MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(recently passed proposal)
(Time to archive this.)
Line 254: Line 254:
You forgot the navigational templates for ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', [[Template:SSBB]] and [[Template:SSBB moves]]. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 12:11, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
You forgot the navigational templates for ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', [[Template:SSBB]] and [[Template:SSBB moves]]. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 12:11, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
:Ah, so I did. Yes, those would also be covered by this. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 13:15, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
:Ah, so I did. Yes, those would also be covered by this. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 13:15, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
===Preserve April Fools' Proposals in BJAODN===
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|17-1-0|Give April Fools' proposals their own subpage per year}}
First of all, no, this isn't a delayed April Fool's joke--we are being 100% sincere about this proposal! You know it because we waited until after we had squared away the April Fool's proposals to actually bring this up formally.
Secondly, this has been discussed before, not [[MarioWiki talk:BJAODN#Allow section(s) for certain April Fools' proposals|once]] but [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Reserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new section|twice]], and the consensus at the time was basically "it's pointless and not that funny, so why bother?" ...As you can imagine, we're not a fan of either of these stances, so we have a brief overview of our counter-arguments to these statements.
* '''On pointlessness:''' Yes, archiving these in BJAODN ''is'' pointless! ...But so is the rest of BJAODN, and, paradoxically, that's kind of the point of it--that it's basically useless and for amusement only. The only "practical" thing it has are archives for the big April Fool's pages we create. The one and only time it was ever gearing up to have a "point" was to store [[Wario's Warehouse]] back when people still didn't believe it existed--then the author stepped up and said "yep, that's my work", and that entire thing was rendered moot, and BJAODN remains a mere archive for April Fool's things and, well, other deleted nonsense.
* '''On the humor:''' On the "not that funny once April Fool's is done" thing--we feel like it's kinda weird to dismiss a proposal on something that is inherently, a subjective take. Humor is notoriously fickle between different people; one person's complete snorefest is another person's knee-slapper. Sure, not all April Fool's proposals are these complete gut-busters, but neither is everything else in BJAODN. And heck, even if they aren't ''that'' funny, it's kind of in the name; it's not "Deleted Nonsense", it's "'''Bad Jokes and Other''' Deleted Nonsense".
Especially in the wake of the effective renaissance of April Fool's proposals we had this year (no doubt due in part to a rather-timely proposal ''about'' April Fool's proposals, albeit moreso about denoting them as such pre-emptively), we feel it pertinent to possibly figure something out for this sooner, rather than later, while the concept's still fresh in everyone's mind. To this end, we've come up with three ideas:
* '''Give it its own subpage per year:''' Whenever there's an arbitrary amount of April Fool's proposals for that year (let's say "3" for the time being, if this number needs to be adjusted we can do so later), we create a subpage alongside our main April Fool's archive page for proposals. If there aren't enough, they just go in the standard Proposals subpage for BJAODN--if memory serves, this means that 2021 and 2024 will get a subpage so far, though we may be wrong.
* '''All of them go to the Proposals subpage:''' Roughly the same as above, but in ''every'' case we send them to the standard Proposals subpage with no potential for splits. We do worry about this year in particular clogging the heck out of the page, but whatever works.
* '''Do nothing:''' We simply don't formally track these whatsoever in BJAODN, simple-as.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Support, with additional subpages====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our preferred option--keep the silliness alive, and keep it nice and tidy for the future.
#{{User|Sparks}} Having tidiness makes for easier navigation.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} {{color|Pink Donkey Kong Sr. approves!|hotpink}} (Per proposal.)
#{{User|Tails777}} It's completely understandable that humor is subjective, but let's remember to look at it from another angle; it's not always about if the joke proposal is funny, it's also about how we as users interact with each other and the jokes that adds to the humor. That was my initial support reason back during [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Reserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new section|back during this proposal]] (which, I do realize, wasn't ''exactly'' the point of the proposal, but let's not worry about that). My main point is, I one hundred percent support archiving our April Fool's joke proposals for the sake of celebrating our fun interactions with each other as people! Per proposal!
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} This is an excellent option and probably why we haven't archived as many of these joke proposals in the past. Per everyone else.
#{{User|BMfan08}} There's no fooling about this one. Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Yoshi Yoshi! (Per all. Also, i always wanted this to happen)
#{{User|Arend}} We preserve April Fool's Day archives, we preserve funnily bad proposals, why not April Fool's Day proposals? It's a lot better than scouring through ''countless'' pages of the Proposal page's revision history (and that's with 500 revisions per page in mind too).
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} We haven't done this already? Per all.
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} YES PLEASE!
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all [[File:HamburgerSSBB.PNG|25px|link=Hamburger|A Hamburger in ''Super Smash Bros. Brawl''.]]
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Yeah, now the joke proposals will have a repo place to stay! (why is the vote #1?)
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Humorous remark goes here. Per all.
#[[User:Waddle D33|Waddle D33]] ([[User talk:Waddle D33|talk]]) I just spent the last half hour or so reading and appreciating the articles in the BJAODN section. Anyway, I agree that BJAODN would be a good home for those types of jokes.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Might as well archive these April Fools' proposals for someone who is interested.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Oh, yes please!! I liked the last ones! Even though it took me a minute to figure out that they were joke proposals, I still like them! (I still want my ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate'' cheeseburger....)
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all.
====Support, all to the same subpage====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option--we do worry about the page growing too long for this, but it'd make sense for the time being.
====Do nothing====
====Comments====
Is there any chance that the April Fools' proposals be merged with the April Fools' prank of that year? For example, all of the 2024 April Fools' proposals can be merged with [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2024]]. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 19:47, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
:Usually, when the main prank is moved to BJAODN, its corresponding pages are stored as their own subpage--[[MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2024/Mushroom Kingdom Hearts|for example, Mushroom Kingdom Hearts is kept on its own page]], rather than being melded to the Main Page archive. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:53, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
::Okay. That makes sense. Subpages could work for the proposals then. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 19:55, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
For reference, after looking at page history, the years that had at least three joke proposals were 2018 with exactly three (or [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51#Pie for Everyone. Pie for EVERYONE. Pie. For. ALL.|four]]?), 2019 with five, 2020 with nine, 2021 with five (including [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals#Remove removals|one]] that already got archived which we'd have to move), and 2024 with ten, so they'd all get their own subpages, and there was also one April Fools' proposal each in 2010 and 2023 (the former got immediately deleted though). Three of the four pie proposals in the main archive were technically April Fools' as well, unsure whether those should count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:07, April 3, 2024 (EDT)
: ''You are the unsung hero of this proposal''. We'd say if this passes in its current state, the Pie proposals that weren't tied to the aforementioned years should probably remain on the standard BJAODN Proposals section. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)

Revision as of 01:56, April 11, 2024

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

Decide what to move Super Mario Galaxy 2 worlds to

don't rename 1-0-1-8
The worlds in Super Mario Galaxy 2 have names, but each article for the six main worlds is named "World <#> (Super Mario Galaxy 2)" while the article for the special world is called "World S". The good news is I was wondering if there's a possibility to decide what to rename the worlds. There are four options to choose from:

Option 1
Create the {{suffixed title}}, {{SMG2 world}}, {{SMG2 world-link}}, and {{SMG2 world title}} templates (the {{suffixed title}} template works like {{prefixed title}}, with the small text being placed after the first parameter, while the {{SMG2 world}}, {{SMG2 world-link}}, and {{SMG2 world title}} work like {{classic}}, {{classic-link}}, and {{classic title}} respectively, with the skeleton being "World <#>: <small><name></small> and the example being World 1: The Great Space Journey Begins) and move the following pages to the world number and name:
Option 2
ONLY move the following pages to the world number and name:
Option 3
ONLY move the following pages to the name:
Option 4
Do nothing.

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: March 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. GuntherBB (talk) My primary choice.

Option 2

Option 3

  1. GuntherBB (talk) My secondary choice.

Option 4

  1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) These names are only displayed on the save file and are not shown while playing the game itself. Even if you go to a different world and save the game, the name on the save file doesn't change and is still the name of the world you should be on. Then there's the fact that when doing the green stars, the save file name is "the green star challenge is on" and when the game is completed 100% the name is "master of galaxies".
  2. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per my fellow Bowser
  3. YoYo (talk) the names you've assigned to each world are actually the names for the "chapters" in the game's progression, not the names for the worlds themselves. it would be like naming each kingdom from Super Mario Odyssey's page after their first moon.
  4. Nintendo101 (talk) These are not the names of the worlds. They are subtitles provided to the player for narrative context.
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all, especially the Bowser Bros.
  6. OmegaRuby (talk) While the other options would be what I personally use, they are not the actual names of the worlds themselves. Per all.
  7. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nightwicked Bowser and Yoyo. These don't seem to be the worlds' actual names, just a status on the save menu. There's definitely a better way to convey this information about the save menu descriptions than to clumsily bake them into the world pages' names!

Comments

Create a {{visible anchor}} template

canceled by proposer
I've come up with an idea for a sub-template for the {{anchor}} template. A {{visible anchor}} retains its behavior like {{anchor}}, with the only difference being that the first parameter will be visible text on the page. You can go here to read the documentation on Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts that there's a possibility create the {{visible anchor}} template?

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: March 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Date withdrawn: March 17, 2024, 01:45 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. PnnyCrygr (talk) Redundant and unnecessary for a fan wiki which tries not to be like Wikipedia. If that so-called visible anchored is templated onto any link, that should create any visual mess. Enough said...
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) This is redundant for our purposes. Per PennyCrygr. This is redundant for our purposes.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per all, the proposal makes absolutely no argument as to why we should have this feature and how it would help us beyond "Wikipedia has it".

Comments

Stop referring to Bowser as "King Koopa" in Japanese media

Refer to as Bowser in Japanese media 8-0
In articles about Japanese Mario media, we typically refer to Bowser as "King Koopa" for some reason. I think that this naming convention is pointless and we should call Bowser by his actual English name.

One may argue that "King Koopa" is Bowser's Japanese name and therefore he should be named as such. Actually, Bowser's Japanese name is Kuppa (officially romanized as "Koopa") or Daimaō Kuppa (literally "Great Demon King Koopa"), but he is seldom called "King Koopa" verbatim in Japanese media. Most importantly, when referring to characters or species in articles about Japanese-only media, we typically use the usual English name instead of the Japanese name: "Goomba" instead of Kuribō, "Koopa Troopa" instead of Nokonoko, "Toad" instead of Kinopio, and so on. There is no reason why Bowser should be an exception.

One may also argue that the names "Koopa" and "King Koopa" have been used in some English-language Mario media (notably the DIC series). However, the name "Bowser" is overwhelmingly more widespread and was already attested in the original Super Mario Bros. instruction booklet. I hope we can agree that The Super Mario Bros. Super Show is not the highest-priority naming source.

Lastly, this "King Koopa" naming convention is not even consistent on the Wiki because many articles about Japanese-only mangas refer to Bowser as "Bowser" rather than "King Koopa".

If this proposal passes, mentions of Bowser as "King Koopa" or simply "Koopa" will be replaced with "Bowser" in articles about Japanese media, including:

This renaming will not apply to English-language media in which Bowser is actually called "King Koopa".

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: March 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
  2. PnnyCrygr (talk) We shouldn't use the uncanon DiC cartoons as name sources for Mario characters.
  3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) My name is American Koopa! (Per all)
  5. Hewer (talk) Didn't know this was a thing but it's inconsistent with the wiki's preference for English names so per proposal.
  6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) We need consistency within the wiki! Per all.
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Consistency is a priority. Per all.
  8. Scrooge200 (talk) Always found this a bit confusing because it just perpetuates an old name nobody uses anymore. Per all.

Oppose

Comments

What about referring to Princess Peach by that name in early Japanese media? If this passes, it would seem more consistent to change those to "Princess Toadstool" since that was her English name at the time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:43, March 20, 2024 (EDT)

We could still refer to Princess Peach by that name considering that it is her usual name in English nowadays. I don't think it is that relevant to be faithful to the English names that were used at the time in the USA considering those names do not appear in the actual Japanese media; and if that is actually relevant, that could always be the subject of a later proposal. Jdtendo(T|C) 10:42, March 20, 2024 (EDT)

Broaden the scope of the {{unreferenced}} template

canceled by proposer
Like everyone in the Super Mario Wiki said, "We are not Wikipedia." I humbly ask if there's a possibility to broaden the scope of the {{unreferenced}} template.

The template currently reads as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]]. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
</div>

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations from reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

However, once the proposal passes, the template will read as follows: 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
It has been requested that at least one '''[[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|citation from a reliable source]]''' be added to this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}.<br><small>This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should not cite any unsourced material. See the [[MarioWiki:Citations|citation policy]] for more information.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that at least one citation from a reliable source be added to this article.
This article should not cite any unsourced material. See the citation policy for more information.

That way, the {{unreferenced}} template will read differently from Wikipedia's {{unreferenced}} template.

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: April 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Date withdrawn: March 31, 2024, 03:49 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) If a page needs more citations on top of the existing one(s), just use {{ref needed}} to mark the uncited stuff.
  2. YoYo (talk) per Koopa.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Koopa.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per KCC--we probably don't need a template that's simultaneously more and less specific when we can simply use ref needed to clearly and concisely convey exactly what needs a citation.
  5. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all of yall (collectively)
  6. OhoJeeOnFire (talk) Per all.
  7. Nintendo101 (talk) I appreciate that you reached out to me specifically, but unless I am missing something, I do not really see why this would be an improvement.

Comments

this might just be one of the most difficult to read proposals i have seen on this site, its a real struggle to look at. is there a chance of tidying it up dramatically - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 13:54, March 29, 2024 (EDT)

I cleaned it up, just so you know. Once the proposal passes, I'd recommend removing the <!-- and --> tags. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 19:53, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
Never mind. I had to clean the proposal up again by adding the <pre> tags. You should take a look at what the template will look like from above.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuntherBB (talk). 20:06, March 29, 2024
@Koopa con Carne @YoYo @Ahemtoday @Camwoodstock @MegaBowser64 @OhoJeeOnFire like I said, I cleaned up my proposal by adding the <pre> tags AND changing its name from "Broaden the scope of the {{unreferenced}} template and/or create the {{more citations needed}} template" "Broaden the scope of the {{Unreferenced}} template". What do you think how my proposal from above looks? GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 21:37, March 30, 2024 (EDT)

This is not related to the proposal itself but I see that you sent the same talk page message to so many users at once, including myself about this proposal. I'm not super skilled with template codes and such, so I won't vote in it. I just thought I'd mention the message. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 21:52, March 30, 2024 (EDT)

@Nintendo101 I think I know why broadening the scope would be an improvement. It's because of what Wayoshi said to A Link to the Past: "We are not Wikipedia."
The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuntherBB (talk).

A bit of clarification on our vote: Just because we are not Wikipedia doesn't mean we have to do things differently from how Wikipedia does them. While we have our petty, personal beef with Wikipedia (mostly about their comically dated "notability" guidelines), they aren't always wrong, and this is one such case where we feel they nailed the Wiki design on the head; for all intents and purposes, {{ref needed}} is better than any of these templates to us. It's more precise, it's more concise, and most importantly, it's what people--both on this wiki and from other wikis--know best. (This is also why we're not updating our vote, though we do appreciate the proposal being made easier to read.) ~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:28, March 30, 2024 (EDT)

Forbid the use of images without captioning them

Do not ban captionless images 0-20
This proposal aims to ban the use of images without captions, both in text and galleries. It's for a similar reason as why one should add a reason when adding a maintenance template, and without it, unfamiliar readers may ask themselves, "What's the subject? What does it do? What's it trying to illustrate?"

I looked around for an example, and I'll use the Icicle page. Quite a few sections add sprites without captioning them. While the section heading alone would be enough to suggest that it's a sprite from the game, additional context could be at risk of being left out. Mario Bros. has been re-released many times, so when I see the icicle sprite, I may ask myself, "What version is it from? The arcade? The NES? The Game Boy Advance?" While it's true that sprites can't easily display captions, due to being small images, there could be a way to make it easier to caption them.

This problem also applies to infoboxes. On the Itsunomanika Heihō page, what's going on in the infobox image? There's so many things in it, and it doesn't make clear who Itsunomanika Heihō is, which is the Shy Guy.

On a bit of a side note, too many articles have images that feel added in the text just for the sake of adding images, and captionless images seem among them. Why does the Lubba page have three images in the Super Mario Galaxy 2 section? Are they essential enough to be included or could they just be addendums to a gallery? Two of the images are just Lubba saying a quote, something that's hardly as much of interest as, let's say, Mario's first meeting with Lubba. Should this proposal pass, perhaps a separate proposal, or a precedent, could be set for tightening the use of images in article sections unless they are plot-essential, show a major difference between games, or for historical context, such as when something first appeared.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

#Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.

Oppose

  1. Tails777 (talk) Forbidding is a strong conclusion if you ask me. Simply adding a caption or moving images to a gallery is enough rather than just outright forbidding a captionless image.
  2. JanMisali (talk) Per Tails777. This would be a pretty big policy change, and it would be better to handle it on a case-by-case basis.
  3. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) It's really not a big deal at all if there are a few images without captions. If you think one is necessary, then there's nothing stopping you from adding one but making this a strict policy is going too far.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all; we really ought to take these on a case-by-case basis, as while some of these instances are not clear like the Mario Bros. Icicle image... Other captionless images on that very same article, like the Mario Clash Icicle are very much clear enough as-is since Clash only ever had one platform it released on. And the Itsunomanika Heihō infobox really just needs a new image outright if you ask us; if the image used cropped out the Bandit and Baby Mario and giant in-game arrow pointing at them, leaving the Shy Guy on Yoshi's back as the focal point, you'd fix the vast majority of the clarity issues. (of course, don't go updating the image itself, as it's used on other articles, instead this'd have to be a new image.)
  5. PnnyCrygr (talk) Best add a caption to the image sans caption, or just move it to a gallery page. Per all.
  6. Scrooge200 (talk) Per all, a blanket ban on uncaptioned images would do more harm than good. It'd be better to just fix the cases that are unclear.
  7. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Abso-huckin'-lutely not. The amount of times I've had to remove a caption from a tiny, tiny image that can't even support a caption I can't even count.
  8. YoYo (talk) oh please. i dont think i need to explain - but the comment below does perfectly.
  9. Hewer (talk) Per all, some images needing captions doesn't mean they all do.
  10. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all. Also see the comments; trying to add a caption to a tiny game sprite says it all.
  11. Arend (talk) Yeah no, per all. Some images are just too tiny to add a caption to (tiny images being something this Icicle article that's being brought up is chock full of), but also too essential for a section to be outright removed. Doc perfectly demonstrates that in the comment section.
  12. Mario (talk) The ideal way to proceed with this is either make caption interesting or remove the caption and let the image do the talking.
  13. MegaBowser64 (talk) We should be working on captioning images that need it, not putting an umbrella ban over every image! This idea is more destructive that constructive, images are always good for context, even if they don't have written context themselves.
  14. FanOfYoshi (talk) As Don Lino from Shark Tale said it best... "Are you kidding me, are you outta your MIND?!". Per all.
  15. Nintendo101 (talk) Image captions are generally helpful, but one would find that published textbooks do not even do this consistently, and for good reason. An image can sometimes be confidently contextualized just by the text it is next to. To impose a rule like this can potentially worsen some articles. Additionally, I think a rule like this is too heavy-handed and weakens our editorial discretion.
  16. Mister Wu (talk) As noted by Doc, our current modus operandi with the sprites directly collides with this policy, and redoing all the sprites at double or triple the resolution in every axis just to make the caption readable is time consuming and arguably not even that correct in terms of presenting what the sprite originally looked like.
  17. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. Point made, I think.
  18. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  19. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  20. SeanWheeler (talk) If an image needs a caption, add the caption yourself. Don't remove good images just because they were captionless. Especially not small sprites. Per all.

Comments

Goomba's walking animation from Super Mario Bros.
In what universe is this even remotely acceptable? You can't even read it!

Please tell me how the image to the left is ideal. Because that's what this proposal's trying for. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:52, March 27, 2024 (EDT)

In my argument in the proposal, I was talking about like a template or something that could use captions in such cases. Multiframe now comes to mind. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:08, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
Which adds a lot of dead space in the image space itself. I'm fine with using that when they'd blend with the default background (see: Spray Fish), but using them for captions is superfluous. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:36, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, padded whitespace makes the page look relatively bigger when actually there is no content. It sucks for an article to have superfluous space created by overly long captions in floated tiny images. When creating an article, an article should look nice. Don't click Penny PnnyCrygr User contributions 18:39, March 27, 2024 (EDT)

I want to revisit this proposal to ask about the Icicle example... you say that a lack of caption would result in additional context being left out, to which I ask.... what additional context is there to a sprite of an icicle? Adding captions would simply make it extremely repetitive. "An icicle in Super Mario Bros 3" ... "An icicle in Super Mario World" ... "An icicle in..." and so on. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 10:27, March 29, 2024 (EDT)

TBF the game Mario Bros. has a slew of versions across different systems, so in that particular icicle example it'd be beneficial to state which version it comes from. Not even the sprite's file page states the exact source. If it's a small sprite, surely there's some parameter that widens its frame to fit a caption, right? I could be wrong. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:41, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
In that case, alt text would probably be preferable. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:22, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
For the Mario Bros. section in specific, I think it would be beneficial to apply a Multiframe in order to include Icicle sprites across all applicable versions of Mario Bros. (similar to what's done with the Super Mario Maker section). We'd probably have to scour through many spritesheets for that, since this wiki seemingly only has the icicle sprite from the arcade version.
As for the other sections that only include a sprite, I agree that including a caption to those might also be too repetitive, on top of the image being too small. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 07:04, March 30, 2024 (EDT)

Trim Super Smash Bros. navigational templates

Remove all redirect links and delete "move" templates 1-9-0
Over time, this wiki has, with good reason, significantly reduced its coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series. However, as has been the subject of multiple other proposals, there are a lot of vestigial remnants left over from when Smash still received full coverage.

One of the most prominent and blatant cases of this is found in the Super Smash Bros. navigational templates, namely Template:SSB, Template:SSB moves, Template:SSBM, Template:SSBM moves, Template:SSB4, Template:SSB4 moves, Template:SSBU, and Template:SSBU moves.

Each of these templates contains links to subjects that no longer have dedicated articles, and take the reader to a subsection of a list article instead. The "move" templates are especially rough, since the majority of Smash Bros. moves are no longer even covered on the articles that these links redirect to. I propose that these navigational templates should be significantly trimmed down, much like the ongoing efforts to clean up the various "series" categories.

Furthermore, without the unnecessary links to subjects that no longer are within this wiki's scope, having moves in a separate template from the main navigational template for those games may no longer be necessary, so it might also make sense to remove the "move" templates entirely, moving the links to Super Mario-related Smash Bros. moves to the main Smash navigational templates.

Proposer: JanMisali (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Remove all redirect links from Super Smash Bros. navigational templates

  1. JanMisali (talk) Second choice, per proposal.

Remove all redirect links from Super Smash Bros. navigational templates and delete the "move" templates entirely

  1. JanMisali (talk) First choice, per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly surprised this hasn't been done sooner. Per all.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) per proposal
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Super Mario RPG (talk) Please do. The excessive amounts of Super Smash Bros. coverage is a huge pet peeve of mine, since it hinders accessibility for Super Mario content.
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all, thank you very much.
  7. Mushzoom (talk) Per all.
  8. SeanWheeler (talk) A navbox full of redirects to the same page would be pointless.
  9. OmegaRuby (talk) Shocked that this hasn't been done yet, thought it would've been done alongside Super Smash Bros. content being trimmed in general. Per all.

Do nothing

Comments

You forgot the navigational templates for Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Template:SSBB and Template:SSBB moves. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 12:11, March 27, 2024 (EDT)

Ah, so I did. Yes, those would also be covered by this. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 13:15, March 27, 2024 (EDT)

Preserve April Fools' Proposals in BJAODN

Give April Fools' proposals their own subpage per year 17-1-0
First of all, no, this isn't a delayed April Fool's joke--we are being 100% sincere about this proposal! You know it because we waited until after we had squared away the April Fool's proposals to actually bring this up formally.

Secondly, this has been discussed before, not once but twice, and the consensus at the time was basically "it's pointless and not that funny, so why bother?" ...As you can imagine, we're not a fan of either of these stances, so we have a brief overview of our counter-arguments to these statements.

  • On pointlessness: Yes, archiving these in BJAODN is pointless! ...But so is the rest of BJAODN, and, paradoxically, that's kind of the point of it--that it's basically useless and for amusement only. The only "practical" thing it has are archives for the big April Fool's pages we create. The one and only time it was ever gearing up to have a "point" was to store Wario's Warehouse back when people still didn't believe it existed--then the author stepped up and said "yep, that's my work", and that entire thing was rendered moot, and BJAODN remains a mere archive for April Fool's things and, well, other deleted nonsense.
  • On the humor: On the "not that funny once April Fool's is done" thing--we feel like it's kinda weird to dismiss a proposal on something that is inherently, a subjective take. Humor is notoriously fickle between different people; one person's complete snorefest is another person's knee-slapper. Sure, not all April Fool's proposals are these complete gut-busters, but neither is everything else in BJAODN. And heck, even if they aren't that funny, it's kind of in the name; it's not "Deleted Nonsense", it's "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".

Especially in the wake of the effective renaissance of April Fool's proposals we had this year (no doubt due in part to a rather-timely proposal about April Fool's proposals, albeit moreso about denoting them as such pre-emptively), we feel it pertinent to possibly figure something out for this sooner, rather than later, while the concept's still fresh in everyone's mind. To this end, we've come up with three ideas:

  • Give it its own subpage per year: Whenever there's an arbitrary amount of April Fool's proposals for that year (let's say "3" for the time being, if this number needs to be adjusted we can do so later), we create a subpage alongside our main April Fool's archive page for proposals. If there aren't enough, they just go in the standard Proposals subpage for BJAODN--if memory serves, this means that 2021 and 2024 will get a subpage so far, though we may be wrong.
  • All of them go to the Proposals subpage: Roughly the same as above, but in every case we send them to the standard Proposals subpage with no potential for splits. We do worry about this year in particular clogging the heck out of the page, but whatever works.
  • Do nothing: We simply don't formally track these whatsoever in BJAODN, simple-as.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: April 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support, with additional subpages

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Our preferred option--keep the silliness alive, and keep it nice and tidy for the future.
  2. Sparks (talk) Having tidiness makes for easier navigation.
  3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Pink Donkey Kong Sr. approves! (Per proposal.)
  4. Tails777 (talk) It's completely understandable that humor is subjective, but let's remember to look at it from another angle; it's not always about if the joke proposal is funny, it's also about how we as users interact with each other and the jokes that adds to the humor. That was my initial support reason back during back during this proposal (which, I do realize, wasn't exactly the point of the proposal, but let's not worry about that). My main point is, I one hundred percent support archiving our April Fool's joke proposals for the sake of celebrating our fun interactions with each other as people! Per proposal!
  5. Power Flotzo (talk) This is an excellent option and probably why we haven't archived as many of these joke proposals in the past. Per everyone else.
  6. BMfan08 (talk) There's no fooling about this one. Per all.
  7. FanOfYoshi (talk) Yoshi Yoshi! (Per all. Also, i always wanted this to happen)
  8. Arend (talk) We preserve April Fool's Day archives, we preserve funnily bad proposals, why not April Fool's Day proposals? It's a lot better than scouring through countless pages of the Proposal page's revision history (and that's with 500 revisions per page in mind too).
  9. OmegaRuby (talk) We haven't done this already? Per all.
  10. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) YES PLEASE!
  11. Hewer (talk) Per all A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.
  12. PnnyCrygr (talk) Yeah, now the joke proposals will have a repo place to stay! (why is the vote #1?)
  13. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Humorous remark goes here. Per all.
  14. Waddle D33 (talk) I just spent the last half hour or so reading and appreciating the articles in the BJAODN section. Anyway, I agree that BJAODN would be a good home for those types of jokes.
  15. SeanWheeler (talk) Might as well archive these April Fools' proposals for someone who is interested.
  16. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Oh, yes please!! I liked the last ones! Even though it took me a minute to figure out that they were joke proposals, I still like them! (I still want my Super Smash Bros. Ultimate cheeseburger....)
  17. JanMisali (talk) Per all.

Support, all to the same subpage

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option--we do worry about the page growing too long for this, but it'd make sense for the time being.

Do nothing

Comments

Is there any chance that the April Fools' proposals be merged with the April Fools' prank of that year? For example, all of the 2024 April Fools' proposals can be merged with MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2024. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 19:47, April 2, 2024 (EDT)

Usually, when the main prank is moved to BJAODN, its corresponding pages are stored as their own subpage--for example, Mushroom Kingdom Hearts is kept on its own page, rather than being melded to the Main Page archive. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 19:53, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
Okay. That makes sense. Subpages could work for the proposals then. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 19:55, April 2, 2024 (EDT)

For reference, after looking at page history, the years that had at least three joke proposals were 2018 with exactly three (or four?), 2019 with five, 2020 with nine, 2021 with five (including one that already got archived which we'd have to move), and 2024 with ten, so they'd all get their own subpages, and there was also one April Fools' proposal each in 2010 and 2023 (the former got immediately deleted though). Three of the four pie proposals in the main archive were technically April Fools' as well, unsure whether those should count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:07, April 3, 2024 (EDT)

You are the unsung hero of this proposal. We'd say if this passes in its current state, the Pie proposals that weren't tied to the aforementioned years should probably remain on the standard BJAODN Proposals section. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66&oldid=4182246"