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citation of a web page, but simply as a guideline to follow in case a page has already been taken down, or if a link to an archived version of a page is being added to a citation.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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

Removals
None at the moment.

Create articles for Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix songs
My reasoning for this is simple: Our coverage policy is that levels get their own article. As a rhythm game, Mario Mix's songs are its equivalent of levels. Therefore, they should have their own article.

I think these articles would be substantial enough to justify their existence on their own, as well. Each one would have an infobox primarily made to contain information on each difficulty's note count, and the article would cover the song's origin, role in Story Mode, what occurs in the background during the song, and what elements show up in Mush Mode.

The elements in question here are the names of these articles, and whether they should cover all of the original song's Mario-series appearances (similarly to how Mario is Missing! opens up articles for landmarks that then appear in minor roles in Mario Kart Tour). I see multiple philosophies here, each with potential upsides and downsides.
 * OPTION 1: Consider them all separate songs from their source material, thereby receiving entirely separate articles covering only their Mario Mix appearances. This approach neatly sidesteps all naming issues, and it works great with, which takes from multiple songs, but it also creates situations like Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) and being two separate articles. Maybe that makes sense, though, especially with our increasingly split-heavy approach to level articles.
 * OPTION 2: Consider the Mario Mix songs arrangements of the song they're based on, and give those songs articles covering all their appearances, including their Mario Mix ones with the information outlined above. (Note that Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.), Underwater Theme, Fever, and Underground Theme all already exist.) This works excellently with things like and, but it also results in things like , having to decide on which Double Dash!! circuit to name Rollercoasting's article after, and Moustache, Barrel, and Gorilla. Most unfortunate here is the classical music - Mario Mix is most of these tracks' only relevance to the series, so it feels odd to have  and not Underground Mozart,  instead of Garden Boogie, and especially  instead of Always Smiling (seriously, they barely sound like each other). Maybe it wouldn't be a big deal since the Mario Mix names would all be redirects, but this still doesn't seem ideal.
 * OPTION 3: They're arrangements again, and we still cover its other appearances, but this time we use the Mario Mix names because those were the names when the songs were most mechanically relevant. The upside of this is that all the naming stuff that was awkward with option 2 disappears. The downside is that we're naming the articles for all these recurring and important songs after what this one obscure GameCube game called them once. This would rename the Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) to . It doesn't seem like the right move to me.
 * OPTION 4: Articles still cover all appearances of the song, but this time we name them on a case-by-case basis. With a few exceptions, the classical songs will use their Mario Mix names since that's their only relevance to the series, while Mario songs will use their original titles and be covered in articles that also cover all the other appearances of the song. The exceptions are, which is a combination of multiple songs from the original Donkey Kong; , because the name "Ms. Mowz's Theme" is close but has never been official as far as I can tell; , which needs the identifier for obvious reasons; and , which would use its Mario Mix name in absence of having anything better to call it. The disadvantage of this option is its lack of consistency, but it doesn't suffer from any of the awkwardness of the previous two options.

Oh, one more thing: yes, my argument for making Mario Mix song articles does also apply to the Donkey Konga series. I was originally planning on this proposal extending to those games as well, but I'm much less familiar and their situations are slightly different in many places, so I decided to just focus on Mario Mix for now.

Proposer: Deadline: May 18, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Articles cover only Mario Mix, use Mario Mix names

 * 1) I can easily see the reasoning for this one. While I'd probably prefer option 4, this also seems like it could be the right move.
 * 2) Per proposal and these being the equivalent of level articles.
 * 3) After seeing the drafts, I prefer the information be handled this way.
 * 4) No reason to pretend that articles for what are essentially just random music tracks that just happened to get redone for a dancing game would exist if they didn't appear in said dancing game. As for the issue of creating "redundant" articles, I see no problem here. We should be treating these like level articles, not music articles. The logic behind this proposal is that these are this game's equivalent of levels, not that Toy Dream's background music magically becomes article-worthy because it appeared in this game. It's no more redundant than splitting DKC boss level articles from the bosses when they're pretty much interchangeable.
 * 5) Actually yeah, 7feetunder brings up a good point I should've thought about while voting earlier: the articles should be about levels first and music second, not the other way around. Per.

Option 2: Articles cover all appearances, use original names

 * 1) Second choice, see Option 4 reasons.

Option 4: Articles cover all appearances, named on case-by-case basis

 * 1) This is my favored option. Articles like Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) show that major enough Mario-series songs can warrant articles, and here we have a bunch of songs that are directly mechanically relevant, being the game's equivalent of levels.
 * 2) This works for us. Don't want to avoid having articles for effectively redundant tracks, but having articles for as many tracks as make sense/within reason would definitely help a lot more with coverage, especially since the tracks are fairly distinct from one another (at least, as far as we could tell; admittedly, we're not very familiar with DDR Mario Mix, but what we've seen and what we understand about it and other DDR games checks out).
 * 3) I too feel like this (or Option 2) is the best option too, given that Option 1 might gives us multiple articles of themes we already have an article of, and Option 3 would give single-game song titles of remixes to the original themes that already have more well-known names. Sure, Ahemtoday's draft on Greenhorn Forest with this option isn't the best example, given the long list of appearances of the Greenhorn Forest leitmotif in Wario World, but I feel like that could be rewritten into a regular paragraph as well.

Comments
Personally, I think we should consider an attempt to list the original music for each arrangement more correctly; for instance, this table lists the original music for "Pirate Dance" being the Athletic theme of Super Mario World, yet the beginning is clearly based on the intro for Super Mario World's Ground theme; and with "Step by Step", the original music is listed as "Bonus game / Switch Palace" from Super Mario World: not only parsed with spaces as if they're two different tunes (even though they share the same music), but I believe it's also an arrangement of Vanilla Dome, also from Super Mario World, which the table fails to mention completely. "Step By Step" could also be a slower-paces arrangement of the Athletic theme instead of "Pirate Dance", the intro for "Step by Step" does sound like a mix between that and Vanilla Dome.

I don't know if the current listings were originally from Nintendo themselves or not, but I think some more thorough research may be in order for a couple of tracks. 19:44, May 11, 2023 (EDT)

For clarification, do options 2-4 create separate pages for the music like the recurring themes in Category:Musical themes or are they included in the Mario Mix level page itself like with Gusty Garden Galaxy § Music? If it's the former, the original proposal for covering recurring themes specifies that a theme needs to appear in at least 8 unique games. - RHG1951 (talk) 11:17, May 12, 2023 (EDT)
 * What I was envisioning happening was: if one of those options wins, we create (as an example) the article . This article has sections for both the song's appearance in Mario Party 5 as Toy Dream's theme, and its appearance in Mario Mix as Cabin Fever, which would be a redirect to that section (or simply the name of the article in option 3). I think that's the second thing. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:53, May 12, 2023 (EDT)

I'd personally prefer to see a draft of an article before I throw my hat in the ring. If I do support, I'm definitely picking option 1 - most of the tracks in Mario Mix are neither major recurring themes nor original songs ("songs" meaning they have lyrics, like Phantom of the Bwahpera), so we should be treating these like level articles, not song articles. Plus it's just awkward to be like "yeah here's an article on the music from Toy Dream even though none of the other Mario Party board themes have one; it appeared in some rhythm game so that makes it special". I am completely opposed to making song articles for the Donkey Konga games. There's no storyline or scenario behind the songs in that game, so articles on them would ultimately boil down to lyrics sheets for a bunch of random pop and rock songs. At best they warrant a list, like ones we have for the Mario cartoons. 09:24, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
 * Gotcha. I made a couple drafts for Starring Wario!: This one for option 1, and this one for option 4 (though it can be easily repurposed for options 2 and 3 with only minor changes). I chose Starring Wario mostly at random, for the record. Ahemtoday (talk) 16:57, May 13, 2023 (EDT)
 * ...y'know, on second thought, maybe I should've chosen a different song. They wouldn't all have big weird lists like that, I swear. (Though maybe that's just a sign I needed to stretch to fill the Wario World section with halfway-worthwhile information...) Ahemtoday (talk) 19:24, May 13, 2023 (EDT)

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.