MarioWiki:Proposals

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page

Current time:
Saturday, November 23^rd, 12:56 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 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

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}}.
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.
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.
Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
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.
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.
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.
Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
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.
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.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
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.
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.
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.
After a proposal or talk page proposal passes, it is added to the corresponding list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
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.
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.
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.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
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 23, 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. 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

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.

Remove identifiers for Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf) and Ike (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!), Starluxe (ended November 21, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

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

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

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)

Writing guidelines

Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"

Currently, the way our proposals are set up, there are two deadlines. On the main proposals page, they last for 1 week. On talk pages, or for writing guidelines proposals, 2 weeks. Now, this is fine. We're not going to claim this is like, some total deal-breaker or nothing. However, lately, there have been a few concerns raised about this inconsistency, and we figured, what the hey, why not put it up to vote?

A few concerns we've seen, both from others and from us, in no particular order;

The largest one to us is just that, unless a proposal is really specific, it's just not worth it to make a talk page proposal over a main page proposal, since it'll end faster. The only thing immune to this are writing guidelines proposals.
While the proposals themselves are different lengths, the duration before you can make a second proposal on them remains the same. Thusly, if you want to set a policy in stone, you would actually want to make it a writing guidelines/talk page proposal over an ordinary one, as that means it will last for, at least, 6 weeks (4 weeks for the cooldown, and 2 weeks to put it to proposal again.)
Lastly, talk page proposals just inherently take longer to happen. This can be an issue if their changes are, overall, quite small (like a simple merge/split or rename), or the consensus is reached very quickly; this stings when an ordinary proposal would happen twice as fast with the exact same amount of votes!

Now, there's a few ways you can go about this, but there's one in particular we've taken a liking to: uh, just make all proposals take 2 weeks, lmao.

"BUT CAM & TORI!", we hear you shout, "BUT YOU SAID 2 WEEKS PROPOSALS TAKE TOO LONG??? WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THEM TO SOMETHING YOU HATE???", and to that we say... No! We actually like the 2 weeks proposals! They have a distinct benefit to them! The problem is that they're juxtaposed with the 1 week proposals. Let's run through those same bullet points.

If all proposals were 2 weeks, well, there's no real loss to making a talk page proposal over a main proposal page proposal, as they'll all last 2 weeks anyways. (Sure, a proposal can take longer if there's a tie, but that just happens for all proposals anyways.)
There's also no incentive to make a talk page proposal/writing guideline proposal if you particularly want your porposal to stick around, as again, now every proposal is guaranteed to last for, at the very least, 6 weeks.
Now. While it's annoying that all proposals will take 2 weeks, despite the inherent risk of some coming to their consensuses much faster than the deadlines, for one, this is also an issue with talk page proposals as-is. For two, the extra time can offer extra time for new information to come to light or for particularly close votes to make their cases and form a proper consensus, without needing a tiebreaker. Lastly, if it's really that big of an issue, we could perhaps create a rule that if a proposal comes to a particularly large consensus a week in, it'll pass early (the finer details would be created as necessary).

There is, of course, the alternative of making all proposals 1 week. While we realize this does also resolve a lot of things, it does also necessarily mean that some proposals that would want to happen slower, now don't have that time, and are rushed. Even making only talk page proposals take only 1 week means that Writing Guideline proposals will be at a unique disadvantage for how long they take/an advantage for how long they last if they pass. (And of course, we could just leave everything as they are, but that goes without saying.) That being said, we have provided options for these, and you're free to make your case for these.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: October 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Make all proposals last for 2 weeks

Camwoodstock (talk) If it's not obvious, this is our primary option; we're a big fan of the idea of global 2 week proposals!. Even with their caveats, in the worst-case scenario, we could make a clause to prevent proposals for lasting too long if they reach their consensus early, or we could simply revert back to the current system. We think the added consistency and preventing of shenanigans is very potent, and it also means that you have to put a bit more thought into your proposal as you make it. Patience fans will be eating good if this passes.
Hewer (talk) Per proposal and what was said here. However, I'd also be fine with an option to just shorten writing guidelines proposals to be one week. I don't really understand the third option here, writing guidelines proposals being two weeks felt to me like the worst inconsistency of the bunch. I still don't see what about "writing guidelines" specifically means they inherently need more time than the other categories on this page.
OmegaRuby (talk) Regular proposals and TPPs are just as visible as one another and should be treated equally, especially when regular page proposals can be the home of very important decisions (such as this one!) and are just given 1 week. Per all.
Waluigi Time (talk) 1 week proposals have always felt a little short to me. I'd rather err on the side of some proposals running a little longer than needed than not having enough discussion time (I don't like banking on a controversial proposal tying). Having to wait an extra week to implement a proposal isn't the end of the world anyway - proposals are rarely, if ever, urgent enough that an extra week with no change would be detrimental to the wiki (and if that were the case, the change should probably come immediately from wiki staff).
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Giving an extra week to discuss and vote on proposals is a good thing.
Drago (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per, I never got why sitewide ones always got less time to discuss.
Pseudo (talk) Per proposal and the talk page discussion.
Tails777 (talk) Per proposal.
Jdtendo (talk) I feel like the inconsistency is not justified, and one week may be too short to make an informed decision.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. I was one of the people who participated in the conversation that sparked this proposal, and my reasons are stated there.
Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) I think that the reason site-wide proposals still get only 1 week is to necessitate engagement so that a decision can be reached, due to their importance compared to talk page proposals. However, that logic is flawed since it incentivizes discussion which is quick and not well thought out, so I think the consistency of 2 weeks for every proposal would be better here.
TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Waluigi Time. Compared to shortening all proposals, I feel like this is the better option if we are wanting to make all proposals the same length, as I would prefer not to cut discussion time on all proposals just because some of them might not need extra time to reach a consensus.

Make all proposals last for 1 week

Make all proposals except for writing guidelines proposals last for 1 week

Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. While we like this much less, we do see the merit of making Talk Page Proposals 1 week, and it's not exactly the end-all-be-all. However, we would vastly prefer 2-week proposals, and keeping Writing Guidelines proposals 2-week is kind of a necessary evil to prevent them from being too rushed for their own good. However, compared to truly all 1-week proposals, this is better... though, not as good as all 2-week proposals.
7feetunder (talk) For me, it's either this or bust. New information coming to light can still invalidate a proposal's entire premise too late and require a counterproposal even with a 2 week deadline, so extending the deadline of main page props to 2 weeks won't stop that from happening from time to time. Most proposals that don't reach a consensus in a week will probably require extensions anyway. TPPs being less "visible" than main page proposals was more of an issue back when no quorums were immediate, but that's no longer the case.
Axii (talk) Voting for this just so the first option doesn't win.

Do nothing

7feetunder (talk) If making TPPs last 1 week isn't desirable, I say just keep the status quo. While the current system does encourage making main page proposals over TPPs when possible if one wants their prop to pass faster, I'm fine with that. A controversial prop is not going to end in a week, and a prop with unanimous or near-unanimous support probably doesn't need that extra time in the oven. I'd be more open to global 2 weekers if a "early consensus = early pass" sub-rule was already in effect, but it isn't, and there's no guarantee that such a rule would be accepted by the community.
Axii (talk) The solution isn't solving anything. There was never a problem with inconsistency. Talk page proposals last for two weeks because they're far less visible to people. Mainspace proposals page is frequently visited by many, having proposals last for 2 weeks instead of one doesn't change anything. It doesn't help the community settle on anything, one week is more than enough. Proposals that are tied already get extended automatically, if anything, I would argue writing guidelines proposals should last a week instead. I proposed a different solution on the talk page as well. If a user making a proposal (or an admin) feel like one week wouldn't be enough, they should be able to extend it to two. (I specifically added "or an admin", because most users don't want a proposal to last for two weeks.) Either way, the fact that users often choose mainspace proposals over talk page is perfectly fine as well. It's not about the time in the oven but the visibility of the proposal to the wiki community. Writing guidelines (if they remain at two weeks) could instead be clarified. Right now it is unclear what writing guidelines proposals even are, I think this is the main problem that should be looked at.
Waluigi Time (talk) Secondary choice. The inconsistency isn't that bad and I prefer that to all proposals being shortened.
Killer Moth (talk) Second choice.
Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is worth scrutinizing our proposal policies and the issues people brought up are valid, but I do not think setting the same time for everything is necessarily the best solution. I will elaborate on my thoughts below.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
TheFlameChomp (talk) This is my second choice, as I would prefer to keep the current method over shortening all proposals. However, if this option were to win, I think it might make sense to discuss clarifying what qualifies as a writing guidelines proposal and the purpose for its length inconsistency.

Comments

Something that occurred to me: The time allowed to edit TPPs was originally 3 like main page proposals, but eventually doubled to 6 to go with their extended duration. If TPPs are shortened to 1 week, would the time allotted to edit them be reverted? 19:30, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

That seems only fair to put them back to 3 days if that option passes--after all, it would be a glaring oversight to retain that and effectively allow for proposals that were en route to pass suddenly being hijacked on the last day, and pivoting from the original purpose, while still retaining the vote. The plan here is to de-jank the proposal time-lengths and make them more consistent--not to introduce even more shenanigans! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:18, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

Then I also suppose that, if all proposals are going to last two weeks, then the time allowed to edit/cancel those proposals would also be doubled to six days, in order to reflect with the TTPs, right? I've been worried since this was not mentioned in the proposal either.

rend (talk) (edits) 07:58, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

@7feetunder: Of course there's still a chance for new information to come too late with any proposal length, but longer proposals mean the chance is lower. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:44, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@7feetunder: On your reasoning under Do nothing, the idea of an early-consensus-early-conclusion rule for proposals is intriguing... I feel as if we have 2-week proposals that can end early if everyone has a near unanimous consensus on what to do with the proposal, we'd have an ideal middle ground. --OmegaRuby (talk) 08:55, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

While finding the discussions where this first took place have not been successful (with the closest approximate being tracked down by retired staff here, which alludes to this issue), there was wisdom in having longer time for talk page proposals, because they would often would get overlooked and fail simply due to lack of engagement, not because there was anything wrong with them. That may not be the case today, but I see a different set issues that this proposal does not address.

Personally, I think certain proposals - regardless of whether they are on the main page or a talk page - are very niche and entail a very granular change that probably does not need two weeks of discussion or even one to be implemented. Proposals that have wide and systematic changes for the site, such as a policy revision or something that would change many pages, do benefit from longer discussion time because the impact would be significant and affect a lot of people. Whether a proposal has narrow or broad impact has nothing to do with whether it is on an article's talk page or this main page.

Additionally, while it may seem like there should be some sort of rule that allows proposals that gain consensus quickly to be implemented, there have been concerns among staff that users have raised similar proposals to ones that had failed in the past with the hope of getting the attention of a different pool of users who may agree with them. (To clarify, there is a difference between raising a new proposal based on one that had previously failed using new information and arguments, versus one using essentially the same argument). If we had some sort of rule that allowed the passing of a proposal due to quick engagement and support, I can see it being abused in such cases and resulting in proposals passing that people at large may not have agreed with.

I don't like complicated rules. I believe the best policies and rules are straight forward, clear, and unambiguous. There is not use in having rules that people cannot easily understand and follow, imo. However, in this case, I think applying a blanket term policy for all proposals (be it two weeks or one) is too broad and does not address the issues I have observed, or even some of the ones raised by other folks on the main proposal page's talk page. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:18, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

If you ask me, "talk page proposals are two weeks, but the ones on the main page are one week, except writing guidelines which are also two weeks for some reason" is an overly complicated rule. Every now and then, confusion about the "writing guidelines are two weeks" stipulation arises in proposal comments, which I think is telling. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:54, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

I think my main issue is the difference with writing guideline proposals specifically. Mostly because it's hard to determine what a writing guideline even means, or which proposal should fall under which category. I'm not sure where I'll place a vote yet, but I do at least think there should be consistency between all main proposal types. Technetium (talk) 16:22, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

If this passes, will it immedately affect all ongoing proposals, or just new ones going forward? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:31, October 5, 2024 (EDT)

I think we should not modify the deadline of ongoing proposals if this proposal passes. Since the deadline is set when a proposal is created, extending it afterwards for an already existing proposal would feel like a retroactive change. Jdtendo^(T|C) 11:30, October 7, 2024 (EDT)

Not voting because I think the current setup is "don't fix what isn't broken", but I'll be willing to try something new. I'll just wait and see. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, October 5, 2024 (EDT)

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series

I've pitched this before, and it got a lot of approval (particularly in favor of one-at-a-time small proposals), so I'm making it a full proposal:
I have thought long and hard about the "proper" way for us to cover Super Smash Bros. in a way that both respects the desire to focus primarily on Super Mario elements while also respecting the desire to not leave anything uncovered. As such, the main way to do this is to give pages only to Super Mario elements, whilst covering everything else on the pages for the individual Super Smash Bros. games; unless otherwise stated, they will instead link to other wikis, be if the base series' wiki or SmashWiki. For instance, Link will remain an internal link (no pun intended) because he's crossed over otherwise, Ganondorf will link to Zeldawiki because he hasn't. Link's moves (originating from the Legend of Zelda series) will link to Zeldawiki, while Ganondorf's moves (original moves due to being based on Captain Falcon's moves) will link to Smashwiki.
Other specific aspects of this, which for the most part make the game pages' internal coverage be more consistent with how we handle other games':

Structure the "List of items in Smash" to how Super Mario RPG (talk) had it in this edit, albeit with the remaining broken formatting fixed. That page always bothered me, and that version is a definite improvement.
Merge the "enemies" pages to their respective game - they're already structured like any other game's enemy tables anyway. These pages also always bothered me.
Merge the "Subspace Army" and "Subspace Stages" lists to each other to recreate a watered-down version of the Subspace Emissary page (to split from the Brawl page due to length and being exclusive to that campaign); it would also include a table for characters describing their role in said campaign, as well as objects/items found exclusively in it (Trophy Stands, the funny boxes, the metallic barrel cannons, etc... a lot of things from the deleted "List of Super Smash Bros. series objects" page, actually) - once again, all except Mario-derived things will link elsewhere (mostly to Smashwiki in this case).
Section each game akin to how I had the SSB64 page as of this edit, including sections for Pokemon, Assist Trophies, Bosses, etc., and links to other wikis for subjects that we don't need pages on. Other sections can be added as needed, and table structure is not specifically set, so further info can be added.
Leave the lists for fighters, stages, and (series-wide) bosses alone (for now at least), as they make sense to have a series-wide representation on here in some capacity. Also, you never know when one of them is going to cross over otherwise, like Villager, Isabelle, and Inkling suddenly joining Mario Kart, so it's good to keep that around in case a split is deemed necessary from something like that happening down the line.
Have image galleries cover everything that can reasonably be included in an image gallery for the game, regardless of origin. This includes artwork, sprites, models, screenshots, etc, for any subject - yes, including Pokemon, so that will undo that one proposal from a month ago. Just like on the game pages, the labels will link to other sites as needed.
Leave Stickers and Spirits alone (for now at least), their pages are too large to merge and are fine as they are for the reasons that opposition to deleting them historically has brought up.
Include the "minigame" stages (Break the Targets, Board the Platforms, Race to the Finish, Snag Trophies, Home Run Contest, Trophy Tussle, the Melee Adventure Mode stages) in the "list of stages debuting in [game]" articles. For ones like Targets, it would just explain how it worked and then have a gallery for the different layouts rather than describing each in detail (and if we later want to split the Mario-based ones into their own articles, I guess we can at some point). Said minigame pages should be merged to a section in the SSB series article covering the series' minigames. The Subspace Emissary stages will get a section with a {{main}} to the stage section of the Subspace Emissary article (detailed in an above point).
Keep trophy, assist trophy, challenge, and soundtrack pages covering only Mario things, leave the remainder of the images in the game gallery (fun fact: Smashwiki does not have game galleries, nor does their community want them; we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that).

People may wonder, "What about Nintendo Land and Saturday Supercade? Why don't they get this level of coverage?" It's simple, really: In Smash, you can have Mario throw a Deku Nut at Ridley in Lumiose City and nobody bats an eye at how absurd that situation is. In those other games, the different representations are very much split apart; all Mario-related stuff is within a few minigames that do not overlap whatsoever with any of the other ones. In Nintendo Land, you cannot have Mario fighting Ridley in the Lost Woods, despite (representations of) all of those things appearing in the game. In Smash, anyone can interact with anything, regardless of origin, so Mario characters can interact with anything, and anyone can interact with Mario things. That's why Smash, the melting pot it is, gets more focus than Nintendo Land, where everything's more of a side dish.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support - clarify it like this

Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
Axii (talk) Even though I disagree with points 6, 7, and especially 8 (Mario-themed minigames should be covered separately), I feel like this is the solution most would agree to compromise on.
Camwoodstock (talk) While we would like to do some stuff of our own (cough cough, maybe a proper solution to Smash redirects clogging categories), this is a good start, we feel. If push comes to shove, we could always revert some of these changes in another proposal.
Ahemtoday (talk) This is a great framework for our coverage of the series. I still would like a better handling of smaller things like trophies, stickers, spirits, and music, but I'm not sure what that would look like and we could always make that change later.
Hewer (talk) Per proposal, this is a good step towards cleaning up our Smash coverage.
Metalex123 (talk) Per proposal
Tails777 (talk) I’d like to see where this goes. Per proposal.
SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) I've reconsidered my hardline stance since the previous proposal, and I can now agree with most of the points listed here. However, like others have said, I do want to revisit the coverage of massive lists like those for stickers and spirits in the future.
Superchao (talk) Per the proposal. Hving the itemized list will allow for simpler debate and discussion in the future, rather than our ad-hoc coverage status built over time. Lay the groundwork, then discuss the details.
Arend (talk) Per proposal.
OmegaRuby (talk) Per proposal.
Pseudo (talk) The idea that other series' relevance to the Mario franchise within Smash compared to other examples like Nintendo Land resonates greatly with me. Per proposal.

Oppose - don't clarify it like this

SeanWheeler (talk) We might actually need to reduce the Smash coverage a bit more. We especially can't undo that proposal that reduced Pokémon. And those sticker and spirits list really should have been reduced to Mario subjects like the trophy list. The fact that the middle spirit list doesn't have a single Mario spirit is absurd. And maybe those fighter lists should be split back into their own character pages again. Most of them had appeared in Super Mario Maker. I have a different idea of how we should handle Smash.
SmokedChili (talk) This wiki really doesn't need to cover every series that appears in Smash Bros. extensively. Would be better to limit full coverage to both Mario itself and Smash since that's the host series while minimizing exposure to others if there's some connection to Mario, like, which stickers boost tail damage for Yoshi. General info on all of the modes (Classic, collections, settings), that's fine. Characters, stages, items, Assist Trophy spawns etc., just list the Mario content, mention the totals and the proportions from Mario, and include screenshots of full selections if possible.

Comments - clarify the clarification?

(I was gonna name the options "Smash" and "Pass," but I thought that might be too dirty) - Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:38, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@Axii - I wouldn't say any of the minigames are really innately Mario-themed, though. If any were, I'd have them stay separate. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:02, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

As I mentioned on your talk page, Break the Targets and Board the Platforms have Mario-themed stages Axii (talk) 23:57, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

Yes, and as I mentioned in the proposal, those can be separately split later if it is determined to be acceptable. The minigames themselves, however, are not Mario-themed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:19, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

Why not leave them out of this proposal though. Why should we merge Mario content? Axii (talk) 09:29, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

The current articles don't actually describe the individual stages anyway, just an overview of the mode. Also, those list pages already include the Mario stages, just with a "main article" template. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:56, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

It just means 4 more weeks before it can be split. I just don't see a need to decide on these in this proposal. Axii (talk) 04:41, October 9, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick I know you are familiar with my crossover article draft using Zelda as a base, but I do not think I clarified some of the intents I had with it, which I shared here with Mushzoom. I do not think it intersects with what you layout above, but I just wanted to let you know. (I also welcome other folks to check it out.) - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:45, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

I think both can coexist dandily. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:56, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: Though the middle spirit list has no spirits of Mario characters, it's not irrelevant to Mario because Mario characters, stages, items, etc. appear in many spirit battles. In fact, the very first spirit on that page (Jirachi) has Mario relevance (you need Luma and Starlow to summon it). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:09, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@SmokedChili - What about non-Mario characters that we cover anyway due to them crossing over outside of Smash, like Link, Isabelle, and Banjo? Surely their presence in another crossover deserves to be acknowledged. That's one of the main issues that arises with the "nuclear" mindset. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:32, October 4, 2024 (EDT)

What about those? Them crossing over in Mario isn't the same thing as crossing over in Smash. That's where the complete selection screenshots come in, make them image maps where crossover subjects with Mario Wiki articles get image map links with necessary notes. That way lists don't have to bleed over to include anything else but Mario.

On another note, shouldn't you have just waited four more weeks? You posted here your concern over those two proposals stalling you further with this if they passed, but that's not how rule 7 works. It says 'any decision'. That means voting to keep status quo is also what can't be overturned for 4 weeks. SmokedChili (talk) 09:28, October 5, 2024 (EDT)

My understanding is that, because those two proposals failed, neither of this proposal's outcomes would contradict that. The coverage that they were trying to remove is kept either way here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:25, October 5, 2024 (EDT)

Honestly, I think all those points should be in their own separate proposals. I would support #1 if it was a talk page proposal for Talk:List of Super Smash Bros. series items, but combined in a wiki proposal with other things I don't want, I had to oppose. @Axii is that month really worth having #6, #7 and #8? @Camwoodstock, sure we can revert some of these changes with another proposal, but the proposal rules state we have to wait four weeks before we have a counterproposal to a part of this proposal. And if Hewer is right about failed proposals not counting, then would opposing this be the better choice of action when you disagree with just one thing? Oh, and @Hewer, if I make a proposal to reduce the Spirit List, I would definitely want to keep the Spirit Battles that involve Mario fighters and stages. And with stickers, I would get rid of the non-Mario stickers that don't specifically boost Mario characters. And, I definitely do not want Smash 64's page in that way. It should be as focused on Mario like how Bulbapedia's Super Smash Bros. series game pages focus on the Pokémon content, and how the Sonic Wiki Zone's page on Super Smash Bros. Brawl was more about Sonic. #4 is going to make our Smash game pages more comprehensive than Smash Wiki's game pages. If we're really that worried about losing stuff in our reduction of Smash coverage, why don't we talk to Smash Wiki's admins about merging the pages we don't need into Smash Wiki's articles? There's got to be some cross-wiki communication if the Donkey Kong Wiki merged into us. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:11, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

My long term goal is only having non-Mario Smash content on the game page itself. If it means compromising to get more people on board, I'm all for it. I'm going to make a prediction that in 5 years the idea to cover Smash like a guest appearance won't be much controversial Axii (talk) 02:04, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

As I said in the proposal, "we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that." Also Sonic is a bad example since he was only introduced in the third game, while Bulbapedia is built around the very rigid structure of the main Pokemon games anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:12, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

I think folks engaging with this proposal should think critically about what type of titles the Super Smash Bros. games are in relation to Super Mario? Are they:

A. Proper Mario crossovers on par with Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and Itadaki Street DS? or

B. Games that have some Mario material in it on par with Punch-Out!! (Wii), NES Remix, The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, and NBA Street V3? or

C. Neither or something in between?

I think part of the issue with this in particular is not only that Smash Bros. articles had seen full support on the wiki for a very long time, but many of the characters and elements in it do appear with Super Mario in completely other contexts. Almost none of the Fighter lists we have on Super Mario Wiki exclusively cover the Smash Bros. title of their respective articles and it is just odd to organize information that way. Super Mario also represents the greatest percentage of material in every Smash Bros. game.

I do not know if it is worth holding on to any spirit, sticker, or trophy lists, but if we did, and restricted to to ones that are not only of Super Mario subjects, but things that can be applied to Mario fighters, I would personally find lists like that so fragmented that the articles would basically be useless. What's the point of having intentionally fragmented articles and lists that no one is going to read? - Nintendo101 (talk) 02:22, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

The trophy lists already got trimmed to just Mario ones, which is easier to do there because the non-Mario ones don't interact with Mario characters like stickers and spirits do. I wouldn't want to remove Mario-relevant information, but I also agree with your "fragmented articles" comment, so I think not trimming the stickers and spirits is the best choice. Plus, in the case of spirits, they can all be used by Mario characters, so you can justify it similarly to the list of items. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:01, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

To be clear, failed proposals do count for the four-week no overturning rule, I was just saying that the failed outcome of those two specific proposals doesn't contradict either of this proposal's outcomes. If this proposal were to fail, it'd still be four weeks until a proposal to only do some of its changes could be made. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:43, October 6, 2024 (EDT)

I'd say Smash should be something between a guest appearance and crossover. Smash is the biggest crossover ever, but to cover it as fully as Mario & Sonic, we'd be competing against Smash Wiki. But we can't treat Smash as a guest appearance because Mario is more overrepresented than Fire Emblem, and because Link's Awakening is not covered on Link's page despite having a page for it. If we could merge with the DK Wiki, then maybe there could be some cross-wiki discussion to merge pages not relevant to Mario into Smash Wiki. Maybe we should get the CrossWiki Team involved? I don't know how this works. I don't see the DK Wiki merge in the proposal archive. SeanWheeler (talk) 00:47, October 7, 2024 (EDT)

I do not think this is the same situation because DK Wiki was consolidated with Super Mario Wiki due to low community activity, maintenance, and attention. (It should be noted that Super Mario Wiki was covering the Donkey Kong franchise concurrently at the time anyways, even for the many years when DK Wiki existed.) It was the Donkey Kong Wiki's admins that sought consolidation with us. Both Super Mario Wiki and Smash Wiki are in the good fortune of having dedicated communities, so there isn't exactly the same kind of pressure.

At this point, I do not think there are any Smash Bros. articles on Super Mario Wiki that are not also already on Smash Wiki. In my view, what differentiates some of these articles is "tone" and how subjects are covered. - Nintendo101 (talk) 01:13, October 7, 2024 (EDT)

Well, of course there wouldn't be any Smash Bros. articles on Super Mario Wiki that isn't already on Smash Wiki. And there weren't any Donkey Kong Wiki pages that weren't already on Super Mario Wiki was there? What did we do in that merge, cut-and-paste text from DK Wiki into the Donkey Kong related pages here? I would want Smash Wiki on board so that they don't accuse us of plagiarism when merging like that. And if our tone is not compatible with theirs, or if their pages are better than ours, I wouldn't mind if we straight up delete content here. Admins can undelete them if we ever need them later. I definitely do not want this proposal to undo the Pokémon proposal. SeanWheeler (talk) 15:06, October 7, 2024 (EDT)

Where did this whole idea of us "competing" with SmashWiki come from anyway? Even besides the fact we don't have to base what we do on other wikis, the two wikis here have vastly different coverage from one another despite some overlap (SmashWiki has a lot of separate pages that this wiki no longer does, coverage on the fanbase and players, etc., while this wiki covers the whole Mario franchise, obviously). This isn't like Donkey Kong Wiki, where the entirety of its scope was also covered by this wiki. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:51, October 7, 2024 (EDT)

Up until this proposal, Super Mario Wiki fully covered the Super Smash Bros. series per the MarioWiki:Coverage policy for crossovers, meaning that for a significant amount of time, the Super Mario Wiki covered about as much Smash as Smash Wiki. In fact, before Smash Wiki joined NIWA, Bulbapedia linked the characters without a NIWA wiki to Super Mario Wiki. Here's the edit to Brawl that relinked characters from Super Mario Wiki to Smash Wiki in 2010]. It's actually a good thing that we're reducing Smash coverage. Doc's proposal that is going to bring back more Smash content would actually be regressive, especially when it undoes the reduction of Pokémon content. Why does Doc want the Pokémon stuff back? Other than Pikachu appearing with Mario characters in the Smash 64 commercial, Mario fighting Charizard in Greninja's reveal trailer, Rayquaza grabbing Diddy Kong in the Subspace Emmisary, and of course the gameplay of Smash allowing Mario characters to fight Pokémon and pick up Poké Balls, Pokémon has nothing to do with Mario. If someone were to write an article on Maggie Lockwood from Chicago Med on the Super Mario Wiki, with so much detail about her history in the episodes of Chicago Med, Chicago Fire and Chicago P.D. without plagiarizing the Chicago Med Wiki article and written well according to the manual of style, of course we'd delete that article because we don't cover the Chicago franchise at all as those shows are not even remotely related to Nintendo. And if it's written so professionally that the only rule broken is the Coverage policy, it wouldn't be funny enough to make it to BJAODN. Unless someone finds it funny that a non-Mario article was written so well on the Super Mario Wiki? But, if the user were to admit that the article was made for BJAODN, that's a real dealbreaker. Sometimes we have to permanently remove content. And in the case of Super Smash Bros, it would be better for use to focus on the Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario series content in the Smash game instead of acting like another Smash Wiki. Do not bring back the unnecessary clutter. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:52, October 9, 2024 (EDT)

Except that the proposal isn't about adding articles on Pokémon, it's just to keep all the information about the Smash games on the games' own pages, which I think is reasonable as a middle ground between guest appearance and full Mario crossover. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:50, October 9, 2024 (EDT)

But it wants to add more irrelevant images to the galleries. Honestly, maybe we should treat Smash more like a guest appearance. Sure, the Super Mario franchise has been overrepresented in Smash to the point of getting more series symbols for spinoffs, but when there's a NIWA wiki, it's best to let Smash Wiki handle Smash. We don't need the list of Pokémon on the game pages. I'd check Bulbapedia's version of those pages instead. We shouldn't cram everything about the Smash games. There's a reason why we're splitting histories and galleries of major Mario characters. There is MarioWiki:Article size to consider. Other NIWA wikis would focus on their series in the Smash games. When a majority of NIWA wikis handle Smash a certain way, it might be a good idea to follow their example. And I think those lists of Smash content should be reduced to Mario-relevant information. And the lists that only include stuff that don't have their own pages should be deleted. Characters who cameoed in Super Mario Maker and other Mario-related appearances outside of Smash should be split from those lists because we would have some information that Smash Wiki wouldn't cover. SeanWheeler (talk) 00:06, October 10, 2024 (EDT)

As I said in the proposal, "We can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that." Also "irrelevant" is entirely subjective. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:33, October 10, 2024 (EDT)

Relation to Mario should be a major factor for relevance to a Mario wiki. There's a reason why Mario cameos are given less coverage than the half-Mario crossovers like Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. In Smash, Mario's the most overrepresented series, but is one of many series in Smash. SeanWheeler (talk) 04:01, October 10, 2024 (EDT)

Bringing up an extent of coverage we have that I feel is super important--SmashWiki does not do game galleries, and, to my knowledge, they do not want game galleries. Our coverage of Smash provides some images that would otherwise not be seen in places other than, say, The Spriters Resource, which in my opinion is more difficult to navigate for a few images than a wiki such as this. Thinking specifically about the proposal passed to remove "excessive Pokémon lists and images"--to my knowledge, those images are not present (or are not present for the most part) on SmashWiki. --OmegaRuby (talk) 11:43, October 10, 2024 (EDT)

Smash Wiki has gallery sections for each game. Maybe not gallery pages, but still. And besides, the images from that proposal were deleted weren't they? SeanWheeler (talk) 02:04, October 11, 2024 (EDT)

You said it yourself. "Admins can undelete them if we ever need them later." That's what this is. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:52, October 11, 2024 (EDT)

But that proposal passed for a good reason. Those images and those lists of Pokémon aren't much use for a Mario Wiki. And besides, the individual Pokémon pages on Smash Wiki is full of images of those Pokémon in Smash. I can't remember what Pokémon images we had here, but I don't think they really have any more value than what's on Smash Wiki. Also, not everyone who voted their support actually supports your entire proposal. Axii doesn't support #6, #7 or #8, and Camwoodstock is thinking of reverting some of these changes with another proposal. So are we going to undo that Pokémon removal proposal only to redo it next month? Wouldn't it be kind of counterproductive to delete them for a month, restore them for another month, and then delete them again? That would look like a deletion war, which is more insane than any edit war because only admins could delete and restore pages. Guys, if you don't want #6 enforced, please oppose this proposal. It would be better to wait and then propose the changes you want individually than it is to undo a proposal you just supported. Would you really want that back-and-forth with the Pokémon content you got rid of? SeanWheeler (talk) 01:06, October 12, 2024 (EDT)

We will have to wait four weeks regardless if this proposal passes or fails, at least some positive changes can be implemented now. It doesn't hurt to take our time and get the rest of the community on board. Axii (talk) 01:14, October 12, 2024 (EDT)

"Doesn't hurt to take our time"? You tell that to Doc. Going back to that subject, what gets me is why would he react like those last two proposals would hold him back (if they succeeded, as he thinks)? That implies there is something in those proposals that he saw overlapping with this, and he's keeping mum because a) he thinks others have already answered that, and b) given his track record, the more invested he becomes in wanting to pass his favored changes, the more likely he is to sidestep the rules. SmokedChili (talk) 17:34, October 12, 2024 (EDT)

What? Those two proposals were about removing content from the pages on the games, and that goes against this proposal because one of its main goals is to keep the pages and galleries on the games comprehensive while trimming on other pages. There's no mysterious conspiracy to "sidestep the rules" here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:23, October 12, 2024 (EDT)

You have to wait four weeks to do something that contradicts a passed proposal or re-proposes a failed proposal. If a proposal fails, there's nothing stopping you from making a counter-proposal immediately, since that indicates community consensus may already be mostly on-board with the opposite of the original proposal. Since those two proposals failed, it ended up not mattering - what I was complaining about then was it pushing it back further if they passed or went into overtime. Also, as it is, I normally play the long game and had been doing so on this subject for years until these past several proposals spurred me into action (if you look seven years ago, I was the one complaining about an omnibus proposal for Smash coverage, so things change... and also that one resulted in a lot of the half-baked oddities of the current system that this one aims to address). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:27, October 15, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler personally, without getting into semantics, having curated and organized galleries is just nice to have and I do not think it has to be the big deal it is being laid out to be. One of Super Mario Wiki's strengths as a historical and artistic reference is its preservation of important assets, artwork, and material, and organizing them. Applying that muscle to the Super Smash Bros. series is, in my view, just objectively wonderful because it is such an important game series and there is not support for this anywhere else. For contrast, this is Smash Wiki's gallery section for Super Smash Bros. Brawl. And here is ours. For many years, these galleries were the primary Smash Bros. material I would engage with on Mario Wiki because Smash Wiki, for as thorough as it is, just does not support them and the community there has a more utilitarian philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean Mario Wiki is supporting something that Smash Wiki just isn't, and unless there is a future where they decide to support this type of infrastructure themselves, I personally think having complete galleries for the Super Smash Bros. series on Super Mario Wiki is an objective good. Maybe I would feel differently if the discussion was that we should be building up these galleries from scratch. But given they are already on the site and have been for years, little is gained from stripping them of material. A fair bit would be lost. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:54, October 15, 2024 (EDT)

New features

Cite relevant proposals and discussions on policy pages and guidelines

Despite how restrictive these pages are to editors below a certain rank, there is truth in saying they are just as community-driven as other pages--often, it's through a consensus among people like me and you that certain rules are implemented or removed. To those who peruse the wiki's policies, it may be helpful to know how the community came to such an agreement on a certain matter, i.e. seeing precisely what arguments lay behind it in a way that the policy page itself may deem excessive to elaborate. Even in the case of a policy that fully reiterates what a discussion put forward, or a proposal where the only one who employed any arguments was the proposer themself, with other users unanimously supporting it through a mere "Per all", there's still value in knowing that there was consent from the community in implementing what was proposed.

The wiki could satisfy this need by citing, as one does in mainspace articles, the discussion that led to the policy change. Said discussion doesn't need to be a proposal (i.e. where the consensus is quantifiable through votes); it could be any kind of user exchange, on this wiki or even on the forums, that thrusted the change into action. Citations could be added to any guideline specifically laid out in aid of editors on this wiki, so not just on pages that are part of the "MarioWiki:" namespace, but also formatting templates or Help pages.

Here is how I propose this is put into action, using snippets from policy and guidelines. I suggest collating these discussion links in a dedicated "discussion" ref group to set them apart from miscellaneous citations that may be present alongside.

MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Non-fiction

Future tense should be avoided when referring to subjects appearing in upcoming media; as trailers and screenshots show said subjects to have already been incorporated into and are thus presently in the game, present tense must be used.^{[discussion 1]}

Template:Rewrite-expand

A specific reason must be added as a parameter (e.g., {{rewrite-expand|Give more detail on the difference between Red and Green Koopa Troopas}}) and it needs to be a clear, actionable point (i.e., simply slapping the template on a page with "bad writing" as the reason is not sufficient), otherwise the template will be removed from whatever page it was applied to.^{[discussion 2]}

MarioWiki:Naming#Shared titles

If there are four or more pages which could be reasonably associated with a particular title,^{[discussion 3]} [...]

Note that should this proposal pass, not every bit of policy will require some retroactively-made discussion to be cited. A lot of them just happened to be, either out of common sense or through internal talks. This proposal strictly targets policies and guidelines that already have a relevant discussion available somewhere publicly in the community.

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

Support

Koopa con Carne (talk) per proposal.
OmegaRuby (talk) Fantastic idea that supports the community just by way of making it known that we can make big changes.
Arend (talk) Actually not bad of an idea at all. Per proposal.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
Pseudo (talk) This would be very useful and is something I have often wondered about while looking through policy pages historically.

Oppose