MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>[[File:Proposals.png]]</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear=all>
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==Writing guidelines==
===Standardize "History in the Super Mario franchise" headings under certain conditions===
Inspired by [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]]'s [[User talk:Nintendo101/flowerpot|flowerpot]] subpage (from an [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Nintendo101/flowerpot&oldid=4209600 earlier revision], before it had been removed), this proposal aims to standardize the use of '''<nowiki>==History in the Super Mario franchise==</nowiki>''' over '''<nowiki>==History==</nowiki>'''. This will help make it clear to readers what is ''Super Mario'' and what is not while reading articles, and prevent potential disputes once a standard has been set. Please note that this proposal is '''NOT''' about the ''DK'', ''Yoshi'', or ''Wario'' subfranchises.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
For an article to apply for the '''<nowiki>==History in the Super Mario franchise==</nowiki>''' heading, the article should meet one of the following criteria:
#If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and [[MarioWiki:Writing Guideline|Writing Guideline]] proposals ''must'' include a link to the draft page.
#Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. ('''All times GMT.''')
#*For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
#Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may '''not''' remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|administrators]].
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an [[MarioWiki:Administrators|administrator]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|administration]].
#If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.


<h3 style="color:black">Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format</h3>
#It is a generic subject (e.g. [[Grape]]s) or something from real life, like a person, with a fictional portrayal in ''Super Mario'' media, such as [[Thomas Jefferson]]. An example of this [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&oldid=4213618 was on the Dinosaur article before being reverted].
This is an example of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to <u>replace the whole variable including the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".
#It is from the [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] '''BUT''' has also appeared in non-''Super Mario'' media, popular examples being the [[Super Smash Bros. (series)|''Super Smash Bros.'' series]] and the ''[[Minecraft]]'' textures. Everything that isn't ''Super Mario'' would be subheadings of '''<nowiki>==History in other games==</nowiki>''', or '''<nowiki>==History in other media==</nowiki>''' if the subject also (or instead) appeared in publications, television shows, etc. not in ''Super Mario'' franchise. An example of this can be seen on the [[History of Luigi]] article.
-----
#Crossover content, including Nintendo products, as they appear in ''Super Mario'' media. Examples can be seen on the [[Game Boy]], [[Link]], and [[Egg Pawn]] pages.
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]</nowiki>


<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
For the first bullet point, this would help establish that real and generic subjects are not from ''Super Mario'' and makes the History heading less ambiguous. On the [[Dinosaur]] article, for example, are we reading about history of dinosaurs as they exist in real life, up to the point of extinction, or from the ''Super Mario'' franchise? It's the latter. For [[George Washington]], are we reading history about him from the 18th century or as he exists in the ''Super Mario'' franchise? It's also the latter, clearly.
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
For the second bullet point, this would help eliminate the popular misconception that ''Super Smash Bros.'' is part of the ''Super Mario'' franchise and help better contextualize ''Super Mario'' as it exists in other media, like sometimes ''Zelda'' or ''Minecraft'', rather than being integral to the same degree as their main appearances in ''Super Mario'' media itself.
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
For the third bullet point, this would eliminate confusion that the history is talking about Nintendo products in general, like when they were produced, the amount of sales generated, etc. and rather mention its appearances within the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself. History on Nintendo products themselves can be found on [[nwiki:|NintendoWiki]]. Similarly, for articles like [[Link]], it helps when the History section specifies it is of Link as he appears in the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Then connections to ''Super Mario'' go under the "History in other media" heading.


<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
To make it short, if this proposal passes, and <nowiki>==History==</nowiki> is changed to <nowiki>==History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise==</nowiki> (and split into a separate <nowiki>==History in other media==</nowiki> in the case of criteria #2) on an article that can be categorized by any of the three numbered bullet points above, '''users will not be allowed to revert it back to the initial <nowiki>==History==</nowiki> heading''', like in the [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=next&oldid=4213618 aforementioned case involving the Dinosaur article].
-----
Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.


To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT


__TOC__<!--
====Support for all three options====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I'm for this option.
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Yes. Also, for the flowerpot thing, I have that saved (with a few tweaks) [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)/Nintendo101's flowerpot old revision saved plus tweaks|here]].


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
====Apply to only crossover content and real products====
 
 
 
<br>
-->
 
<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.
 
:''For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see [[:Category:Settled Talk Page Proposals|here]].''
 
<h3 style="color:black">How To</h3>
#All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the ''brief'' description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "({{fakelink|Discuss}})". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{tem|fakelink}} to communicate its title. The '''Deadline''' must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{tem|TPP}} under the heading.
#All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. ('''All times GMT.''')
#*For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
#Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
 
===List of Talk Page Proposals===
*Split {{fakelink|Star Hill (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)}} from [[Star Hill]] ([[Talk:Star Hill|Discuss]]) '''Passed (belatedly)'''
*Remove the [[Time Limit#Countdown Timer|Countdown Timer]] section from [[Time Limit]] ([[Talk:Time Limit#Remove the "Countdown Timer" section and all that from the article|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Floodgate Handle]] with [[Gate Handle]] ([[Talk:Floodgate Handle|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Round Goomba]] with [[Goomba]] ([[Talk:Round Goomba#Merge Round Goomba with Goomba|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Goomba (Super Mario World)]] with [[Goomba]] ([[Talk:Goomba (Super Mario World)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''':June 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Delete [[Panel de Pon]] ([[Talk:Panel de Pon|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Fresh Pasta Bunch]] with [[Fresh Pasta]] ([[Talk:Fresh Pasta Bunch|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split Koopasta from [[Koopasta Dish]] ([[Talk:Koopasta Dish|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Shell Dash]] with [[Shell Mario]] ([[Talk:Shell Dash#Merge Shell Dash with Shell Mario|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 
==Writing Guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
 
==New Features==
===Make a "List of Blue Coin Locations in Super Mario Sunshine" page===
I thought about this idea, so that's why a set up this proposal. It basically says what it is in the name, make a page of that name, and the layout will be similar to the "List of Quotes" pages, with a new section for each place in the game ([[Delfino Plaza]], [[Bianco Hills]], eta) and each different Blue Coin listed in bullets, not numbered. I believe that this page should be made to make this wiki a lot more extensive.
 
PS. I will be on hatius by the time this proposal finishes, so I will need someone else to create the page if this proposal succeeds. Use YouTube playthroughs to help make the page.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|SKmarioman}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 11, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|SKmarioman}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Paperphailurethemariomonster99}} Per my friend. It would help me complete the game. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - Wouldn't it be better just to put the locations on the level articles?
#{{User|Hewer}} Similar to your [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Standardize a "Cameo appearances" section|previous]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Standardize the "Other appearances" scope to include anything that's not a Super Mario game|proposals]] about reorganising history sections, I don't really see what we'd gain from this. For the first and third bullet points, the edit summary that removed it from the [[Dinosaur]] page sums up my thoughts: "This is obvious and unnecessary". Of course we're only going to be covering the subject's history that's within our scope, I don't think anyone's visiting the Dinosaur page seeking a complete history of the Mesozoic Era only to be disappointed when they don't find it. For the second bullet point, I ask the same question as your last attempt to split up non-Mario appearances: why does it not being a Mario game make it worth splitting up? The assertion that they're not "integral to the same degree as their main appearances in Super Mario media itself" feels wrong, games like Smash are major appearances of the Mario characters and are important to their histories, sometimes moreso than appearances in actual Mario games (Smash Melee introducing Yoshi's [[Egg Roll (move)|Egg Roll]], Smash Ultimate being K. Rool's first physical appearance in a decade, etc.). I also again question whether "the popular misconception that Super Smash Bros. is part of the Super Mario franchise" exists or is worth "fixing" in such an indirect way (we already don't consider them Mario games to my knowledge anyway). The [[Game Boy]] example is the only one given where I see some merit in doing this, since we do give some coverage to the actual histories of Nintendo hardware and it could be worth distinguishing the history of their in-universe appearances from that.
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per Yoshiwaker
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Because this is the <u>Super Mario</u> Wiki, the inherent assumption is that any subject with an article appears in the franchise (including [[Link]] and [[Sonic]]), and that the "History" section would only cover its appearance in the ''Super Mario'' franchise. What else would it be about? If a "history in the Super Mario franchise" was to be implemented anywhere, I feel like it only makes sense for recurring subjects that debuted in the ''Super Mario'' franchise, but make recurring appearances elsewhere (like Chain Chomps, which make some a few appearances in ''Zelda''). But even in that context, I don't know if it would be appropriate. (I also don't agree with the premise that any in-game subject is "generic", regardless of its name or design. The [[grape]]s in ''Yoshi's Story'' are just as derived from the {{wp|grape|real article}} as the [[Sour Bunch]].)
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per both!
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per my edit summary Hewer quoted.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} Per Yoshiwaker.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|ThirdMarioBro}} Per Yoshiwaker.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|Dine2017}} Under criterion #2, common ''Mario'' subjects such as [[Goomba]] would have a long ==History in the Super Mario franchise== and a short ==History in other games/media==, making the two unbalanced. Also per all. (In the case of [[Game Boy]], I think ==Appearances in the Super Mario franchise== is more accurate, cf. [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] and [[Nintendo 64]].)
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per Yoshiwaker.
#{{User|Zero777}} Per Yoshiwaker
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Per Yoshiwaker.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Yoshiwaker.
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Yoshiwaker, the current format works just fine.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Yoshiwaker. The Blue Coin locations can fit in the exiting text of the articles quite handily.
#{{User|Theguywithtwohats}} Per All


====Comments====
====Comments====
For the record, it's a good thing the proposal's not going to pass, because Rule 10 clearly states that the proposer has to take action when that happens: simply warning us that you're going to be away and beseeching someone else to do the work for you really doesn't cut it. If you can't enact your proposal, don't propose it in the first place. - {{User|Walkazo}}
For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look. Also, {{@|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}}, glad to see that flowerpot page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:32, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
:"For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look." Thanks for the clarification! My support will still be there. "Also, {{@|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}}, glad to see that flowerpot page." Thanks! I wanted to keep/expand on it as a subpage of my userpage, b/c I didn't want any edit conflicts. You and {{@|Nintendo101}} are free to edit it if you want. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:43, May 17, 2024 (EDT)


:Well, if it was going to pass, I might have had a day to take action on creating the page. {{User|SKmarioman}}
Wasn't there a proposal about roughly the same thing not too long ago? You're meant to wait 28 days between proposals on the same thing, so if that's the case, we don't exactly wanna wait for a substantial amount of votes before calling attention to it. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:12, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
:No, I think this is different. That one had to do with removing franchise headers, which this one doesn't. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:23, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
::Yeah, this one is not about removing headings. It's about modifying "History" to "History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise" in one of three case, and in one case (if there's appearances outside of ''Super Mario''), splitting "History in other games/media"  into its own history heading. See what I did on [[Don Bongo]] as an example. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:39, May 17, 2024 (EDT)


===Add "Status Effect Given" in Recipe Infobox Template===
Where would appearances in things like Smash and Captain N go in this case? {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:40, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
I think it's a good idea for the Recipe Infobox template to have a "Status Given" part in it. It can tell us what status it gives or cures. And the template can have more info if the article about the recipe says it doesn't affect HP, FP, & Damage taken.
:"History in other media" (see [[Link]] article). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:41, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
::Makes sense. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:48, May 17, 2024 (EDT)


'''Proposer''': {{User|BoygeyDude}}<br>
{{@|Hewer|Nintendo101|Nightwicked Bowser}} I thought [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Oppose_13|"This is a Super Mario Wiki" as a argument was getting old]], but that's what you 3 are using! What happened in between? Is it not a old argument anymore? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 09:04, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': June 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT
:I don't think anything in the comment you reference contradicts any of the sentiments made here. No one is arguing subjects that originated outside of the ''Super Mario'' franchise (like Link, Sonic, [[Mad Scienstein]], [[Wart]], etc.) should not receive coverage, nor that appearances made by subjects that ''did'' emerged within the franchise should not be noted (like ''Link's Awakening'', ''Smash Bros.'', ''Tetris'', ''Qix'', etc.). Rather, because of the inherent scope of the wiki, it is assumed that a "History" section on this site encompasses the subject of the article's appearances in the ''Super Mario'' franchise and it is unclear to me why that needs further clarification. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:35, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
::But you said yourself in your oppose vote "Because this is the Super Mario Wiki", which, again, I thought was getting old as an argument. Hewer himself in the linked proposal said it! I'm just confused about what changed in between that and now. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 09:38, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::First off, why are you getting on Nintendo101's case for an argument that I made in a proposal they didn't even take part in? Second, my point when I made that comment was that "This is a Super Mario wiki" is getting old as an argument on its own to trim, reorganise, or otherwise alter crossover content like Smash, as Super Mario RPG keeps trying to do, whereas Nintendo101's argument is that, because this is a Super Mario wiki, we don't need to specify that our content is about Super Mario. The same words may have been used, but the context of the arguments is different. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:54, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::First off, I'm not. Second, I didn't know that the CONTEXT was different, I only paid attention to the words, not the context. Third, a "History" section only covering the ''Super Mario'' franchise kinda neglects the references and cameos. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:01, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Isn't the point of this proposal (which you're supporting) to have history sections that only cover the Super Mario franchise? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:05, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I would like to redirect you to point 2 of the proposal. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:31, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Does that not just prove my point? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:34, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::The history section is going to be split. That's the point of this proposal. YOUR point is just around 1/2 of the point of this proposal. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:45, May 20, 2024 (EDT)


====Support====
==New features==
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Per proposal.
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|Paperphailurethemariomonster99}} Per my best friend. This would be so USEFUL!!!
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - I don't think this would be too useful, seeing as only a few recipes inflict status conditions. Most items would have "none" for that section.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per Yoshiwaker.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} That is definitely a per all!
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Yoshiwaker.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
 
This is really better suited as a Talk Page Proposal.--{{User|Knife}} 19:07, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
 
May you please describe more by what you mean by "Status Effect Given"? {{User|Zero777}}


==Removals==
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment''


==Changes==
==Changes==
===No Starting Planet Left Behind!===
===Move ''Super Smash Bros.'' information for crossover characters into the list articles and delete their ''Super Smash Bros.'' profiles===
Well, here we are again. It's always such a pleasure. It's been over a month, and my viewpoints in regards to this matter still have not changed. Now, I'll say this yet again: the "Starting Planets" need better names! I don't know how many times I need to say it, but this is not a race; we would not name a planet "Pit Stop Planet" or "Finish Line Planet," so what's the deal with "''Starting'' Planet?" To reiterate what I said a month ago, renaming the "Starting Planets" would prevent a lot of issues, and is overall a much better decision in terms of consistency and accuracy than the way in which they are named currently. Again, I'm proposing that the name of each "Starting Planet" in every galaxy article be changed to "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)." This way, the affected planets are given actual names which coincide with the rest of the planet names in the article as being generally far less confusing and more understandable, though their position as the first planets encountered in a galaxy is simultaneously maintained. As for the galaxies in which there is only one planet to be visited, I'm now proposing that we drop the "Starting Planet" extention altogether, and simply give it a new name in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines (unless people have a drastic problem with that, in which case I could be persuaded to propose otherwise), given that it is, after all, the only planet encountered in the galaxy, and therefore leads absolutely nowhere after Mario lands on it. So, in these situations at least, the name "Starting Planet" is rendered fairly pointless. Because the name "Starting Planet" is already conjectural, nothing will be lost or compromised by renaming them as detailed above. Should anyone wish to view the previous proposal and its respective arguments, etc., please look [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 25#Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets|here]]. And like I said before, I would be more than happy to make the majority of the resulting changes myself.
This proposal concerns ''Super Smash Bros.'' information of certain characters listed in [[Template:Crossover characters|Crossover characters]]. It makes it harder to see the actual ''Super Mario'' content on said articles, like how the [[Isabelle]] page largely concerns her appearances in ''Super Smash Bros.'' while the actual ''Super Mario'' appearances in ''Mario Kart 8'' and ''Super Mario Maker'' are all the way below. In the case of [[Villager]], it starts off by showing the ''WarioWare'' appearances but then has this huge chunk of ''Super Smash Bros.'' information in between that and the appearances in ''Mario Kart 8'' and ''Super Mario Maker''.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Phoenix}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>June 5, 2011</s> June 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT.
 
====Support====
#{{User|Phoenix}} I definitely support this.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Take 2...per proposal.
#{{user|SWFlash}} Per proposal
#{{user|Nicke8}} Per Phoenix
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per all.
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} Per Phoenix
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all six!
#{{User|Ilovemarioandtoad}} Per Phoenix proposal!
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} Per Phoenix.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; I don't agree with adding "(Starting Planet)" to each section: rather, it can be mentioned that the planet is the first planet that Mario visits when he goes to the galaxy. Otherwise, I feel that this is an improvement from the current way we do each galaxy article now and I'll support.
#{{User|New Super Yoshi}} Per them all!
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Per Super Mario Bros.
#{{User|Paperphailurethemariomonster99}} Per All. I could help name the planets!
#{{User|Boowhoplaysgames}} Per All.
#{{User|Jumbods64}} Per All!
#{{User|MarioMaster15}} Per All.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per the reasons I opposed the previous proposal. This proposal makes no new arguments to convince me to support it this time.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per Bop1996
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" just looks unprofessional, in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with keeping the name "Starting Planet". Per Bop as well.
#{{User|Walkazo}} Per all, although, to me, this is still the lesser of two evils: I stand by my opinion that removing the planet sections altogether and putting all the info in the missions would be the best course of action (in other words, per what I said on the last proposal).
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - If you want it to work the second time around, provide a new reason. Per me in the first proposal's comments, and the summary of it in this comments section.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all, including all who opposed the last proposal.
#{{User|Turboo}} - per all
#{{User|young Master Luma}} One of your reasons for changing the names is that "'Starting Planet' is already conjectural". The names you would change "Starting Planet" to would be conjectural, too! Also, labeling a planet as "Starting Planet" is a great way to help people in recognizing which planet it is. Also, per everyone before me.
#{{User|Zero777}} I don't think it's a good idea, per all.
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} I'm back from my abscence. Anyway, we already discussed this. Per all.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - Per all.
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - Per Gamefreak.
#{{user|Bloc Partier}} - Per Walkazo. The planets should have never had a section. IIRC, we simply put planets on the pages because, when SMG1 was first announced, all we had to go on was the planets. Not that that's terribly important to my vote, but still. I don't think that we ever ''had'' to have specific descriptions of the planets.
 
====Comments====
First off, your argument of the term "starting planet" being just as effective as any other planet is invalid, as having set names for the planets you begin on in every galaxy will set a precedent, which readers browsing our articles will be able to recognize, and use to find the planet where Mario starts. And I agree with Gamefreak when he says that adding (Starting Planet) in brackets looks unprofessional; you still have yet to provide a reason why the creative name is better than "starting planet".
 
Secondly, adding in random names to articles without the names being fully decided on will cause dispute among users. For example, the galaxy where Megaleg is battled. The first planet (with the bullet bills). What would it be called? User1 might say it should be the Bullet Bill Planet, but then User2 decides that it would be more accurate to describe it as the Cage Planet. Then while those two are arguing, User3 changes it to the Black Hole Planet. What I'm trying to point out is that there is only ''one'' name that perfectly describes the starting planet - "Starting Planet".
 
Thirdly, while you may have opted to do most of the work yourself, this definitely does not remove the point of the matter; it is a whole lot of work (for everyone, including you) for absolutely no benefit. In fact, as I stated in the first paragraph, it is a whole lot of work by everyone to ''hinder'' the articles. Which is definitely not the way to go.
 
Finally, I expect you to oppose this by bringing forth the examples of the Space Junk Galaxy (and the one other galaxy like it) where there is more than one starting planet. But, as I made a strong point of bringing across the last time this was opposed, there are two galaxies like that and I admit, those two galaxies would benefit. However, there are over a hundred galaxies in total and for those other 100+ galaxies, this change would not benefit them at all, and even go so far as to harm them (see above). In short, this proposal fails to provide any reasons in support of the change. All of the reasoning explains why it is not a bad idea, but none of it explains why it is a good idea. {{user|Marioguy1}}
 
:I think removing all the planets' section as Walkazo says is bad idea as it would result impossible to define what places the player will go specially in a mission of the galaxy - You know you don't visit the same places on every mission. On the other hand, I believe that the planets should be called according to a feature that the planet has in special. Well that's my opinion. {{user|Coincollector}}
::Well Coincollector, what could be a more specific thing - and special thing specific to a single planet - than "Starting Planet" in all but two galaxies, only one planet is ever started on. And if Phoenix would just stop proposing this, I would be able to run a TPP through on those galaxies to get them exemption to this rule. So like I said, what is more special than "Starting Planet"? The answer is nothing, Starting Planet is the ultimate description of the planet that is started on. {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
:::@Marioguy1: <s>You should know better than to think that I would use the same argument twice :)</s>
 
:::Well, first of all, what in the world are you talking about? There aren't over 100 [[Galaxy|galaxies]] total, there are only 91 between the [[Super Mario Galaxy|two]] [[Super Mario Galaxy 2|games]]. That aside, it seems to me that you're saying that the rest of the planet names that we have now ''are'' fully decided on, which of course is not the case. As you frequently pointed out last time, many of the planet names that we currently use still have not been decided on 100%, and are often changed accordingly. In my view though, this is fairly irrelevant in the long run. I'm certainly not saying that the constant name changing is a good thing for anyone, but it's going to keep happening regardless of what we may try to do to stop it. For the umpteenth time, the overall effect that this proposal will have on the repeated name changes will likely be a minimal one. As I type this, we currently have 11,480 articles. I highly doubt that 91 of them will dominate the majority of edits in the near future. As for the part about using definite names to set a precedent, perhaps it's time to set a new precedent. People will still be able to locate which planet [[Mario]] starts on both quickly and easily; that's the whole point of leaving (Starting Planet) next to the new name of the planets. So "Starting Planet" is ultimately still going to be kept intact, just in a slightly different format.
 
:::And besides, given that every single planet name is conjectural (including the "Starting Planets"), who's to say that naming them one way or the other is the correct way anyway? I mean, who decided on naming them all "Starting Planet" in the first place? I'm simply offering a naming method that will ultimately provide a much clearer picture of the "Starting Planets" in the mind's eye of our readers, and perhaps our contributors as well. Like I've already said countless times, there is a huge difference between planet names that ''are'' descriptive, and planet names that ''seem'' descriptive. Regular planet names ''are'' descriptive, while "Starting Planet" names ''seem'' descriptive, yet in reality embody everything ''but'' description. The name "Starting Planet" does not help anyone do anything besides indicate to readers that a planet is the first in its respective galaxy. If such a system was beneficial, we would have undoubtedly already replaced every planet name with "Second Planet," "Third Planet," etc. Why do we not do this? Because it would be unbelievably foolhardy and incredibly shortsighted of us to do so. No one in their right mind would be able to discern one planet from another if we were to do something like this. Readers may very well be forced to rely on pictures as a result of taking such action, something which no one should ever have to resort to, especially when one considers the fact that not every galaxy article even contains pictures of every planet that it features.
 
:::Not only is naming the "Starting Planets" definitely more effective, but it is also much more sensible in the long run. It's not about the new name being creative or cool, it's about it getting the job done correctly and competently, something which "Starting Planet" does not do a very good job of at all. I do see where you're coming from, but I honestly fail to see how the resulting actions of this proposal will cause so-called dispute among users. Like I said, how is it any different from what we have going on now? Names that have not fully been decided on are constantly being changed or reworded, and still I have yet to see a recent dispute between users over a planet name being changed. Why should I believe that this proposal will cause an overabundance of users to act any differently than they have been lately? Also, you say "there is only one name that perfectly describes the starting planet - "Starting Planet"." Well, I definitely agree that there is only one name that perfectly describes each planet (I'm talking about ''every'' planet, not just the "Starting Planets"), but "Starting Planet" is certainly not it. Each planet requires a unique name, because every planet is different in size, shape, color, texture, what have you, so how can one name that is the same for 91 separate planets possibly be the best name to be using? Obviously, not every "Starting Planet" is exactly the same as the one before or after it, so why name them all as such? It just doesn't make any logical sense. {{User|Phoenix}} 04:51, 1 June 2011 (EDT)
 
::::@Coincollector: That's the exact same thing that I said the last time, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it would work out very well. It would simply be too difficult to determine what we're talking about and where we're talking about it. Personally, I feel that the planet sections are fine as long as there is some definite semblance of consistency among them. {{User|Phoenix}} 05:04, 1 June 2011 (EDT)
Sorry, about the 100 galaxies thing, I misread some comments from earlier and basically rounded off; either way, 91 and 100 are both gigantic numbers compared to 2.


Now, first off, I'd like to point out that I have never said anything about the changes to the names dominating the recent changes, or implied in any way that this proposal will affect the rate of change in the other planets in any way. I am saying that if we change the title, that will be one more planet name to change and that will affect the rate of change of the starting planet (prior to this, it would never have been changed, after this, it will be lumped into the same category as all the rest). And about the precedent, I believe I noted that "(Starting Planet)" looks sloppy; it seems like we are going along trying to decide names (which provide no benefit to the overall article) and then, as an afterthought, adding in "(Starting Planet)", "Starting Planet" improves organization and should not be overshadowed by a name that does not properly specify the planet.
Besides, the List of ''Super Smash Bros.'' fighters pages feel kind of awkward that certain crossover characters do not have their information listed there with other non-''Super Mario'' characters, so this proposal aims to rectify that.


Secondly, "Starting Planet" does not just "seem" descriptive, it is descriptive. There is only one planet started on in each galaxy. This planet is the "starting planet". If one is going to try to get a picture in their mind's eye, they could get confused between "Lava Planet", "Rock Planet", "Volcano Planet" or any number of planets whose names apply to multiple planets. There is always the possibility that, unless we have an explicit symbol of the starting planet (that does not appear on any other planets in the galaxy; which are usually shaped so that they look alike), people will get confused and mix up planets. Nobody will ever mix up "Magma Planet" with "Starting Planet" as "Magma Planet" is not started on. And the reason we do not used "Second Planet", "Third Planet", etc. is that there are multiple second planets, third planets, fourth planets, etc. for the missions in each galaxy. Unlike with starting planets, where 2/91 have similar names, that scenario would apply to ~40/91 which is a slightly higher number.
The fighters on the list pages do not have their profiles, and I don't see why the crossover characters should have them but not the fighters already in the list pages, so if this proposal passes, all of that will be deleted too. This '''includes''' the Profiles section on '''other crossover pages''' like [[Knuckles]], [[Deku Baba]], [[Zangief]], and so forth, since it would be illogical for them to keep their profiles but not the protagonists of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, an inconsistency that's already present. But the status of the ''SSB'' content in the History section of crossover content OTHER THAN fighters in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series can be for a future proposal.


Finally, when I said this would cause dispute, maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant is that, for the time when we are changing the planet names, the users will see the edit, think the name isn't descriptive and then that will cause a dispute. I realize there are already disputes about the planets, but this would be like throwing another fish into a tank full of sharks. On the matter of whether "starting planet" is a descriptive name or not, it seems we have reached an impasse and it's your word against mine (or rather, your opinion against mine) so I don't think we can go forward there. I believe that "starting planet" is a perfect description for the planet started on, and you believe that to create a better picture, we need to be more descriptive. And your argument about starting planets being unique between the galaxies is an improper comparison; the starting planet in Galaxy A is not the same starting planet as in Galaxy B so the comparison does not work. {{User|Marioguy1}}
This will affect the following pages, and their ''Super Smash Bros.'' information (excluding profiles) will go into the following articles:


<nowiki>*</nowiki>Hrm* Portal 2 reference spotted. {{User|Young Master Luma}}
*[[Link]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.]]
*[[Isabelle]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate]]
*[[Villager]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U]]
*[[Kirby]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.]]
*[[Sonic]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]
*[[Mii]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U]]
*[[R.O.B.]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]
*[[Kirby]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.]]
*[[Banjo]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate]]
*[[Kazooie]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate]]
*[[Mega Man]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U]]
*[[Pac-Man]] → [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U]]


:@Marioguy1 (sequel) – "I'd like to point out that I have never said anything about the changes to the names dominating the recent changes, or implied in any way that this proposal will affect the rate of change in the other planets in any way." Truthfully, I was never trying to say that either, I was merely trying to express that out of the 11,000+ articles that we currently have here, I'm almost certain that the majority of users have more to do with the time available to them than continually switch the names of the "Starting Planets" back and forth to what each one personally desires them to be called, especially those users who could care less about ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]'', which collectively comprise about 0.02 percent of the total number of ''[[Mario (series)|Mario]]'' games that have been released to date.
There's also Samus, and there's a proposal to currently split the article, so if that passes, her ''Super Smash Bros.'' information will stay on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.]] page.


:I mean, if I asked ten random users at this moment what they thought about the goals of this proposal, I bet at least half of them would say something to the effect of "I've never even played either of those games, so I could honestly care less." And again, we continue to discuss this as if it is guaranteed that it will happen. Like I said before, there's no proof that every user is going to dislike names which haven't even been created yet. Sure, some may have a problem with them, but for all we know, 99.9% of users could not only really love the new names, but also like them a lot better than what we have now. I'm certainly not trying to put words in the mouth of every user who's ever edited this wiki, but we can't throw this out the window because of the possibility of an unfavorable outcome, which may, in fact, never occur, especially given the fact that there's no hard proof that such an outcome will even happen in the first place.
Note: A short summary of the character's role, or any connections to ''Super Mario'', will remain intact, similarly to how [[Mario#History]] has a short summary on Mario throughout his appearance while the main history page on Mario is located at [[History of Mario]].


:And as for the part about having the "Starting Planets" become part of "the same category as all the rest," that's exactly what I want to happen! There is no logical reason whatsoever to have any planet physically separated (whether purposely or otherwise) from the remainder of the planets in any given galaxy article, especially not when said planet is the first planet that we're going to be talking about in an article. Again, I'm not saying this was done intentionally, but you can't just name 91 planets one way, and then name the rest of the planets in every article in a different way. If you truly want to improve organization, then we need to pick either one option or the other, and since I've already proven that one option is extremely inappropriate, this proposal favors the more sensible of the two.
There are three options: Option 1 will enact all of the changes above, Option 2 will remove only the ''Super Smash Bros.'' profiles from pages on non-''Super Mario'' content, and Option 3 opposes everything in this proposal.


:Now, I know you keep saying that the name "Starting Planet" is descriptive, but in reality, it only gives the illusion of description. Ignoring the obviously distinct differences among 91 independent "Starting Planets" and naming them all "Starting Planet" simply for the sake of people being able to recognize what planet they start on when they enter a galaxy circumvents talking about the actual visible characteristics of the planet, and seems quite lazy to me. Naming every "Starting Planet" as such does little in the way of recognizing the specific attributes that each planet has, which just isn't right. You can't just name 91 planets the exact same thing and cover up how the planet looks and what it does, even if it does accurately describe where it is in relation to the rest of the planets in a galaxy. That's precisely why I want to give it another name, so that we don't have this problem. But that doesn't mean that I haven't fully taken the opposers into account either. If I hadn't, I would've simply proposed that we just give every "Starting Planet" a new name, instead of giving it a new name ''and'' leaving (Starting Planet) next to the new name. Long story short, people will only start to "get confused and mix up planets" when 91 planets that are obviously different in size, shape, function, etc. are all named the exact same thing, like they are now.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT


:Finally, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say at the end of the third paragraph; the fact that "the starting planet in Galaxy A is not the same starting planet as in Galaxy B" is exactly what I was trying to communicate when I said "Each planet requires a unique name, because every planet is different in size, shape, color, texture..." Let's compare, for example, the "Starting Planet" in the [[Good Egg Galaxy]] and the "Starting Planet" in the [[Honeyhive Galaxy]]. In the former, the "Starting Planet" is fairly small and dual-sided, with a bright garden-like area on the top, and a dark castle-like structure on the bottom. In the latter, the "Starting Planet" is considerably larger, and has trees, water, [[Bee]]s, fountains, rolling [[Boulder]]s, [[Sproutle Vine]]s...the list goes on. And this is just the case for the "Starting Planets" in two galaxies out of a total 91 galaxies! You're telling me that the numerous, obviously incontrovertible differences between '''''every single "Starting Planet" in all 91 galaxies''''' ultimately amount to nothing more than naming all of them the ''exact same thing''? I realize that they're all the first planets encountered in their respective galaxy (with the exception of two), but come on. We cannot, and we should not, sacrifice quality for consistency. It's as simple as that. {{User|Phoenix}} 17:35, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
====Option 1: Full support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.


===Make a Rule for Changing Votes===
====Option 2: Trim profiles only====
I'm noticing in a lot of featured articles, talk page, and just regular proposals, people change their votes, a lot. Now I understand if the article has been improved and whatnot so they change their vote, but to me, it seems more like "jumping the bandwagon". Maybe if there are popular people, or good friends, or even related, users always "per" them or acknowledge them. Again, I understand if major, MAJOR, improvements have been made so that user feels like they can change their vote, but again some users tend to "jump the bandwagon". There is going to be two sections. One will be to make new rule, other will be to keep it the same. I think the rule should be to go through a <s>dreadful, life-threatening</s> small process in which it will determine if they can change their vote. It will possibly to tell a sysop and give a sincere reason why, and the admin can decide if their reason is worthy enough of switching.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Secondary


'''Proposer:''' {{User|DKPetey99}}<br>
====Option 3: Oppose====
'''Deadline:''' June 9, 2011, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Axis}} I believe it's unnecessary.
 
#{{User|Nintendo101}} It makes intuitive sense to just list the ''Super Smash Bros.'' info on the pages of the character when available. (As a side note, the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series has a pretty intimate relationship with the ''Super Mario'' franchise, and I do not think we should be omitting coverage here just because SmashWiki exists. We don't address topics the same way.)
====Make a New Rule====
#{{User|Tails777}} If the characters have an article, I see no reason why Smash stuff should be singled out and removed just because it's not Mario related.
#{{User|DKPetey99}} I am getting sick of "bandwagon jumpers" and I think people should only change their vote, '''if highly necessary'''.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per all, especially Nintendo101
#{{User|ThirdMarioBro}} I think we should change the rule, as I've seen bandwagon jumping on other wikis. However, I'm thinking of a different rule: ''Users are allowed to change their vote whenever thay want, but they are not allowed to say "Per (insert username here)". Instead, the user must fully state their reason for which side they chose. This still applies even if the user changes their vote back.'' This seems more fair than simply limiting people from changing their vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} It's standard practice (and also pretty logical) to list any time a subject happens to appear alongside Mario stuff. [[Captain N: The Game Master]] is a good example - it's considered a guest appearance, so it doesn't get full coverage, but we still mention things' appearances there if they happen to be covered on the wiki for some other reason, e.g. [[Slime (Dragon Quest)]]. So why should Smash (where Mario stuff perhaps has a greater role than in Captain N) be the one exception? The proposal tries to argue about organisation and finding information, but I'd say unnecessarily splitting a character's information across multiple pages is the real bad organisation here. If people really can't bear to scroll through some Smash stuff in order to find what they're looking for (which, mind, might be the Smash stuff anyway), they can use the contents links at the top of the article to jump to particular sections no problem. And also, to be frank, I don't really understand what the proposal is talking about regarding "profiles".
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} Per all
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all, especially Hewer's reasoning.
 
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall. Personally I don't think it's a big deal to leave Smash info on character pages. There isn't much harm done.
====Don't Make New Rule====
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - This would be much more hurtful than it would be helpful. Usually, when someone is changing their vote, someone's argument has convinced them otherwise. I'm pretty sure that all of the time the sysop would say yes. Also, I don't believe that users who are switching votes are "jumping on the bandwagon".Therefore, this would just be a pain for users who want to change their votes.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} We have no way of knowing a user's thoughts when he or she votes on a given matter. For the sake of the wiki, we like to think that the user takes the matter into consideration and votes based on what he or she believes is the best or most beneficial option, but I think we are all aware that it is naive to accept the notion that every user's vote is cast based on that. That said, making a rule establishing criteria that would outline just when one could change his or her vote would be unenforcible. There is not a time in anyone's life in which one's viewpoint on any given matter is constant. It constantly is changing based on what is seen, what is heard, what is read. Because there are few users with the opportunity to be in the same room with another user at the time of voting, it is impossible to be certain whether a change in vote occurs because the user has been persuaded by an argument or because he or she simply seeks to adopt the opinion of the majority at that moment. Therefore, any attempt to discern one's motives one way or the other would only be a result of speculation and bias and would ultimately be detrimental to the wiki as a whole, as it would undermine the democratic principles under which and by which the proposal and featured article processes operate.
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} I, in fact, change my vote often, as compared to other users. It's a matter of my opinion what I vote for, and if I've had a change of heart or some sort of wiki epiphany than it's my decision what to vote for and whether or not to change it, and I don't think the 'sops need to be involved. It's not their job to decide whether my reason for changing votes is good enough; my opinion is my opinion and in my opinion there should be nothing requiring me, or anyone, to give a reason/excuse for changing a vote.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Way too restrictive for the voters and an unnecessary hassle for the admins.
#{{User|Xzelion}} &ndash; Per my comments below.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Since today is my birthday, I'll say it twice: Per all! Per all!
#{{User|Zero777}} Your definition for "bandwagonning" is too vague and this rule will be as ridiculous as the proposal start rule.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} why should people people be forced to ask an admin just to change their vote it just doesnt make sense since.
#{{User|Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum}} Now that I've thought of it, I'm against this idea. Per all
#{{User|Mariomario64}} Yeah, per all.
#{{User|Paper Yoshi}} - Per Bowser's luma and Xzelion's comments below.
#{{user|SWFlash}} Per the wordy comments above.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per all.
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Boswer's Luma, Xzelion, Mario4Ever, and everyone else. Even if one user gives a reason that causes a large number of people (5+) to per them at once, what that means is that the user being per'd probably has a good reason and has defended it in the comments section, not that they don't want to be on the losing side. When I change my vote, even if it is from the losing side to the winning side, it is because I have decided that the other side is better for the wiki.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I'm mostly aiming at stuff like [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/Unfeature/N/Petey_Piranha&diff=prev&oldid=1045497 this] being turned into [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/Unfeature/N/Petey_Piranha&diff=next&oldid=1045497 this] or [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/N/Boo&diff=1043600&oldid=1041591 this] to [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/N/Boo&diff=1048190&oldid=1048188 this]. Now this is not  because these are my proposals, its because the votes change so gradually without a good reason. {{user|DKPetey99}}
<s>[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Trim_the_Smash_Bros_trophies_page|This passed proposal]] already establishes that non-Mario trophies should be removed from dedicated character articles. Check out the bolded sentence and the rationale after it:<blockquote>It's simple. I propose to simply trim those trophies list pages to only the Mario/DK/Wario etc. character and cut the rest. '''This includes crossover characters that have pages on the wiki''' - while we may have a Link page because he's in Mario Kart 8, his Smash Bros trophy is about Link the protagonist of his own independent intellectual property and not Link the funny Mario Kart 8 man, and it leads to the bizarre situation of having a listing of Link but not the character his series is named after. Best keep things simple. </blockquote> I believe if option 3 were to win in this proposal, that decision would be overturned.</s> {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:06, May 28, 2024 (EDT), edited 15:14, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
:You never actually said what the rule would be >_< {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
:Okay, I'll remove that from the scope of the proposal then. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:09, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
::To go through a process before changing votes. I know it may seem annoying, but like I said three times, STOP "JUMPING THE BANDWAGONS"! {{User|DKPetey99}}
::Wait, hold on, I may be stupid. That simply specifies that the subjects who have pages on the wiki, but do not pertain to the Mario franchise, would be among the trophies trimmed from the trophy pages, but it does not specify that they'd be trimmed from their own pages as well. I confused myself and hopefully I can clear it up following my above comment. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:13, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::@Yoshiwaker, Man, you just jumped off a bandwagon! {{User|DKPetey99}}
:::I was about to ask about the example of me trimming the profiles from the [[Sonic]] page applies, but now I'm not sure what's going on myself. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:25, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::I just did that intentionally to prove how annoying it would be to ask a sysop just if I wanted to change my vote. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
::::That was about the lists of all trophies per game, not profile sections for individual subjects. Doesn't look like there's any overlap between these proposals. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 16:14, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Well, it ruins the whole proposal because other people who admire you, may do that and say "Per Yoshiwaker". {{User|DKPetey99}}
::::::What you really mean is that people will agree with me and say "Per Yoshiwaker"? I don't think anybody admires me... {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
 
Remember to properly format your proposal next time (i.e. include the "proposer" and "deadline" lines). - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
You know what I found interesting when looking at those links? They were changing from supporting you, to opposing you. You just seemed frustrated that people can and always will change their minds. I may vote for supporting you, but if someone points out a very good reason why it should be opposed, then people should be allowed to change their minds. Not only that but you, personally have asked people to support your proposals and even asked someone to do it as a personal favor to you, promising them that you'd do anything you wanted them to. So it's not okay for people to "Bandwagon" vote, but it is allowed for you to ask people to support your own proposal? <small>(examples: [[User_talk:Ilovemarioandtoad#Hi|Here]], [[User_talk:IGGY7735#Hey|here]], [[User_talk:BoygeyDude#Vote..|here]], and [[User_talk:YoshiGo99/Archive1#Vote.21|here]].) </small> You come across as a huge hypocrite here, wanting fair voting yet when it's your proposal at stake, you do whatever you can to win. You should care about what's right for the wiki, not whether you win or lose a proposal/nomination. Also why dump this all out on a sysop, we will get flooded with people asking us if they can change their vote, and what are the odds we care if they do? We can't outright accuse someone of "bandwagoning", people should be allowed to voice their opinions, and they deserve the right to change their minds without having to consult an admin. And just how, exactly are we supposed to judge if someone is changing just to "bandwagon" or not, how the heck are we supposed to know what they really feel? We can't read minds. Not only that, but this would discourage actual, honest people who want to change their minds, and whose to say the Wiki won't suffer because of it? {{User|Xzelion}}
 
@0777, jumping the bandwagon means to switch sides because one side is losing, or your friend is on that side, etc. {{User|DKPetey99}}
:Do you really think people do that? Seriously. <_< {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
::Etc. is vague, again, and per. {{User|Zero777}}
 
@Boswer Jr. And Tom The Atum, thank you for proving my point. We are down 9-2 and you don't wanna be on the losing side so you change. Thanks for proving my point! {{User|DKPetey99}} 16:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:No. He obviously just changed his mind. You are on the losing side so will you change your vote? {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
 
:Or he could have changed his mind but your right it's prolly cause he doesnt want to be part of the losing side my god man {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
::Except that you don't know that for sure DKPetey99. Your reasons may have seemed good at first, but after all the reasons the opposition brought up, maybe he changed his mind? You have done nothing to counter arguments. And also the fact that Tom the Atum has been on the losing side of a proposal before: [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Make_standard_template_names_for_like_friend_templates_instead_of_always_having_to_type_the_code|here]] which was quite the landslide and [[Talk:Double_Dash!!#Merge_to_Rocket_Start|here]] which was a close one, but he still stuck to his opinions on both subjects. Just because someone opposes you, doesn't mean their dishonest or "bandwagoning" some people can and always will change their minds. Rather than throwing accusations around, try countering one of the many good arguments people like Mario4Ever, Yoshiwaker, and Bowser's luma brought up. {{User|Xzelion}}
:::@Xzelion:To say the truth, you are right. I didn't want to change sides just because Petey and I were losing. I wanted to change sides because I read the users' reasons for why the opposed. They made more sense to me than the actual proposal, so I changed my vote to now what I truly believe. {{User|Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum}}
 
'''@Reddragon19k:''' Happy birthday! :) {{User|Bowser's luma}}
:^What he said. {{User|Xzelion}} </end off topic>
 
'''@ThirdMarioBro:''' Why do users need to restate the same idea as the other users? {{User|Zero777}}
 
:It's better than letting people get away with using "Per *insert username*". And '''@Yoshiwaker''', believe it or not, people actually do "bandwagon jumping" a lot. It can become a problem. {{User|ThirdMarioBro}}
 
::so what your saying is if someone gives a speech that sways you to change sides you can't just per them when any other time your allowed to per other users because if you change your mind your clearly a bandwagon hopper and should be punished for it i might be wrong on that but thats what i picked up {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
::'''@ThirdMarioBro''': You have no proof that people switch their votes just to go with the bandwagon, nor do you have proof that it is common; therefore, your arguement is invalid. Any arguement that assumes that people will bandwagon is not a very good one. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
 
:::'''@Yoshiwaker''': You should see what happens at my school with bandwagon jumping. There are a lot of children active on this wiki, and children do bandwagon jumping often. {{User|ThirdMarioBro}}
::::Just because somebody will do it in real life, where there can be pressure, does not mean they will do it online, where there is no pressure at all. Even if some people occasionally "jump the bandwagon" it will still be a nuisance for people who have just been convinced otherwise. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
 
===Merge all Crystal Star special abilities to their respective crystal star===
I propose we merge all Crystal Star special abilities to their respective crystal star.
 
'''Example:''' merge [[Earth Tremor]] to [[Diamond Star]]
 
I find them obscure to have the object that creates the affect and the affect in separate articles. Another reason is that the separate articles look rather small and merging them all is more professional.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Zero777}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT.


====Support====
I was going to address the opposition by stating that, should this pass, a short summary of each character's ''SSB'' role will remain on the page (See [[Mario#History]] for a similar type of example), but the main information will be on the list of fighters pages. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:42, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Zero777}} Per proposal


====Oppose====
Looks like the truncation of the moves helps a lot with accessibility, like on the Villager page listed above. Pages like [[Fox]] still have excessive profiles, and it seems weird to have those there but not on like the corresponding List of trophies pages. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 17:30, May 29, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} should we also merge all the star spirit abilities to the star spirit articles no we shouldn't there's no point you've given no argument as to why we should do this other than that the articles are small, i would like to add that we also have articles for every move in Super Mario RPG and those things are smaller than these
:Eh, I'd say it makes sense. The list of trophies pages are only meant to be lists of Mario trophies, but we happen to also have pages describing fighters in Smash, so why not list the trophies there where they're relevant? Again I raise you Captain N - the article about it is only about the show and its relevance to Mario, so we don't mention the appearance of Dragon Quest Slimes on that article since it has nothing to do with Mario in that context, but because we happen to have an article about Slimes for another reason, we mention the appearance there. Also, I find the "accessibility" arguments you keep going for a bit strange - there are people who might want to look at Smash information on this wiki, it's not just some burden that we have to avert people from as best as we can. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:54, May 30, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - Each Crystal Star has importance to the plot, and their respective move is a seperate move so it should have its own article. We have the partner's moves split from their articles so why wouldn't we keep these split?
#{{User|Nicke8}} ...We're gonna merge a paper earthquake with a star made out of diamond if this proposal passes.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
Proposals end at '''23:59 GMT'''. Please get it right next time: I am getting sick and tired of fixing your deadlines. - {{User|Walkazo}}


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
 
''None at the moment.''
===Articles regarding levels===
Being new here, Im not sure if this should be a TPP, but whatever.
Anyway, I noticed we have articles on Mario worlds (ex. World 1, World 2, World 6), but not individual levels (World 6-4, World 3-1). However, for Donkey Kong levels, we have articles on worlds(Cliff, Jungle, Volcano) but in addition we have articles on individual levels (Prehistoric Path, Jungle Hijinx, Hot Rocket, King of Cling, Weighty way, Cramped Cavern, etc.)
I say for consitency we do one or the other. I think Mario levels, especially NSMB and NSMBW levels, have enough contents and secrets to be individual articles. I am simply proposing we either add Articles for Mario levels or delete the articles for DK levels, for consistency.
 
'''Proposer''':{{User|Yoshi2go}} <br>
'''Deadline''': June 13, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Yoshi2go}}- I would vote my own proposal
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} i completely agree with this proposal most of the levels are long enough to where they should receive their own articles especially the NSMB and NSMB Wii ones
#{{User|Zero777}} Per proposal
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|YoshiGo99}} I don't think we should because all the levels in Donkey Kong games have names. Most of the levels in NSMBW do not just numbers like 1-1, 1-2 and so on. Also in the World articles we don't have long descriptions of the levels.
#{{User|Nicke8}} He stole the words right outta my mouth! I don't wanna go to the south! (I'm in a rhymey mode)
#{{User|Bowser's luma}} I wrote this before and now it is gone. I'll just type it again - Per FF65's comment below and YoshiGo.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per Mario4Ever's comments.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per my comment below.
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Mario4Ever and FF65 in the comments.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - Per all.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Good enough for a per all!
#{{User|Mariomario64}} There was already [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 25#Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articles|a proposal similar to this]] that failed. Per all.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
I don't even remember why the SMB levels were all merged but I think it has to do with the fact that they don't all have specific names (they all have names like world 1 - 1 and world 1 - 2). The Donkey Kong levels do have separate articles because they have specific names (such as Jungle Hijinx and King of Cling). {{User|Fawfulfury65}} 
   
:But i believe the levels do have semi-specific names ya know 1-1 and so one {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} 
::Uh, Goomba's Shoe15, 1-1 is not a name. Besides, the designation 1-1 (without a name) is found in ''Super Mario Bros.'', ''Super Mario Bros. 2'', ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', ''SMB: The Lost Levels'', ''New Super Mario Bros.'', and ''NSMB Wii'' (if I'm missing any, let me know). I think having the levels of each of these games organized by world is much more efficient than making articles for separate levels and then creating a disambiguation page for every instance of the level 1-1. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
 
'''@YoshiGo99:''' Why should that make a difference? {{User|Zero777}}
 
@Nicke8: You know that you can just say "Per YoshiGo99"? {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}}
 
:Yeah, but read what is in the brackets. {{User|Nicke8}}
Didn't Superfiremario make this proposal awhile ago? And didn't it fail? {{User|DKPetey99}}
:::Yeah, and your point is...? {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
::::No, I just wanted to make sure because this does seem familiar. {{User|DKPetey99}}
 
Why should it matter that the levels must have names? I do get what you're coming from but really, if a human doesn't have a name then is he not a human, NO he is still human. {{User|Zero777}}
 
:@Zero we aren't saying these aren't levels. {{User|Nicke8}}
 
I think the difference between this and SFM's proposal is that SFM just wanted to make level articles, but this proposal gives a vaid reson as to why we should do it. [[User:Ratfink43|Ratfink43]]

Latest revision as of 10:52, May 30, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, May 31st, 15:12 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing, DrippingYellow (ended May 28, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)
Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs, Blinker (ended May 15, 2024)
Delete Memory Card, Nightwicked Bowser (ended May 23, 2024)
In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species, DrippingYellow (ended May 26, 2024)
Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Standardize "History in the Super Mario franchise" headings under certain conditions

Inspired by Nintendo101's flowerpot subpage (from an earlier revision, before it had been removed), this proposal aims to standardize the use of ==History in the Super Mario franchise== over ==History==. This will help make it clear to readers what is Super Mario and what is not while reading articles, and prevent potential disputes once a standard has been set. Please note that this proposal is NOT about the DK, Yoshi, or Wario subfranchises.

For an article to apply for the ==History in the Super Mario franchise== heading, the article should meet one of the following criteria:

  1. It is a generic subject (e.g. Grapes) or something from real life, like a person, with a fictional portrayal in Super Mario media, such as Thomas Jefferson. An example of this was on the Dinosaur article before being reverted.
  2. It is from the Super Mario franchise BUT has also appeared in non-Super Mario media, popular examples being the Super Smash Bros. series and the Minecraft textures. Everything that isn't Super Mario would be subheadings of ==History in other games==, or ==History in other media== if the subject also (or instead) appeared in publications, television shows, etc. not in Super Mario franchise. An example of this can be seen on the History of Luigi article.
  3. Crossover content, including Nintendo products, as they appear in Super Mario media. Examples can be seen on the Game Boy, Link, and Egg Pawn pages.

For the first bullet point, this would help establish that real and generic subjects are not from Super Mario and makes the History heading less ambiguous. On the Dinosaur article, for example, are we reading about history of dinosaurs as they exist in real life, up to the point of extinction, or from the Super Mario franchise? It's the latter. For George Washington, are we reading history about him from the 18th century or as he exists in the Super Mario franchise? It's also the latter, clearly.

For the second bullet point, this would help eliminate the popular misconception that Super Smash Bros. is part of the Super Mario franchise and help better contextualize Super Mario as it exists in other media, like sometimes Zelda or Minecraft, rather than being integral to the same degree as their main appearances in Super Mario media itself.

For the third bullet point, this would eliminate confusion that the history is talking about Nintendo products in general, like when they were produced, the amount of sales generated, etc. and rather mention its appearances within the Super Mario franchise itself. History on Nintendo products themselves can be found on NintendoWiki. Similarly, for articles like Link, it helps when the History section specifies it is of Link as he appears in the Super Mario franchise. Then connections to Super Mario go under the "History in other media" heading.

To make it short, if this proposal passes, and ==History== is changed to ==History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise== (and split into a separate ==History in other media== in the case of criteria #2) on an article that can be categorized by any of the three numbered bullet points above, users will not be allowed to revert it back to the initial ==History== heading, like in the aforementioned case involving the Dinosaur article.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: May 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support for all three options

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) I'm for this option.
  2. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yes. Also, for the flowerpot thing, I have that saved (with a few tweaks) here.

Apply to only crossover content and real products

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) Similar to your previous proposals about reorganising history sections, I don't really see what we'd gain from this. For the first and third bullet points, the edit summary that removed it from the Dinosaur page sums up my thoughts: "This is obvious and unnecessary". Of course we're only going to be covering the subject's history that's within our scope, I don't think anyone's visiting the Dinosaur page seeking a complete history of the Mesozoic Era only to be disappointed when they don't find it. For the second bullet point, I ask the same question as your last attempt to split up non-Mario appearances: why does it not being a Mario game make it worth splitting up? The assertion that they're not "integral to the same degree as their main appearances in Super Mario media itself" feels wrong, games like Smash are major appearances of the Mario characters and are important to their histories, sometimes moreso than appearances in actual Mario games (Smash Melee introducing Yoshi's Egg Roll, Smash Ultimate being K. Rool's first physical appearance in a decade, etc.). I also again question whether "the popular misconception that Super Smash Bros. is part of the Super Mario franchise" exists or is worth "fixing" in such an indirect way (we already don't consider them Mario games to my knowledge anyway). The Game Boy example is the only one given where I see some merit in doing this, since we do give some coverage to the actual histories of Nintendo hardware and it could be worth distinguishing the history of their in-universe appearances from that.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Because this is the Super Mario Wiki, the inherent assumption is that any subject with an article appears in the franchise (including Link and Sonic), and that the "History" section would only cover its appearance in the Super Mario franchise. What else would it be about? If a "history in the Super Mario franchise" was to be implemented anywhere, I feel like it only makes sense for recurring subjects that debuted in the Super Mario franchise, but make recurring appearances elsewhere (like Chain Chomps, which make some a few appearances in Zelda). But even in that context, I don't know if it would be appropriate. (I also don't agree with the premise that any in-game subject is "generic", regardless of its name or design. The grapes in Yoshi's Story are just as derived from the real article as the Sour Bunch.)
  3. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per my edit summary Hewer quoted.
  4. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  5. Jazama (talk) Per all
  6. Dine2017 (talk) Under criterion #2, common Mario subjects such as Goomba would have a long ==History in the Super Mario franchise== and a short ==History in other games/media==, making the two unbalanced. Also per all. (In the case of Game Boy, I think ==Appearances in the Super Mario franchise== is more accurate, cf. Nintendo Entertainment System and Nintendo 64.)

Comments

For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look. Also, @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA), glad to see that flowerpot page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:32, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

"For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look." Thanks for the clarification! My support will still be there. "Also, @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA), glad to see that flowerpot page." Thanks! I wanted to keep/expand on it as a subpage of my userpage, b/c I didn't want any edit conflicts. You and @Nintendo101 are free to edit it if you want. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:43, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

Wasn't there a proposal about roughly the same thing not too long ago? You're meant to wait 28 days between proposals on the same thing, so if that's the case, we don't exactly wanna wait for a substantial amount of votes before calling attention to it. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:12, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

No, I think this is different. That one had to do with removing franchise headers, which this one doesn't. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:23, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, this one is not about removing headings. It's about modifying "History" to "History in the Super Mario franchise" in one of three case, and in one case (if there's appearances outside of Super Mario), splitting "History in other games/media" into its own history heading. See what I did on Don Bongo as an example. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:39, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

Where would appearances in things like Smash and Captain N go in this case? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:40, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

"History in other media" (see Link article). Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:41, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Makes sense. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:48, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer @Nintendo101 @Nightwicked Bowser I thought "This is a Super Mario Wiki" as a argument was getting old, but that's what you 3 are using! What happened in between? Is it not a old argument anymore? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:04, May 20, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think anything in the comment you reference contradicts any of the sentiments made here. No one is arguing subjects that originated outside of the Super Mario franchise (like Link, Sonic, Mad Scienstein, Wart, etc.) should not receive coverage, nor that appearances made by subjects that did emerged within the franchise should not be noted (like Link's Awakening, Smash Bros., Tetris, Qix, etc.). Rather, because of the inherent scope of the wiki, it is assumed that a "History" section on this site encompasses the subject of the article's appearances in the Super Mario franchise and it is unclear to me why that needs further clarification. - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:35, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
But you said yourself in your oppose vote "Because this is the Super Mario Wiki", which, again, I thought was getting old as an argument. Hewer himself in the linked proposal said it! I'm just confused about what changed in between that and now. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:38, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
First off, why are you getting on Nintendo101's case for an argument that I made in a proposal they didn't even take part in? Second, my point when I made that comment was that "This is a Super Mario wiki" is getting old as an argument on its own to trim, reorganise, or otherwise alter crossover content like Smash, as Super Mario RPG keeps trying to do, whereas Nintendo101's argument is that, because this is a Super Mario wiki, we don't need to specify that our content is about Super Mario. The same words may have been used, but the context of the arguments is different. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:54, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
First off, I'm not. Second, I didn't know that the CONTEXT was different, I only paid attention to the words, not the context. Third, a "History" section only covering the Super Mario franchise kinda neglects the references and cameos. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:01, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
Isn't the point of this proposal (which you're supporting) to have history sections that only cover the Super Mario franchise? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:05, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
I would like to redirect you to point 2 of the proposal. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:31, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
Does that not just prove my point? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:34, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
The history section is going to be split. That's the point of this proposal. YOUR point is just around 1/2 of the point of this proposal. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:45, May 20, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment

Changes

Move Super Smash Bros. information for crossover characters into the list articles and delete their Super Smash Bros. profiles

This proposal concerns Super Smash Bros. information of certain characters listed in Crossover characters. It makes it harder to see the actual Super Mario content on said articles, like how the Isabelle page largely concerns her appearances in Super Smash Bros. while the actual Super Mario appearances in Mario Kart 8 and Super Mario Maker are all the way below. In the case of Villager, it starts off by showing the WarioWare appearances but then has this huge chunk of Super Smash Bros. information in between that and the appearances in Mario Kart 8 and Super Mario Maker.

Besides, the List of Super Smash Bros. fighters pages feel kind of awkward that certain crossover characters do not have their information listed there with other non-Super Mario characters, so this proposal aims to rectify that.

The fighters on the list pages do not have their profiles, and I don't see why the crossover characters should have them but not the fighters already in the list pages, so if this proposal passes, all of that will be deleted too. This includes the Profiles section on other crossover pages like Knuckles, Deku Baba, Zangief, and so forth, since it would be illogical for them to keep their profiles but not the protagonists of the Super Smash Bros. series, an inconsistency that's already present. But the status of the SSB content in the History section of crossover content OTHER THAN fighters in the Super Smash Bros. series can be for a future proposal.

This will affect the following pages, and their Super Smash Bros. information (excluding profiles) will go into the following articles:

There's also Samus, and there's a proposal to currently split the article, so if that passes, her Super Smash Bros. information will stay on the List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. page.

Note: A short summary of the character's role, or any connections to Super Mario, will remain intact, similarly to how Mario#History has a short summary on Mario throughout his appearance while the main history page on Mario is located at History of Mario.

There are three options: Option 1 will enact all of the changes above, Option 2 will remove only the Super Smash Bros. profiles from pages on non-Super Mario content, and Option 3 opposes everything in this proposal.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Full support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.

Option 2: Trim profiles only

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary

Option 3: Oppose

  1. Axis (talk) I believe it's unnecessary.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) It makes intuitive sense to just list the Super Smash Bros. info on the pages of the character when available. (As a side note, the Super Smash Bros. series has a pretty intimate relationship with the Super Mario franchise, and I do not think we should be omitting coverage here just because SmashWiki exists. We don't address topics the same way.)
  3. Tails777 (talk) If the characters have an article, I see no reason why Smash stuff should be singled out and removed just because it's not Mario related.
  4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per all, especially Nintendo101
  5. Hewer (talk) It's standard practice (and also pretty logical) to list any time a subject happens to appear alongside Mario stuff. Captain N: The Game Master is a good example - it's considered a guest appearance, so it doesn't get full coverage, but we still mention things' appearances there if they happen to be covered on the wiki for some other reason, e.g. Slime (Dragon Quest). So why should Smash (where Mario stuff perhaps has a greater role than in Captain N) be the one exception? The proposal tries to argue about organisation and finding information, but I'd say unnecessarily splitting a character's information across multiple pages is the real bad organisation here. If people really can't bear to scroll through some Smash stuff in order to find what they're looking for (which, mind, might be the Smash stuff anyway), they can use the contents links at the top of the article to jump to particular sections no problem. And also, to be frank, I don't really understand what the proposal is talking about regarding "profiles".
  6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all, especially Hewer's reasoning.
  7. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all of yall. Personally I don't think it's a big deal to leave Smash info on character pages. There isn't much harm done.

Comments

This passed proposal already establishes that non-Mario trophies should be removed from dedicated character articles. Check out the bolded sentence and the rationale after it:

It's simple. I propose to simply trim those trophies list pages to only the Mario/DK/Wario etc. character and cut the rest. This includes crossover characters that have pages on the wiki - while we may have a Link page because he's in Mario Kart 8, his Smash Bros trophy is about Link the protagonist of his own independent intellectual property and not Link the funny Mario Kart 8 man, and it leads to the bizarre situation of having a listing of Link but not the character his series is named after. Best keep things simple.

I believe if option 3 were to win in this proposal, that decision would be overturned. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:06, May 28, 2024 (EDT), edited 15:14, May 28, 2024 (EDT)

Okay, I'll remove that from the scope of the proposal then. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:09, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
Wait, hold on, I may be stupid. That simply specifies that the subjects who have pages on the wiki, but do not pertain to the Mario franchise, would be among the trophies trimmed from the trophy pages, but it does not specify that they'd be trimmed from their own pages as well. I confused myself and hopefully I can clear it up following my above comment. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:13, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
I was about to ask about the example of me trimming the profiles from the Sonic page applies, but now I'm not sure what's going on myself. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:25, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
That was about the lists of all trophies per game, not profile sections for individual subjects. Doesn't look like there's any overlap between these proposals. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 16:14, May 28, 2024 (EDT)

I was going to address the opposition by stating that, should this pass, a short summary of each character's SSB role will remain on the page (See Mario#History for a similar type of example), but the main information will be on the list of fighters pages. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:42, May 28, 2024 (EDT)

Looks like the truncation of the moves helps a lot with accessibility, like on the Villager page listed above. Pages like Fox still have excessive profiles, and it seems weird to have those there but not on like the corresponding List of trophies pages. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:30, May 29, 2024 (EDT)

Eh, I'd say it makes sense. The list of trophies pages are only meant to be lists of Mario trophies, but we happen to also have pages describing fighters in Smash, so why not list the trophies there where they're relevant? Again I raise you Captain N - the article about it is only about the show and its relevance to Mario, so we don't mention the appearance of Dragon Quest Slimes on that article since it has nothing to do with Mario in that context, but because we happen to have an article about Slimes for another reason, we mention the appearance there. Also, I find the "accessibility" arguments you keep going for a bit strange - there are people who might want to look at Smash information on this wiki, it's not just some burden that we have to avert people from as best as we can. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:54, May 30, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4233447"