MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
<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 with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==Writing guidelines==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
===Standardize "History in the Super Mario franchise" headings under certain conditions===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
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.
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]"
#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 a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.


The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
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:


So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
#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].
#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.


__TOC__
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.


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
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.


== New Features ==
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.


=== Abreviation Pages ===
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].


I feel this should be added for begginers. I am proposing that abreviations commonly used in this Wiki should have their own page. It took me 2 months to find out what NPC means. If this does not happen, then I propose instead that we change all abreviations not used in games to be changed to what they really mean.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Jaffffey/sig}} <br>
====Support for all three options====
'''Deadline:''' January 24, 2008, 17:00
#{{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]].


====Support====
====Apply to only crossover content and real products====
#[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] I agree, because I'm new! I want to be able to learn things like that.
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} But only as redirects to their entries on the glossary, 'k?
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Stumpers.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per the one who Stumps.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User:Time Q/sig}} This is Super Mario Wiki, not Abbreviation Wiki. <s>There may be people who do not know what "NPC" means, but we cannot explain everything (which we would have to do if we made articles on abbreviations). And where's the problem in searching Wikipedia for NPC? It does not take 2 months, it takes 2 seconds.</s> Er, per Cobold. (I didn't know about that Glossary page, which is indeed a good place for explaining these abbreviations.)
#{{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:Cobold/sig}} - That's exactly what the [[Glossary]] is for.
#{{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:ChaosNinji/sig}} - Per Cobold.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per my edit summary Hewer quoted.
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Per Cobold
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} Per Cobold
#{{User|Jazama}} 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]].)


====Comments====
====Comments====
Don't forget to vote on your owm proposal! Anyway, abreviations are annoying but I disagree with your secondary suggestion to cut them out if this translation-page proposal doesn't fly. One major problem people might have will be "canon vs. fanon" slang, but the page could always be divided into those respective sections... I dunno, I have to think about this one. - [[User:Walkazo|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)


<s>What's about a List of Abreviations used on the Mariowiki?</s> Ah, didn't see the Glossary. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 17:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
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)


[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] That would work too! I just want someplace to learn the abbreveations. By the way, what does NPC mean?
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)
:Non Player Character, Characters that appear in a game, but that you can't play as. Those are mainly enemies or generic towns-people in the RPG games. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 18:19, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:"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)


Can't we do what Stumpers suggested and redirect abrieviations to their glossary entries?{{User:Knife/sig}} 16:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)
{{@|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)
:Would be possible if they had entries in the glossary in the first place, which is currently not the case. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:17, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: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)
::Cobold: I can help there.  So, what abbreviations are we talking about?  Just list 'em out and then I can take care of 'em all at once. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::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)
:::Well, NPC for starters. I guess RPG is we wanna be thorough. What other abbreviations do we use a lot (besides things like SMB for [[Super Mario Bros.]] 'cuz those can simply be redirected to the actual game pages)? - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
:::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)
::::They should be in the glossary as well, but I would redirect 'em to the actual game page, because the glossary will just say, "An achronym for ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', usually the game rather than the movie." {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::::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)
[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] 16:56, 20 January 2008 (EST) Cobold is right. "NPC" isn't in the glossary. I wouldn't know what it means unless Blitzwing told me.
:::::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)


'''''STUMPERS' LIST OF ABREVIATIONS TO ADD:''''' NPC, RPG, Bros. ''(everyone: feel free to add more!)''
==New features==
 
''None at the moment.''
== Removals ==


==Removals==
''None at the moment''
''None at the moment''
==Splits & Merges==
===Merge the different colored Yoshi articles===
I propose that we merge [[Green Yoshi]], [[Cyan Yoshi]], [[Orange Yoshi]], etc. into one article. I find it unnessacarry to have seperate articles on each color. We can easily merge each color and it's abilities into one article.
'''Proposer''': [[User:King Boo|King Boo]]
'''Deadline''': January 23, 2008, 17:00
====Support====
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - Per myself.
====Oppose, each color should have it's own article====
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}I don't see what the problem is. The articles aren't stubs, why should we merge them?
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} As it stands, I'm gonna say no b/c of differences in ''[[Super Mario World]]''.  I could change easily, though.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per all. We touched on this subject in that old [[Green Bird|Isle]] [[Yellow Bird|Delfino]] [[Red Bird|Birds]] [[Blue Bird|proposal]] (which hasn't been fulfilled yet...) and decided these Yoshi pages stay... However inconveniant it is to flick through them all.
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|THE YOSHI ARTICLES HAVE TO STAY APART. per all.}}
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] Per all.
#[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] Yeah, I thought about it, and they each have enough info to stay seperate. I agree with everyone.. and, there'd be no Orange Yoshi article (no article of me!)
#[[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] Per all except for the last 2 comments of Orangeyoshi.
====Comments====
Can you expand on your reasoning a little more?  I'm not sure which way I want to go yet. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)
We had this proposal before, it did not pass. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 01:41, 17 January 2008 (EST)
BlueYoshter, I don't understand what you mean by "THEY MUST STAY." Could you elaborate, please? {{User:ChaosNinji/sig}} This did fail before.
===Merge of the same stages/courses into one article and split the the different ones===
I propose to merge the various courses from the spin-off series that have their own articles. This also goes for those who have appeared in main games before, and ''only'' have changed layouts, with (almost) identical names. One great example of this is [[Bowser's Castle]] from the main-games which has individual pages for [[Bowser Castle|the stages named Bowser('s) Castle in ''Mario Kart'']] and even [[Bowser Castle (Mario Superstar Baseball)|the Bowser Castle stadium in ''Mario Superstar Baseball'']] while the Bowser Castle-stage for ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'' is STILL in the main-game's article of Bowser's Castle.
I also propose to split the pages that have two or more entirely different stages in the same article, mostly the [[Super Smash Bros. (series)|''Super Smash Bros.'' stages]], such as the article with [[Super Smash Bros.|the original's]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Melee|''Melee's'']] [[Mushroom Kingdom (stage)|Mushroom Kingdom]], two ENTIRELY different stages. Well, you may think "But they have the same name and design!" No, they don't. All stages based on ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' would have that design and the Melee versions is called Mushroom''':''' Kingdom, with "'''Mushroom'''" being the stage location and "'''Kingdom'''" the name.
(BTW, I is not neutral to English and this is the first time I porposes so if anything is spelled wrong or wrong in any other way, feel free to edit this.)
'''Proposer''': [[User:KingMario|KingMario]]
'''Deadline''': January 26, 2008, 20:00
'''EDIT 20/01''': Looks like i forgot the idea to add a category in which users can support one idea only.
====Support====
#[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] Per KingMario.
#{{User:Xluidi/sig|per KingM}}
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] Per King Mario.
====Oppose====
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|i have to oppose cause those are '''''completley''''' different places.}}
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} I like your second idea, not so much the first.  I wouldn't think you'd want to combine an article about a race track in a city and the city itself, would you?  Bowser's Castle is larger than most cities in the Mario series, so...  I wouldn't think that you'd want to combine these based on the fact that they have the same name.  Oh, and remember that we have articles on individual rooms in Luigi's Mansion?  We've already combined the clearly different racetracks, so at this point it'd be like making the article about the individual Toad a sub-portion of the article about his species.  Remember, we even split the [[Mr. E]] article (two minor subjects w/ same name = two articles). Merging is only applicable when you have minor subjects with different names, not major subjects with the same name.
#[[User:huntercrunch|huntercrunch]] Per Stumpers.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per Stumpers. Bowser's Castle isn't the same castle in most games, anyway. It is a place in ''Super Mario World'', a flying building in ''Paper Mario'' and a Bowser-Statue-formed Battleship in ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga''.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Stumpers.
#Nay to the First, Yea to the second. Per Stupers, in other words. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
====Supporting ''one'' idea====
====Comments====
Are you gonna vote, KM? {{User:Dodoman/sig}}
:I'm split. No to the first, yes to the second. Where do I put my vote? O_o {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
::If we're merging areas in the spin-off games with the main games, than shouldn't the same be done for ''Super Smash Bros.'' stages? Your argument about how they're different places is valid, however the same could be said for al the other spin-off places (i.e. [[Bowser Castle (Mario Superstar Baseball)|MSB's Bowser Castle stadium]] is certainly not the same as the [[Bowser's Castle|Castle]] he actually ''lives'' in). Also, the individual stages of most games (except more obscure games like the Japanese-only ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'') already have articles and not all of them have corresponding main-game areas, so it's going to be difficult acting on this Proposal. Then there's the other option of cramming all these odd-ball stages together into lists of stages for each game, which would also have links to the main-game artciles for the stages that were merged in that fashion. It's a very big and daunting undertaking, but I still don't want to vote against it, since if it's done right it ''could'' be beneficial... [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
InfectedShroom, you may want to put your vote in oppose so that the proposal doesn't go through?  If you don't you might lose both of your arguments. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 13:02, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:I think we should split this proposal into two different ones, people's votes shouldn't be influenced by only offering one rating on two different issues. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:05, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:Stumpers: You have a point. Thank you. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
=== Snifit or Snufit? ===
''Note: Message is edited from [[Talk:Snufit]]''
So, um, according to TMK, these guys' Japanese names are exactly the same as a normal Snifit's. On top of that, i and u are right next to each other on most English keyboards. They look nearly identical (especially in the remake, which makes almost all enemies look more like their traditional forms), and, floating aside, act identical as well--and the originals could jump and hover for a short time anyway. And this very wiki says that they were "accidentally" referred to as Snifits in one of the MPs anyway.... Considering all that, can we really say that they're intended to be different enemies? I'd suggest a merge.
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] and [[User:Knife|Knife]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' 26 January, 2008, 20:00
==== Keep as Snufit ====
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - See comment below.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per below.
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|PER ALL. A snifit has ''legs''. A snufit is like a ghost snifit, but theyre different :P}}
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per everyone.
==== Merge to Snifit ====
#[[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] - Per above.  Per below.  Per common sense.  Per logic.  And, most importantly, per the designers' own designation!
#[[user:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] - The fact that they were refered to as Snifit in Mario Party kind ofp oint out to the fact that those things are infact Snifit. I think the proposer could be more polite and reasonable, thought.
==== Comments ====
They're different species, but I do see what you're getting at with your arguments on the talk page. I agree that it's strange how Koopa Troopas started out quardrupedial and are now totally different but retain the same name. If it were up to me, the 4-legged ones would be called [[Shellcreeper]]s and only the anthropormorphic turtles would be Troopas, but it's not up to me, it's up to ''Nintendo'', and they say they're all Koopa Troopas. It's the same case with the [[Paratroopa]]s: they're just [[Koopa Troopa]]s with wings, but they've been given different names so we have to say they're different species, and the same goes for [[Snifit]]s and [[Snufit]]s. Of course, I'd still want to list Paratroopas as their own species (or at least sub-species) anyway, since they look and act different from Koopa Troopas, which are the main criteria for determining species in biology (aside from genetics, which doesn't really apply here as this is the '''fictional''' ''[[Marioverse]]'' where DNA means squat and anything can happen, including a species getting its wings knocked off and ''magically'' turning into another species). Maybe Snifits and Snufits ''were'' meant to be the same thing, but they're not. They act and look different, just like the two kinds of Koopa Troopas, and just like Paratroopas and Troopas; but like the latter, they got seperate names. It doesn't matter if it was a typo, ''Nintendo'' has spoken and we're obligated to follow it. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
I just want to point out that if this proposal pass, we should also perhap split the [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Goomba&action=edit&section=5 Super Mario World Goomba] from the [[Goomba]] article since they act differently and haves a different name in the Japanese localisation, which is kinda the opposite of this "Snifit = Snufit?" deal. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:22, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Exactly.  Whether NoA screwed up the localization or not, they were designed as the same characters (Snifit example) and different characters (Goomba example), and we should respect that.  I mean, come on--Bloopers were known as Bloobers in a few games, but we aren't rushing to make new pages for those!  You say it's up to Nintendo, Walkazo--well, Nintendo says they're the same.  Just because NoA typoed doesn't change that fact.  [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 13:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Your Blooper example doesn't work: Blooper and Blooper look and act '''exactly''' the same way. Snufit and Snifit are obliviously different (If similar) creature, beside, we are an english-speaking wiki, I think it make sense to follow the American localisation. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 13:17, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::Come on. The Japanese creators of a Japanese game say they're the same species.  The American translators change one easily-typoed letter, be it by accident or otherwise, and redesign them even less drastically than others that remain the same species. They then proceed to call them by the "other species"'s name even in American publications. Where's the logic in saying they're different? There is not a single argument for keeping it Snufit that doesn't apply to dozens of other changes you never questioned. The American localization has screwed up in the past.  We don't follow those mistakes.  What makes this one different?  [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 13:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::The difference between this case and [[Pakkun Flower]] (which is a half-translated Piranha Plant), is that Snufits actually ''look different'' and have ''different abilities'' (flying). So as there is already an official name for this sub-species, we should use it. Because these are a sub-species, not regular Snifits. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:26, 20 January 2008 (EST)
::::NoJ says otherwise. [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 15:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::::I was not referring to the name, but the appearance. Check again. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 08:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::And your point is?  NoJ says they're the same species.  NoJ designed them.  NoA may have said they're the same species with a minor typo, or they may have been foolish enough to try to make a new species out of something that's clearly not supposed to be so.  Either way, what's the point?  Every single creature in 64 that I can think of except the goombas changed in some major way from their previous selves.  "It isn't like the old snifits" is NOT a valid argument unless you're completely blind to all forms of common sense and pattern recognition.  There is not a single reason to say it's different--except for a ONE-KEY-OVER LETTER, which was later corrected anyway!  You people are being completely irrational! [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 14:26, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Keep a cool head. Anyway, do they fix this typo in SM64DS? If not, then they were meant to be a separate species. If they did, then they are Snifits. Either way, I think their official name in SM64DS should be the deciding factor here.{{User:Knife/sig}} 15:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It should be noted that, even when they are called Snifits, the "Snufits" are a sub-species nethertheless. They just have features regular Snifits don't, or better the other way round, they are lacking Snifit bodies. They are a subspecies, it is just the question whether they have an ''official name''. The Bloober <-> Blooper example doesn't really fit here because of that. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:09, 21 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Cobold, you're entirely missing my point.  Every enemy in SM64 has features they didn't before, so that is NOT a valid argument. Knife, are they ever even named ingame?  And I'd keep a cool head if these people would stop acting so ridiculously dense. -_- But hey, what do I know?  I'm only following the original creators' obvious-as-hell intentions, after all. Sheesh... [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 19:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Okay, so having looked at SM64DS's revamped model (it has a TAIL!), it's clearly intended as a subspecies.  This, however, does not prove anything.  After all, was not Bubba turned into a different species (Big Bertha, IIRC?) for the DS one?  Yet we still have the Bubba article for the original game's sake.  So, while it seems that 64's Snifits were apparently retconned into Snufits, they were Snifits in the original game. [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 19:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Citing Sources===
===Move ''Super Smash Bros.'' information for crossover characters into the list articles and delete their ''Super Smash Bros.'' profiles===
Around the wiki, we have always been quite lazy citing our sources. We do not have any system of giving references like at Wikipedia, and everyone just adds information he has taken from a random site. The best example for this is ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', which got flooded with information from questionable sites, or the name of the site was not given at all. In order to save our credibility, I suggest that we start to quote our sources, as long as they are not the game (/comic/TV episode/Brawl Dojo) itself, either, if we can get it, by Wikipedia's reference system or by simply by adding an external link like this: [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals]. This should prevent further unsourced speculation in the articles, and also prevent random questionable Trivia items like on [[Princess Rosalina]], as currently, to quote the user, there is "no need to source".
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:Cobold/sig}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' January 22nd, 17:00 (EDT)
 
====Use Reference System====
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per above.
#{{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}} - Per Cobold and it is illegal to get info from someone/where else and not say who/where you got it from.
#[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] I thought of doing a proposal about this matter, but Cobold beat me to it. Per Cobold.
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} I'm loving this.  Can we also start using the image infobox template to show which site we got it from in the "source" section rather than the game it is from?
#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} Haha, I always thought we had a reference system...we just didn't use it. But, yeah, it's needed.
#{{User:Knife/sig}} 17:35, 15 January 2008 (EST) A lot of effort but a lot of reward. Our wiki's credibility is  important.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}}I certainly don't see why not, and it's not like it's very hard to cite sources.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Per Cobold. I'm so sick of this unsourced crap! We need to know WHERE you found the information.
#{{User:RAP/sig}} Per all. Does it include the images in this database that needed cite sources too?
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Per DP, wait that's per-ing Cobold
#[[User:King Boo|That Guy]] We should definitely cite the sources.
#{{User:MarioBros777/sig}}Of course we should have this, it has helped on many occasions when doing so on Wikipedia. Per all.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} I'm down with everything everyone said.
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} It's a big job but it needs to be done.
#[[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] 22:47, 18 January 2008 (EST) See comment below.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per All.
 
==== Use not ====
#{{User:Peachycakes 3.14/sig}} Not only is it annoying for everyone to always have to cite they're sources, but why should your edits be reversed because of it. Yes, some of it might be spam, but most of it isn't, and if it looks suspicious you could ask them where they found it. Or even wait for the game to come out.
#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} That's not a very good example, most if not all of the information on Brawl's page is from Dojo!, and there's already a link for that.  Peachycakes also has a point.
#{{User:Mewtwo49/sig}} Per Glitchman.
 
==== Comments ====
Alphaclaw11: It's only illegal when the author holds the right on it. For information about Nintendo video games, you may always use it as a part of press freedom (when new game), and because Nintendo does not mind (obviously). The sites like IGN don't own the right on Brawl information, for example. Only when you copy a text 1:1 (e.g. GameFAQs walkthrough), it's possibly a copyright violation without naming the author. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 
I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. [[User:Alphaclaw11|Alphaclaw11]] 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
:IGN is an unofficial site. As long as the content we take from unofficial sites is about a Nintendo game, it's Nintendo's intellectual property, not the site's. And Nintendo game information/images are used on the whole wiki already under Nintendo's terms:
{{LLquote|All content on this website, including articles, artwork, screen shots, graphics, logos, digital downloads and other files, '''may not be used''' on any other web site, in any publications, in public performances, in connection with any product or service that is not Nintendo's, '''in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, in any manner that disparages or discredits Nintendo, or in any manner that is otherwise exploitative for any commercial purpose or that otherwise infringes Nintendo's intellectual property rights'''.|Nintendo|[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]}}
:So as long as these criteria are met and we quote or rephrase other sites, it's perfectly legal to take their information. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 
Okay[[User:Alphaclaw11|Alphaclaw11]] 12:20, 15 January 2008 (EST) but still, if it is from a non-offical site then you need to say where you got it in cause it was wrong
:Of course. That's what this is about. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 
Citation extensions literally cover MediaWiki.com on sub-pages galore, which I assume is Wikipedia's shortcut <nowiki><references></nowiki>. If we really want to go that far, it can be done. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 15:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)
:That would be great, clears the article from the links but also explains the page without the user having to click it. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 
Stumpers: The current rules of the {{tem|aboutfile}} template say that the source website should indeed be listed as "source". The problem is more that currently, older files didn't get the update, and we don't have a section for the game any more. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)


What if we're drawing from our personal experiences, do we cite the games themselves? Cuz that might seem a bit redundant, ex: ''"In [[Super Paper Mario]], [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], [[Peach]] and [[Bowser]] are on a quest to stop [[Count Bleck]] from destroying all the dimensions [Super Paper Mario, 2007]."'' (I know it's not a  proper citation, but you get the point). Also, what if you see screenshots of a game on a website, which to you cite? - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
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.
:IMO, what we should do is this: don't bother with siting a game on its own page and only site it once in its section in a bibliography.  If you mention an event from the game in relationships, you should site it as well.  But, let's see what the people who actually know what they're talking about think. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::Read above, I've mentioned it, of course you don't have to cite the games! This is mostly about unreleased games or other statements drawn from the internet. And even then, you don't have to mention the Smash Bros. Dojo 100,000 times in the Brawl article, it's okay when it is linked to only at the top. But [[Bob Hoskins]] could get a link to the Guardian interview which is avaiable on their website. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)


<nowiki>*</nowiki>AHEM* I have one problem with this proposal... Everyone looks at citing sources as just like on Wikipedia, but it's not really, we're about a series of video games, so the source could be the actual game itself. Everyone says things like "We need to know WHERE you FOUND the information" as if the internet is the only thing we have to find information about a ''series of video games''. I don't really see it being easy to just say "I played the game itself" on this place, seeing as how people seem to LOVE arguing about that kind of stuff, and it could be used to back up conjectural information for more minor video games. Of course, I don't really see how this would majorly effect citing sources much, since conjectural information is rarely placed on articles anyway... But, it may still cause conflicts, especially when it comes to obscure games. </pointless rant> {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
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.
:I thought you could site non-internet sources, though?  Maybe we could ask for people to say which chapter or something (for Paper Mario) or level (for SMG) they got the information from when they site their sources?  I dunno. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 22:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)


I think the sourcing system here (If this proposal pass) should perhap be less strict than Wikipedia. There, every bit of cretinous informations like "X organisation is the bad guy of the game" or "X character return from the previous game" require to be sourced, even if the information can be found in the game itself. I think only really obscure info (Like [[Nastasia]] having a crush on [[Count Bleck]]) or things like the crap about Rosalina being related to Peach in SMG beta should be sourced. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 06:55, 16 January 2008 (EST)
This will affect the following pages, and their ''Super Smash Bros.'' information (excluding profiles) will go into the following articles:
:You're right, we shouldn't get on Wikipedia level. It's mostly about speculation here. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)


Peachycakes 3. 14:You know, we can alway use the (in)famous "citation needed" tag of Wikipedia if the information isn unsourced. For what we know, the information added could be one of those "I heard somewhere that..." deal whose original meaning get warped over time. Sourcing mean we can verify the credibility of the infos. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 18:16, 16 January 2008 (EST)
*[[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]]


Alright, I too think we should cite. HOWEVER: I have done many things here that I just pulled out my DS and started looking for info. How the heck are we supposed to cite that? I never even go to other websites for info. I just look it up in the game or the guide. Another thing: how are we supposed to quote Official Guides? it's a bit hard... {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
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.
:A "reference" isn't necessarily a link. It may as well be simply a text string which reads "Nintendo Power Official Super Mario *enter game name here* Guide, page XX". At least, that is what Wikipedia's reference system allows perfectly well. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)


Well, probably we could do like what Geographers do when the map maps.  They write "Field Work" so just replace it with "Own Source" or something... {{User:MarioBros777/sig}} Could work...
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]].


:We need to know where we get our info. Before I posted a message on the talk page of shrowser, I didn't know the name was official because it didn't say where the name came from. If we don't give our sources, a lot of questions will be asked like mine. [[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] 22:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)
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.
::I've done that a lot, too.  Right now I'm trying to find where the term "Earth" was used to describe the "Real World" from the cartoon shows.  Could have saved me a lot of time if someone noted that. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 16:47, 19 January 2008 (EST)


== Miscellaneous ==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
===Outside Info===
'''Deadline''': June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Recently, I've seen a very large amount of Super Smash Bros. content all over the wiki, which includes stages, items, and all sorts of other junk taken from all kinds of other series'. I'll put it plain and simple, I believe that we should removed this immense amount of uneeded Super Smash Bros. series stuff(Including cutting down on the insane page for the game, [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]), since we are the ''Super 'Mario' Wiki'', not the ''Super Smash Bros. Wiki'', and with the amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl content we could even be the ''Super Smash Bros. 'Brawl' Wiki''. I know that this is the exact opposite of a proposal I previously made, but things like this just seem totally wrong how we're doing it... Everyone said no to my last proposal, but after it was archived, the immense amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl info continued to flow in, mostly about the stages, items, and character that where shown on ''Smash Bros DOJO!!'', and it almost seemed like everyone would have liked my proposal if it had instead been "Add more '''Super Smash Bros''' content to the wiki". If you havn't noticed from this whole thing, I am proposing that we shorten, merge, and delete pages relating only to the Super Smash Bros. series, or other series' that where introduced to the Mario Wiki through Super Smash Bros.


'''Proposer:''' [[User:Uniju :D|Uniju :D]]<br>
====Option 1: Full support====
'''Deadline:''' January 22, 2008, 17:00
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.


====Support, we are the Super ''Mario'' wiki====
====Option 2: Trim profiles only====
#{{user:Crypt Raider/sig}} I get sick of this SBB being Marfio 100%  crap.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Secondary
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Forgot this... Per myself.
#{{User:NintendoExpert89}} Mixing Mario with something else does not make it Mario related. Please see my "comment" below.


====Oppose====
====Option 3: Oppose====
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} It features several Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario characters as major playable characters, and has several Mario-based items and stages, moreso than any other series, at least. I think it is worthy to be part of the extended Mario series.
#{{User|Axis}} I believe it's unnecessary.
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} Per DP.
#{{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.)
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - What if people want to know other stuff BESIDES the Mario content? We should cover EVERYTHING. It wouldn't be fair to only cover Mario content, in such an important series. I oppose this proposal. I am 100% against it.  
#{{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:Alphaclaw11/sig}}Per PDP
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per all, especially Nintendo101
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Let's have everything SSB related, but let's keep it below information from other series (The trophy info is fine)
#{{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:Stumpers/sig}} Uniju, didn't you previously want a page for everything?  Merging is unpredictable: you do it once and more stuff follows. Will the Yoshi and DK series be next if we do this?
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all, especially Hewer's reasoning.
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]Per DP! Although this is a MarioWiki, let's not pull a Wikipedia and cut down articles that give usefull infomation.
#{{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.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per all. Considering that your argument is that the Brawl article is too long, I wonder whether this is even a reason to qualify as a vote. Also, I've removed the tag of the "Oppose" header because while Smash Bros. can stay, it still doesn't mean that we need an article on NBA Street V3 which had Mario, Luigi and Peach as guest characters. That's a place for [[Game Sightings]] still.
#{{User:Xluidi/sig}} - Per all. And Uniju you're so inmature that you're leaving.
#[[User:huntercrunch|huntercrunch]] Per all. Also, might I add, SSB IS closely related to the Mario series.
#[[User:Booster|Booster]] Keep, but see my comment.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - See below comment.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Super Mario Wiki we are, but who cares if we have SSB articles? Per all.
#{{User:Glitchman/sig2}} Per Booster and Walkazo.
#[[Image:Paperjorgesp.png]] [[User:Paper Jorge|Paper Jorge]] [[Image:Paperjorgesp.png]] Per all, specially Cobold.
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} Per all. We MUST keep all this.


====Comments====
====Comments====
<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)
: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)
::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)
:::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)
::::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)


DP & Crash(and the rest of the hoard coming to per him): I see where your coming from, but just because there's Mario stuff in it, that doesn't mean we should cover the whole thing. Do we cover all about the TV shows Mario cameos in? And, KingBoo, that's not what everyone said last time, everyone said that we should just link to other sites. Which I now see is the better way to do it. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
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)
:That's a cameo, its just minor, and has no significance. Smash Bros. features a major role for Mario and his friends. In fact, there's more Mario content in the game than any other series. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I'm just saying, Mario and his allies play a major role in Smash Bros.
::Putting it that way, scroll up. Look at Banjo and Conker, who both have a large connection to the Mario Series are both being kicked off the wiki. It seems to me that your all simply biased towards Super Smash Bros. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}} I expect the only response to be "Your biased against it", so please give a VALID argument.
:::I'm not gonna say that, Uni, so stop being so immature. Banjo and Conker only made minor appearances in one game, with them being kicked out in the remake. After that, their respective series never got linked to the Mario series again, or Donkey Kong, for that matter. They became their own unique series with no relation to DK or Mario, whereas Smash Bros. brings in attributes from the Mario, Yoshi, DK and Wario series. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - You just said it yourself, Uniju. We are the MARIO wiki. Therefore we should completely cover every game that has MARIO content.
::::If Super Smash Bros. has content from Mario, then we should cover the content from Mario. I don't see why we need to cover EVERYTHING ELSE. And I don't see why all the stages and such can't just be tossed into a table like a lot of things can. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
:::::Ya see, here's the problem. If we ONLY cover the Mario-based information from Smash Bros., then the Smash Bros. articles are worthless. What's the point of covering one side of the game, but not covering the other side? If it has Mario in it, we should at least mention it, right? But, the Smash Bros. articles would have no use if it did not tell you EVERYTHING that's in the game. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} If you get rid of Smash Bros., you must get rid of the Final Fantasy articles as well.
::::::On a related note, I DO think that the items don't deserve articles, or the moves. [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]
:::::::Could you explain why? Especially about the [[Final Smash]]es we have a lot to say, more than about [[Flutter Jump]]. Of course we shouldn't have articles on A attacks, but Special Moves and Items pages are created for the mainstream Mario articles as well, so I don't see a reason why not Smash Bros. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:24, 16 January 2008 (EST)
The proposal is right about one thing. A LOT of emphasis (too much?) goes into the Smash Bros. articles. If something appeared, or is going to appear in a Smash game, it's guaranteed to have proper coverage, and will never be in danger of being a poorly-written stub. Looking at the front page right now, all three news articles are about Brawl. The featured article? Melee. We ''do'' look like the Smash Wiki just from glancing at the front page. Too much attention is being given to the Smash Bros. games. I know they're uber popular and everything, but they shouldn't be the center of attention on the ''Mario'' Wiki. I'm not saying that we can't have all these articles, but that the people who write them should dip into other subjects when they get the chance. Look at [[Super Mario Bros.]] or [[Super Mario Bros. 3]]. Landmark games with lousy articles for what they are. -- [[User: Booster|Booster]]
:It wouldn't be got not to feature Super Smash Bros. Melee but instead Super Mario Bros. 3, simply because Super Mario Bros. 3 is quite a bad article. That's also something, and if you want to change it, you'd have to sit down yourself and work on the article. It's possible, most of the work on the Melee article was done by myself. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 17:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)
As long as we only give a brief background on non-Mario things like in the [[Link]] article these articles are fine (because it's still relevant to ''Mario''). As others have said already, these games are ''Mario'' games, just like ''[[Mario Hoops 3-on-3]]'', only instead of one crossover series there's several. The very name ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' is homage to ''Mario'' and Mario being a playable character could make it more of a ''Mario'' game in some peoples' eyes than things like ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'' or ''[[Wario Land 4]]'' that have no sign of Mario at all. Yes, ''Smash Bros.'' is a bit over-hyped, but its a good series and with a new instalation about to come out it's bound to get lots of attention. Step back and wait for the game to be released and all the information digested into the Wiki before deciding what should stay and what should be merged... But the proposal probably won't fly then either. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
::Kind of in line with what you were saying, we cover what we do on the Wiki because of the relation to the main Mario video games.  The movie wasn't in the same world or with the same characters (just the same names and general roles), but we still have it there because it's part of the history of the Mario series.  Smash Bros. is the same, so the question shouldn't be "Should we limit SSB articles" but "Should we limit articles on subjects that follow alternate storylines?" And then you get into a whole crudload of speculation. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:::Too true, makes me think of that old expression: "leave well-enough alone." - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
 
----
I think that these connections being made between series is getting a little far-fetched. I myself believe the amount of Smash content should be limited, and I have a reason why. I may have a tough time explaining (I might be sounding like I'm being contradicting here and there), so please don't fret if you cannot understand.


Alright, the Smash Bros series is closely related to Mario, as some of you argue. But "closely" is not the same as "directly": Smash series did not come straight from Mario. Smash is more like a salad of different Nintendo (and other) series blended together. Mario being mixed with everybody else does not make them all related to Mario. The Yoshi, Wario, and DK series are Mario related, because they stemmed directly from the Mario universe. Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and everyone else there is Mario related, because they are part of the DK series (stemming from Mario). But, characters like Conker and Banjo did not stem out from Mario, but from DK and thus became a whole different franchise altogether. From this we can conclude we should only cover characters and whatnot that are within the Mario universe  and those that stemmed directly from it. But now you all must be thinking "what about Sonic? He and Mario are in a game together!" ''Mario & Sonic'' is a Mario game to begin with but had allowed Sonic, a completely different character, to be a guest in the universe. So the Sonic characters that appeared there should be covered on the Wiki as they were directly put within or extremely near the Mario universe for at least a while. The Smash series differs from this situation in that it is several video game universes in one big collage, rather than a direct implementation of one universe into another. It doesn't focus directly at Mario, Sonic, Pokemon, or at Pikmin. All of them are in for it.
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)
: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)


So, back my first point: the Smash series is a big (mostly Nintendo) video game collage; the series doesn't solely take place in the Mario universe. Several franchises meet together, but doesn't make them related as they didn't originate from one another. Zelda did not come from Mario, and neither did Pokemon, Metroid, Star Fox, etc. Therefore the Mario Wiki is being cluttered with many articles that not even related to Mario: only because Mario is in the game. Sonic is a very loose exception, as he and Mario were the direct focus of the game mentioned earlier-- Well... look, I'm not saying we should simply throw out all things non-Mario, I'm saying that they should be controlled. I myself suggest that we do directly focus on primarily on the Mario components and gameplay of Brawl and Melee while giving mention to the other franchises within. I suggest links to non-Mario Smash articles (Link, Final Cutter, Smashville, End of Day) be replaced with links to those at Smash Wiki's. This way, I believe it does not ignore the majority of Smash itself, but rather lets more appropriate sources fill that void. I hope at least many of you were able to see what I'm saying. --[[User:NintendoExpert89|NintendoExpert89]] 02:07, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==Miscellaneous==
:I cannot follow your reasons about ''Mario and Sonic'' being different to Smash Bros. Also, we will stay independent from SmashWiki, it's something completely different and not written in a neutral style. It does have nothing to do with the MarioWiki and will stay that way in the future. Same goes for "the Userpedia" and all that stuff. Second, it was initially decided to feature the Smash Bros. series on the wiki because the ''majority'' (not absolute, but relative) of its content is indeed featuring the Mario universe. Currently, removing the Smash Bros. content from the Wiki again would look like a foolish attempt which, in my opinion, is only triggered because the articles have been expanded that much. Long articles on Smash Bros. are not to be discriminated against by Mario articles of the same length, as per the [[MarioWiki:Importance Policy|Importance Policy]]. The Smash Bros. series is related to the Mario series enough to be featured in here, as are other crossovers like ''Mario & Sonic''. And this still doesn't mean that we should include Banjo or Conker or games were Mario made a cameo in. My vote is mainly because I don't want to lose all the work I put into the articles, that's true as well. In my opinion, if we hadn't wanted Smash on the Wiki, we should have decided it earlier, now you're too late. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 15:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)
''None at the moment.''
::Wouldn't Smash Bros fall into the same category as the Wario & DK games in that they all stem back to the Mario series - Kamicciolo
[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] 17:18, 20 January 2008 (EST) Super Smash Bros. articles are fine. But I don't think those games should be considered part of the main Mario series. They're not even really Mario spin-offs-- they're more like general Nintendo character games. When I read the [[ESRB]] article, it said no Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, or Yoshi game had ever been rated EC, M, or AO. That made me curious about what game was rated T. When I found out it was SSB Melee, I was like, "Oh, THAT game." On this wiki, it's considered to much as part of the series. The articles are fine. But that's what I have to say about this matter.

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

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, May 31st, 21:45 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 {{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}}.
  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)
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)
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"