MarioWiki:Proposals

Establish a guideline for citing archived web pages
I've made a previous proposal about this in the past, but it was unnecessarily complicated. To put this as simply as possible, many online web pages are very likely to be taken down at some point, and many already have; a user may come across an online source which is no longer on the live web, and only exists on an online, the largest of which is the Wayback Machine.

To establish consistency when citing pages from these web archives, a guideline should be listed on Citations, below the template for citing live websites. This is what I believe is the best style to follow for such citations: cite the original, unmodified link to a page as usual, then include a statement in parentheses that lists the page as being archived, with a link to where the web archive hosts the page, a timestamp, and finally, the web archive which was sourced. Below is a template of such a citation (the link to the archived page would be accessed by the word "Archived"):

"Author Name (January 1, 2000). . Publisher. Retrieved January 1, 2023. ( June 1, 2022, 00:00:01 UTC via Web Archive.)"

As an example, the list of rumors and urban legends about Mario already uses this style for the majority of its web page citations. Here is an example from that page:

"Nintendo (1985). Super Mario Bros. Instruction Booklet. Retrieved July 8, 2021. (Archived March 9, 2021, 10:01:59 UTC via Wayback Machine.)"

A note should also be added to MarioWiki:Citations that the precise timestamp for a page from the Wayback Machine, the most common web archive source, can be found by examining the date in the URL; for the above example, 20210309100159 can be read as 2021-03-09 10:01:59, and should be formatted as March 9, 2021, 10:01:59 UTC.

To clarify the proposal, this should not be considered a strict rule that must be followed, nor a necessity for every citation of a web page, but simply as a guideline to follow in case a page has already been taken down, or if a link to an archived version of a page is being added to a citation.

Proposer: Deadline: June 1, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per everyone, as users might think they’re going into an active link when really they are led into a 404’d link
 * 4) Per all. Preservation is extremely important, and it'd seriously help if we pointed to archives when applicable.
 * 5) This is a great way to combat link rot and I strongly encourage more regular usage of archived pages regardless.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
I am sick of these “active” links that are really dead or 404 links. This proposal acknowledges said statement of mine. 17:53, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

Make changes to MarioWiki's editbox wallpaper
The editbox is the field where one can type their edits into. But the most overlooked cosmetic aspect of the editbox is its wallpaper thing: Those strings of character artwork located at the bottom half of the editbox. Currently, it features 2000s artwork (Luigi, Mario Sunshine with Yoshi, Princess Peach, Luigi, Mario Sunshine with Yoshi), as somehow the wiki was established in the 2000s.

The editbox's wallpaper pattern as of now looks like this:

If changes were to be made to it, I would elaborate on these three options:


 * Give new changeable designs to the editbox wallpaper: We could implement new designs to the editbox's wallpaper. This could be changeable in Special:Preferences, under Editing. There could be countless designs: "Mario Kart", "Paper Mario", "Mario Party", "WarioWare", "Donkey Kong Country (game series)", "Wario Land", "Luigi Mansion", "Yoshi's Island", "Yoshi's Wooly/Crafted World", the list goes on and on.
 * Just update the existing wallpaper design with new Mario franchise artwork: The editbox still looks like it's from the 2000s, so maybe we can just replace the old art with the 2017-present promo arts of Mario characters.
 * Do nothing: Do not like these changes? Please feel free to state your reasons for choosing this option.

Proposer: Deadline: May 21, 2023, 19:06 EDT

Give new changeable designs to the editbox wallpaper

 * 1) Per explanations above, as I would like more variety to the edit box wallpaper.
 * 2) I agree. I suggest implementing new wallpapers based on specific games, while keeping the old theme as a Super Mario Sunshine wallpaper. I don’t really see what’s wrong with it, I mean sure it isn’t from a recent game, but in no way does that mean that we have to eradicate it from the wiki. After all,  the Mario franchise is based on nostalgia. Just because it’s from 2002 doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a place on the wiki.

Just update the existing wallpaper design with new Mario franchise artwork

 * 1) - Having renders from mid-2000s games that are as high quality as the mid-2000s internet would allow us to get our hands on on bold, proud display as the default, in the year 2023, feels almost comically out of date, right? Updating this to be more in-line with the site aesthetics we've grown into since implementing this is way overdue. It's not 2005 anymore (citation needed), so like, if we've updated the wiki logo and various other parts of the wiki's graphics and visuals since then, why should the thing you're forced to see whenever you edit an article--the thing we see as we write this vote and constantly revise it--be some exception? We'd like to suggest, as Koopa con Carne indirectly mentioned, the designs mentioned on the Main Page's talkpage for a potential candidate. Anything a bit more recent than renders that can literally become US Citizens in how old they are!
 * 2) Thank you Camwood for clearing the purpose of this proposal up for me; per Camwood.
 * 3) Per all, I've thought the editing field looks bad literally ever since I first saw it so I've long awaited this change.
 * 4) Per all. Updating the renders would be the best call.
 * 5) Per Camwoodstock. The current edit box image appears make use of low-quality JPGs of outdated artwork and might have never been updated since its inception on the wiki, so let's focus on just updating that first. While it would be real neat to have different edit box skins with specific themes for the novices which may find CSS code too advanced for them, I'm not sure if the suggested manner of having it in Special:Preferences can be easily arranged, since I don't think admins can customize that. Maybe  could, being the wiki proprietor, but you might have to ask. So let's not get too overambitious and just stick with updating the one edit box style we have.
 * 6) While I do find the current design sort of charming with its 2000's-ish style, I do think it should be changed to something better.
 * 7) The current one is terrible.
 * 8) Per all. It's time to renovate the design and get rid of the ancient renders.
 * 9) Per all.

Do nothing

 * 1) I really don't see how the edit box featuring artwork from the 2000s is a bad thing. Is it because they have been replaced by newer artwork? I don't see why that would be a reason to replace them for OOW cosmetic reasons, such as the background of the edit box. Also, per KCC in the comments regarding customization; if it is really an issue for someone, they can change how it looks on their own end.

Comments
Users can personalise their editing field any way they want with some HTML knowledge through a "monobook.css" user subpage. I do agree that the default editing field skin would benefit from an upgrade, but there should be some consensus on it beforehand. 19:16, May 14, 2023 (EDT)

There'd have to be more to the proposed themes than just names for us to vote for changeable designs outright, but we're down to update the default if nothing else, because... well, see our statement. Also... Listen. We get it, a user can customize them on their end, so who cares about the default, right? ...But that's not to say that your average user will customize their background, or even if they know how to do that. Being real here, most people would probably just accept they don't know how to do that, and decide to grin and bear it, and slowly tune it out until it all becomes background noise anyways, just another mild eyebrow-raiser to add to the pile, another thing you just have to kind of insist someone will "get used to" whenever it comes up. Like us, we did that. Well, except that last one. 22:13, May 14, 2023 (EDT)
 * Come to think of it--should this proposal pass in the favor of option 2 (just update the renders), would we have a second proposal to determine which option we change to based on a select few options (yes, likely these ones, again)? We'd assume the answer is yes, but y'know, we want to make sure all the bases are covered here. 12:17, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

Maybe we could use this design from Mario Maker 2? I think it fits very well for an editing field! (Maybe you'd need to remove the SMM2 text on it but otherwise it should be fine) 01:44, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
 * I dunno, I would prefer something more general as opposed to something more game-specific. I'd also prefer the background to be white, instead of yellow: I don't mind colors in the editing field, but I feel like the background shouldn't drastically change the color if the editing field itself. 06:32, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
 * I don't think a design being too "game-specific" is enough to disqualify it, and you could just edit the image to be colored white. But, I guess as a second option we could use this one instead, it is less specific after all, and it's easier to edit to white. 06:44, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
 * In a perfect world, we'd be able to offer multiple options that a purveying editor could select in their account settings, like the first option suggests. Of course, that's a little high-tech at the moment, so it's probably best to not get too far ahead and just settle on something that'd be a very good all-around option; if someone like, say, Porplemontage wants to figure out how to implement that, then we can start mucking about with stuff like offering alternative skins. (Also, one of the renders in the current banner is very explicitly Sunshine, so make of that what you will?) 13:40, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

In the meantime, that background for our proposals space is also tacky as mac-n-cheese pizza. Mama mia. 18:21, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

The section option is not good. I wouldn't vote for it unless we have a clear idea what we're replacing it with. 20:28, May 20, 2023 (EDT)

I shot up a discussion on Talk:Main Page a while back
(Edit: it's been mentioned in a vote) Talk:Main_Page because there's no other better place to start the discussion besides maybe a forum thread, but I guess it got overlooked besides a few comments. The link also includes image suggestions. 18:16, May 18, 2023 (EDT)
 * Way back, I did not look at the discuss page of the Homepage. I did not consider it in mind when composing this proposal. But, looks like 2nd option would win. 20:57, May 18, 2023 (EDT)

Removals
None at the moment.

Split major classic remakes
I was inspired by the Mario Bros. split proposal to make this proposal. Essentially, we have some remakes, like SM64/DS, the SMA series, & SMBDX split. With the Switch/3DS remake proposal, I feel like someone should do a classic remake proposal, whence why I'm doing this.

There are 3 options. Option 1 splits all major remakes. Option 2 only splits major remakes that would be in a strict definition. Option 3 is the "do nothing" option.

Proposer: Deadline: May 19, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

 * 1) This is my perferred option.

Option 2

 * 1) I'm fine with this, though. Secondary option.

Option 3

 * 1) Of course, if enough people are fine with the inconsistency, this would be fine, too. Tertiary option.
 * 2) This proposal is extremely vague and unclear in what it's trying to achieve and I still don't really see the point of it, so I'll oppose.
 * 3) Per Hewer, and the fact that the proposer doesn't seem to know which games would be split as well. Even if the goal of this proposal is to open a door for future splits, that door was never closed in the first place, and it's better to determine what needs to be split on a case-by-case basis.
 * 4) Per Spectrogram. This proposal in its current state is in this uncomfortable middle ground between being way too vague and having way too many potential ramifications. What's... What's even meant to be enacted if this passes? What articles are being effected? What does this policy mean?! It was mentioned this was apparently meant to be the prelude to determining potential articles to split in future proposals, but honestly, you need to lead with that, because we don't want to say "yeah, let's do it!" and then it turns out exactly 0 of the given games are remakes we agree should be split up, rendering everything a moot point anyways as we end up with some protocol that has an "exceptions" list that covers every possible application.
 * 5) Per all: It is extremely unclear which articles the proposer wants to split, especially regarding Option 2 which would split major remakes that "would be in a strict definition" (and even when clarifying that it would be like how we split modern remakes on a case-by-case basis, it's still rather vague). Clarity is key for a proposal with big ramifications like this one, so the proposer should make sure to provide a list of which articles would be split under Option 1, and a list of which would be split under Option 2; yet, they didn't provide any of these lists. Even when asked, it gets totally ignored in favor of other questions. This makes Spectrogram's theory of the proposer actually having no idea what games should be split very plausible, which, for a proposal like this, is a huge problem. If you don't know what should be split for your proposal to split articles, then why bother making it? Should this proposal be tried by someone else another day, please think of the articles you want to split first, and make sure to list them when you do make the proposal.
 * 6) per all. everyone else here has said it perfectly.

Comments
What exactly do you mean by "classic remake" here? That's much too vague. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:48, May 12, 2023 (EDT)

What games would fall in the scope of this proposal? Spectrogram (talk) 12:51, May 12, 2023 (EDT)

What "major classic remakes" are we talking about here? Which ones "would be in a strict definition"? Are there "minor remakes" we're excluding here? Ahemtoday (talk) 12:55, May 12, 2023 (EDT)

Whoa! Already, you 3 ask this! Not being rude, of course. Now, to answer Doc's question, "classic remake" is a remake of a classic game, unlike a "modern remake" which is something like Donkey Kong Country Returns 3DS, or Tropical Freeze Switch. To answer Spectrogram's question, games like Super Mario Bros, Donkey Kong, and so on, would fall in the scope of this proposal. Mario Bros is not included due to there already being a passed proposal for it. To answer Ahemtoday's questions, here's my answers. 1. I'm talking about remakes of a game like Super Mario All-Stars' remakes of SMB1, TLL, 2, & 3 that are still in the articles of the OG game. 2. Strict definition would be something akin to the DKC games mentioned earlier, Luigi's Mansion 3DS, & Poochy & Yoshi's Wooly World. 3. Minor remakes would be like splitting Mario Bros. Classic from Mario Bros. Battle, or Super Mario Bros. with its' FDS version. 12:57, May 12, 2023 (CST)
 * I think they were asking for a complete list of what articles would be split with each option. By the way, you should probably remove at least one of your votes, voting for every option is effectively the same as not voting at all. -- 20:35, May 12, 2023 (EDT)

SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)@undefined One user cannot support to every option at the same time. They should support to at most, one option. 00:01, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
 * You can support multiple. But not all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:26, May 13, 2023 (EDT)

I must say, this is probably the first time I've seen a proposer put their support in all options of their proposal. I don't think it's allowed to vote for every option though, because as Waluigi Time said, it's essentially like not voting at all. If every option is given a vote by the same person, it doesn't make a significant change in the standings. Another thing: I'm really confused at what the difference between options 1 and 2 are. Option 1 is "Split all major remakes", that sounds clear enough, but Option 2 is "Only split major remakes that would be in a strict definition", and reading that, I'm like: "what would does 'in a strict definition' even mean?!" I got to ask, what games are affected with option 2, and which games are not affected? I know Ahemtoday already asked what "in a strict definition" meant and you already answered that, but I don't feel any more enlightened with the three examples you gave him. All I'm certain of is that minor remakes won't be affected by either option. Listing all games that will be or won't be affected by either option (similar to this or this) would help a lot, as Waluigi Time said. 02:40, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
 * There is no rule against voting for every option on a proposal with multiple options though Spectrogram (talk) 03:09, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
 * There's no rule against it because it doesn't really hurt anything, but it's also pointless to do so. You can vote for every option, but you shouldn't because it accomplishes nothing. There's no difference between the current state of the proposal and if the proposer had decided not to vote at all. -- 12:14, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!! JEEZ! This is crazy! Let me try to clear more things up. Waluigi Time, PnnyCygr, Doc, & Arend have good points on voting, but I think on that matter Spectrogram sums it up perfectly. On the topic of what falls under 2, I was talking about how we split modern remakes under a case-by-case basis, option 2 would essentially be like that. It's nice to know that you understood option 1! One last thing. PnnyCygr, that at symbol thing made me get Porplemontage vibes. 09:39, May 15, 2023 (CST)
 * So do you have a list of games that would be split if option 2 passes, or is it just meant to pave the way for future proposals? -- 12:14, May 15, 2023 (EDT)
 * The second one. 12:42, May 15, 2023 (CST)
 * Look, man, we cannot really work here if we don't get any specific games that need to be split off, at least for Option 2. While I appreciate the slight clarity with the case-by-case explanation, that doesn't mean much without examples. Just give us a full list of what articles would be affected for Option 1, and a more trimmed-down list for the articles that would be affected for Option 2. And if you can't provide such lists, then perhaps this proposal a bit undercooked. It's quite vague as it is, so you might need to take some time, think it through, etc. 17:35, May 15, 2023 (EDT)

Fine, no one likes this. Can an admin cancel this, then? 14:30, May 15, 2023 (CST)
 * If you cannot wait for an admin to veto/cancel it, you can always move your proposal from here to Proposals/Archive. Make sure you reach the bottom end of the archive page (press the End key), then cut this proposal above and paste into that archive. Hope it help. 09:26, May 16, 2023 (EDT)
 * This is incorrect. "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals)." Spectrogram (talk) 09:36, May 16, 2023 (EDT)
 * Oh. sorry about that. I thought proposals can be cancelled within any amount of time (remember my sonic character proposal?). 09:42, May 16, 2023 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.