MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/73

All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.

Decide how to handle Nintendo's development teams

canceled by proposer
Okay, this might be a bit controversial.

Most of the companies (at least the ones shown in {{Companies}}) have the parent company and development team in a single page, and they also contain histories that include games made by companies before their consolidation via a merger (Square Enix is a great example of what I'm talking about, they made Mario games as both Square and Square Enix), yet their predecessor companies aren't split from the main page. There are obviously exceptions, like Hudson Soft, but the difference is that every Mario game made by Hudson (and Hudson's parent company Konami) were made before Konami fully acquired Hudson, so the development teams of both at the time of said Mario games are different, and Hudson's name had been deprecated by 2015, unlike Square Enix, in which the Square name continues to be used. Nintendo also owns other game studios, like Retro Studios and Next Level Games, but they do have a history of being independent from Nintendo prior to their acquisitions, and they remain separate studios from Nintendo.

The argument can be made that games made by any development studio owned by Nintendo simply credits Nintendo's name in the title screen, only showing the name of the development team in the credits (which might extend to EAD/SPD/EPD, I guess), but what separates EAD/SPD/EPD from the rest is that Nintendo had full involvement in their creations, and are treated as divisions, not subsidiaries. Even if my last point about the type of daughter company doesn't make sense, many companies (like Konami) make their development teams subsidiaries, and they are still a part of their parent company's page. Plus, EAD and SPD are the legal predecessors of EPD and therefore, EPD continues the same operations as their predecessors.

My biggest point is that development teams in this wiki are often placed in the same page as their parent company, with some of the game pages not even listing the full name of the development team. At the very least, seeing how this wiki treats merged entities as the same companies before and after merge, I would like to see a merge between EAD and EPD if possible. Here are my options:

• Merge EAD, SPD, and EPD into Nintendo: All of Nintendo's development divisions get merged with Nintendo.
• Merge EAD and EPD into Nintendo: Nintendo's game development teams will merge with Nintendo, SPD, as a support team, stays separate.
• Merge EAD and SPD into EPD: Merges EPD's predecessors into EPD; will remain a separate page from Nintendo.
• Merge EAD into EPD: Merges the predecessor development team of Nintendo into its current form.
• Do nothing: Pages remain how they were.

Option 1 will consolidate all of Nintendo's development divisions into the Nintendo page. Option 2 will leave SPD separate. Option 3 merges EPD's predecessors with EPD. Option 4 will only merge EAD into EPD, again leaving SPD separate. Option 5 will leave the pages as is.

Proposer: Altendo (talk)
Deadline: February 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT Cancelled on January 21, 2025

Merge EAD, SPD, and EPD into Nintendo

1. Altendo (talk) Secondary choice. The Nintendo page already seems big enough, but if this is to make it consistent with other companies that have their development teams in the same page as their parent company, then this seems fine. Also, it feels weird to leave a single division of Nintendo out of the page if everything else merges in.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) I doubt there's much different to say about the different departments of Nintendo involving the Super Mario franchise other than the games they have developed.

Merge EAD into EPD

1. Altendo (talk) Primary choice. While it makes sense to merge EAD into EPD due to their history of being Nintendo's flagship division, I also feel like SPD should stay separate due to their history of helping with development from third-party companies.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary choice. If we had to merge any of these, merging the two teams that were directly predecessor and successor at least makes some sense, though we do wonder about the precedent this sets.

Do nothing

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary choice. Admittedly, we don't feel particularly strongly about merging any of these companies in particular. SPD is one of many side-teams dedicated to a few series in particular, and while EPD is the successor to EAD, we can't think of any time we've merged two development studios just because of one being the direct replacement for another.
2. Nintendo101 (talk) These are different studios that happen to have the title of their publisher, the parent company in their names. They are composed of different individual creators, overseen by different publishers and directors, are sometimes in completely different buildings, and are informed by different creative philosophies. If we are to have separate articles for Next Level Games, Retro Studios, we should have different articles for Nintendo EAD, Nintendo SPD, their successor Nintendo EPD, and their other studios. While not the aim of this proposal, I worry lumping studios in this manner would mitigate the fact that video games are made by different groups of people, and not a faceless publishing entity.
3. Jdtendo (talk) It's better to emphasize that Nintendo is made up of different teams that work on different games and not one monolithic company. I know that this isn't how we treat other companies, but it makes sense to give Nintendo a broader coverage considering they (unsurprisingly) made a lot of Mario games unlike, say, Squaresoft that only made one Mario game before it merged with Enix, or Konami that made a grand total of 5 Mario games. Besides, lumping all of the info about Nintendo teams into a single article would be indigestible.

Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

failed to reach consensus 19-18
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?

Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.

This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Blank support

1. Mario (talk) Per all.
2. Ray Trace (talk) Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
3. PopitTart (talk) (This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)
4. Altendo (talk) (Look at the code for my reasoning)
5. FanOfYoshi (talk)
6. OmegaRuby (talk) While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really are just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at all. (Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)
7. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
8. TheDarkStar (talk) - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
9. Ninja Squid (talk) Per proposal.
10. Tails777 (talk) It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
11. RetroNintendo2008 (talk)
12. Fun With Despair (talk) I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.
13. Shoey (talk) Per all. The idea that you can't infer what a blank vote means is absolute pedantic nonsense. The idea that per all has this grand meaning or that if we allow blank votes people could abuse voting is ridiculous. News flash if people wanna abuse votes they can just put per all. Do you people hear yourselves? The idea that a blank vote can lead to an anarchy of votes nobody can understand or will lead to this great rush of bad faith votes but the 7 characters that spell out per all will protect us from the anarchy is a goddamn preposterous argument.
14. MCD (talk) - If we allow per all votes then there's no reason not to allow a blank vote that clearly infers the same thing. If someone makes a blank vote and you don't understand why then you can always ask them to expand in the comments. Outside of that the only real argument against this is personal preference which shouldn't dictate whether we allow this or not.
15. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all/proposal votes are already rarely, if ever, scrutinized. Allowing blank votes won't change that, and I don't think most voters necessarily put as much thought into them as some of the opposition seems to think. I know I've cast per all votes in proposals where I agree with the premise but my thoughts don't align 100% with everyone who has voted already. You can just as easily cast a bad faith vote disguised under per all as you could a blank vote anyway, but we really shouldn't be assuming anyone is participating in proposals in bad faith without a good reason. (Also, having to write "per proposal" on your own proposal is silly.)
16. Nintendo101 (talk) per Shoey. per Mario's comments below. I found them contextualizing. I don't think this really the big deal folks think it would be - we should assume good faith of fellow users regardless. And if this doesn't workout as expected, there is nothing preventing folks from trying to overturn this in a couple months if they so choose.
17. Winstein (talk) I wouldn't mind blank votes to indicate a vote for support like "per all". Felt to me that both are of equal weight.
18. Mario4Ever (talk) Although I don’t really understand the idea of blank votes as a time-saving measure in the context of the meaning specified in this proposal, i.e., “per all,” that would be ascribed to them, doing so would eliminate the ambiguity that has always bothered me about the idea of their use.
19. Sparks (talk) Per all.

Blank Oppose

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
2. Technetium (talk) I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone does provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
4. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type two words.
5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all (is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)
6. Axii (talk) Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
7. Pseudo (talk) Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
8. Mister Wu (talk) Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
9. DesaMatt (talk) Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
10. Blinker (talk) Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
11. Killer Moth (talk) Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu
12. Scrooge200 (talk) A blank vote would be hard to interpret, and you should at least give some reasoning rather than none at all. A "per all" sends the message that the voter has read the proposal and all its votes and is siding with them. For more heated proposals, a blank vote is basically arbitrary because it doesn't tell you anything about why they chose the side they did.
13. Koopa con Carne (talk) per opposition. "Per [someone]" implies that you took the time to peruse someone's arguments, is an explicit and articulate enough way to show support for those, and it's typically only around a dozen characters long including the space. A blank vote is ambiguous--it could be what I just described, or it can be a vessel for drive-by voting, bandwagoning, or even a simple bias towards the fictional thing so discussed. Sure, the weight of your vote would the same regardless, but if I'm not able to tell which user's case you express your support for, be it the proposer themself or one of the voters, I can just as easily infer that you're not engaging with the proposal in good faith. Give your vote a meaning.
14. Mushroom Head (talk) 2 things: Putting a blank vote doesn’t automatically mean you agree with previous voters. It may mean you’re voting because you like voting, or you may have accidentally saved changes before typing a reason. And… It’s not really a big deal to type 6 letters, 1 blank and 1 full stop. If you are too lazy to type 1 a, 1 e, 2 l, 1 p, 1 r, 1 blank, and 1 full stop, it implies you are too lazy to vote properly.
15. Hewer (talk) I see the arguments for both sides but I'm slightly leaning towards this one. Even if blank votes are supposed to be interpreted as "per all" votes, that wouldn't be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with this policy, and it shouldn't be that big a deal to have to write two three-letter words to clarify the reasoning for a vote.
16. JanMisali (talk) Per all. The reason you're expected to provide an explanation with your vote is to drive discussion and to help people interpret the final result of the proposal. "Why did this proposal succeed?" "Why did this proposal fail?" While "per all" isn't the most useful reasoning to provide, at least it's something. I understand the concept of treating blank votes as equivalent to "per all", but there's no guarantee that future wiki editors would understand it.
17. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick, Technetium, Camwoodstock, Ahemtoday, Jdtendo, Axii, Pseudo, Mister Wu, DesaMatt, Blinker, Killer Moth, Scrooge200, Koopa con Carne, Mushroom Head, Hewer, and JanMisali. No one needs to type all that out, though, when all you need to do is say "per all" to indicate that you have interacted with and understand the proposal on at least a basic level.
18. LinkTheLefty (talk) per all (this may be the only time I've typed this without putting a silly spin on it, I've got nothing else to add that hasn't already been said)

#Hooded Pitohui (talk) I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides some insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.

Blank Comments

I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)

I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)

There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)

My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)

My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)

@Mario I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)

In my opinion, saying "per OP" or "per (insert user here) is just as much effort as saying "per all" and at least demonstrates a modicum of original thought. I think that a blank vote is essentially the same as just voicing that you agree with the OP, so I did vote for that option in this case - but I think per all does an equally poor job to a blank vote at explaining what you think. At least requiring specific users to be hit with the "per" when voting would give far more of a baseline than "per all". That's not really what this proposal is about though, so I won't dwell on it. --Fun With Despair (talk) 00:22, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)

Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. Technetium (talk) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)

There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring a written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

@Fun With Despair And a blank oppose vote would mean what, exactly? At least with "per" votes, it's obvious that there must first be someone to agree with, in this case, the other opposers. A blank oppose vote on the other hand is little better than a vote just saying "No". Which, imo, also should not be allowed. Blinker (talk) 09:27, January 9, 2025 (EST)

@Blinker If you can't pick at least one user to specifically reference in a "Per _____", then I don't think the vote has much merit to begin with. "Per All" is just as much a "No" vote as a blank would be. It's lazy and barely tells anything about your opinion whatsoever or even if you bothered to read the other votes. If we are allowing them at all, a blank and a Per All should be equivalent. I would prefer we ban both, but oh well.--Fun With Despair (talk) 22:55, January 9, 2025 (EST)

I disagree. A "per all" vote tells you that the voter agrees with all the previous votes, and sees the reasoning given by them as good justification for voting the same way. I don't see how that's less valid than only agreeing with a specific user. Of course, if someone is writing only "per all" just because it's an easy way to not have to give an actual reason, that isn't right, but that doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with "per all" votes. Blinker (talk) 11:55, January 11, 2025 (EST)

This is a bit of an extreme-case scenario here, but imagine a proposal which is a landslide failure, only 1 support from the author and 20 opposes. Consider how the creator of that proposal would feel in the scenario where the opposition is 1 proper vote and 19 "per" votes, versus an opposition of 20 votes that are all completely blank. How would they handle the former? The latter?
To take it a bit more extreme, say you were tasked to make a follow-up proposal. How exactly would you go about it in the former case? Could you do the same thing in the latter case? Does the question even make sense at all in the latter case?
In no uncertain terms: how exactly should one be expected to set up a proper proposal if they're only met with silent disapproval? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 03:35, January 17, 2025 (EST)

What the hell are you talking about? What's the difference between 20 per all votes against you or 20 blank votes against you? An ass kicking is an ass kicking. I'd feel the exact same way either way "wow people really hated my idea." Again the idea that there's this huge difference between 20 people saying per Shoey and 20 people not saying that, especially if the rules say that blank votes should be considered the equivalent of a per all or a proposal. What is a person supposed to do in any scenario where they lose in a landslide? They accept that there idea is unpopular and move on (or they throw a huge fit and get told to fuck off) Shoey (talk)

This is about wiki maintenance, not social dynamics you'd find in middle school. If you're going to have a landslide loss, the least everyone in the room could be bothered to do is at least say why. Because otherwise, well, as far as the proposal creator is concerned, any blank vote could be telling them to fuck off. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)

This proposal passing wouldn't even allow this scenario to happen. The point is to classify all blank votes as "per all", and if you have 20 blank votes with not actual reasoning, then none of them would actually count because there's no reasoning for them to per by. The first vote would have to have a reason, and in that case both situations you've come up with here are exactly the same. Shy Guy on Wheels^(T|C|S) 11:12, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I don't understand the majority of the oppositions. The idea that blank votes could encourage drive by voting or bandwagon voting like what are talking about? Do you think people can't bandwagon vote with a per all or a per proposal? There's already nothing stopping somebody from voting and then never checking the proposal again in the current system. If people wanna make bad faith votes they already can! They just say per all, or per proposal, or per so and so. There's no eliminating least of all with some arbitrary per proposal requirements. Shoey (talk)

That's assuming bad faith in written "per" votes. I already said that a blank vote can be equated to anything, constructive or frivolous, it ultimately depends on how you personally imagine it to be. It can have the exact same exact rhetoric value as fandom-driven voting, as in "I vote to make a page for X game/character because it is my favorite game/character!" and you wouldn't be able to tell. Unless you ask that user for clarification, at which point you might as well cut the middleman and enforce users to state something in their vote like currently. An explicit "per" is not only more on-point, but takes only a few keyboard presses to type out. I'd be more open to a proposal that seeks to allow blank votes as an express "I agree with the proposer in particular but not necessarily the voters", because as it stands, a blank vote can be worth jack-all. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 08:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)

The problem is that a blank vote, even if we say it equals "per", there is no way to tell if that's how someone is actually using it unless they're otherwise asked; and if they get asked, well, they'll more likely than not just say "oh yeah, it was totally a per all!". And when you open the gates to "using a blank vote as anything"... well, you open the proverbial floodgates. Does the person have something thoughtful to say that they just don't feel like they can phrase correctly? Does the person feel like everything else has been said, an actual per vote? Do they think "YOU SHOULD EAT A BOWL OF NAILS AS RECOMPENSE FOR YOUR FOOLISHNESS AND YOU MUST WALLOW IN THE MISERY AND HUMILIATION YOU DESERVE AND OR GO AWAY FROM THE LIFE OF THE WIKI FOREVER PLEASE" and hold nothing but contempt for the fact you would put something up to proposal, if not more than that? Or do they just. Literally not care. And they didn't even read the proposal for 2 seconds before picking the option that sounded kinda neat. And if you asked them, they would say "wait, that is what we're voting on?" What are they actually thinking? All you see is literally no text at all. For all you know, it could be all of the above, or none of those at all. If you ask them to clarify, and they don't, what exactly do you do in that case? What's different from their blank vote aside from the fact they were questioned for it? It's utter nonsense.
tl;dr; even if we say "a blank is per all", a blank vote tells you absolutely nothing about what the voter actually thinks, up to and including that you can't actually tell if they're using it properly as a per vote. And in trying to fix that issue, well, there's a solution we can think of to fairly easily denote when a vote is a per vote; it's just 3 key presses, a space bar press, 3 more key presses, and the period key. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:28, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Read from here:

Do you know what I mean if this was my vote? MH:) at 07:37, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Yes, depending on whether the vote is placed in "Support" or "Oppose", I would know that your opinion is that you either agree with my proposal or you don't. I don't really see the problem with this personally. All that matters is whether you agree or disagree. As it stands, someone could vote against a proposal by just saying "No.", which is just as productive if not less.--Fun With Despair (talk) 10:56, January 17, 2025 (EST)

That's only your read of a blank vote. A blank vote can also just mean that the user agrees or disagrees with the proposal out of sheer sympathy for the fictional thing described in the proposal, for example. It doesn't just matter if you agree or disagree, because that can be purely subjective towards the subject at hand. If a "per" vote is already difficult to derive intent from, then a blank vote provides even fewer clues, with no way of knowing until the user clarifies their choice somehow. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)

If somebody wants to place a vote on a proposal because they're I dunno, in love with Luigi and doesn't want his article changed and not anything actually expressed in the proposal, they can already just write "per all" or even make a fake BS argument as it is. Writing "per all" has absolutely never discouraged anyone. Every single argument made regarding disingenuous voting can be applied to "Per all" or "Per proposal" or even just writing "No, just no." with no argument as I have literally seen people do with valid votes that get counted.--Fun With Despair (talk) 13:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)

We, respectfully, disagree with the notion that you can apply the same concerns with disingenuous votes to "per all"s, because the fundamental point of saying "per all" is to literally say, "per all the other voters." There is a fairly rigid definition for what "per all" means. It's the definition for the word "per", and the definition for the word "all". How do you define silence? Even if we say "blank means per all", how exactly do you plan to police that? How can you tell what they actually meant when you're given absolutely nothing to go off of? If someone places a "per all" vote, sure, it's hard to tell what their overall thoughts are, but there is at least something there to go off of--there is something that can be said about it. What does this give you?: ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:41, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Respectfully, have you never heard of a liar? Anyone who would be abusing blank votes to push their agenda is likely already just lying and writing "per all" when in actuality they just don't like the proposer or some of the people voting against the proposal and don't want that side to win. If you GENUINELY believe that writing "per all" is some monumental feat of brave honesty that verified the voter's integrity beyond the shadow of a doubt, then I have a bridge or twenty to sell you. --Fun With Despair (talk) 14:03, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Okay, genuine question here; what do you think we're thinking if we choose to respond like this:
~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Well cam considering the fact that this proposal specifically pertains to blank votes being treated the same as per all votes. I'd say your blank comment is a fake bullshit straw argument trying to equate a blank comment to a blank vote. Shoey (talk)

I don't think anything because unlike a vote with two defined options (a big fat AGREE or DISAGREE) that indicates the opinion of a voter, your post is lacking that context. It is a strawman using a completely different scenario. --Fun With Despair (talk) 15:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)

The answer was that we were thinking "this entire ordeal is just begging for someone to misinterpret someone else that blows up in some stupid TikTok fandom drama-tier nonsense where nobody says anything of value and/or actively refuses to listen to what is said, a situation that we firmly do not want to be a part of, yet we're worried we're already careening towards it already if we're having people gladly chime in with 'i have a bridge to sell you's or 'or they just throw a fit and get told to fuck off's"... And then we got up because we had to run a few errands and get a drink, so we pre-wrote this before that. If you want to doubt this, be our guest, but we have a picture of this in our Notepad++, pre-written and all, with a timestamp from our computer clock--not a screenshot, as that would be easily edited, unlike a photograph of an LCD.
...So, like, see what we mean? You can't gleam anything from total silence. Is it just a silent agreement with the consensus? Is it apathy? Is it an irrational meltdown? (As of writing this, we cannot blame you if that's what you assumed if you didn't see us in the Discord, being fairly casual... Sorry. We really wanted to commit to this stupid point, and we promise we won't do it again.) Is it some secret test of character? Unless someone tells you and they can back it up, you don't know.
Our ultimate point, we guess, is that you gain a bare minimum something from a "per all", but nothing is... well, nothing. And while it is extremely, and at this point, extraordinarily petty of us, we would rather have that bare minimum something, than nothing at all. Which, admittedly... is kinda just what we said in our own vote almost a month ago, huh. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I feel that if a known liar and bad faith poster that is inexplicably not banned and voting in proposals tries to justify a bad faith position with a bad vote... vote against them.... If I'm inputting my vote with simply #{{User|Mario}} after a series of 5 votes making a case against a proposal, or me being the second support in a proposal that has already outlined its points, what motives are you expecting from me (I assume you trust me to make fair and respectful judgement)? Can you assume good faith? Why can't you extend this courtesy to most other users? Is it really necessary I type something out beyond this? Should I be forced to end my votes in periods? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Somehow one of my most contentious proposals I've ever made - Mario (talk) 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Can I just ask why it is that the primary concern of this proposal's discussion so far has been the concern of "bad-faith voting"? Is there any kind of basis in recent events to justify this kind of concern over "drive-bys"? I don't really have a strong opinion either direction, but I'm not sure why we're so nervous about the potential of blank votes suddenly being moves towards people like, completely overrunning the proposals page or something? Feels like a slippery slope argument to me. Roserade (talk) 13:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I'm not sure why the concern relies solely on bad-faith assumption of people casting votes. We're not supposed to be assuming bad faith or ulterior motives from blank votes. I can't understand how "per proposal" or "per all" alleviate those. People also say "just write it out anyway" but this is like forcing people to end their votes in full sentences with a full period. It's only one more keystroke? All I want to do is make it slightly easier to vote for people who probably like the idea of just reading the arguments, deciding with support or oppose, typing their name for the decision, and not being required to write anything else. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:08, January 17, 2025 (EST)

As I've stated before, I agree that you can never extract the true intent behind a "per proposer/per all" vote as it stands, and that it does not inherently alleviate assumptions of bad-faith and bandwagoning. Where I disagree is that blank votes would be somehow better. They'd be worse; until they're integrated in a sub-voting system under someone's vote as an expression of support, they'd afford no clue over which user's idea you'd even be rallying behind. Here, Pseudo makes a clear reference in his her vote to Cam's, Technetium's, and Axii's reasonings, as Nintendo101 does with yours, so someone engaging with a proposal's discussion can have some idea of which talking points are more prevalent and worth stressing or combatting. Votes shouldn't just tie back to the proposal itself, they should also inform and be informed by other votes. Had the aforementioned users opted for blank votes instead, that principle is lost, and... well, we know these users have only demonstrated good faith so far, but for the sake of the argument, a blank vote in this case would not particularly help someone's presumption that they voted out of sympathy/out of spite/out of whatever subjective. What's to lose from a modicum of articulateness, other than a trivial amount of text memory? "Per" votes offer a small, but significant advantage over the alternative.
I strongly opine that assuming good faith in users by default has a limit somewhere--not towards established and contributive users, but towards new users who are less versed with the rules, who may be inclined to vote out of personal preference and where some suspicion from others would only be natural. Blank votes, and a change of rule that I assume they would entail, would only encourage such a practice. It's less about the compulsive liars, which you hypothesized above, and more about the candid newbies. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:12, January 17, 2025 (EST), edited 16:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)

I see. However we can't force people to add more to their votes, just as how it's not feasible to force ALL voters to write in unique opinions the comment sections. They simply have nothing else to add beyond indicating they decided which side best reflected their stance. If they want to reference a particular user to reinforce that point, I trust them that they will. If they really want to veil spite or bad intent that factored in their vote, they're not going to communicate it, even if it's required to write out a reason. People already likely do this. It doesn't really happen, or if it does, it's already in a multitude of other votes that actually have reasons. I'm not sure if there is a realistic scenario where multiple people conspire to undermine the process against a disliked user, but even in the case that happens, I don't think requiring a reason for a vote will stop them. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:31, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Perhaps we could allow blank votes only as an alternative to "per proposer in particular". If you attribute a strict meaning to these votes, you diminish their ambiguity whilst encouraging users to actually state who they align with in the discussion if it's someone other than the proposer. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:45, January 17, 2025 (EST)

That would still have the problem of requiring that you already know how the rule works beforehand to understand the votes, and I feel like it would probably not be very intuitive for new users. It makes more sense to me to just keep it so that reading the vote clearly tells you its reasoning. (That said, I could see the argument for allowing the initial support vote by the proposer to be blank, since they just explicitly outlined their reasoning in the proposal itself.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:59, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I am a she, not a he, and I would strongly recommend against using "he" as a default. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 15:33, January 18, 2025 (EST)

What I initially invoked as an example was Hooded Pitohui rethinking his stance on the proposal after MCD gave their reasoning, but I realized he fully retracted his vote afterwards, so I switched to an example that made sense within my point. Technically I was not using "he" as a default, given that I know how he identifies himself (marioboards.com)--I simply forgot to change the pronoun at almost 2 AM (CET). I was tired. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page

failed to reach consensus 4-4
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more Super Mario games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for Mario, Bowser, and many other recurring subjects.

Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.

For example, let's say for Luigi in his appearance in Mario Sports Superstars, there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:

For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see here.

The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
3. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
4. Fun With Despair (talk) This is a good idea, and all it does is make it easier for readers to find information that's otherwise scattered across various pages. It's a centralizing effort that I think could be fairly helpful.

Oppose

1. Mario (talk) Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?
2. Nintendo101 (talk) I worry this would make history sections messy and repetitive when the focus should be on the written text.
3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Lefty and N101.
4. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Hewer I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)

If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)

@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)

How much are you envisioning this is going to be used? Is it just going to be for linking to character stats or is it for any game that has a section on the profiles and statistics page? If it's just stats, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed (that information used to be in history sections anyway before profiles and statistics sections were created and later split off from their pages), but I don't think something like this warrants a template directing readers off the page. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 13:34, January 17, 2025 (EST)

When I voted this, I was envisioning just stats pages with significant information such as stats or other notable traits a character might have inherent to a specific game. If it's a link for EVERY category, I would honestly swap to oppose. --Fun With Despair (talk) 18:31, January 18, 2025 (EST)

This is a good point, I also support only doing this for stats. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:20, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects

Delete 10-4-0
The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called Mario Party 13 (as of proposal, this leads to Super Mario Party Jamboree, which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as MP11, MP12, and MP13.

Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for Super Mario Party, Mario Party Superstars, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "God Slayer Bowser" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Delete (party's over!)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
2. Jdtendo (talk) Does anyone actually call those games Mario Party 11, 12 or 13? Per proposal.
3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
4. Sparks (talk) What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all.
6. Drago (talk) Per all.
7. Arend (talk) The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of "Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100" and re-redirected the MP12 ones from Superstars to Jamboree, already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
9. Mushroom Head (talk) Honestly, I’m already on edge on Mario Parties 6-10 because of the non-mainline Mario Parties, but unlike those 5 games, the three concerned don’t even use those as their own game, not to mention Jamboree is basically a sequel to Super Mario Party.
10. Winstein (talk) I think that it's not useful to assume the games have a numeral, even when Super Mario Party dubbed itself the "11th Party" by Birdo. This isn't like Super Mario World where Super Mario Bros. 4 at least got mentioned in full in Japan. Maybe unless there is a future Mario Party game that reinstate a numeral that acknowledges anything in between.

Delete MP12/MP13, keep MP11 (...except you, you stay.)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we personally feel like a clean sweep makes the most sense, but we understand the merit of keeping MP11 given that at least Super Mario Party has a piece of dialogue calling it the 11th party.
2. Hewer (talk) Per my comment and the proposal that added the Mario Party 11 redirect.
3. Arend (talk) Secondary choice; I guess it makes sense to still call Super Mario Party the 11th one, and my vote for deleting them all stems from the confusion whether Superstars or Jamboree is the 12th one, a discussion from which Super is exempt.
4. Mushroom Head (talk) Secondary option. I’m sure there is like 6% of users who would search ‘MP11’, but Jamboree is basically SMP2 anyways, and whether MPS or Jamboree is MP12 is so confusing we might as well delete MP12 and 13.

Keep (party on!)

#Hewer (talk) Per my comment and this proposal.

Comments (idle party chat)

I do think fan nicknames can be allowed as redirects, so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)

This is up for debate, because there's redirects for Mario Kart 1 through Mario Kart 6, so if these are to be affected, then they'd need to go too, but I see no reason to remove those as they may come in handy if someone wants to search for the 5th Mario Kart for example. Simply ask "what's the eleventh Mario Party?" and there it is. Another proposal with tons of grey area unaccounted for it seems. - YoYo (Talk) 13:28, January 12, 2025 (EST)

I'm not fond of "MK6"-style redirects, but at least there's no confusion about the 6th Mario Kart game was and you can be pretty sure that there will never be a game titled Mario Kart 6. However, you wouldn't create a "MK9" redirect to Mario Kart Tour, would you? It is debatable whether this game would count as the 9th Mario Kart, and Nintendo could still release a game titled Mario Kart 9 in the future. I admit that it is less likely that Nintendo would release an actual Mario Party 11, but it could still happen – they did release New Super Mario Bros. 2 when there was already a second NSMB after all. As for people who would know what is the 11th Mario Party released on a home console (which is not the 11th Mario Party game overall if you include the handheld games), they will probably want to find the 12th as well, which, since there's no consensus on what Mario Party 12 should even be (Superstars or Jamboree?), would probably only lead to frustration no matter what we choose "MP12" to redirect to. Frankly, unless Nintendo suddenly announces a game titled Mario Party 14 which would retroactively confirm that the current Switch games are MP11, MP12 and MP13, I would rather not keep these redirects. Jdtendo^(T|C) 06:07, January 13, 2025 (EST)

This is why I'm in support of only keeping the Mario Party 11 redirect, as Birdo states in dialogue in the game that it's the "eleventh party", so it's not ambiguous whether it counts. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:04, January 13, 2025 (EST)

Question! Would it be too late to add a "keep MP11, delete MP12/MP13" option to this proposal? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:08, January 13, 2025 (EST)

You can add options within the first four days of a proposal's creation, so yes, I think today is the last day you can add an option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:15, January 13, 2025 (EST)

Nintendo is probably not going to release Mario Party 14 (too lazy to do italics), because they’ll probably make Super Mario Party Superstars Jamboree or Super Mario Party Jamboree 2 or whatever. MH:) at 07:25, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Mario Party 12 leads to SMPJ... MH:) at 08:50, January 18, 2025 (EST)

Allow co-authorship of proposals

Allow co-authorship on proposals 11-0

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 24 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

The passing of this proposal would allow duel authorship of proposals (including talk page proposals), where both authors shape the same proposal, the written text, and have equal responsibility for its implementation. It would not allow more than two authors on any proposal for reasons I will explain below.

I have sometimes come up with changes I thought would be nice for the site and have wanted to make proposals for, but stopped myself because the sheer scope of seeing them implemented have kept me from doing it. While maintaining and editing a wiki is a communal craft, passed proposals - regardless of whether they require simply changing the name of an article or creating hundreds of new ones based on the splitting of a list article - are often largely the burden of the person who proposed it. These can be very big time commitments and ultimately feel monotonous and - even when one supports the ideas behind a proposal and do not regret passing it - the weighing monotony can lead to poor editing decisions with rolling it out. It can also lead to big proposals with lots of support not being realized for a long time, sometimes multiple years, as a cursory view of the unimplemented proposals list would seem to support. Additionally, as prefaced, it can lead to some good ideas not being proposed because the idea of carrying out the changes is discouraging. I don't think that's a good thing.

I wish there was more collaborative involvement in larger proposals, maybe with aide from the supporters, instead of the expectation being almost entirely on the person who passed it. I think it further fosters collaboration and passive comradery among the userbase, encourage users who largely only participate in proposals to get involved with revising articles directly, and come with a more equitable expenditure of time and effort on larger projects. The aims of this specific proposal will not enable all of those things, but I think it will be a step in the right direction for greater collaboration among users and ease the burden of seeing large proposals realized by a single individual person. Sometimes a good idea comes up in passive conversation anyways, and there are sometimes users one appreciates that they would like the opportunity to work with more directly on a shared project (or at least that is the case for me). Direct collaboration can result in stronger proposals as well, as both authors could spot one another's blind spots and oversights.

I originally thought having more than two authors on a proposal would be fine, but I think it would be undemocratic and awful if - say - someone raised a proposal with ten "authors" who all immediately voted to support. I view that as manufactured consent, and would make it difficult to oppose even if the ideas behind it are poor. I think having two authors should be sufficient. If this proposal passes, users would be permitted to ask one another^* if they would like to create a proposal together and shape the ideas behind it, to which the other user can accept or decline as they so choose. If accepted, they would write something together, or at least mutually support the written text before it is published, and if there is a supplemental article draft used for the proposal, they would both have to be supportive of how that is laid out and written as well. No user can be attached to a proposal unless they were legitimately involved in its creation and support the published text. If neither is the case, they are to alert site staff who will issue a warning to the offender and the proposal is to be cancelled. If the alleged offender has proof to the contrary, they are to present it to staff. (I only clarify these details not to intimidate anyone or make them uneasy, but to layout what I think are sufficient guardrails.)

^* - At baseline level, I think reaching out should be permitted on the user talk pages of the wiki, but I also think it would be fine to reach out to a fellow user on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord Server. In my view, this just facilitates ease of communication and allow options. If anyone has concerns about collaborations occurring on these other two platforms, please raise them below.

I offer two options:

1. Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!: This would amend the rules above on the proposal page, give space for two users to be cited in the "list of ongoing proposals" and "archiver" list, add nonconsensual attribution as a level two offense, and allow two users to co-author proposals (including talk page proposals).
2. Oppose: Let's stick with the current rules.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 31st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Let's allow co-authorship on proposals!

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) As someone whose proposals have been hit or miss, the ability to co-author proposals will increase the likelihood of them passing. This will resolve an issue where the proposer may not necessarily see the flaws of what they are proposing.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) this makes sense!
4. Technetium (talk) Hell yeah!
5. Sparks (talk) Friendship Is Magic!
6. Tails777 (talk) Teamwork makes the dream work! Per proposal!
7. Camwoodstock (talk) wow the plural system is a fan of co-operation??? Per proposal, we're a little surprised there hasn't been a formal system for co-authored proposals before honestly, given a few proposals in particular have already happened precisely because of talk page discussions. Though, in fairness, those talks usually involve a lot more than 2 people, and only one of them mediates the proposal itself. Still, hey, if multiple users want to work on the same proposal, why not, right?
8. Mario (talk) I never thought it was disallowed, but sure. I do think this was practiced before, but not necessarily full-on co-authorship, such as this proposal[1] by Walkazo that cited me (Bazooka Mario) and Megadardery and others who helped make this proposal. In archival process, it might help to make a list of users similar to a citation that lists multiple authors (such as Mario, M.; Mario, L.; Toad, T; Koopa, B.).
9. Pseudo (talk) This seems quite healthy for the wiki!
10. BMfan08 (talk) The law firm of Dewey, Lykit and Howe will be pleased to hear this. Per all.
11. Killer Moth (talk) Good idea, I think this will be very useful.

Comments on co-authorship proposal

Our only real question is, what do we do for archiving these co-authored proposals? We might need to update the author parameter to account for the possibility of a second author. If that was addressed, we'd support this in a heartbeat. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)

I specify above that space would need to be allocated for two users to be cited rather than just one when applicable in the archives and other comparable lists. I do not offhand know the the technical steps needed for this to occur, but I assume it is not technically difficult. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)

pick a character that can't be part of a username and make the template detect that as a divider in the username field — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 19:06, January 18, 2025 (EST)