MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 15:48, January 27, 2024 by Axis (talk | contribs) (→‎Support)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, May 9th, 08:27 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 9, 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

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)
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)
Create The Cutting Room Floor link template, Bro Hammer (ended May 7, 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)
Merge Party Ball (item) with Party Ball, GuntherBayBee (ended May 5, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki link

This isn't so much a "feature" rather than a simple quality-of-life addition to the wiki. This proposal proposes to add an interwiki link to minecraft.wiki (i.e. [[minecraftwiki:]]), especially considering the multitude of subjects in Minecraft's Super Mario Mash-up pack with Super Mario-themed reskins. At the moment, when linking to articles on a Minecraft wiki, it is the most convenient to do so by means of using the {{Fandom}} template to link to the Fandom wiki when there's a higher quality independent alternative available that a majority of the community has left to. I try to avoid adding direct urls into wiki articles in general. If there was an instance where someone added urls to minecraft.wiki throughout every article where it could apply, this would be a multitude of urls that one would have to manually fix, due to the Super Mario Mash-up pack existing.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.

Oppose

Comments

Removals

Allow staff warnings to be appealed

See MarioWiki:Appeals

Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: "Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed." The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in MarioWiki:Administrators:

In general, administrators are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everyone else in terms of editorial responsibility. Staff members' votes and opinions are given equal weight to regular users in proposals, featured article nominations, or any other democratic process or informal discussion.

This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see a discussion questioning the validity of it) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged.

People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our MarioWiki:Courtesy; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between who gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special.

Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change):

  • MarioWiki:Appeals: Rule 1 will be removed
  • MarioWiki:Administrators: "While warnings given to users by an admin or patroller cannot be appealed, [T]he other staff members additionally have the ability to overturn any unwarranted warnings or blocks if they see fit."
  • Template:Reminder: "If this reminder was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
    ⬇️changed to⬇️
    "If you feel this reminder was undeserved, you may appeal it."
  • Template:Warning: "If this warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
    ⬇️changed to⬇️
    "If you feel this warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
  • Template:Lastwarn: "If this last warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
    ⬇️changed to⬇️
    "If you feel this last warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
  • MarioWiki:Warning policy: "If you were given a warning/reminder for discourteous behavior that you feel should have only merited an unofficial notice as outlined above, you can appeal to have the template removed. However, keep in mind that excessive impolite or disruptive behavior may earn you a warning right off the bat; if the administrators feel that you should have known better than to act the way you did even without an unofficial request to stop, your warning will not be removed. You cannot appeal a warning given by an administrator or patroller; if one is deemed inappropriately given, it will be handled within the staff team accordingly."
    • Q. I don't think I deserve my warning. What should I do?
      A. If you feel you don't deserve the warning, you have the option to appeal it as long as the warning in question was not given by an administrator. When appealing warnings, it is best to do so as soon as possible.

Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like any bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Mario (talk) M.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Yes, THANK YOU. After a certain recent incident, I'm also questioning the "don't give reminders to staff" rule.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) I honestly don't recall seeing a (formal) warning issued wrongly by an admin--if that ever happened, it was probably in the very early years of the wiki, when sysop responsibilities weren't outlined as well as today and the young'uns who achieved that position were obviously prone to mishandle it. For the past decade, the admins around here have actually performed their job quite commendably. That said, I very much agree with the principle behind this proposal that the administration shouldn't affect an air of mystique to bar regular users from questioning them; ensuring that users defer to a good conduct and a set of editorial rules, a significant part of which was established by the community at large, doesn't mean that your judgement is impeccable and that your word is final.
  4. Swallow (talk) This is certainly a lot more fair.
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) I do think this is the fairest way to handle formal reminders and warnings.
  6. Axis (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Doc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in MarioWiki talk:Warning policy or MarioWiki talk:Courtesy. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST)

Changes

Rewrite cited quotes into a new style

It's been two years since the {{ref quote}} was deleted. This time, I was wondering if there's a possibility to rewrite the cited quotes into a new style to match the Wikipedia citation templates {{Cite video game}}, {{Cite episode}}, and {{AV media}}. Here are some examples: 

<ref>[[Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development|Nintendo EAD Tokyo]] (November 1, 2007). ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' ([[Wii]]). [[Nintendo]]. Level/area: [[Bubble Blastoff]]. "'''[[Captain Toad]]''': 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'"</ref>

=

Nintendo EAD Tokyo (November 1, 2007). Super Mario Galaxy (Wii). Nintendo. Level/area: Bubble Blastoff. "Captain Toad: 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'" 

<ref>Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "[[Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas]]". ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]''. Episode 1. "'''Royal Parrot''': 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'"</ref>

=

Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas". The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. Episode 1. "Royal Parrot: 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'" 

<ref>Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). ''{{wp|Despicable Me 3}}'' (Motion picture). "'''Bratt''': 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'"</ref>

=

Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). Despicable Me 3 (Motion picture). "Bratt: 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'"

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: January 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) standard good, disorder bad
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per both, especially if this allows us to have citation templates.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Y'know? Now that it's been brought up, it is kinda weird we just lack a template for stock citations... at all. We have a template for consistent inter-wiki links, a template for consistent ways to depict controller buttons, a template for consistent ways to put dividing dots into navboxes, but a template for consistent citations is just Not A Thing. This would certainly make it easier to create new citations for people not as involved in the process if nothing else, and so long as the template follows our citation guidelines (which, it looks like they do), there isn't really any harm in having a bespoke template for these.

#Hewer (talk) As long as it stays optional, per all.

Oppose

  1. PnnyCrygr (talk) As User:Wayoshi puts it, "We are not Wikipedia." Also, unnecessary.
  2. YoYo (talk) per PnnyCrygr.
  3. DrippingYellow (talk) I had to think about it, but I'll have to oppose. I'm OK with books, magazines, and external websites getting sufficient citations, but going this in-depth for quoting a Mario game just seems redundant. And yes, I'm aware this isn't a requirement, but why would I support the addition of a template for an extravagant style of references I don't think are necessary most of the time?
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in an awkward situation here, because I do support having a more solid guideline for citations, but I feel like these specific guidelines are awkward for our purposes, especially the video game one. This level of depth makes sense for a generalist wiki that will usually be citing research papers and occasionally cites media, but we're a media-focused wiki. Half the time, the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me.
  5. Hewer (talk) On second thought, per DrippingYellow and Ahemtoday.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Normally, I'd be all for standardization, but implementing guidelines for citations is a delicate balance between the level of detail of the citation and the ease at which a user can add such a citation to an article. These citation formats are simply too complex for the narrower context of this wiki, and they include an unnecessary amount of arbitrary information beyond the quote itself, which is by far the most important part of the citation.
  7. Mario (talk) Proposal hasn't clearly outlined the issue nor does it explain how the effected changes will be an improvement. See comment.

Comments

Will this proposal allow for the aforementioned citation templates to be created? I'm not completely clear on what this proposal is aiming to accomplish, but I would support citation templates, to help create a consistency around the use of the references tags. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:39, January 20, 2024 (EST)

Last time a template was proposed for citations (by some bloke named Bye Guy, I wonder how he's doing today), people were strongly (and I mean, strongly) against it for a reason I can't, to this day, grasp. It might have to do with the fact that people somehow misinterpreted that proposal as "let's make *this* layout a policy" when it was more so "let's make a template that could aid in making citations more consistent and allow for quick mass modifications if the used format is ever codified or changed". Someone even accused me of wanting to "enforce policy" because of personal convenience, even though the very point of templates is to make editing more convenient, but I digress--my points weren't too articulate either, so I have my share of blame. Problem was, I couldn't have proposed a template without a given format, so I guess my mistake was the misplaced priority: some standard formats should have been discussed first, perhaps leading to a proposal specific to that topic, and only when an agreement was reached between users would I have followed up with a template proposal. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:10, January 20, 2024 (EST)
There is a frightening amount of times when random users try to co-opt a template convenience into a requirement. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:15, January 20, 2024 (EST)
Looking at the revision history of MarioWiki:Citations, it seems a format had already been imposed by the time of that proposal. I still don't see how a template would've been such a bad idea. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:08, January 21, 2024 (EST)
I don't even think it is a bad idea on its own, it's just that the templates being proposed here are copy-pasted from Wikipedia, rather than being based on the sufficient citation standards we already have. To be fair, we don't yet have a standard (in the rules) for in-game and film quotes, but if there was ever going to be one, this is certainly not it. DrippingYellow (talk) 13:43, January 21, 2024 (EST)

The idea of making citations of all kinds more streamlined and standardized has actually been on my mind for a while now, but I haven't made a proposal yet because I don't know exactly how to go about it. Like I said in my reasoning for opposing this proposal, some citation formats are just too complicated for most users to bother following them, which is why finding the right format for a citation can make all the difference towards that format being agreed upon collectively as an improvement; that's why this proposal failed and this one unanimously succeeded. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 20:52, January 21, 2024 (EST)

So, why this proposal? Citations should follow a certain standard, which I believe is illustrated in MarioWiki:Citations ("What to put as references") but perhaps not clearly, due to information on how citations should be formatted just mushed in a paragraph with no citation templates to work off, only examples. That being said, the proposal aims to change the citation style for quotes, referencing a talk page proposal for a deleted template, see Template talk:Ref quote; why was this deleted? Some people interpreted this as a proposal to create a general citation template, which I don't believe so since this proposal seems to strictly concern with quotations from fictional characters.

If so, the comment by Ahemtoday is a reason to oppose: the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me." That being said, I think it's appropriate to cite some direct gameplay videos for evidence of claims in the articles. I've done this for Metal Mario's page, particularly the part where Wario yells when falling underwater; it's for my own sake in properly recalling something trivial (but amusing) and possible to forget later on. But this proposal aims to cite video games themselves for quotes, which I don't even think it's the best way to do it versus a time stamped video.

If not, questions remain. What's the issue with the old system? Are we currently not even citing quotes? How are we doing citations for quotes currently? What's even the scope of this proposal, is it fictional characters or quotations from publications? What examples are there to show issues of the current citation method that led to the creation of this proposal? What do the changes even look like; what's "before" and "after"? Why should we match Wikipedia's system? It's not clear from this proposal. I've re-read the thing a few times carefully. I'm still left with confusion. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:57, January 22, 2024 (EST)

Create two specific citation templates

This proposal similarly deals with citation templates, but proposes the creation of a few not covered within the scope of a different currently active proposal.

I've seen inconsistently formatted citations all over the wiki (e.g. some add a comma, followed by "pg. 7" when it should be a period, followed by "Page 7.") and templates would be perfect for making sure the citations are formatted consistently all over the wiki.

I'm proposing the two following citation templates for the following purposes:

  • {{cite web}} - for anything that links to someplace else on the web, including PDF and digital documents.
  • {{cite book}} - for any books, including magazines and manga.
  • {{cite document}} - for any digital documents, such as PDFs, should there ever be a need to cite from those. (Edit: merged option into cite web)

I don't expect them to be strictly enforced, but should this proposal pass, MarioWiki:Citations and probably the Manual of Style should be updated accordingly.

Edit: Added an option for a single citation template (i.e. {{cite}}) that would cover for web links and publications alike, though I personally still prefer the two separately.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create both

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal
  2. PnnyCrygr (talk) Supporting this because of greater convenience and in order to allow for less inconsistencies with citing references.
  3. DrippingYellow (talk) Per all!

#Hewer (talk) Although I don't see how optional templates that aren't strictly enforced are meant to make references more consistent (feels like they'd do the opposite if anything), I don't care much about consistency of reference formatting so I don't mind this being an option to potentially make it easier.

Create one citation template for all types of citations

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary choice.
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) After dwelling upon this for a while, I've realized that citations for books and web pages ultimately share so many of the same parameters that different citation templates would be redundant. The easiest way to create a single template for both citation types is to include optional parameters, which I am confident that MediaWiki can support. On my sandbox, I've created an idea of what the template should look like in the editor, as well as explanations of each field. If either this option or the above option passes, I will make a proposal of my own with further details.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer. Besides, I think one singular template would be easier to deal with.

Oppose

  1. LadySophie17 (talk) Even if I would agree with the idea, I can't approve the creation of a template when I don't know what it will look like. I'm open to changing my vote if that changes.

Comments

One template for all citations would do just fine, no need for three. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:04, January 21, 2024 (EST)

Wikipedia has them separate. I'm not sure how one template would work conveniently for all instances of citations. Super Mario RPG (talk) 06:56, January 21, 2024 (EST)
Okay, well I added a separate option for those who prefer a single citation template. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST)

I would like to know what each template would look like before voting on it. I'm confused by what the document one means, for example. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 07:10, January 21, 2024 (EST)

Yeah i think cite web can cover for digital documents, come to think of it. I'll strike it out. These templates would probably be the same as what we have, only in template form. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST)

As Sophie asked, what will these templates look like? Are we going to use content from Wikipedia? Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:03, January 22, 2024 (EST)

No, it's going to be the same way we already cite links, just in template format. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:17, January 22, 2024 (EST)
What will the contents of {{cite}} look like? Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, January 22, 2024 (EST)
It would somehow integrate the functionality of the two templates. I made that option because Koopa con Carne said that only a single citation template should suffice. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:46, January 22, 2024 (EST)
My question was not answered. What will you write in the template page to integrate this functionality? Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:51, January 22, 2024 (EST)
Truth be told, I don't know. I originally intended the proposal to have only separate templates as an option or opposition, but since a user said there could be one that suits all, i added as an option. i wouldn't know how to design a template for all types of citations, as the coding, switch, and if expressions for that could be too complex, so if that option passes, I'll probably need someone to help. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:04, January 22, 2024 (EST)
Though I do know that consistent parameters would be like |last= (for author last name), |first= (first name), |title= (the work being cited). Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:26, January 22, 2024 (EST)
I agree with Sophie and Mario. At this point, it looks like the "Create both" option will pass, and two citation templates will be created; however, these templates will only be used if they're formatted in an easily accessible way, and the proposal currently provides almost no details about what the templates would actually look like if they were implemented. For this proposal to actually take effect, there needs to be consensus on how the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates are implemented and used, not just the existence of the templates themselves. That means that this proposal either needs to be updated with specific formatting guidelines for the templates, or it must be followed up by another proposal detailing such guidelines. If you don't know exactly what the templates would look like, I'm willing to make a follow-up proposal of my own to settle that issue. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 10:45, January 23, 2024 (EST)
Sure Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:58, January 23, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4125597"