MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Monday, May 6th, 05:07 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 on proposals with more than two choices.
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 by a margin of 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 6, 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

• Merge Party Ball (item) with Party Ball (discuss) Deadline: May 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Arrow Switch with gravity switch (discuss) Deadline: May 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split "Big Boo (character)" from Big Boo (discuss) Deadline: May 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Potentially consider the Donkey Konga series, Barrel Blast, or Jungle Beat as related to DKC (discuss) Deadline: May 8th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Replace Princess Peach: Showtime!#Plays with Sparkle Theater (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Bar Spin to Wire Spin (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Speed Mario Bros. from Ultimate NES Remix (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Re-merge Pixels with List of references in film (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs (discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Hat trampoline (Cascade Kingdom) to Trampoline (discuss) Deadline: May 15th, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)

Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)

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)

Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)

• ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.

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)

Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 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)

Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 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)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)

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)

Merge Start Dash with Rocket Start, Koopa con Carne (ended August 17, 2023)

Use italics for the full title of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass, Hewer (ended September 15, 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)

Decide which series certain Yoshi games are related to, GuntherBB (ended December 14, 2023)

Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)

Replace "List of Game Over screens" and "'Game Over' as death" sections with a "History" section, DrippingYellow (ended December 20, 2023)

Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)

Make major changes to the MarioWiki:Links page, PnnyCrygr (ended January 10, 2024)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Merge the "Johnson" running gag into one page, 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)

Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)

Merge Masterpieces to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U articles, Camwoodstock (ended March 31, 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)

Rename Beanstalk to Vine, DrippingYellow (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)

List of Talk Page Proposals

• Split Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U into Template:Fakelink and Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Passed.
• Merge Garlic Pot with Garlic bottle (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
• Split Vampire Wario into Template:Fakelink and Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT
• Split Swooper into Template:Fakelink and Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
• Rename Castles - Masterpiece Set to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
• Rename Grinder (enemy) to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
• Split Koopa Clown Car into Template:Fakelink and Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.
• Merge Imajin, Mama, Lina, Papa, and Poki and Piki with Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic (Discuss) Deadline: January 7, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levels

Alright, this has bothered me for quite some time, so I'd like to try and change it.

Currently, the Donkey Kong series's boss levels are merged with their respective boss articles. Apparently this is due to the fact that the levels are pretty much just a boss fight, and thus don't "deserve" sepate articles. I disagree. Here's some reasons as to why I think they should be split:

1. It's wiki policy that all individual levels get separate articles.
2. Keeping them merged breaks the link between level articles. On level pages, the infoboxes have arrows that link to the previous and the next level's article. However, because the boss levels don't have their own articles, the flow is broken and users must look for the next level elsewhere.
3. We have articles for similar levels in the Mario series, such as Motley Bossblob's Big Battle and A Banquet with Hisstocrat. There's no reason to treat these ones differently.
4. K. Rool's page encompasses 10 boss levels because of this. People looking for a specific one would have an easier time if they had separate articles.
5. It simply seems "incomplete" to not have these articles.

I'd also like to mention that there's one boss level that actually does feature another section before the actual fight: Tiki Tong Terror. This information is nowhere to be seen, however, because there's no article for the actual level, only Tiki Tong.

Proposer: Aokage (talk)
Deadline: January 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Create

1. Aokage (talk) Per proposal.
2. Kart Player 2011 (talk) per all.
3. Walkazo (talk) - Per Aokage.
4. Mario (talk) Seems like we do need these pages. I wonder why they weren't created so far. update: Read Glowsquid's points, Walkazo does bring up a nice rebuttal over the problem of creating redundant pages. After all, levels deserve articles, bosses deserve articles, so bosses in a boss level should have one article on both? Perhaps it's better to create two just for the sake of flow, but maybe redirects can accomplish this? Depends if people really look for bosses rather than the level or the other way around.
5. Pseudo-dino (talk) Per all.
6. BabyLuigi64 (talk) Per proposal.
7. SuperYoshiBros (talk) This has bothered me too. Per all.
8. Toadbrigade5 (talk) Per Walkazo. *Trololololololol*

Don't create

1. Glowsquid (talk) - See below.

Comments

this "more the merrier" shit is going too far:

1): The quote-unquote boss levels can be barely called that. They either dump the player directly in the boss fight or (in DKC Returns) consist of a short stretch of land with a DK barrel. Any content they describe would be redundant with the individual boss pages. Standalone pages would be especially problematic for the first DKC's "boss levels", which are flat and (save for the last one) uses the same background graphic.

2): The existence of pages for similarly low-content Mario levels is not a strong precedent. An old proposal established DKC's featureless boss levels shouldn't have a page. Ergo, if the precedent was followed properly, the cited pages should not have been created.

3): The arrow situation sucks, but it's an argument to have the arrow lead to the next "proper" level (something the DKC 3 level pages already do), not create a bunch of useless pages when a simpler solution exist. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2014 (EST)

How do you feel about the Tiki Tong Terror level though. I get how you feel that those boss-only levels should not have their own pages but what about the one that has an actual level portion before it. Should that level at least have its own page? 3D Player 2010 18:18, 27 December 2014 (EST)

yeah. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2014 (EST)

I'm not going to log a formal vote on this, as I'm stuck between what I want to say and the policies I'm sworn to uphold. On the one hand, policy is firmly in favor of this, it falls right into our inclusion policy and standard editing practices. To bring up Glowsquid's points:

• 1. Largely isn't an issue as policy doesn't dictate the contents of a level, only that it needs to be a formal level for inclusion. While I agree that this particular instance is going to result in some rather problematic blurb type articles, that's a matter for editorial concern and not an argument we can really have in the proposal setting (or at least not without a lot of forethought from the proposer).
• 2. I agree that many of the pages in question shouldn't have existed in the first place due to a previous proposal (aside, a review of past proposals and how we keep track of them might be in order), this proposal passing is going to overturn the previous one anyway, so that problem solves itself. The real mess comes if this proposal fails.
• 3. This is an editorial concern at best, not something that would inhibit the creation of articles.

On the other hand, Glowsquid has a point. We are stretching the inclusion policy as far is it can go to squeeze out every article we can and I debate the supposed quality or non-stub status some of the results have left us with. Generally speaking, lots of articles are great for a museum, but less helpful for an encyclopedia and/or archive and we qualify more as the later than the former.

I feel that we need to have a formal discussion about how we apply our inclusion policy before this gets out of hand, but that's a debate for another time and a different venue. -- Ghost Jam 20:53, 27 December 2014 (EST)

If we were talking about overlapping articles about the same (or at least similar) subject type, I'd say not to bother with the extra ones, but something doesn't sit right about substituting boss articles for boss-fight level articles. It breaks the flow and navigation (like, you get to Rope Bridge Rumble, and then the page tells you it's the last level, and the infobox bounces you straight to Oil Drum Alley, and not once does it mention there's a boss fight in between: you have to go down to the nav templates and count to figure out which boss you're at (and hope it's never switched to alphabetical order); then if you do go to the boss page, you're dead-ended because there's no level template there), and it seems like an easily fixed gap. - Walkazo (talk)

Add an Easter Egg section to game articles

A while back, there was a proposal for creating sub pages for game easter eggs. A lot of votes mentioned that A. there aren't really enough easter eggs in a game to earn an full on article for them and B. they'd work better as a section in the game article. Well that's where this comes in. May as well start a proposal for adding an Easter Egg section. Not sure if it really needs a proposal but may as well throw it out there. An easter egg section can also cut down on the amount of Trivia a game article has (such as Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon for example)

Proposer: Tails777 (talk)
Deadline: January 6, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Tails777 (talk) Do I really need a reason to support myself?
2. Toadbrigade5 (talk) Per. An easter egg page would look cool.
3. Madz the Penguin (talk) Long Trivia sections make an article seem unprofessional (some wikis on Wikia, I'm looking at you), so even if I love Trivia sections, an Easter Egg section would make Mario Wiki seem like a more organized wiki. However, with an Easter Egg section, we might need to change the writing guidelines a bit to avoid speculation (ex. saying Bowser's inhale ability is an easter egg to Kirby's inhale wouldn't be allowed due to how different Bowser's inhale is to Kirby's inhale).
4. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per all.
5. Mario (talk) Meh, I've suggested this in the link the proposal provided. I can't say I haven't changed my opinion on this. Nevertheless, I don't see why you need an approval when perhaps creating the section would be good.
6. Viper26 (talk) Per all.
7. Pseudo-dino (talk) Per all.
8. 57sugoi (talk) Some of the things in trivia sections are kind of more like Easter eggs, so that could help this out. Also, adding Easter egg sections would make ate ices seem more fun and would definetely attract attention.
9. Megadardery (talk) Per all, the current Easter egg page is terrible, it feels very crowded and having every one of them for their respective pages feels more in form. Also, delete the easter egg page and slap it in the Glossary or something.

Comments

Ugh, @MadzthePenguin, I get that you like M@L:BIS but, why does everything you say need a reference? lol,jk Toad and his brigade! 15:09, 30 December 2014 (EST)

Because I love references. Oh, I also love puns. Wynaut use references, because if I decided Natu, I would feel sad. It feels Fawful when you can't type references, because I Toadley love them. Audino why I just did Mario and Pokemon references and puns in those two sentences. Maybe that's why we need an Easter Egg section! Madz the Penguin (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (EST)

Ok, that is Toadally Toadiffic. I'm going to stoad making Toad-puns Toaday. How you feel is definetly relaTOADable. But really, you must really, I mean, REALLY like BIS. Toad and his brigade! 19:58, 30 December 2014 (EST)

Didn't we formally decide to move Easter Eggs and trivia sections into the body of articles where able? I seem to recall that. Then again, maybe we were all operating on the assumption that it was a formal decision. -- Ghost Jam 00:31, 1 January 2015 (EST)

Not formally (at least not that I saw), but we had similar conversion when someone wanted to make a list for them. Yeah, Easter Egg page is terrible, so I support this proposal along with getting rid of that page.--

13:54, 2 January 2015 (EST)

Wait, we have an Easter Egg page? I just looked at it, and it's terrible for Super Mario Wiki. It's not Le Miiverse Wiki or Haunted Hathoways Wiki terrible, but for a Mario Wiki, ugh. It's like the Sticker Star of Mario Wiki. Madz the Penguin (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2015 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.