MarioWiki:Proposals

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page

Current time:
Saturday, June 1^st, 23:49 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

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}}.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
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: "June 1, 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

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. 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 {{settled TPP}}.
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.
The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
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

Decide whether to redesign the Main Page (discuss) Deadline: June 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Include Rainbow Coaster & Rainbow Downhill back in the Rainbow Road article (discuss) Deadline: ~~May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT~~ Extended to June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Consider Spike Top derived from both Buzzy Beetles and Spinies (discuss) Deadline: June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Merge Iron Cleft with The Iron Adonis Twins (discuss) Deadline: June 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Merge Meat (object) with Meat (discuss) Deadline: June 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Re-merge Frog (Yoshi's Story) with Frog (discuss) Deadline: June 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Merge the corresponding chef-named recipes (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Merge Silver Credit and Gold Credit to Silver Card and Golden Card, respectively (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Move Moo Moo back to cow (discuss) Deadline: June 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Split Samus from List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Move attack info from Super Hammer to Spin Hammer and move the latter to Super Hammer (move) (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Add Mario Bros. as a related game to the Super Mario series (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Move Chain Chompikins from Madame Broode to Big Chain Chomp (discuss) Deadline: June 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Unimplemented proposals

#	Proposal	User	Date
1	Create boss level articles for Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land series Notes: The DK: King of Swing boss levels, while not explicitly covered by this proposal, should receive the same treatment. All Donkey Kong Land boss levels have been created.	Aokage (talk)	January 3, 2015
2	Expand the Behemoth King article	Owencrazyboy9 (talk)	December 23, 2017
3	Decide how to cover recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series	BBQ Turtle (talk)	July 17, 2018
4	Reorganize Map	LudwigVon (talk)	July 17, 2019
5	Split Jump Block (Mario & Wario) from Note Block	Alternis (talk)	July 21, 2019
6	Reorganize and split Gallery:Toys and other Merchandise galleries	Results May Vary (talk)	July 30, 2019
7	Split the Ice Skate and Swim Ring variants of the Goomba	FanOfYoshi (talk)	August 17, 2019
8	Split Buckies from Noki	FanOfYoshi (talk)	August 28, 2019
9	Create articles on the River Survival routes in Super Mario Party	Toadette the Achiever (talk)	November 2, 2019
10	Include information on Construction Zone for the rest of the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series	Bye Guy (talk)	November 24, 2019
11	Split Big/Giant Shy Guy from Mega Guy	LinkTheLefty (talk)	February 11, 2020
12	Merge Fright Jar and Fright Mask	Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)	February 26, 2020
13	Split backwards somersault info and merge it to Backflip	Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)	February 26, 2020
14	Prune White Shy Guy to remove non-Yoshi's Story information	Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)	February 26, 2020
15	Merge Chain-Link and Fence	Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)	February 26, 2020
16	Merge Jelly Pop with Jelly Candy and Coco Pop with Coco Candy	Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)	March 21, 2020
17	Create a "character/species" infobox	Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)	April 16, 2020

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Create a template for citations

Go to the list of Yoshi's Island glitches page and scroll down to the bottom. See those huge blue stacks of undefined links? They make me a little uneasy to be honest. Not a great issue, but they certainly would look better if they were formatted more like this, tidy and comprehensive.

When citing a source, some users are careful to note the author, website of origin, and date of retrieval, while others are content with just putting a link forefront. The way citations are currently formatted on the wiki is, therefore, quite arbitrary and unprofessional. Wikipedia has a template specially created to make citing sources tidy and consistent, and I think we should follow their model for the mere sake of professionalism. This also has the advantage of not having to type in every single character and risk omitting a period or a bracket, at least for me, as they would already be a part of the template.

The template can be used to cite virtually anything, from books, magazines and guides to websites, and have their publication date, publisher and other details mentioned as well, provided their corresponding parameters in the code are filled in. If the proposal passes, the following code, which is similar to what Wikipedia has, will be used:

{{Citation
| name       =
| date       =
| url        =
| title      =
| page       =
| source     =
| accessdate =
}}

which, when incorporated, should produce the following line:

Name (Date). [URL Title]. Page. Source. Retrieved Accessdate.

Previously proposed code, modified to the above for brevity:

{{Citation
| last       =
| first      =
| year       =
| url        =
| title      =
| page       =
| publisher  =
| accessdate =
}}

which, when incorporated, should produce the following line:

last, first (Year). [url Title]. Page. Publisher. Retrieved Accessdate.

where the last and first parameters correspond to the author's last and first name respectively. If the author uses a username instead of their real name, then only the first parameter should be filled in; if neither of those parameters are filled in, the brackets around the publication date are removed.

Proposer: Bye Guy (talk)
Deadline: May 1, 2020, 14:54 GMT

Support

Bye Guy (talk) per proposal.
Waluigi Time (talk) This would make references look a lot more professional and consistent, I see no reason not to do this.
Duckfan77 (talk)Per all.

Oppose

Lord Grammaticus (talk) - I understand and agree that reference formatting is something of an issue, but the use of a template to solve the problem strikes me as dubious, especially when numerous resources that show and teach how to use MLA-style citations already exist. It's still on editors to put those resources and knowledge to use, and I feel like this is misguided in that specific sense of providing yet another something that might not be paid attention to.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - First off, the "last" and "first" are automatically flawed since a grand majority of YT videos and the like run on screen names. Furthermore, many of these could be misinterpreted regardless, and this is far less user-friendly than say, our aboutfile template. Furthermore, between MLA and APA, there is no "right" way, and a shocking amount of the resources for those are becoming subscription-only for some bizarre reason. On another note, just having "year" is additionally flawed for video-type sources, and "publisher" is extremely esoteric for a subject like this. We aren't writing scientific journals here.
LinkTheLefty (talk) - We haven't even fully sorted through the wiki's former use of contractions, and that was years ago. It would be a waste of time to expect us to go back to each and every citation and ensure they're all updated to a template standard. As noted, Wikipedia's reference style is more academic, while this is decidedly not, and thus not all of those are going to be applicable and many are going to have incomplete information. If you don't like informal citations, you're free to update them yourself on your own time, but please don't force other users to stop what they're doing and implement a rigid system that'll be more trouble than it's worth.
TheDarkStar (talk) - per all
Yoshi the SSM (talk) - per all especially LinkTheLefty.

Comments

@Lord Grammaticus: The same argument can be made against the analogous template used on Wikipedia, as well as all the formatting templates currently in use on this wiki ({{sic}}, {{wp}} etc.) The fact that someone may not be aware of such template doesn't make it less practical. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:10, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

Mm, fair enough. I'll mull over the vote later today when I have obligations out of the way. --

Lord G. matters.

14:16, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: I already addressed the potential issue with run-on names in the proposal:

If the author uses a username instead of their real name, then only the first parameter should be filled in

But I agree that using "last" and "first" parameters is not very user-friendly; however, it can be simplified with ease to something like "name". The "year" parameter can be changed to "date" very easily also, and "publisher" can be changed likewise to something more general like "source" (since YouTube can't be cited as a publisher). A large part of your argument seems to be fixated on easily modifiable details that I didn't bother to adapt here, which I admit is a mistake on my part. The rest, regarding "we're not writing scientific journals"--I'm sorry but it doesn't make sense to me. Does that mean that we shouldn't establish some professional conventions? While we're at it, let's scrap the entirety of our writing guidelines and disregard any past proposals. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:13, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

When I said that I meant, like, why cite things like we're citing a textbook? Additionally, your "Wikipedia uses it" argument is also flawed in that manner, as they have lengthy articles over nuclear physics and paleobiology that actually would warrant a citation in that manner. On another note, if a video is taken down and needs replaced, it'd be much easier to change the url and leave the "video showing glich" text alone rather than alter every bloody parameter. The convention you are attempting to establish is honestly little more than a burden considering the limited scope of what we cover. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:21, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

On another note, if a video is taken down and needs replaced, it'd be much easier to change the url and leave the "video showing glitch" text alone rather than alter every bloody parameter.

Doesn't that mean basically changing the entire source? That kinda has to be done regardless if a template is used or not. And the fact that Wikipedia has a different / much larger scope than us has no relevance to the matter. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:34, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

How? Changing a link is much simpler than changing the entire specific and quite frankly irrelevant extra information about a hobbyist posting a video. And again, the fact that what we cover isn't going to be sourced from things like scientific journals or textbooks has entirely to do with how this is unnecessary. Posting a quick link to Youtube or TCRF with a quick descriptor rather than filling out information that 70% of the time won't even exist offhand is much more efficient. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:46, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

Wait, sorry, now I understand what you are saying. You are against writing citations as per MLA conventions as a whole, and support something simpler instead, like just putting a link. I'm afraid I cannot agree with that; we should strive to look as professional as possible. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:42, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

...No? I'm against unnecessary fluff, which this is. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:46, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

YouTube and Twitter hobbyists have the same weight as an officially-endorsed/published author in this case if the source is relevant to our interests. They all produce or reveal information, and I have a feeling that this is what Wikipedia uses as a basis for citing all of their sources in the way they do. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:52, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

I think "source for official terminology" is a different thing than "verification that something that's not supposed to happen can happen." Attempting to force a style for majority incompatible sources isn't professional and it isn't proficient. What it is is profoundly prolonging profuse peripherals. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:07, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

If a convention is set in a particular area, then everything in there should follow it, even if it sacrifices "efficiency" in some cases. Context is key: it's not efficient to use academic lingo when you communicate with your peers, but it is going to be needed when you write a research paper, with no exceptions. Same here: if particular sources are cited in a way, the others should be cited in the same manner as well with no exceptions. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:19, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

"If a convention is set in a particular area, then everything in there should follow it, even if it sacrifices "efficiency" in some cases." ....you realize that's inherently a bad thing, right? Being inefficient at the "boon" of considering yourself professional in a needless manner is not a good trade-off. I don't intend to be rude, but I can't see this as anything but that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:24, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

You certainly could have worded that remark a little differently but I digress. Let's agree to disagree. Either way this goes, I'll still format YouTube links like how I proposed. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:30, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

...you literally said that you want to encourage the creation of inefficient incompatible rules, while admitting they are as such. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:33, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

Yes, I understood that. My issue was with your tone, but what you said now is perfectly fine. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:40, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

I'm wondering what your motivation for this is? What benefit does it have? "Looking professional" is entirely subjective. ZeldaWiki's source template makes me want to dry heave. A needless obfuscation of a task we want to encourage people to do discourages sourcing or even editing in general. Also, given current social circumstances, my mere bluntness is really acting as nice as feasible. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:46, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

At its core, it's mere preference, backed up by the fact that it's a practice a very regulated place like Wikipedia carries out. What makes me "dry-heave" is the opposite: lack of organisation, just seeing a url slapped under a headline. This template would not be "discouraging other people or forcing it onto them". If someone includes only a link as a source, someone else can format it later in the right way, which is--and excuse my use of italics, but I feel it's warranted here--a thing that is happening currently. A template would make that easier for people like me who want citations to look a certain way, but then I suppose this does not motivate an entire template be put in place as it's subjective. That is why I tried to look up to a website like Wikipedia and try to model my preference after certain criteria. The reason they made this formatting decision is precisely because it looks more organised, which is a sign of professionalism. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:01, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

I'm going to remain neutral on this, but I'll voice some things anyway. Other wikis use a citation template (Zelda, Fire Emblem, etc.) and it does help make things a little nicer. But they are also kind of big and clunky, and they aren't automatically added or easily accessible like {{aboutfile}}, so users could very easily miss it. Yes, the links should have an identifier to them, but that is an easy fix and we don't really need a template for them. I don't really like using the template, but I also acknowledge its usefulness. 16:24, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

When it comes to preference, I must affirm that I don't like it when I see just a link with nothing else. I like seeing where precisely it will lead me to before I hover my cursor over it. The issue of clunkiness can be resolved, I think, by simply orienting the template's code horizontally rather than vertically. Citations are already clunky as they are, taking a lot of space in the middle of text. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:30, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

MarioWiki:Proposals

How to

Rules

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

Contents

Talk page proposals

Rules

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Talk page proposals

List of talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Writing guidelines

New features

Create a template for citations

Support

Oppose

Comments

Removals

Changes

Miscellaneous

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Browse

Search

Navigation

Community

Tools