal with the negative part of this rule and that spurred me into finally doing something about it. I didn't bring you up, I said that people kept making proposals. I honestly can't say if you're the only one who was doing so or not (again, I have more important things to keep track of), but when I typed that I didn't think you were. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:27, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
I'd personally want more evidence of this being a widespread issue to consider a proposal like this. Technetium (talk) 16:29, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
Here you go. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:47, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend - What? I deliberately worded that to avoid loopholes being able to be made (the whole "3/4 margin" thing). Deliberately forcing omnibus proposals that have been announced well in advance is not a good-faith thing to do, but either way, I deliberately noted that community consensus would be unlikely to change. The Ankoopa thing was another thing I had in mind. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:37, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Super Mario RPG - I checked, and I was right, it wasn't only you I was referring to; Mushzoom made that proposal on the music, and while that ended up not affecting my own planned proposal since that wasn't covered in it, it was still an interim Smash proposal I was remembering having happened. When I said "people," I indeed meant "people." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:37, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4368188"