MarioWiki talk:Proposals

Proposals talk
Archive 1 (1-67) Archive 2 (68-101)

Welcome to the proposals talk. Feel free to discuss the proposal system, or get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it.

Identifier template?

A month ago, there was a proposal that aimed at removing identifiers from series that didn't need it. It was a draw at 13-13, and I do understand a lot of the points against removing the identifier, such as the fact that some people might think that a game simply known as "Mario Kart" exists. However, I did support the proposal, and one of the points that made a lot of sense was that it made it easier to link to the series page without pipelinking. There were some good points like having to remember which pages had the identifier or not, as some game series shared the name with the franchise. Therefore, I am going to give an idea (not propose it yet) on making a template (which I currently call {{ID}}) to directly link to pages with identifiers while the identifier is normally not shown visibly; not just for series, but for most pages with identifiers. This is my current code:

[[{{{1}}} ({{{2}}})|{{#if:{{{it|}}}|''{{{1}}}''|{{#switch: {{{2}}}|franchise|series|pinball|film|activity books|manga|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch|game=''{{{1}}}''|#default={{{1}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{name|}}}|<nowiki/> {{#switch:{{{2}}}|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch=for the <nowiki/>|#default=}}{{{2}}}|{{#if:{{{id|}}}|<nowiki/> ({{{2}}})}}}}]]

{{#ifeq:{{{it}}}|0||{{#if:{{{name|}}}||{{#if:{{{id|}}}||{{#if:{{{it|}}}|''|{{#switch: {{{2}}}|franchise|series|pinball|film|activity books|manga|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch|game=''|#default=}}}}}}}}}}[[{{{1}}} ({{{2}}})|{{#ifeq:{{{it}}}|0|{{{1}}}|{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{#if:{{{it|}}}|''{{{1}}}''|{{#switch: {{{2}}}|franchise|series|pinball|film|activity books|manga|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch|game=''{{{1}}}''|#default=}}}}|{{#if:{{{id|}}}|''{{{1}}}''|{{{1}}}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{name|}}}|<nowiki/> for the {{{2}}}|{{#if:{{{id|}}}|<nowiki/> ({{{2}}})}}}}]]{{#ifeq:{{{it}}}|0||{{#if:{{{name|}}}||{{#if:{{{id|}}}||{{#if:{{{it|}}}|''|{{#switch: {{{2}}}|franchise|series|pinball|film|activity books|manga|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch|game=''|#default=}}}}}}}}}}

Parameters include:

• it - If set to 1, it italicizes the name. This is just in case there is a formal name that I somehow didn't put in (yet). If set to 0, formal names are deitalicized.
• name - Adds the name loosely to the end of the linked area. For console identifiers, this adds "for the" between the {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} visible link. Adds the words "for the (console)".
• id - Adds back the identifier. While this sounds useless and against the point of this template, this allows formal names with identifiers to keep their italics without pipelinking just to add them only to the area outside the identifier.

I tested this out on this wiki using the "Show Preview" function, and they work perfectly; any mistakes I found were later fixed.

Here are some examples:

• {{ID|Mario Kart|series}} is a shortened version of ''[[Mario Kart (series)|Mario Kart]]''
• {{ID|Mario Kart|series|name=1}} is a shortened version of [[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'' series]] Edit: Crossed this out due to Porple's comment below.
• {{ID|Mario Kart|series|id=1}} is a shortened version of [[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'' (series)]]
• {{ID|Mario Kart|series|it=0}} is a shortened version of [[Mario Kart (series)|Mario Kart]]
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch}} is a shortened version of ''[[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]''
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|name=1}} is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'' for the Nintendo Switch]]
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|id=1}} is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'' (Nintendo Switch)]]
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|it=0}} is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|name=1|it=0}} is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG for the Nintendo Switch]]

There are also some other possible ones, like {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|id=1|it=0}}, which is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)]], but seeing as how that is basically [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)]] without pipelinking, that is basically useless and in that case might actually make it harder to link than easier, while in the other cases, it is easier.

I'm open on feedback; I might open a proposal about this in the future. I also have some more convenience templates in mind, like a section template that links to the section and uses that section name as the link name without having to pipelink, but I'll focus on this first. Altendo 17:00, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'd love having such a template. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:04, December 18, 2024 (EST)

Keep in mind that the more things like this you have in the page source, the harder it is to bot link replacements since you're just adding more and more different ways to accomplish the same task of linking to a page. And template parameters don't work with LinkSuggest, but starting a link with [[ does. I know you can't pipe trick the "for the Nintendo Switch" ones, but for the rest of them, it's the reason I prefer to format links in this way (italics and second "franchise" outside the link): ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|]]'' franchise. --Steve (talk) 17:30, December 18, 2024 (EST)

That's something I am willing to change or remove. As for LinkSuggest, I wonder why templates like {{Peach}} and {{Daisy}} exist if so. Altendo 17:43, December 18, 2024 (EST)

@Altendo They were based on the Koopalings templates (e.g. Template:Larry), but those were apparently deleted because their shortened title proposals had passed. Odd that LinkSuggest has been brought up, since there's an ongoing proposal regarding its inclusion. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:47, December 18, 2024 (EST)

In light of this template being highly supported, I might actually create this proposal. Altendo 21:20, December 23, 2024 (EST)

I made {{id}} btw --Steve (talk) 21:22, December 23, 2024 (EST)

Oh, okay then. Nevermind! Altendo 22:00, December 23, 2024 (EST)

Curators

Note that I am keeping rule 19 in mind, so this is more of a title, similar to but different than autoconfirmed. However, I do wonder what others think about the idea of a Curators title: Basically, non-staff members who are more experienced at handling content on the wiki so that newer users can notice some of the more established and recurring editors on this wiki. Because I've noticed non-staff members do large-scale projects on the wiki, but at the same time it feels there's more scrutiny toward newer users who attempt it. If the idea is approved, "Curators" could be a precedent to perhaps establish more titles based on a user's niches on the wiki.

On a side note, I wondered if there could be more clarity or distinction with non-staff who are formally authorized to give warnings on user talk pages. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:49, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

This seems like it'd bring more confusion if anything. If editors want to discuss their niches, they can mention them on their user pages. Adding more roles just overcomplicates things. I also have no trouble noticing non-staff active users - I'm sure many others feel the same. And what do you mean by more "scrutiny"? This whole idea could just make new editors more intimidated to try larger projects. Technetium (talk) 10:01, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Do we want newer users to try large projects? I got warned before for making sweeping changes. Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:04, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Considering people have apparently had grievances with projects I've attempted, I can say that "newness" has nothing to do with it in the long run. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:07, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

I feel strongly that we should not discourage new users from contributing, even with large-scale edits; and that creating a higher class of user that is "allowed" to do large-scale editing projects would be a huge mistake. Ahemtoday (talk) 13:01, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Hard agree. This would create a big barrier for new users to get involved with the wiki. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 13:07, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

It's also just unclear what counts as a "large-scale change". Consider the work we did on Wario Blast: Featuring Bomberman!, which basically doubled in size from the start of the year to now. But at what point did it hit "large scale"? Was it adding tables? Adding sample level maps to the zone pages? Adding basically double the amount of sprites and screenshots? What would you do after awhile? Do you just revert to a halfway implemented state and say, "come back when you're a Curator"? Do you revert it all? Do you permit it only if the edits were made incrementally, negating the point of being Curator if you just pace yourself? Even if the point is for somebody to check large-scale edits, that's part of why we have Patrollers, which is a much healthier system for that purpose. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 13:31, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Okay, so I'll remove the talk template since there's enough feedback not in favor of it. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:41, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Archive

I am currently working on 2025's April Fool's Day archive page for BJAODN. Just thought I should probably mention this somewhere. Nelsonic (talk) 20:04, April 1, 2025 (EDT)

Dark mode issues

Trying to enter this page on dark mode and it seems like this page was not configured for dark mode properly, as it is hurting my eyes.

Can someone please address this? Thanks. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 01:13, April 2, 2025 (EDT)

How does it look on your end? On mine, it looks like any other page in dark mode, with the only thing that's annoyingly bright being the image at the top. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:08, April 2, 2025 (EDT)

Judging by a Discord message they sent, this seems to be an issue exclusive to the Vector site skin, where the light mode background pattern will appear on darkmode. On MonoBook (the site default), though, the light mode's background pattern is disabled. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 02:18, April 2, 2025 (EDT)

Content advisory template

Per here and here, I think it would be a good idea to implement a template that warns readers of potentially unsuitable content. I made an outline of the template in my sandbox. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 03:39, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

I think that's a good idea too! Should we make a proposal about this? Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 09:53, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

In theory I also think the idea is good. Its implementation per se would promote the idea that less palatable subjects are expected to emerge in discussions over a censorship-free information resource, and encourage people not to find such discussions inherently outrageous should they be initiated in good faith. (I like the screaming Luigi too, lol)
My question is, with how unlikely the Mario wiki is bound to approach such subjects, is such a tag really warranted? I don't foresee much application for it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:40, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

Seconding KCC, in regards to skepticism for there being enough of a use-case. The only instances we can think of where this could be used in good faith would be the Super Hornio Section of List of unofficial media acknowledged by Nintendo, and maybe Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō? It doesn't help that, yesterday on the Discord, someone shared they found another Mario-related wiki which had a "sensitive content that may be inappropriate for children" warning for... Birdo's gender. We don't need to tell you why that usage in particular would be a bad idea, right?? ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 11:06, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

Yikes. When I brought up the idea in the proposals that Maw-Ray Master mentioned, I had not considered someone could misuse the template for pages that mention (or even slightly hint at) transgenderism. I guess it might still be sensitive to some people though (e.g. bigots). Still, I do think it's worth discussing about whether or not to implement a mature content warning template, but it's fair if some people don't want that in that case it stirs more trouble than it's worth (like say, more edit warring on Vivian). rend (talk) (edits) 14:31, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

I think some of the Super Mario-kun stuff could use this template. Nelsonic (talk) 13:33, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

It's a children's series in Japan. Technetium (talk) 14:33, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

I made a list of articles which could possibly receive the template. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 21:38, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

We... Don't think we enjoy this list that much, frankly. Running down our reasons against inclusions:

• We do not feel strong language warrants a "sensitive content" warning, so no Bob Hoskins, no Nintendo Kōshiki Guidebook Super Mario World as the nudity is only mentioned, no List of references in music, no Reptiles in the Rose Garden, no Princess Toadstool for President, and especially no mentions of Hell, so no Mario's Magic Carpet or Legend of the Crystal Coconut--Hell isn't even really a swear, it's a place. We've had many proposals about how foul language is perfectly acceptable if it's in the pursuit of accuracy; we don't think we need to, for lack of a better term, baby readers by alerting them that Bob Hoskins had a potty mouth.
• We don't think that King Koopa's Kool Kartoons being marked due to allegations against an actor in it makes much sense; not that we particularly care to put a disclaimer in the article for said actor in the first place, as it's not that much worse than Bob Hoskins in terms of intensity; sure, what Christopher Collins apparently did behind the scenes is a lot worse of a crime than just, being a potty-mouth, but explaining it is just as free an action either way.
• The majority of "List of controversies" does not really fit with this--the fact that the first entry is Birdo's gender identity, literally the example we cited for "potentially horrible misuse", is enough to have us enormously skeptical, and the only entry we can imagine really warranting an outright warning would be, at a stretch, GamerGate, just for the origin of that in particular, and that sounds fair... Until you remember that 4chan is also the source of a good few Mario memes, and the idea of labelling everything from 4chan is... Impractical at best. You could argue sections like "Animal Cruelty" could warrant it for gore, but it's no more extreme than something like the Anthology of the Killer section in List of references in third-party video games, which, when we asked about it in the Discord when first adding that reference, nobody seemed to think it warranted a notice or nothing; we can't imagine PETA's chicanery warrants it either.

This would once again leave us with just Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō and the Super Hornio Bros. section. Even stranger, this lacks Super Mario (Kodansha manga), which honestly has an even stronger argument for it than Super Mario Kun does; albeit, that one still is targeted towards younger audiences, so that's a bit of a moot point. And with just two articles we could understand it being on--both of which, the content in question being limited to only a few sections, rather than the whole page--it begs the question of what exactly is the use-case for a template that will only be used on 2 pages, and only in sections for both. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 22:15, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

Agreed with all of this, Camwoodstock. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 23:09, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

I'm surprised nothing related to Donkey Kong Planet is mentioned in that list, given the crude humor it sometimes has. Heck, there was insensitive humor during the production of the DKC TV series before Medialab asked Nelvana to rewrite their stuff. Not that I think either entry should be listed, but still. rend (talk) (edits) 11:59, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

I... think if this were proposed, I would have to oppose it. I find few of the given use cases existing — I don't really think foul language is a good reason to put the template given that the swears themselves will take up far less space on the screen than the template will, and counting references to Hell under the template is stretching it really far. Others bring up a good point about misuse as well. In the end, I just think the template would be rarely used, fuzzily defined, potentially abusable, and... honestly, I don't even think making these kinds of value judgments is our job. We're here to report information, not decide who it is and isn't suitable for. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:29, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

Well, based on this feedback, I feel that we should probably abandon this idea entirely; a rarely used, vague, and potentially abusable template serves no purpose on this wiki, and the wiki's job is not to moderate information based on its content. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 19:38, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock I think Ask Uncle Tusk could probably benefit from this template. Nelsonic (talk) 17:09, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

Given the conversation has already resolved, admittedly, there's not much a reason to give our own two cents, but just for the sake of being thorough, having skimmed the article... Not really?? Outside of Uncle Tusk coming from a more mature game, it's no more crass than any of the usual 90s promotional materials tend to be, and "being from a video game that was rated M" has not stopped characters like Bayonetta from getting Smash coverage, or an absolute deluge of titles from being mentioned in the List of references in third-party video games, from being entirely uncontested in this conversation as "not worth giving a sensitive content warning". It's nowhere near the level of Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō or Super Hornio Bros., for sure. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 18:41, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

Limit of five ongoing proposals

Huh, when was that added? I'm not disputing it, just curious as I don't recall seeing it before (and once a few years back I made 16 proposals in one night lol). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:46, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

Porple added it about a month ago. Maybe a staff decision? Drago (talk) 12:54, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

PAL English

Ok so my Commonwealth English proposal failed. But someone of the opposing team said something I was actually already thinking about before switching to the term "Commonwealth". So what if it would be renamed to "PAL English instead? I'm just pinging some people (since this page is not used much anyway and) so I know of more people (and mainly the ones who voted on my previous proposal) what they think.

@Doc von Schmeltwick@EvieMaybe @Rykitu@Camwoodstock@Nelsonic@Pseudo@SmokedChili@Hewer@LinkTheLefty@Technetium@Mario4Ever@CarlosYoshiBoi@Arend@YoYo@Altendo@Cadrega86@Rainbow Road Drifter

Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:55, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

...PAL is for electrical signals. If someone described something else in the UK as "the PAL version", it would border on nonsensical. Are Euros the "PAL" version of the American Dollar? Obviously not. We... Can't say we really understand calling it "PAL English" by that token. ;P ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 17:02, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

Per Camwoodstock. Rykitu

Yeah, PAL just stands for "Phase Alternate Line". It just refers to a video format standard used in European countries. To draw a comparison, "PAL English" replacing "British English" would be equivalent to "NTSC English" replacing "American English". Nelsonic (talk) 17:53, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

To be fair, the Smash Wiki uses these terms for the English localizations. rend (talk) (edits) 18:41, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

I think the phrase "PAL territories" is acceptable for regions where PAL is/was used, but you wouldn't refer to a language/translation as PAL/NTSC. If there are version differences in these territories, you sometimes hear "PAL version" for simplicity's sake, but it's pretty informal. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:04, September 28, 2025 (EDT)

Agreed with this, generally speaking, though I do get Yoshi18's intent with wanting to have a better term than "British" English. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 19:24, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

Per Camwoodstock and Nelsonic, although since we are on the topic of changing the name for a language, even if this may be unrelated, should we rename French (NOA), French (NOE), Portuguese (NOA), Portuguese (NOE), Spanish (NOA) and Spanish (NOE) on the foreign names template to French (Canada), French (France), Portuguese (Brazil), Portuguese (Portugal), Spanish (Latin America) and Spanish (Spain) like in the playable languages template? CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 20:24, May 21, 2025 (PDT)

Proposal for defining musical theme name formatting policies

The following text is a draft of a proposal that would aid in standardizing some unofficial choices in how musical theme articles are written while also cleaning up existing references to musical themes across the wiki. As such a proposal would be of interest to several editors, I have posted it here to collect feedback.

Music is a pivotal piece of Super Mario, with games and related media featuring a wide variety of themes across many genres. As a result, music is often mentioned on the articles of games, levels, and other places where it may be heard. However, unlike the game name policy, a defined policy for how musical themes should be referred to does not yet exist. This proposal aims to implement such a policy.

If this proposal is implemented, the following guidelines should be implemented when naming article titles for or referencing musical themes:

• MarioWiki:Article naming applies to musical themes. Song titles can come from in-game sound players, official soundtracks, Nintendo Music, or other acceptable sources.
• The same theme may recur in multiple games; as with the existing naming policy, modern names should be used. However, clarity and intent should prevail. For example, "N64 Rainbow Road" is referred to as such because of its appearance in later Mario Kart games despite being named "Rainbow Road" on its own soundtracks. "Bonus Game BGM" is given a modern name from Nintendo Music, but despite its appearance in Super Mario Bros. Wonder, the theme is not renamed "Break Time! Tunes 1".
• As with the existing naming policy, names may be conjectural or derived. For example, Ghost House BGM was given its name based on its name in a Japanese album as well as Nintendo Music's consistency in combining level themes with 'BGM' to create a name for the corresponding musical theme.
• Instances of musical theme names should be surrounded by quotation marks, with the exception of instances of conjectural or derived names. Punctuation may be placed inside these quotation marks following standard English rules.
• Musical theme article titles should not be surrounded by quotation marks, as doing so would make linking to such articles unnecessarily complex and negatively impact the appearance of URLs of such articles.
• When linking to musical themes that have an associated article or a section of an article, the link is placed inside any quotation marks. Likewise, bold text used to indicate the subject of an article should apply to only the text inside any quotation marks.
• Instances of musical theme names should not includes links to subject matter that is not the musical theme itself. For example, the Super Mario 3D World track titled "WORLD 2" would not link to the game's World 2 in the absence of a better link target.

A template similar to Template:Italic title could be implemented to allow quotation marks to visually appear in musical theme article titles. Note that this template could also be helpful in the implementation of the "Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style" proposal. To minimize the scope of this proposal, such a template is not included in this proposal.

B700465189a9 (talk) 19:45, May 23, 2025 (EDT)

I'm not sure I understand what the point of this proposal would be? Most of this is the same as how we already do things. I'll also note that I am strongly opposed to the idea of having the quotation marks appear in article titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:51, May 23, 2025 (EDT)

Personally — and understand that I say this knowing I don't really have a better solution — I think our current naming policy just isn't a very good fit for most of the recurring themes of this series. The fact is, a lot of video game music, much of Mario's included, don't have real names — ones baked into them from the moment of their conception like Jump Up, Super Star! or Aquatic Ambiance. For themes like these, they're called something in Nintendo Music or Smash Bros, but these are descriptive labels, not proper names as such. Thus far, though, we've been treating them as if they are. That's led to a fair number of disagreeable article titles:

1. We have both Castle BGM and Castle Theme separately, as if there's a meaningful and purposeful distinction between the two; and we're only saved from ambiguity by getting lucky and having two of each.
2. We have Game Start A, a "name" that only describes its position in the game it's in, present completely absent of that game. Implicitly, there's a Game Start B, but we don't seem to mention it anywhere.
3. We have Luigi Raceway (theme) and GCN Yoshi Circuit (theme), Mario Kart songs labeled by only one of the tracks they appear on; and then Luigi Circuit/Mario Circuit, which is the only one to mention both. This is entirely because the sources we pull these "names" from had different conventions. On the subject, I have to specifically mention the sentence "In Mario Kart 8 and its Nintendo Switch port, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, an arrangement of "Luigi Raceway" plays in N64 Royal Raceway." which I find... egregious. We should not be taking this non-name to be so ironclad that we are describing MK8's version of Royal Raceway's music as an arrangement of the music for a track that is not in it.
4. We have BGM Tride. Or, as it might more sensibly be called, Tower Theme (New Super Mario Bros.). Instead of that, though, we have delved into the files to call it something that it has never been called by English-speaking fans, never been called by Japanese-speaking fans, and likely never been called out loud by anyone involved in NSMB's development except the processor of the Nintendo DS.

A brief note: I'd also like to speak on the practice of using quotation marks to surround song names. I am on record as being against the practice — I find it misrepresentative for little benefit. This has not changed. I would like to say, however, that I find the quotation marks surrounding these non-titles particularly negative — not only do they misrepresent how the title itself is officially written, they also add to the factor of us elevating these descriptions to name status. Heck, we're using them around conjectural names in at least one place.

Sorry if this has been a bit disorganized. To summarize, though: I think we've been taking simple descriptors from various sources and unduly treating them as "true names", which has made the titles of these articles scattered and unpredictable. Like I said, I don't have a real solution to this problem — if the official names of themes are inconsistent with each other, making them consistent with each other would inherently also make them unofficial. This proposal just got me thinking about this sort of thing and I wanted to bring it up. (Maybe I'm deviating a bit too hard from the topic at hand, here, but now I'm considering a proposal that could at least solve this issue for article text by changing the way we mention these themes "by name".) Ahemtoday (talk) 22:43, May 23, 2025 (EDT)

I believe this proposal should deliberately avoid codifying how to deal with multiple potential names for a theme, other than mentioning that blindly taking the name from the latest appearance of a theme should be avoided. Instead, the main focus of the proposal is to structure the formatting of these names wherever they may appear. Surrounding track names with quotation marks follows standard English rules, much like italicizing game names does, so I believe that codifying the rules around quotation mark usage is a reasonable focus. Per the proposal draft, conjectural names such as the Course Clear (New Super Mario Bros.) example would not be formatted with quotation marks.

By restricting quotation mark usage to sourced track names, editors would have more freedom to reference unnamed tracks in a more natural and accurate manner. For example, the music of Mario Kart World includes arrangements of both unnamed and named tracks which can be effectively differentiated by the formatting of each list item. A track name such as "The theme played in Peach Circuit, Mario Circuit, and Luigi Circuit" may not be a succinct article name, but a shorter name that is still clearly conjectural could be used instead. B700465189a9 (talk) 00:19, May 24, 2025 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday: I don't see how most of the "problems" you've described are unique to music. We're often using obscure filenames and inconsistent names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:24, May 24, 2025 (EDT)

Our Mario Kart track articles are inconsistently named due to official sources, but a bevy of redirects for every possible naming scheme, our policy of using the track's name from the specific game under discussion, and the fact that they're formatted consistently where we present them all together prevents it from a major issue. (That said, MKWorld might cause our whole system to change — IIRC, there's a proposal lying in wait for that.) All in all, these things make them much easier to parse than our "recurring themes" navbox. I don't really know if there's a feasible way to get our music article titles to that level of ease of use, though. Ahemtoday (talk) 13:45, May 24, 2025 (EDT)

I'd like to know...

Why have people recently taken to giving "Comments" sections in proposals cheeky names instead of just "Comments"? RickTommy (talk) 19:09, May 27, 2025 (EDT)

Because if all of the sections are just called "Comments" and you save an edit in one of those sections, the page would bring you back to the first "Comments" section on the page rather than the one you were actually editing, which is a bit inconvenient. Giving them all different names solves this issue. Also it's funny. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:23, May 27, 2025 (EDT)

I hate to be a bit of a killjoy, but I think at the very least people should stop putting joke names in place of their usernames when voting for proposals so that it's far easier to tell who is voting, as I'm often not sure until I click on the username and go to the userpage. Nightwicked Bowser 07:25, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

^^^^^My thoughts exactly. It's mildly funny at best, but usually rather cringeworthy, at the expense of obfuscating who is behind a vote, and I'm not keen on clicking on a link for every person who does this just to identify them. At least make your username clearly visible, or don't vote at all. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 07:35, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

I think it was Ray Trace who started that (or at least started with ones that don't even resemble the actual username), though I could be wrong. Anyways, I found it weird, but preview hover text at least shows it. Dunno if you can see that on phones. For the record, I just use the ~~~ to sign them since my username is monstrously long. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 08:23, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

She at least always makes it clear it's her. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 08:43, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

I can achieve the same effect on mobile by holding down on the username link so that it shows the link address. Also, unless I'm missing something, the first fairly recent, non-April Fools instance of this that I could find was when I did it here, so sorry about that I guess. Didn't expect it to catch on. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:09, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

I personally think it's fine as long as the user's actual username is within the joke. Tails777 Talk to me!

Monolith Soft

Do I need a proposal to create a page on Monolith Soft? I already started a discussion here, but it had gained no traction since. Altendo 20:39, July 23, 2025 (EDT)

I say you go ahead and make the page. Technetium (talk) 20:41, July 23, 2025 (EDT)

Strategy Policy

I will preface this by saying I am not yet nearly as familiar with this wiki as most other users, so forgive me if I have missed something. To my current understanding though, there are not any prominent pages on this wiki that make clear or even mention what the wiki's stance on unofficial strategy content is. The closest I have noticed is the Good Writing page citing "Unsupported analysis" and "Reading between the lines" as things to avoid; however, even this seems to be referring to story interpretation and not strategy pertaining to actual gameplay.

In time I have come to believe that the wiki has a de facto stance of not allowing strategy content that isn't just strictly describing something's intended purpose, even for as simple as saying a particular item in a Mario Kart game is useful, but I believe it is important to firmly establish that stance in a rules page such as the Coverage page or the aforementioned Good Writing page. Technically it could instead get its own dedicated article under the coverage section of the general Rules page, but I am assuming for now that it would not be necessary.

As such, my proposal would be to expand the wiki's official rules to somewhere include a definition of what unofficial strategy content is, and clarify to what degree it may or may not be permitted on here (not affecting official strategy guides or other such content from the publisher, of course). Thoughts? RocketLauncher (talk) 21:37, July 23, 2025 (EDT)

We definitely can add something like "No speedrun or other fan-discovered techniques in gameplay descriptions" in MarioWiki:Good writing, because this is something we do not want in articles, akin to the other sections. MarioWiki:Coverage is meant for what franchises and works within franchises are and aren't covered here, so it wouldn't make sense to include it there. I think this proposal makes sense, as long as it is for Good writing. Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk 22:36, July 23, 2025

That makes sense, although "speedrun or other fan-discovered techniques" is far more specific than the general idea of unofficial strategy content I'm referring to. I'm also referring to anything as simple as providing tips for getting through a particularly tough level (such as the various special world levels and similar throughout the main series) or listing a few good use cases for an item or ability in an RPG type game. Literally anything that could be construed as strategy content and doesn't come straight from an official source. Heck, you could even make the argument that identifying any shortcut in a Mario Kart track that isn't explicitly marked by an alternate route or something counts as unofficial strategy content, and thus shouldn't be permitted on the page assuming that's the wiki's stance. I know that would affect a lot of articles if so. RocketLauncher (talk) 23:28, July 23, 2025 (EDT)

The problem with saying "this is a good item" isn't that it's strategy content, it's that it's subjective and therefore not encyclopedic. The wiki shouldn't read like a strategy guide, but there's nothing wrong with including objective information about games in a wiki aiming to comprehensively cover a video game franchise. Wouldn't a ban on "fan-discovered techniques" wipe out our glitch coverage? (Also, many Mario Kart shortcuts we know are definitely intentional due to being used by the CPUs or staff ghosts.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:31, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

Glitches can stay, as long as they aren't mentioned on location pages as ways to get through them more quickly. If we do add this to Good writing, we'll explain that glitch lists are an exception, because it is still something we want to cover. Shortcuts can stay, as long as they were clearly intended by the developers, but anything that isn't used by computers or Staff Ghosts should be removed. Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk 05:21, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

Why should unintended shortcuts be removed if glitches are staying? Why can't they also be "something we want to cover"? Our policies should be consistent. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:32, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

I understand. I felt they should be removed because they are on the course articles' layout section, while glitches are only mentioned on dedicated list articles. (Deciding whether or not something is intended by developers, a glitch, or an unintended technique that isn't a glitch is a little difficult, which is also part of why I felt some shortcuts should be removed.) Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk 05:41, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

That's the thing with strategy content though, it can very often be not subjective at all, such as the example of shortcuts in a Mario Kart track objectively saving seconds of time over the regular route any way you look at it. If the subjectivity of unofficial strategy content then cannot be used a metric (or at least, not the only metric) to determine its merits here, then some other criteria (or a proper definition if the wiki decides none of it is acceptable anyways) needs to be included and clarified somewhere in the rules to prevent these kinds of semantics. RocketLauncher (talk) 11:38, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

I think I'm just generally not understanding what the problem with "strategy content" is or why it needs special treatment. Of course the wiki shouldn't include subjective judgements or be written like an actual strategy guide, but those are both covered by existing policies and don't mean we have to go out of our way to exclude objectively factual information just because it falls in some arbitrary "strategy" classification. We're trying to comprehensively document these games, right? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:57, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

That was my original point: I don't believe there are any actual wiki policies that touch on strategy content or even "strategy guide writing" in any way. If I have indeed missed something then please link me to it, but I believe this is something that the rules should be updated for. RocketLauncher (talk) 12:11, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

Huh, you seem to be right. I could've sworn MarioWiki:Manual of Style or MarioWiki:Good writing had something about avoiding strategy guide writing (perhaps I was thinking of "No yous"). Either way though, I think it makes intuitive sense that the site should be written like an encyclopedia rather than a strategy guide since it's trying to be the former, and that this shouldn't have to prevent the inclusion of so-called "strategy content" when it's just objective, factual information. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:35, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

For my two cents, I think we're a bit too harsh on some of this content? I don't think we need to go as far as detailing every potential way someone's found to beat a boss in a platformer, but some of the things that editors have removed on the basis of strategy writing confuses me. To provide a recent example, I saw someone remove a note on a microgame page that the Baby Face distraction in Wario Interrupts makes the game impossible because it relies entirely on varied sound cues, saying that it was "strategy". I don't see why that's strategy, that's just an objective explanation of a potential interaction of game mechanics. (I don't remember what microgame it was, and it's not mentioned at all on the Wario Interrupts or Baby Face pages. See the problem?) -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:53, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

I don't disagree that the policy itself should be discussed and amended if it seems appropriate, because there's a lot of nuanced discussion to be had on why some of this stuff should be included or not, but right now this proposal would solely be to get the existing policy implemented in the wiki rules in the first place. RocketLauncher (talk) 13:09, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

Defining appearances

I recently raised a question on the Template:Character infobox talk page regarding the standard for what counts as a character making an "appearance" in a game. Specifically, I am questioning whether it is appropriate to document a character as appearing in a game (or other form of media) where they are mentioned by name, but their likeness or physical appearance is not included. A number of characters' infoboxes list their latest appearance as such an instance with the clarification that they are mentioned, in parentheses. I feel it is not accurate to say a character made an appearance in a piece of media where they are literally not seen. This could extend to non-character subjects, as well; should we list the Crystal Palace's latest appearance as The Thousand-Year Door because Koopook mentions it? I don't think so. I feel a proposal may be in order to standardize how we handle these cases. I'd love to hear others' input on this. --Frankly (talk) 14:58, August 2, 2025 (EDT)

Linking to specific versions of characters and species without their own articles

So, a user (who I will not name to avoid harassment of them) has been updating links for Pauline in the context of her younger appearance in Donkey Kong Bananza so that they link to that game's section of her article, like so:
[[Pauline#Donkey_Kong_Bananza|Pauline]]
My sentiment on doing this is...more negative than positive. While I see the rationale behind it—a prominent younger version of a character that isn't portrayed as a distinct entity is somewhat unprecedented for this franchise, and thus linking to a page where the infobox artwork depicts said character with their usual adult appearance could be considered a little weird—it also has problems of its own. There's no indication that these links would lead to just a section of Pauline's article instead of the beginning of it until they are hovered over—and said article beginning happens to include relevant information for her appearance in Bananza, such as her voice actress, Jenny Kidd.

My biggest complaint with this, however, is also my hook for this discussion: Why single out Pauline? While we often link to certain sections of recurring locations in the context of specific games (though this is becoming less common as more iterations of such locations are being split off via proposals), this is the first time (to my knowledge) we're consistently doing this with a character. One would think some of the articles we chose to merge—such as some of the 1993 live-action film versions of characters and species (relevant proposal here) or the various representations of species as individual characters in the Mario Party series (relevant proposals here, here, and here)—would be ripe for this treatment. However, besides articles where we forgot to update links following a merge like John Leguizamo, the only article I could find with such a link was Koopa Krag in reference to his grandson...but Koopa Troopa is already linked there twice without a redirect in reference to Koopa Krag's species, so that probably doesn't count either.

I do recognize that we have no rule for or against linking to a specific version of a character or species when needed. Still, given the potential user-unfriendliness of doing this with Pauline, yet also considering the possibility of applying it to more versions of characters and species, I do think some action must be taken. Heck, even though I agree to merging the 1993 film characters with their main counterparts, they're probably more at odds with them than 13-year-old Pauline is with her adult self. Assuming we do establish an official policy for this kind of linking instead of nipping it in the bud, where would we put said policy? Could it be added to one of our existing policy pages, or would it take a new one? How would we determine if a version of a character or species is notable enough to have their specific section linked to? Such a policy may well encourage people to link every instance of King Boo in the Luigi's Mansion series to King Boo#Luigi's Mansion series (or a specific game therewithin) because of his different design and crueler characterization there, or further subjects down the slippery slope.

Most importantly, am I overthinking things? The answer to this last question is probably "yes", but I'd still like a solution to this situation. — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:48, August 7, 2025 (EDT)

I agree that this style of linking is bad, it's annoying when links don't take you where you would expect them to. I don't think there's any more reason to always link Pauline's appearance in Bananza to that game's section than there is to always link her appearance in, say, Mario Tennis Aces to that game's section - it's still the same character, otherwise it wouldn't be covered in the same page. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:39, August 8, 2025 (EDT)

Thing is, I think applying this linking to the 1993 film incarnations may have some merit, given that (for obvious reasons) they aren't described at the beginnings of their respective pages aside from Dinohattanite being listed as a relative in the Goomba and Snifit's infoboxes. For Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, and Bowser/President Koopa in particular, said information is only included towards the ends of their separate history articles. My main concern before I set up a proposal, however, is where a policy for the linking would go if we decide to add one. Help:Link only includes advice on how to make links, not what should or should not be linked to. MarioWiki:Manual of Style § Linking, linking, linking! might be a good fit, but it could easily get cluttered depending on how many specific sections of character and species articles we deem notable enough to link to. If we were to make a new policy page instead, what would we even call it? — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 19:22, August 19, 2025 (EDT)

Why should we single out their appearances in specifically the 1993 movie over any other piece of media? It's neither the only movie nor the only live-action content in the franchise, so I don't see what sets it apart from any other appearance. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:27, August 19, 2025 (EDT)

They're very different from their game counterparts? Either way, you haven't given advice on what we could do about a policy for this style of linking—the creation of which would be included as an option for my hypothetical proposal, if I create it. If you want to deal with this situation yourself, you could always set up your own proposal. — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 14:55, August 20, 2025 (EDT)

I mean, you can just outline the policy in the proposal itself and leave it at that. Not every proposal decision needs to be put into a policy page to be enforced, especially for something as specific as this. I think policy pages being updated after a proposal usually only happens if the proposal explicitly set out to change an existing policy. (And I still don't really see why specifically the 1993 film is more worthy of distinction than any other film, TV, manga, etc. adaptation.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:46, August 20, 2025 (EDT)

Since the developers made it intentionally vague on the relationship of this character to her adult counterpart I do think it's our call to decide how to deal with information concerning Pauline. I do like to consider the benefits of splitting this version of Pauline like we do with Baby Mario and Mario. Lorewise, they're both the same character, but if Baby Pauline is distinct enough with an drastically different appearance, an extensive role, plenty of unique abilities, and a different enough personality; and the disadvantages of split pages, being overlapping repeating information being more difficult to maintain across pages, then it would make more sense to cover all that information in a respective article than deal with piping. I believe if this iteration of Pauline makes it into another game, especially coinciding with adult Pauline, it should be clear to split the page. If this appearance is only in Bonanza, or the extreme scenario where it replaces adult Pauline, then it keeping merged might make more sense. Either way, the emphasis should not be based on the info or lackof we have but what setup benefits our wiki. Is it better organized, is it easier to maintain and expand and categorize, is it easier to search and find the information, these should be the questions to pursue, not if lore implications or if wiki has precedent for this sort of thing. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:12, August 31, 2025 (EDT)

This discussion isn't about whether to split Bananza's Pauline (for the record, I don't think we should). It's about whether mentions of Pauline in the context of Donkey Kong Bananza should link to the Donkey Kong Bananza section of Pauline's article, or just link to the article normally. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:13, August 31, 2025 (EDT)

Spin-off Wiki

I wanted to create a spin-off wiki for this one, which would primarily cover the Mario Kart series. I would, of course, also throw in goodies like Diddy Kong Racing and Mario Kart mods. I am not sure if this is the right place to propose something like that. --Johnjohn2001 (talk) 07:06, November 13, 2025 (EST)

Sounds like an interesting idea. I love Microsoft! (My talk page) 15:31, January 9, 2026 (EST)

Super Mario Boards Proposals thread

I've become aware that Mario Boards has a Featured Articles thread, but not yet a Proposals thread, so I made one. But can anyone help making it more active? Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:45, January 3, 2026 (EST)

I want to split the Piranha Plant page

So, the Piranha Plant page is too long. I want the names in other languages to be split off from the original page. The names of the other types of Piranha Plants should be moved to the "General Information" section. I love Microsoft! (My talk page) 15:24, January 9, 2026 (EST)

Please read over proposal formatting rules at MarioWiki:Proposals § How to to learn how to properly format them. In this case, since the proposal applies to only one subject, you must do so at the Talk:Piranha Plant page. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 15:32, January 9, 2026 (EST)

It's my fault I did this. I will remove this. I love Microsoft! (My talk page) 15:39, January 9, 2026 (EST)

You don't need to remove this comment. It's an innocent question and you are still learning. We've all been there. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 15:44, January 9, 2026 (EST)

I agree with @LadySophie17, we've been there. If you're new we of course don't expect you to immediately know everything or immediately learn every single policy. Trust me, asking these questions is totally ok! Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 10:00, January 10, 2026 (EST)

Merge the KC Deluxe "King" Koopa alter-egos.

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that must be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

This discussion is related to a different discussion regarding the other "King Koopa."

On that page, I mentioned how "I'm assuming the only reason "KC Koopa's" alter-egos haven't been merged into one page like we did with [this] version of the character, is simply because of the recency of the manga's coverage on this wiki, meaning that they likely didn't get as much scrutiny as their DIC counterparts might have 13+ years ago. (Which will hopefully change sooner or later...)"

Well, now it is sooner, as well as later. And high-time the issue was brought to someone's attention.

Koopa's various alter-egos in that manga seem to be largely comparable to the multiple alter-egos assumed by his TSMBSS counterpart. Yes, some of them may occasionally have unique abilities or weapons, but the same can be said for some of his DIC counterparts, (such as Robo-Koopa, Alley Koopa, etc.) and much like the cartoon version of the character, these one-shot alter-egos rarely last beyond the story they initially appear in.

I haven't heard enough discussion on the matter to be comfortable with submitting a proposal quite yet, but I do believe we either ought to merge their articles, or reconsider the current treatment of the King Koopa's alter egos page.

Any thoughts about it? Wandering Poplin (talk) 22:15, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

For anyone curious, here's a list of all currently existing articles which would be affected by the outcome:

• King Tetris (Which I'm surprised isn't named something like "Tetorisu Daiō.")
• Golf Daiō
• Qix Daiō
• Torino Daiō
• Gahaha Daiō
• Kinoko no Sei
• Mr. K
• Koopa Seven (Possibly. Although it could remain split for consistentcy with Super Mario Great.)

Wandering Poplin (talk) 01:08, January 24, 2026 (UTC)

I dunno. On one hand... you are making valid reasonings, but on the other hand... in the cartoon, Koopa is just adapting to the scenario, and yes, he gains some powers here and there, but it's still "Bowser", at the end of the day. In the manga... this thing started as more than simple disguises. King Tetris was an actual person and then Bowser came, ADOPTED his identity (not adapted for the scenario he was in, ADOPTED, his minions still call him that in the next volume as he changes persona to Golf Daiō), and even brings him back later. I mean, King Koopa, while using different alter-egos, is still called "Koopa" by Mario. In the manga, Bowser legit changes his name, to the point of Mario calling him "King [subject of the story]". I'll admit, I can follow the reasoning with SOME of the alter-egos, like Qix Daiō, Gahaha Daiō, and Kinoko no Sei (that is just a lazy disguise, admitedly): it's just Bowser operating under a disguise for the sake of the story, but in the other cases, he legit follows the job given by his costume, totally separating him from the Koopa King who aims to marry Peach: leads the Tetris Tribe like the real deal, runs the Game Boy Club (which is apparently a kingdom, btw), rules and leads over Reticulon instead of the actual in-game ruler. Mr. K is his own case, since he's directly based on a character from the source material and Koopa Seven is a form like Mega Bowser, so they're obviously out of the discourse. But then, making a page for essentially 3 (proper) disguises, while others have a valid reason to stand as their own pages, we cannot really compare these personas to TSMBSS personas, in my opinion. Mariuigi Khed 23:51, January 24, 2026 (UTC)

PS: Also, he is called "Tetris Daiō", but we have an English spelling on his cape, so that takes the priority. Mariuigi Khed 23:51, January 24, 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Khed's oservations, but I want to throw this out here as well: Honestly, I'm not quite sure why we treat episode-thematic Koopa Pack leaders different from minions in regards to SMBSS. If Stormtroopa, Space Troopa, and State Troopa each get an article separate from Troopa, why not Darth Koopa, Moon Man Koopa, and King-of-the-Road Koopa from Koopa? It seems the only ones we do that for are ones that are really different, like Sergeant Kooperman (who is more of a human identical stranger) and Mousersaurus Rex (who is a dinosaur rather than a rat), yet Robo-Koopa and Koop-zilla are both merged despite one being a mech (though it's awkwardly half-split as robo-suit, where it is less visible IMO) and the other being essentially a powered-up form. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:16, January 25, 2026 (UTC)

True. Which is, in the case of Koopzilla, a particularly odd choice considering how Giant Mario somehow has his own page, despite essentially being the same thing. Although Koopzilla is mentioned on that page, most of the information is slanted to focus more on Mario, even the page's name, despite Giant Mario having an overall smaller role in the episode they both originate from. Wandering Poplin (talk) 18:04, January 27, 2026 (UTC)

There is a Western Animation trope of having characters change their name, clothes, and societal position to match the setting of a given episode, which we should be aware of when thinking of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show. Salmancer (talk) 03:05, January 31, 2026 (UTC)

Should we add limitations on cancelling proposals?

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that must be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

Rule 20 currently gives the guidelines for cancelling proposals, as shown: "Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. If a proposer cancels their own proposal, they must wait three days before submitting any new proposal." However, I've been noticing that the vast majority of proposals getting cancelled were on their way to failing (the status quo being what the consensus would have looked like if the proposal wasn't cancelled), and even though I don't want to assume bad faith on behalf of the users who have done so, I kind of feel like these proposals were cancelled just so they wouldn't end up as being failed (I would know because I'm guilty of this too).

Furthermore, Rule 21 states that "Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a staff member after the self-cancellation cutoff, but they must provide a valid reason for doing so. In most cases, the proposal should simply run its course." I believe that the same should be done for proposals that seem like the status quo option will be the passing one, because either way, the proposer will know that their proposal would be unpopular, and the thought of a proposal potentially failing could encourage them to communicate the idea before they make a proposal on it. I still think that editing the proposal to incorporate suggestions in the status quo votes and comments is fine given that the entire proposal isn't overhauled, but if a proposal seems like it's going to fail, it should just run its course.

I know that some people might think that this is a bit too harsh, given that a proposal can be edited in the same timeframe, but the difference is that a proposal edit could merely incorporate ideas from oppose votes and comments, while a proposal cancellation just scraps it entirely. There are times when a proposal cancellation is valid, like if a majority of users express interest in an alternate solution to a problem that cannot be implemented in an ongoing proposal because it either requires a complete proposal overhaul or the editing timeframe is up (an example can be found here, where the proposal was remade after suggestions were brought up after the editing cutoff, which required admin intervention to cancel due to said cutoff also preventing self-cancellation, and even that was done by an admin, as that specific example was a proposal that many agreed shouldn't have had run its course).

Therefore, I suggest an amendment to Rule 20, where instead of a three-day wait period, proposals that are on track to fail cannot be self-cancelled. This change makes sure that proposals that look like they're going to fail must run their course, and also encourages users to discuss an idea they believe might be controversial, to dictate if making a proposal based on a subject will really be worth it. Under this amendment, if a proposal is on track to fail and before its 4-day cutoff, users can still edit the proposal to incorporate suggestions from both the opposers and commenters (provided that it does not completely overhaul the proposal), but cancelling them will require admin approval, and a valid reason to do so (like recreating the proposal that incorporates said suggestions). If admin approval is required to cancel proposals that are at least 4 days old, I believe that it should be the same for proposals that are on track to fail. I even saw a good example here. As for the removal of the 3-day post-cancellation wait policy, while I don't think that keeping it is a bad idea, I think it could interfere with the 5 maximum proposal rule, as if someone has 5 proposal ideas, starts 3, and cancels the third due to a valid reason (examples shown below), they cannot make the other 2 automatically, and I think that my proposed change would render the 3-day wait period moot, given that this Rule 20 amendment would already prevent cancelled proposal spam by forcing failing proposals to run their course while still counting as one of their 5 ongoing/unimplemented proposals.

I believe that this change will reduce the number of self-cancelled proposals that were only cancelled because they were going to fail. For now, I still think that cancellations could be performed for various purposes, like accidental rule or policy breaks that warrant cancellation (such as creating a proposal that is based on an ongoing one, contradicts an ongoing one, seeks to overturn the decision of a proposal less than 4 weeks old, or aims to achieve something that has already been achieved), but in most cases, they should just run its course, and admins should dictate whether cancelling it is worth it. There are good instances where a user should request a proposal cancellation to an admin (like overhauling a running proposal due to voter suggestions, or maybe agreeing with a point an opposer brought up that cannot be incorporated in the proposal and the proposer didn't think about beforehand, like how a policy change could have a wider impact than initially thought by the proposer), but doing so just to avoid seeing it fail shouldn't be a valid one. Therefore, if a proposal idea seems controversial on paper, the user can talk it out and then decide if they want to propose it, or if they want to go straight into the proposal without prior discussion, let the outcome of that proposal dictate whether change will be made or not.

The reason why I started this discussion is because I want to see if anyone else is onboard for me, because I am just as nervous about seeing one of my proposals potentially fail (as I mentioned before, I am guilty of committing the act I am now speaking against), and I want to gain preliminary support before verifying that my idea would gain enough support in a proposal. I have already done a few preliminary conversations before proposals, and I believe that potentially controversial proposals should follow this same path too. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 00:24, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what the issue is with cancelling a proposal that's likely to fail? The proposer may have been genuinely swayed by the opposition's arguments and no longer want the proposal to continue, and cancelling it saves everyone's time in that case. Forcing such proposals to continue against the proposer's wishes seems needlessly bureaucratic to me. And anyway, I think in general it should be the proposer's choice whether to cancel their own proposal, regardless of reason. It sounds pretty unfeasible to try and police the reasons people are allowed to have for cancelling, especially since you're currently not even required to give a reason when you do. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 01:54, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

I can see that some proposals have noted that (including mine I mentioned earlier). However, a lot of proposals that are cancelled seem like they are only done so to avoid failing. They don’t give a reason, they don’t give an explanation, some don’t even discuss the topic in the comments; they simply cancel it and move on, instead of addressing the opposition. This isn’t an issue of itself if it didn’t happen very often, but unfortunately it seems like it does (the 3-day lockdown was introduced for that reason). If anything, the lockdown seems like the more detrimental option because it gives users who cancel a proposal for genuine reasons an embargo before they can make another one. I think my proposed solution would be the best to avoid spamming archives with cancelled proposals while not placing that same embargo on users who cancel their proposals for genuine reasons. And if “in general it should be the proposer's choice whether to cancel their own proposal, regardless of reason”, then proposals should not have a cutoff date for self-cancellation in the first place. And as I said, admins can still cancel a proposal if the user has genuine reasons, like the ones you explained; my proposed solution mainly targets proposals that are self-cancelled because they look like they’re going to fail, without the proposer even addressing the opposition before cancelling it. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 02:10, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

I still don't really understand what the problem is with these types of cancellations. Proposals are ultimately supposed to serve as an efficient decision-making process. Why is it less desirable for a user to cancel their failing proposal than it is for them to wait a week or two so the proposal can reach the same conclusion? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:26, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

In regards to it being "less desirable for a user to cancel their failing proposal than it is for them to wait a week or two so the proposal can reach the same conclusion", there are already rules that stop users from dictating how their proposal ends; for example, the "Do not close early" rule has been heavily discouraged by Porple, quoting, "Allowing proposers to use [the "DNCE" rule] when their proposal is failing but there is no real hope would enable them to drag things out and defeat the whole point of having this rule." Often I notice that proposers don't give a reason why they cancel, they don't talk it out, they don't agree with the opposition. They just shove it into archives. If this wasn't such a big deal then the 3-day embargo wouldn't have been added in the first place. I simply feel like my proposed suggestion would reduce the number of "cancelled" proposals that were going to fail while still allowing proposals to get cancelled for legitimate reasons. I've also noticed several users follow a trend of receiving a few (if not many) oppose votes (sometimes even by admins) before just shoving the proposal into the archives, without even discussing it with the community. If a user has a good reason (or they show a discussion with the opposition in the comments), then yeah, I'm fine with it getting cancelled. But most of the time, a user just shoves it into archives without said good reason. And as I said, even though the embargo serves to "punish" these users, it also indirectly targets users who genuinely have good reasons for cancelling their proposals, which I don't think is fair. I think that this proposal is a good example, when a proposer genuinely has a good reason (and also admin approval as shown in the comments) for cancelling it, and while it still looked like it was going to fail, I think that those kind of cancelled proposals shouldn't have the user struck with the embargo. If a proposal is an "efficient decision-making process", then the consensus should reflect that, not the proposer's action. And if the proposal ends this way, it doesn't show up as failed, which means that the "decision" can be overturned less than 28 days later (as dictated by Rule 5), and a new proposal based on that previous one can be made before the 28-day period ends (which is enforced on both proposals that fail and those that don't reach a consensus). Cancelling a failing proposal without said discussion just allows the user to bypass all of these rules (which is why this proposal was allowed to run less than 28 days after another proposal that aimed to do the same). This is the issue I'm talking about, that most of these cancelled proposals that were on track to fail don't end up as "failed" and therefore don't have Rule 5 applied to them. Just letting these proposals run to the end allow them to show up as "failed" on the archives without needing to see the proposal itself to know why it was cancelled. Sometimes, even proposers who agree with the opposition don't ask their proposal to be cancelled, they simply join the opposition and let it run its course (example here). An alternative would be to let cancelled proposals that would have failed be placed under the same 28-day embargo as failed and consensusless proposals, while also removing the universal 3-day embargo on cancelled proposals, but that sounds a bit too complicated. So for now, my proposed suggestion (that proposals that are on track to failing will be placed under the same cancel embargo as 4-day-old proposals minus the editing part) seems like the best of both worlds; it allows proposals that were going to fail to naturally do so (and have it appropriately noted as such in the archives), while allowing users that cancel proposals for a good reason (like opposition discussion, comment controversy, or mistake proposal) to not be subject to an embargo that I feel like does more harm than good. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 14:13, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

The "do not close early" thing was an entirely different case (trying to extend your proposal is not the same thing as trying to cancel it). But ok, you've managed to identify a tangible problem with cancelling opposed proposals, the loophole with Rule 5 that allows it to be proposed again sooner than if it had run its course even if the community consensus against it is the same. That's a legitimate issue with the current system (I recall it coming up here). But surely the solution is just to adjust Rule 5 to also cover cancelled proposals ("no proposal can make changes that would've been made by a proposal that was cancelled less than 28 days ago"), right? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:26, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

The modification for Rule 5 wouldn't be such a bad idea, if it didn't affect proposals that were cancelled for a good reason (which especially affect proposals that require overhauls, like my Kolorado's Father example I mentioned earlier). If Rule 5 was amended to cover cancelled proposals, that would affect those kinds of proposals, which could force a user to wait 28 days before making a full proposal overhaul, which no one would want. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 13:46, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, fair point. But I would much rather avoid making rules that distinguish between "good reasons" and "bad reasons", as it introduces an unnecessary amount of subjectivity to the proposal rules. I guess we don't necessarily need a specific rule to stop people who are obviously trying to game the system by cancelling and immediately re-proposing a failing proposal without addressing any problems, as admins already have the power to veto loophole-abusing proposals. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:37, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

I think it's common sense what is a "good reason" and a "bad reason". Rule 8 in particular shows something similar for votes (like what counts as a valid vote compared to an invalid vote). Even if proposal cancellations are different, I think that a simple "proposals must have a valid reason to get cancelled" clause might be enough in the rules. After all, this page shows that users should have common sense on what counts as a "good reason" and a "bad reason". I doubt he have to list every reason, or even give any examples. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 00:00, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

Well evidently it's not common sense seeing as we've been disagreeing as to whether cancelling a failing proposal is bad. And I don't really like the rule about vote reasons needing to be "good" either, I think I suggested removing it before at some point. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:14, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

On the subject with the issues of proposals that are likely to fail, I'd like to remind everyone that a certain user (read: GuntherBayBeee) has the habit of canceling proposals outright when it looks like they're failing; in fact, less than a month ago, he cancelled a proposal regarding to allow key artwork on game infoboxes less than an hour after it was made, with only two oppose votes... only to then proceed with applying the proposed changes on three different articles as if the proposal succeeded. His confusion after these edits were reverted seemingly implies that he seemed to treat proposal cancellations as if these proposals never happened and in turn made him think that he could treat this as a go-ahead to implement the proposed changes anyway, even though any cancelled proposal should be regarded as a failed proposal (unless it's implemented immediately by admins).
The fact that this proposal was cancelled after only two oppose votes within one hour, and the proposer went to implement the proposed changed immediately afterwards does make it seem there weren't any good intentions behind cancelling it at all, which would mean a stricter regulation may have to be implemented (then again, Camwoodstock did mention the proposer cannot start another proposal for three days if they decided to cancel theirs). The worst part is that if it wasn't cancelled, I would've suggested a sort of middle ground for the proposal: it didn't even have to fail. rend (talk) (edits) 17:24, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. This is exactly what I mean when I say that "cancelled proposals that were on track to fail don't end up as such". My proposed amendments to the cancellation policy are:

1. If a proposal is on track to fail, the proposer cannot cancel it themselves and must request for admin approval to do so.
   • Requests can either go on an admin's talk page or in the proposal's comments.
2. Admins have the right to uphold a failing proposal if they feel like it's necessary. Valid reasons for proposal cancellation include making a proposal by mistake (such as if the proposer is unaware of a previous proposal about the same topic), agreeing with the opposition (like "this user brought up a point I haven't thought of before"), or wanting to overhaul the proposal (such as changing the options to cover a wider part of the wiki than initially proposed). However, providing a reason such as "I don't want this proposal to fail" or "I don't want this proposal to end up as failed" is just as invalid as not providing a reason at all.
   • Proposals that have an invalid reason for cancellation can still be cancelled by an admin, but these types of cancellations, known as "autofails", will count as a "failed" proposal instead of a "cancelled" one and will be affected by Rule 5.
3. No case can be heard more than once; once a decision is made, that is final.
4. If a failing proposal gets cancelled, it does not count as "failed", and therefore will be shown as "cancelled" in the Archives and is not subject to Rule 5. However, proposals that fail (regardless of whether cancellation is rejected or unrequested) will be shown as such in the Archives and are subject to the rule.
   • Admins still have the right to enforce Rule 5 on certain cancelled proposals if they feel that it's necessary.
   • Autofailed proposals are subject to Rule 5 unless noted otherwise by an admin.
   • Autofailed proposals will count towards the 5 maximum ongoing or unimplemented proposals a user can have for 28 days after the proposal is autofailed. (still deciding on this one)
5. Poll proposals follow unique rules:
   1. If the entirety of the proposal is cancelled, then the same rules are applied to the proposal.
   2. Certain parts of the proposal can be requested to be cancelled or autofailed, and they will not count towards the maximum proposal limit and are not subject to Rule 5. (still deciding on this one)
   3. If one part of the proposal passes even when other parts are cancelled or autofailed, then the entire proposal is shown as such in the archives. (still deciding on this one)
6. Proposals that are not on track to failing can still be self-cancelled provided that it is still within the 4-day initial period.
7. The part of Rule 20 that says "If a proposer cancels their own proposal, they must wait three days before submitting any new proposal." will be removed.

I was also thinking of extending this policy to cover proposals that achieve consensus (a support option has the majority support) or even quorum (even if multiple options are tied with at least 4 votes each), but that seems too complicated, so I'll just say that these amendments should only apply to failing proposals for now. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 19:14, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

I honestly don't really know if this will work. People (mainly cough cough Gunther cough cough) will now just bother mods when they want to cancel their proposal, which only makes the situation worse than it already is. As Hewer said earlier, most people cancel their proposal (if it's already heavily opposed) for the sole reason of not having to wait 1-2 weeks for it to finally end. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 10:29, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

I added a new clause that allows proposers to request cancellation in the comments, which is where most of the discussion happens in the first place, and maybe potentially in a self-oppose vote. And if a user wants to cancel it for a bad reason (like Gunther), the admins can just reject it. As for waiting for a filing proposal to end, the problem is that cancelled proposals on track to failing don't count as "failed" and don't have Rule 5 applied to them (while applying Rule 5 to cancelled proposals would be its own mixed bag of nuts), and even then, if someone wants to cancel for any reason after the 4-day initial period, they would have to notify an admin anyways; the "invalid" reasons I provided are just as invalid for cancelling after the initial period.

I might add another clause where these kinds of proposals can be cancel requested, but if they were on track to fail (and were not cancelled for a good reason), then they will count as failed instead of cancelled and will have Rule 5 applied to them. However, if proposals after the initial period that are on track to failing should just run its course (like if a proposal gets no votes on the first 4 days and then a huge amount of oppose votes afterwards), then I don't see why the same shouldn't be applied to proposals on track to fail in the first place, cutoff period or not. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 14:06, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this needs to be harsher. It's not like Gunther found some epic loophole and got one over on us; what he did wasn't allowed and it was handled. However, I would sooner agree to a simple "no self-cancellations, you have to ask wiki staff to cancel and have a reason that's not 'it's failing'" rule change rather than making things more complicated. --Steve (talk) 22:56, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this whole "ask wiki staff" thing. I don't think bothering the wiki staff with all your proposals that you're gonna cancel is gonna help (and may only make things worse). This makes the "Canceled by the proposer" outcome useless. Also this removes the self-dependence of being able to cancel your own proposal by letting it become something you should ask the staff first. Just because one person keeps cancelling their proposal doesn't mean everyone should bear the consequences. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 10:50, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

This wouldn't require a user to contact a staff member (although it can still be done); instead, they can simply note that they want it cancelled in the comments, where an admin can read it and decide if it should get cancelled (something similar was done here). They wouldn't have to nudge staff for a legitimate cancel, as staff are pretty diligent about checking MarioWiki:Proposals. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 13:46, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

Still, not everyone should bear the consequences just because one person does it continuously. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:11, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that this amendment to the rules will be as cumbersome as some might suggest. Anyone can suggest a cancellation on the proposal through their votes or comments, and while the reason is the driving factor behind cancellation, admins could also take a look at other things, including if a discussion on the topic really happened, and the proposer's track record on these kinds of cancellations (such as abusing the system to avoid proposal failures), and then decide whether they should cancel the proposal, autofail the proposal, or just leave it running.

You might have noticed I wrote "autofail", and that is essentially an alternative to a failing proposal running. This essentially means that the proposal ends early but counts as "failed", and this is a response to Hewer's complaints about a proposer wanting to get their failed proposal over with. These can be requested if the proposer doesn't have a good reason to cancel their proposal or a good track record with proposal cancellations, or can be performed by admins if the user requests a cancellation but lack said good reasoning and/or track record. I'm also thinking of adding a rule to abuse autofails (like how an autofail counts as a user's ongoing or unimplemented proposal for 28 days after the autofail), but that something I have yet to decide.

As for the current rules, I don't think that this will have much of an impact on everyone else. And if you think that people don't start proposals close enough to a previous one's cancelled proposal to matter, then the 3-day embargo wouldn't have been installed in the first place. If anything, I think that the current rules are more cumbersome because they affect a much wider range of users who have legitimate reasons for cancelling (such as overhauling an entire proposal, like with Kolorado's Father), only to be affected because some other users misuse the cancellation system. It takes less than the 3 days that the embargo lasts for to get an admin to cancel your proposal, much less in some cases even. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 00:00, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

To add my two cents in this discussion, I would much rather encourage more regular discussions and better thought out proposals than prohibit cancellation of “obviously unpopular” ones. If a proposal is so undeniably unpopular that it gains a large amount of opposition within a couple days, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be cancelled. It means it never should’ve happened in the state that it is. All of this could and should be avoided by first starting talk page discussions, gathering opinions of other users and making suggestions based on them.

It is true that talk page discussions often do not get much attention, but I think our community would be improved by trying to tackle that problem first, rather than this band-aid solution. “This could’ve been an e-mail a talk page discussion.” — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 13:37, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

As I said in my initial conversation, "the proposer [might] know that their proposal would be unpopular, and the thought of a proposal potentially failing could encourage them to communicate the idea before they make a proposal on it". A major point of my starting this discussion in the first place was to encourage discussion on ideas in the first place. The thought of a proposal being potentially controversial or even outright despised could encourage communication before (or to see if they should be) making a proposal on that idea (in the first place), and if a user makes a proposal before (or without) performing communication and it does become controversial or disliked, they should let the proposal's outcome (and community consensus on that proposal's idea) be dictated by said consensus, rather than the proposer's action. I feel like this would be enough to encourage discussion on potentially controversial ideas before making a full proposal (isn't that what I'm doing now?) instead of "Oh, people don't like my idea, therefore, I'm going to cancel it and pretend like it never happened except I know not to start this proposal again". I... am R.O.B. Full set! 13:46, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

Cancelling a proposal still puts in the archives just like a failed one. I don't see why you're framing it as "pretending like it never happened". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:37, April 10, 2026 (UTC)

It puts it in archives... but then it also treats it like if it never happened, like no quorum proposals. Not only does this cause the proposal to ignore Rule 5, but the only thing it basically changes for the proposer is that the community dislikes the idea of the proposal, without showing that the proposal actually failed. This is why discussing an idea before proposing it is important. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 00:00, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

@I... am R.O.B., I'm still against the idea of asking the staff (users should at least have the self-dependence to cancel their own proposals) or having to let the proposal run its 1-2 weeks even though it's already obvious to fail. I do think I have a middle ground for this: instead of only being allowed to cancel your proposal in the first 4 days, we should only be allowed to cancel them after the first 4 days, but you're no longer allowed to cancel it in the last 4 days. This overall gives more leniency of cancelling proposals (now having 7 days to cancel it, instead of 4) and it also avoids users already cancelling their proposal in the first hour or so. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 10:53, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

The cancellation period was initially 6 days but was reduced to 4 in light of the early close rule being added. I did mention an alternative in the thread above: proposals without a valid reason for cancellation can get cancelled, but they will count as "failed" and have Rule 5 applied to them. I think that this is a good method to make sure that cancellations for proposals that will fail are shown as such in the archives. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 13:02, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

That's definitely a good idea to make cancelled proposals (without a good reason for its cancellation) seem less like "Yeah umm let's just act like this never happened". Either this or we should stop giving users the ability to cancel their proposal in the first 4 days. Since the first 4 days are key for seeing how the proposal will do, it's important for the proposer to not cancel it by then already (neither should it be cancelled 4 days before the proposal's deadline). If this gets implemented, I think that Rule 20 should get (partly removed) as it'll probably be annoying having to wait 8 days to cancel and then implement a new proposal. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 13:19, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

Not long ago, when I made that balloon proposal, I was recommended in the comments to first create a draft. So, I wanted to cancel my proposal and include the reason for canceling it, but when I checked the preview, the message wasn't there, which surprised me. I looked to see if there was a way to add it, but apparently, there isn't. This leads me to wonder: wouldn't it be a better idea for canceled proposals to include the reason their author canceled them? Not only would this allow users to know why a proposal was canceled, but the author would also have to be more specific about why they canceled it and provide convincing and coherent reasons for the cancellation in the first place, such as "The opposers convinced me," or "I want to rework this proposal but can't because the time limit to do it has passed," etc. This way, the authors of each proposal can be clearer about their true intentions when canceling them. Sorbetti (talk) 01:50, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

How strange. You definitely CAN include a reason for whenever a proposal is vetoed, which would take the place of {{{2}}} (which is normally for the final standing of votes). Since you don't have to include vote standings for cancelled proposals, I don't see the issue why the cancelled proposals can't use the same code as vetoed ones for this. rend (talk) (edits) 10:38, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

Good point. There should be a reason for cancelled proposals if vetoed proposals have them. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 13:02, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

I definitely support this. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 13:19, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

I think giving a reason for cancelled proposals should be allowed but not mandatory. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:27, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

Here's what I think about this. Giving a reason for cancelled proposals should be required to count it as "cancelled"; giving an invalid reason or none at all will count the proposal as "failed" and will have Rule 5 applied to them. I am also thinking of a better alternate abuse-prevention system compared to the 3-day embargo or applying Rule 5 to every cancelled proposal (my current idea is that a cancelled proposal that counts as a "failed" one will count as one of the user's 5 ongoing or unimplemented proposals for 28 days after the "cancellation"), but that's still something I have yet to decide. I... am R.O.B. Full set! 14:44, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I should make something clear about my stance on the whole thing since my first message on this topic: I don't necessarily believe that we need stricter self-cancellation policies, and I think the proposed amendments I am R.O.B. posted in response to my first message are much too severe and complex. That said, what GuntherBayBee did last month should not have happened. I would say that the rules should make it clearer that what he did is not allowed, but Porple already made that amendment yesterday. I guess there's only a few suggestions that can be made:

1. Implement a change in {{proposal outcome}} that allows proposers to include a reason for cancelling their proposal, as Sorbetti pointed out.
2. Prohibit proposers from immediately cancelling their proposal within 24 hours. Afterwards, they can cancel their proposal by themselves at any time until the fifth day has passed (that way, they still have their four-day cancellation period)
3. Make it clear that a cancelled proposal should be regarded as a failed proposal (unless admins have put it into effect immediately; making it a successful proposal), and therefore should have the same waiting time restrictions as other failed proposals per rule 15 (or, if put into effect immediately by admins, the same restrictions as succeeded proposals per rule 5)
4. Probably make it clear in general that failed proposals cannot be re-proposed until four weeks have passed; rule 15 appears to mainly talk about extended proposals that failed to reach a consensus, and that's basically the only other mention of this waiting period, next to rule 5 about contradicting/overturning proposals.

I would probably also say something about Gunther needing to lay off his proposal cancellation habit, but that's not a topic I want to delve into right now. rend (talk) (edits) 16:31, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

Can I still suggest something? For 2, I think it would be more useful prohibiting people from cancelling their proposal in the first 4 days and then giving them the option for 7 days to cancel their proposal and then in the last 4 days they're prohibited from doing it again. For 3 (and partly also 4), I'm not sure if you meant this but I think that it would be better for cancelled proposals to only be count as failed if the proposer doesn't have a (good) reason for the cancellation. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:00, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

In regards to your suggestion for 3 (and 4), I suppose if the proposer want to restart their proposal within the four-week period, they could maybe discuss it with an admin first, similar to how they have to ask an admin about cancelling their proposal after the four-day self-cancel period. I guess it's only fair given that editing/changing their proposal also has a four-day period (given that editing and self-cancelling are both discussed in the same sentence in Rule 20). Regarding for 2, I'm not about the first prohibition period having to last as long as four days, I feel that might be a tad too long. Though, then again, they're still allowed to make changes to their proposal in that timeframe, so maybe I'm worrying about nothing here. rend (talk) (edits) 18:23, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

For 2, you do have a point but I still think that if the proposal has too few (oppose) votes, it still shouldn't get cancelled. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:30, April 11, 2026 (UTC)

NIOL template or meta category

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that must be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

I already brought this up earlier in the Discord server, but would you guys like it if we had a template (or meta category) for {{NIOL}}s (for anyone who doesn't know; that's an abbreviation for Names in other languages)? As someone mention in the Discord server (which I agree with), the {{todo}} template doesn't really fit for something like this and I've already been thinking of such a template being on the wiki for a long time. I'm thinking of the template having a list (similar to the {{todo}} template) where you can list all the languages that are currently missing. But what do you guys think? Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 14:17, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

I agree with having a template to attract users who are fluent in those languages. I imagine the template's usage would like this {{NIOL|ChiT|Dut|FreE}}. I would personally prefer it to be called something along the lines of "Todo lang" or "Needs language". Also, would this be placed at the top of the page or in the Names in other languages section. I would prefer the latter because of the fact that some articles have multiple NIOL sections. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 18:56, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

Per all. "{{NIOL}}" is a very concise way to indicate that a NIOL section needs more names added; there are many pages on the wiki whose subjects appear in other languages but don't have all of the names listed for them. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 20:28, April 24, 2026 (UTC)

Deprecate the reference parameter in {{TSMBSS episode infobox}} and {{DKC TV episode infobox}}?

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that must be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

As far as I know, these two infoboxes are the only two infoboxes that allow the user add the title reference for a subject. None of the other infoboxes have this, not even the other episode infoboxes. And since we allow "Naming" sections to provide a more detailed overview of a subject's naming history as per this proposal, doesn't it make this parameter obsolete? Maw-Ray Master (talk) 20:28, April 24, 2026 (UTC)