MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
===Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in [[MarioWiki:Good writing]]===


==New features==
A writing quirk that seems to pop up everywhere (particularly in the Mario RPG pages/sections) that always drives me ''nuts'' is referring to a situation or action as "comical" or "humorous". Generally, these words are used to describe something that is percieved to be amusing, which is obviously subjective and should not be present in encyclopediac writing. However, usage of these words on here seems to follow an improper, "objective" pattern of referring to features intended by the developers as gags or jokes. Examples of blatant misuse:
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
From the [[Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser]] article:
''None at the moment.''
<blockquote>The group runs into [[Prince Peasley]], and after a battle ensues with a few [[Piranha Bean]]s, Captain Goomba ''humorously'' sends out one of them to attack Prince Peasley.</blockquote>
Who says Captain Goomba is trying to make a joke out of sending monsters out to fight an ego-centric prince? In Captain Goomba's eyes, he's practically fighting for his life trying not to be eaten. The only one who could find this humorous is the viewer, and since this is a story synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any viewer.


==Changes==
From [[Goomba Mask]]:
===Create a ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article and/or a "Related series" category===
<blockquote>In ''[[Paper Mario: The Origami King]]'', a different Goomba Mask resembling a [[Paper Macho Goomba]] appears in the [[Shogun Studios]] storage area. If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, with the humorous appearance making [[Olivia]] laugh.</blockquote>
This proposal is a follow-up to my ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' proposal below and possibly a fallback option in the event that ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' does not get its own article. Currently, it and other non-''Mario'' franchises exist in the form of a category (such as [[:Category:The Legend of Zelda series]]), especially if they have been featured within the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games. None of these categories fall under "Related series," which list the franchises and/or series that have crossed over with ''Mario'' before but are otherwise not a part of the overall [[Mario (franchise)|''Mario'' franchise]] (perhaps Porple can make a distinction for Related series categories and articles for like ''Super Smash Bros.'' series respectively). If Related series isn't created but ''The Legend of Zelda'' series is (I'll still leave the option below, as Related series would apply to more series/franchises), then it would go under [[:Category:Game series]] as if it were part of the main ''Mario'' franchise when it is actually not.
Even though there is actually an in-game audience this time, the wording still implies that the ''writer'' thinks it is humorous. In order to emphasize that it's Olivia who thinks it is funny, I changed the last sentence to:
<blockquote>If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, which Olivia finds amusing to the point of laughter.</blockquote>


''The Legend of Zelda'' is a specific case, given how many times it has featured ''Mario''-related elements within its games (like ''Mario'' enemies having guest appearances within ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening''), often shares a development team with those creating a [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]] title around the same time (e.g. ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' and ''The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild'', although this does not signify any relation to ''Mario'' but just adds to my point of how ''Zelda'' is often developed concurrently with ''Mario''), or even a complimentary release (such as how ''Game & Watch: The Legend of Zelda'' released a year after ''[[Game & Watch: Super Mario Bros.]]'' and is parallel in how it is created).
The article for [[Kruller]] has quite possibly the most egregious usage of "humorously" I've ever seen:
<blockquote>When Luigi enters the office afterward, Kruller briefly faints from shock at Luigi entering, before entering the next room to find a suitable weapon to defend himself (''humorously'' getting stuck on his back mid-roll) [...] Gooigi then retrieves the Mezzanine's elevator button, with it being ''humorously'' revealed that Luigi slept through the entire battle [...] After defeating Kruller in two-player mode, Luigi, who was watching the battle from outside, takes all the credit saying that he did it, after which Gooigi ''humorously'' copies Luigi as he had actually defeated Kruller [...] </blockquote>


The degree of how ''The Legend of Zelda''-related media is connected to ''Mario'' has varied; for instance, the [[The Legend of Zelda (television series)|television series]] has some direct connection to the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'', particularly in the form of advertisements and mentions within the ''Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'', but is made clear that the two are separate, whereas [[Nintendo Cereal System]] has both ''Mario'' and ''The Legend of Zelda'' within the same box. Some publications, such as ''[[Nintendo Adventure Books]]'' and the ''[[Game Boy Advance (book series)|Game Boy Advance]]'' book series, while they are not ''Mario''-specific, feature both ''Mario'' and ''Zelda'' books within the series, so both franchises have often been outsourced together (perhaps most famously, the [[Philips CD-i]] games or the aforementioned [[DiC Entertainment]] cartoons of ''Zelda'' and ''Super Show!''). I'll get to describing some of the game-specifics in another paragraph, but the short explanation to this paragraph is that ''Mario'' and ''Zelda'' have been outsourced to third-parties on different occasions, especially in the 1980s & 1990s.
''All'' of these are jokes meant for the audience. And once again, because this is a synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't ''be'' an audience.


It would be convenient to have a History section in a ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article that lists every time when ''The Legend of Zelda'' has been outsourced alongside ''Mario'' or when ideas from ''Mario'' games were reused/used instead in ''Zelda'' and vice versa, although the finer details to the ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article can be worked out if this proposal were to pass (and yes, per the ZD Wiki/Triforce Wiki External links proposal, we'd add link for both of those alongside the usual ZW link in the NIWA box as well as in ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' article, provided that proposal passes), as there are several ideas and ways of how one could go about it and would probably require a group effort to really put the article all together.
And there's way more that I haven't mentioned (just look up the word "humorous" on here and you'll see what I mean). To summarize how I feel this term has been frequently misused, in a form easily copyable for the rules:


''Link's Awakening'' aside, there are other instances of guest appearances within the ''Mario'' franchise, as early as the first ''The Legend of Zelda'' itself (with Manhandla), especially with enemies and sometimes even hazardous objects (like [[Fire bar]]s). However, creating an article for every ''The Legend of Zelda'' game with a guest appearance and/or derivative would be possibly going overboard (at least for the time being), so they would fall under ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article itself (particularly under a Games section or something). Again, finer details can be worked out after this proposal, but we could possibly have infoboxes for some of the other ''Zelda'' games with guest appearances (like ''The Minish Cap'') to reflect that these are still games with a guest appearance whereas if a Zelda game only consists of cameos (''Ocarina of Time'' comes to mind) it would not have an infobox, possibly as distinction between cameo & guest appearance, but again, the details can be worked out later. I probably mentioned this in the ''Link's Awakening'' proposal, but Capcom games (''Oracle of Seasons''/''Ages'', ''Four Swords'', and ''The Minish Cap'') have had a tendency to reuse ''Mario'' enemies or even introduce them (such as [[Lakitu]] in ''The Minish Cap''). ''Hyrule Warriors'', which is not a part of the main ''The Legend of Zelda'' series, features a derivative of the Ball & Chain item that features Chain Chomp). In this case, should we call the article ''The Legend of Zelda'' (franchise)? This can also be decided after the proposal.
;'''Humorous/Comical/etc.''': "Humorous", along with other similar words, is used from an observational perspective to describe something one finds amusing or funny, which is, of course, subjective on the part of the writer and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. However, it is commonly misused to refer to anything that is specifically written to be a joke or a gag by the authors of a piece of media. These kinds of words should generally be used only when a character or person relevant to the article ''finds'' something amusing. Not to be confused with "comedic", a word that simply means something relates to comedy in general, and is fine to use if a joke is deliberate on the part of a character (or, in case of references to the media's development, a developer).


Oh, before I forget, ''[[Mario & Zelda Big Band Live]]'' also features both ''Mario'' and ''Zelda'' like the Nintendo Cereal System.
'''Proposer''': {{User|DrippingYellow}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
====Support====
'''Deadline''': April 21, 2022, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} This whole situation is, dare I say it... "humorous". Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. Flowery writing is no laughing matter!
#{{User|Hewer}} I'd add that "comedic" should be used instead to get across that something is meant to be funny while using more objective language, but otherwise, sure, I'll humour this idea.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} We should just get rid of that subjective adjective altogether, let readers decide from the context of the quote if it's humorous or not, we don't need to write an editorial about it (ie sentences such as "Patrick gets caught by Sandy's lasso and dragged back, resulting in a nuclear explosion" already conveys to the reader that it's comedic)
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.


====Create both====
====Oppose====
#{{user|Results May Vary}} Per reasons listed above.


====Create only ''The Legend of Zelda'' series article====
====Comments====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} We know that the developers exchanged a fair amount of concepts between projects in the early days, such as Fire Bars and Chain Chomps [https://web.archive.org/web/20110530101120/http://www.glitterberri.com/a-link-to-the-past/the-men-who-made-zelda/ originally] being designed for ''Zelda'' but ending up in ''Mario'' games first, and while the latter is more recognizably ''Mario'', the former became just as much of a ''Zelda'' element. As this is/was a recurrent practice, having one general article makes much more sense to me than a particular game.
"Comical" and "comedic" should be fine, as those simply mean relating to comedy. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
 
:"Comedic" is definitely fine, but in multiple dictionary sources I've come across, the definition of "comical" meaning "relating to comedy" is either listed as obsolete and deprecated, or absent altogether. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
====Create only the Related series category====


====Create neither====
{{@|Ray Trace}} That was a really good example of obvious comedy. SpongeBob itself is comedy, so that was a good idea to use that as an example! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:12, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Somethingone}} No offense, but this is going a teensy tiny massive amount of distance too far. The "Related Series" category you're proposing just sounds like an attempt to stretch our coverage barrier as thin as it can. Where does the line of "Related Series" and "Mario Element cameos in it" end under this proposed idea? Same Development Team? Uses elements from Mario? Some sort of dialogue hinting at it? It can be stretched as far thin as it can under these circumstances, and I feel like our current "List of Mario References in X_MEDIA_SUBGENRE" pages handle this situation better than any supposed "Related Series" category could. Also, how is the SMO point valid? Nintendo EPD just makes anything Major Nintendo, and I feel like us making pages for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_Planning_%26_Development every non-Mario thing they made] would just be a million miles overboard. And besides this, I feel like this is the start(or heck even mid-start considering recent proposals) of a super slippery slope; if we make articles for ''everything'' that's even 0.00000001% Mario related, '''''why don't we make articles for everything ever?''''' Making pages for the LOZ series for crossing over with Mario and having some ideas from it would lead to us doing the same for things like Sonic, which has a closer connection to Mario during the 90's "war" and shares a spin-off with Mario, and we'd just be pushing and pushing the border of "what qualifies as Mario?" until it breaks. Why not make articles for all the series that are costumes in SMM? or all the franchises in SSB? Or on other series that have similar scenrios to Zelda but a lesser extent(ex. Desentsu no Stafy with its assets in SPP and Wario in one of its games, Rhythm Heaven for being more and more prominent in the Warioware series, Duck Hunt for being grouped with SMB back in the NES days, and so on)? And why not franchises related to those related franchises? Why not make articles for every series Mario cameos in? It goes on far too long. <big>'''We don't need to make full-fledged articles for everything with nods to Mario in it.'''</big>
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per Somethingone.


====Comments====
{{@|Hewer}} I updated the rules blurb, is it good now? [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:34, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
I understand that a "''The Legend of Zelda'' (franchise)" article would detail convergent points in the developments of both it and the ''Mario'' franchise, but what distinction would there be between a "Related franchises" page, as delineated by the proposal, and the current [[List of Mario references in Nintendo video games]]? I don't recall there being as much overlap in the development histories of ''Mario'' and other franchises as much as there is between ''Mario'' and ''Zelda'' (both have largely been the responsibility of a few internal divisions), and outward, fictional references (e.g. DK barrels appear in whatever ''Kirby'' game) are already covered by the aforementioned list. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:22, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
:Yeah, that works. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:43, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
:Very good point. The way I imagined it is like, with ''Legend of Zelda'', the cameos are specifically listed on List of Mario references in Nintendo video games, the guest appearances moved to the ''Zelda'' franchise article, and <nowiki>{{main|The Legend of Zelda (series)}}</nowiki> being added directly beneath the ''The Legend of Zelda'' series section on that references page. The distinction would be "what makes a cameo and what makes a guest appearance," so if Mario only ever cameoed in a game or its series, it would not count as "Related series/franchise." [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 14:32, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
:To Somethingone, I know we don't need article for everything with slight nod to Mario (makes me think of [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects]] as well), but I was noting how ''The Legend of Zelda'' series has GUEST APPEARANCES of ''Mario'' enemies within their games (not to be confused with CAMEOS), and doing a series approach rather than individual games (for time being) could concentrate/organize the information better. Related series in NO WAY implies that ''Zelda'' is a part of Mario -- it just highlights the ''Mario''-related aspects, primarily the guest appearances, whereas cameos,while also mentioned, are an added bonus (as the References page is for that). [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 14:39, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
::And that's also an issue. Who's to say that Mario-franchise enemies and characters have never and will never appear in other series? Going back to my vote and under this proposal's reasoning, Wario makes a Guest Appearance in DnS and has an impact to the gameplay, so why not make an article about its entire series? Rhythm Heaven shares many characters with Warioware (like how Young Cricket is the star of one of its games), so why not make a page for that entire series? The Sonic franchise has its own spinoff shared with Mario, and has a much more eventful history with Mario than Zelda, so wny not make a page for the Sonic series? What about the franchises that made Guest Appearances in Mario Kart 8, or all the Mario elements added recently to Animal Crossing? These things can go on and on forever, and I feel like pushing our coverage specifically for Zelda would not only stretch our coverage, but be inconsistent with every other series that have had/made  guest appearances from/with the mario franchise. [[User:Somethingone|Somethingone]] ([[User talk:Somethingone|talk]]) 14:55, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
:::I get your concern. As for Guest appearances of like Animal Crossing in ''Mario Kart 8'', that could be noted on the Animal Crossing series category, as there's nowhere near as much history between guest/cameo appearances within Mario. Also, Mario and Sonic, yes they were rivals, and Olympic Games aside, there's little direct connection between Mario and Sonic, especially within the other games (also consider Nintendo and Sega are diff companies). The Mario vs Sonic in the 90s was a sub-war of the main console wars of that era as well. Also, Densetsu no Starfy 3, while did have Wario as guest appearance, I think the rest had just cameos. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 15:02, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
:::Here's the problem with those examples you listed: all of those guest/crossover appearances are pretty much basic 1:1 representations of how they appear in their original series/games; ''Zelda'' appearances, on the other hand, tend to "''Zelda''-ify" the ''Mario'' enemies and make them their own interpretation (some of them, like Fire Bars and Lava Bubbles, go under alternate names, even in Japanese). ''Link's Awakening'' might have one of the most Nintendo IP references, but it's far from the only game to do this; it doesn't even have things like Podoboo Tower or Head Thwomp, which evolve the distinctly ''Mario''-derived concepts further. The Switch remake does, however, mostly preserve the original ''Zelda''-twisted nuances inherent in their designs, i.e. it does not "modernize" them like in, for instance, the ''Mario & Luigi'' remakes. In my assessment, this is not comparable. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 15:59, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
Side note, I also seem to recall that one of the early games (I'm thinking ''The Legend of Zelda'' or ''The Adventure of Link'') was tentatively pitched as "Mario Adventure" (not the [https://web.archive.org/web/20040925210737/http://oni.skr.jp/terui.html "Death Mountain"] working title), but I can't seem to find that info at the moment. If true, that must've been very early on in development, when Shigeru Miyamoto wanted Mario to be his signature "Mr. Video Game" character and before the themes got finalized. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:47, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
:And Miyamoto also pitched Splatoon [https://tcrf.net/Prerelease:Splatoon#Choosing_Other_Characters as a Mario game] at one point, doesn't mean we make a Splatoon series page. [[User:Somethingone|Somethingone]] ([[User talk:Somethingone|talk]]) 15:15, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
::This wasn't the main basis of the argument -- it was just a sidenote that he gave (to all the other points that I made within the proposal above). [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 15:21, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
:::And I'm allowed to refute their side note just like a normal argument point. [[User:Somethingone|Somethingone]] ([[User talk:Somethingone|talk]]) 15:30, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
::::Sure, but I did stress that it's according to memory. It comes across like you have an axe to grind here. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 15:59, April 14, 2022 (EDT)


===Determine ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its ''Mario''-related subjects===
===Standardize "History in the Super Mario franchise" headings under certain conditions===
Hi, so recently I've revamped the [[Thwomp#The Legend of Zelda series|Thwomp]] and [[Spiny#The Legend of Zelda|Spiny]] article's ''The Legend of Zelda'' series sections to provide in-depth information on the article. Also following how ''Pinball'' and ''Art Style Pictobits'' are being reclassified as guest appearance/related titles and seeing as [[Densetsu no Starfy 3]] has its own article, this had me thinking back to how earlier handheld ''The Legend of Zelda'' titles have their share of ''Mario'' content, with ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' having the most of them. A handful of the enemies are even ''Mario'' ones, and are some of their earlier appearance in games in general (as several have returned directly from ''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' and ''[[Super Mario World]]'', which shared similar development teams). There's even [https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Iwata-Asks/Iwata-Asks-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Spirit-Tracks/Iwata-Asks-Zelda-Handheld-History-/2-Kirby-and-Chomps-in-Zelda/2-Kirby-and-Chomps-in-Zelda-233781.html developer commentary] on the ''Mario''-related subjects, which I'll list below:
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.


Perhaps the most notable inclusion are [[Blooper]]s, [[Bob-omb]]s, [[Boo]]s, [[Cheep Cheep]]s, [[Goomba]]s, [[Piranha Plant]]s, [[Pokey]]s, [[Shy Guy]]s, [[Thwimp]]s, and [[Thwomp]]s. Developmental assets (see TCRF) even show a [[Bullet Bill]] and [[Fighter Fly]]. Thwomps in particular have a variant unique to ''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise, Spiked Thwomp, and a relative named Stone Elevator. Currently, they are covered within the Thwomp article itself, but seeing as they are derivatives of a ''Mario'' enemy (just in a different series, like how [[Giga Bowser]] is unique to the ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' series). These enemies usually have a consistent role within the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]] to completely different behavior (Shy Guys, aka Masked-Mimics, and Thwomps in particular). There's also [[zeldawiki:Madame MeowMeow|Madame MeowMeow]]'s pet [[zeldawiki:Bow Wow|Bow Wow]], who is a notable Chain Chomp who only appears in ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' and its reissues. [[Wart]] makes an appearance (though is known by his Japanese name, Mamu) but has a non-antagonistic role unlike in the ''Mario'' games. The same developers of the ''Super Mario'' series of games elaborate upon some ''Mario''-related characters specifically for ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' (but are retained in some of [[Capcom]]'s handheld ''Zelda'' titles), so the game intentionally included subjects from other games, mostly the ''Mario'' franchise, to be guest appearances.
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:


The first item of the game's [[zeldawiki:Trading sequence|trading sequence]] is a doll of Yoshi, the {{fake link|Yoshi doll}}, adding to my point of ''Mario''-related subjects within a non-''Mario'' game.
#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.


In [[zeldawiki:Christine|Christine]]'s love letter to [[zeldawiki:Mr. Write|Mr. Write]] is a photograph of [[Princess Peach|Princess Toadstool]]; while this is a cameo, it adds to the list of ''Mario''-related content within the game. Although they are specific to ''Zelda'', [[zeldawiki:Tarin|Tarin]] and the [[zeldawiki:Cucco Keeper|Cucco Keeper]] are designed after Mario and Luigi respectively. In one part, Tarin becomes a Raccoon after touching a Mushroom (as opposed to the similar [[Tanooki Suit]] from ''Super Mario Bros. 3'').
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.


The remake somewhat elaborates upon the ''Mario''-related content included within. I remember an advertising point was that it features content from the ''Super Mario'' games ([https://www.nintendo.com/my/switch/ar3n/index.html Nintendo.com] comes to mind) and it adds figurines of ''Mario''-related enemies.
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.


There are some people who are more knowledgeable than me on this, so hopefully this proposal is presented okay. Feel free to add further information/corrections in the comments section if there are any facts that I've missed or gotten wrong. If the proposal passes, we can figure out how to handle these subjects. Perhaps a later proposal can determine whether to create a ''The Legend of Zelda'' series page for the other ''The Legend of Zelda'' games that have ''Mario'' enemies making guest appearances (as it might seem excessive to give every ''Zelda'' game with Mario guest appearances an article, but ''Link's Awakening'' features the most notable inclusions).
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.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
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].
'''Deadline''': April 20, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Create both====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
#{{User|Results May Vary}} Per my reasons stated above
'''Deadline''': May 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, I've always been confused as to how this is less eligible than ''[[Captain Rainbow]]'' or ''[[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|Punch-Out!!]]''.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal, but I think subjects should be put through a case-by-case trial: for instance, I would oppose individually covering characters like Tarin just because a ''Mario'' character is reflected in their design, but an interactable element like the Yoshi doll most definitely deserves a page of its own.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.


====Create only ''{{fake link|The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening}}''====
====Support for all three options====
#{{User|Wikiboy10}} I always wanted to make this proposal and I even made one before being autoconfirmed because I was an idiot. Jokes aside, I feel since these games by ''Mario'' context are the same, I feel just one article is fine as it creates too much redundant information. On that note, the reason for the article's existence is because [[Wart|Mamu]] plays a main role in this game to help [[Link]]. The enemies would normally constitute a cameo for me but this one role from Wart is enough for me.
#{{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]].


====Create only the ''Mario''-related subjects====
====Apply to only crossover content and real products====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} My preference. What particularly bothers me with the current sitch is that ''Zelda'' games in general have had exclusive elaborations of ''Mario'' elements such as Podoboo Tower and Manhandla, but we can't ever cover them adequately. This approach seems pretty reasonable and would at least take a big step towards having that coverage. I'd say we can possibly even add stuff like Bombite and <s>Arm-Mimic</s> Hollow Mimic since they're so similar to the ''Mario'' elements.


====Create neither====
====Oppose====
#{{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|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|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per my edit summary Hewer quoted.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per Nintendo101.


====Comments====
====Comments====
To users who voted on this article, just to be more clear, the ''Mario''-related subjects option applies to all games, not just ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'' (the "its" in the proposal name was supposed to refer to ''The Legend of Zelda'' series itself, and LinkTheLefty appears to be keen to make articles on ''Mario''-related subjects outside of ''Link's Awakening'', such as with Podoboo Tower and Manhandla, rather than just ones that have made an appearance within ''The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening'', but the proposal primarily being about ''Link's Awakening'' may have made it slightly unclear that I meant ''Mario''-related subjects/derivatives within ALL ''The Legend of Zelda'' games). [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 13:53, April 14, 2022 (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. 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)
:I don't fully understand the rationale behind this proposal. What's the specific benefit of creating an article or articles when the information is [[List_of_Mario_references_in_Nintendo_video_games#The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Link's_Awakening_(GB)_/_Link's_Awakening_DX_(GBC)_/_Link's_Awakening_(2019_remake)_(Switch)|here]]? Additionally, you mention having already added information to specific enemy pages about ''Zelda'' appearances, so what's stopping you from continuing to do so (e.g. adding Bow Wow to Chain Chomp)? {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 02:19, April 15, 2022 (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)
::I can touch on the latter. In addition to their version of ''Mario'' enemies (and sometimes other series; Digdogger for example is based on ''Clu Clu Land'' Unira), ''Zelda'' games have included unique variants. This includes Manhandla (a Piranha Plant), Mini Bow-Wows (small Chain Chomps), Podoboo Tower, Head Thwomp, and more. The first and third options would allow the full creation of their own articles, appearing in infoboxes and templates. Personally, it would make those enemy families look more complete. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 04:59, April 15, 2022 (EDT)


===Allow articles on non-''Mario'' subjects to link to their main Fandom wiki in their External links section===
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)
Hi Mario Wiki, this is an unexpected proposal from me, considering my involvement with Triforce Wiki. It's somewhat of a follow-up to my proposal allowing for Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki articles in the external links section of ''The Legend of Zelda''-related articles on this wiki. Zeldapedia is closed, so it was not part of that proposal.
: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)


Basically, I think the Zelda proposal has set a precedent in that it acknowledges the other two wiki options for Zelda coverage. I for one do not like Fandom at all, but my main reason for creating this proposal is because of Wikitroid, which has about [https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Statistics three times] more articles (6,497 articles at the time of typing) than NIWA's [https://www.metroidwiki.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Metroid Wiki] (1,743 articles at the time of typing) while not prioritizing it over the other wikis (seeing as it's standard of us to prioritize interwiki links to other NIWA wikis). Although the main community here dislikes Fandom (me being one of them ofc), a lot of the readers are probably neutral to Fandom and the idea of having a Fandom wiki to click on. I know for a fact that [[Sonic the Hedgehog]]-related articles link to both Sonic News Network and Sonic Retro wiki, prob because the former has a lot more content, so in that regard, part of this proposal is already in effect in that the existence of the different main wikis covering Sonic are acknowledged. It's also partially in effect in that NIWA's main founding member, Zelda Wiki, has been owned by Fandom since December 2018 and, being a NIWA member, even has its interwiki updated to reflect its domain name change from zelda.gamepedia.com to zelda.fandom.com. This proposal would also eliminate the double standard of allowing one Nintendo-related wiki on Fandom to be linked to (Zelda Wiki) but not the others, although it would not affect the Zelda Wiki interwiki links (or any NIWA wikis, for that matter) or their priority, particularly in the article text. Again, this proposal is only to allow a link to the Fandom wiki in the External links section of non-''Mario'' articles (such as Kirby, Samus, etc.). We already have a [[Template:Wikia|template]] that could be put to use in this regard.
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)
:"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)


I did not count ''Mario''-related articles within this proposal because it would be pointless to link to a Fandom wiki covering the same thing as the Mario Wiki (20,000+ articles to possibly add external link to as well), even though it appears to conflict with my point of acknowledging the other wikis providing main source of information. Seeing as ''Smash Bros.'' is a gray area within [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], I'm not sure if its Smash Bros.-specific articles (such as [[Smash Ball]]) would count as not being allowed to link to its Fandom counterpart. Perhaps it can become an option later on.
{{@|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)
:I don't think anything in the comment you reference contradicts any of the sentiments made here. No one is arguing subjects that originated outside of the ''Super Mario'' franchise (like Link, Sonic, [[Mad Scienstein]], [[Wart]], etc.) should not receive coverage, nor that appearances made by subjects that ''did'' emerged within the franchise should not be noted (like ''Link's Awakening'', ''Smash Bros.'', ''Tetris'', ''Qix'', etc.). Rather, because of the inherent scope of the wiki, it is assumed that a "History" section on this site encompasses the subject of the article's appearances in the ''Super Mario'' franchise and it is unclear to me why that needs further clarification. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:35, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
::But you said yourself in your oppose vote "Because this is the Super Mario Wiki", which, again, I thought was getting old as an argument. Hewer himself in the linked proposal said it! I'm just confused about what changed in between that and now. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 09:38, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::First off, why are you getting on Nintendo101's case for an argument that I made in a proposal they didn't even take part in? Second, my point when I made that comment was that "This is a Super Mario wiki" is getting old as an argument on its own to trim, reorganise, or otherwise alter crossover content like Smash, as Super Mario RPG keeps trying to do, whereas Nintendo101's argument is that, because this is a Super Mario wiki, we don't need to specify that our content is about Super Mario. The same words may have been used, but the context of the arguments is different. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:54, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::First off, I'm not. Second, I didn't know that the CONTEXT was different, I only paid attention to the words, not the context. Third, a "History" section only covering the ''Super Mario'' franchise kinda neglects the references and cameos. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:01, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Isn't the point of this proposal (which you're supporting) to have history sections that only cover the Super Mario franchise? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:05, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I would like to redirect you to point 2 of the proposal. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:31, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Does that not just prove my point? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:34, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::The history section is going to be split. That's the point of this proposal. YOUR point is just around 1/2 of the point of this proposal. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:45, May 20, 2024 (EDT)


Edit: To be clear, the main Fandom wikis are those with the franchise listed as the subdomain (e.g. minecraft.fandom.com or sonic.fandom.com).
==New features==
''None at the moment.''


'''Proposer''': {{User|Results May Vary}}<br>
==Removals==
'''Deadline''': April 20, 2022, 23:59 GMT
''None at the moment''


====Support====
==Changes==
#{{User|Results May Vary}} Per my comments above.
===Decide whether to merge the {{tem|more images}}, {{tem|more media}}, and/or {{tem|more refs needed}}===
I may have created the <code>{{tem|more refs needed}}</code> template, but I later saw a discussion for merging it with <code>{{tem|unreferenced}}</code>. That inspired me to plan on merging <code>{{tem|more images}}</code> and <code>{{tem|more media}}</code> with <code>{{tem|image}}</code> and <code>{{tem|media missing}}</code> respectively, so I decided to make a proposal containing three options:


====Oppose====
;Option 1: Merge <code><nowiki>{{more images}}</nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki>{{more media}}</nowiki></code>, and <code><nowiki>{{more refs needed}}</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>{{image}}</nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki>{{media missing}}</nowiki></code>, and <code><nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki></code> respectively AND create the categories {{fake link|Articles with sections that need more images|Category:Articles with sections that need more images}}, {{fake link|Articles with sections that need more images|Category:Articles with sections that need more media}}.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I understand carefully selecting a handful if they pass community consensus/standards, but I would not abide by such a broad application for...several reasons to say the least.
;Option 2: ONLY merge <code><nowiki>{{more refs needed}}</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki></code>.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per LTL, implementing these on a case-by-case basis would be much better for quality control. I'm also skeptical that simply picking the wiki that gets the franchise name first in every case is the best idea, as they may not always be the best quality just because of that (or, they might be the only one, but be so low quality it's not worth linking to).
;Option 3: Keep as they are.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per LTL and Waluigi Time. I definitely think that it is fair to choose to link to certain Fandom Wikis, but I would prefer that such decisions were made on a case-by-case basis. Allowing for careful consideration of individual wikis rather than applying them immediately would be better for quality control, and I agree with Waluigi Time's point that the wiki that recieves the franchise name is not always necessarily the best one on that subject.
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per my comments below: wikis should be approved individually through a proposal for each one.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per all. Certain Fandom wikis are indeed superior in coverage and quality to the NIWA wikis (heck, [https://zelda-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Zeldapedia at least one Fandom] even merged with its NIWA counterpart because, to put it bluntly, the former was so much more comprehensive and useful), but by and large Fandom standards are a bit poorer than what the Super Mario Wiki should enable. Each Fandom should be examined individually.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.


====Comments====
Here are some examples:
I think users should make a proposal first before linking to a certain wiki so that the community can decide whether this specific wiki is acceptable. Fandom is known to have many... questionable at best wikis, many unmaintained, others allow fan content pages. As an example, while the ''[[Minecraft]]'' wiki is very well maintained and has good coverage of the ''Minecraft'' series, there are also many other ''Minecraft'' wikis on Fandom, most of which are just bad. Users should decide which wikis can be linked to on this wiki. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 12:20, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
:In the title, I did say the '''MAIN''' wiki (e.g. metroid.fandom.com) or, in your case, minecraft.fandom.com would be the main one. I don't mean like zeldagazette.fandom.com for example. [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 12:25, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
::That's the thing: how do you define a main wiki? I think the community consensus is needed. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 12:36, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
:::The franchise name being the subdomain [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 12:38, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
::::Some "main" wikis may not have the same simple name as the subdomain. I still believe a proposal is needed for each wiki (or in bulk) to have them approved. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 14:36, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
Color me confused. Is this proposal meant to allow it to be possible for the future, or will Fandom links be applied immediately? I am open to the former since there is room for discussion depending on the wiki, but disagree with the latter since this is probably best decided on a case-by-case basis. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:56, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
:Yeah I know, it's an unexpected proposal. The proposal talks about applying them immediately (for example, an External links section at the bottom of [[Samus Aran]] article that says "{{wikia|metroid|Samus}} on Wikitroid" like how [[Link]] has "Link on ZD Wiki" and "Link on Triforce Wiki" listed in External links section). [[User:Results May Vary|Results May Vary]] ([[User talk:Results May Vary|talk]]) 20:01, April 13, 2022 (EDT)


===Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)===
<span style="font-size: 150%">Template:Image</span>
The current rule no quorum proposals is vague, flawed, and counterproductive. Per rule 8, if a proposal has three votes or less at deadline, it NQs, ending with no action taken. In other words it needs at least four votes overall to pass. I have two major problems with this.
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FF6;border:1px solid #630">
It has been requested that {{#if:{{{more|}}}|'''more images'''|at least one '''image'''}} be [[Special:Upload|uploaded]] for this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}. Remove this notice only after the {{#if:{{{more|}}}|additional images|image(s)}} have been added. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}}}
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles {{#if:{{{section|}}}|with sections}} that need {{#if:{{{more|}}}|more images|an image}}]]}}</includeonly>
</pre>


'''Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually ''cause'' a proposal to pass.'''
<code><nowiki>{{image|more=yes|section=yes|Sprites}}</nowiki></code>


Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.
=
*Proposal A reaches its deadline with 3 support and 0 oppose votes. That's a total of 3, exactly one shy of the minimum 4. Therefore, the proposal NQs.
*Proposal B reaches its deadline with 3 support and 2 oppose votes. That's a total of 5, enough to avoid NQ. Since there are too few votes for rule 10 to apply, and there's more support than opposition, the proposal passes.


See the problem here? Proposal B has the same amount of support as Proposal A, but ''more'' opposition, yet Proposal B passes while Proposal A does not. If Proposal B did not have those oppose votes, it wouldn't have enough votes to avoid NQ. Therefore, the opposition actually ''causes'' the proposal to pass. This should ''not'' be possible. Proposals should only ever pass in ''spite'' of opposition, never ''because'' of it.
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FF6;border:1px solid #630">
It has been requested that '''more images''' be [[Special:Upload|uploaded]] for this section. Remove this notice only after the additional images have been added. '''Specific(s):''' Sprites
</div>


Three-or-more-option proposals have the same problem, especially since you can vote for more than one option - the rule does not clarify whether or not multiple votes from the same user counts toward quorum. [[Talk:Wario Land II#Decide if unlocalized Wario Land II enemies should use Japanese or generic names|This proposal]] is a good example - it only met the minimum four because one of the voters picked two options.
<span style="font-size: 150%">Template:Media missing</span>
----
<pre>
{| class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#C88AFF;border:1px solid #630"
|style="padding-right:10px"|[[File:Soundx.png|25px|class=invert-dark]]
|style="padding-top:3px"| It has been requested that {{#if:{{{more|}}}|'''more audio and/or video files'''|at least one '''audio and/or video file'''}} related to this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be uploaded. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}<br><small>Please upload all related music, sound effects, voice clips, or any videos for this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}. See the [[Help:Media|help]] page for information on how to get started.</small>
|}<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles {{#if:{{{section|}}}|with sections}} that need {{#if:{{{more|}}}|more media|media}}]]}}</includeonly>
</pre>


'''Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so ''at least one option'' must have a minimum of 4 votes.'''
<code><nowiki>{{media missing|more=yes|section=yes|Voice clips}}</nowiki></code>


This retains the current minimum number of supports necessary to pass a proposal where no other options receive votes, but eliminates the "opposition backfire" issue mentioned above. Under this new rule, Proposal B would NQ, just like Proposal A. This rule would also apply to proposals with three or more options - at least one option would need at least 4 votes to avoid NQ.
=


Now for the other problem.
{| class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#C88AFF;border:1px solid #630"
|style="padding-right:10px"|[[File:Soundx.png|25px|class=invert-dark]]
|style="padding-top:3px"| It has been requested that '''more audio and/or video files''' related to this section be uploaded. '''Specific(s):''' Voice clips<br><small>Please upload all related music, sound effects, voice clips, or any videos for this section. See the [[Help:Media|help]] page for information on how to get started.</small>
|}


'''Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.'''
<code><nowiki>{{media missing|more=yes|Videos}}</nowiki></code>


Imagine the frustration. Your TPP has three supports and no opposition. If just one more person would vote, you'd be golden. But before it can happen, that deadline comes. Your proposal's over. You waited two weeks for nothing. Hey, at least you have "the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion", even though that's an extremely vague statement that is not clear at all about what it actually means. I guess it just means "redo the proposal from scratch", but why should you have to do that?
=


'''Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.'''
{| class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#C88AFF;border:1px solid #630"
|style="padding-right:10px"|[[File:Soundx.png|25px|class=invert-dark]]
|style="padding-top:3px"| It has been requested that '''more audio and/or video files''' related to this article be uploaded. '''Specific(s):''' Videos<br><small>Please upload all related music, sound effects, voice clips, or any videos for this article. See the [[Help:Media|help]] page for information on how to get started.</small>
|}


Why do no quorum proposals have to end right then and there? Why not just extend them, like we do with proposals that do not reach a consensus by deadline? This would help give vote-starved proposals more of a chance to gain attention and reduce the number of frustrating NQs. I'm not sure if we should apply the four-week waiting period for proposals that ''do'' NQ under this new rule, but I'm leaning towards no. If you think it should, feel free to comment on it.
<span style="font-size: 150%">Template:Unreferenced</span>
----
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles {{#if:{{{more|}}}|{{#if:{{{section|}}}|with sections}} that need more citations|with {{#if:{{{section|}}}|unsourced sections|no sources}}}}]]}}</includeonly>
</pre>


'''Proposer''': {{User|7feetunder}}<br>
<code><nowiki>{{unreferenced|more=yes|section=yes|Spanish and German names}}</nowiki></code>
'''Deadline''': <s>April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 21, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Apply both solutions====
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
#{{User|7feetunder}} Preferred option.
This section '''needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. '''Specific(s):''' Spanish and German names<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this section]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal; I especially support enacting the first problem's solution since it would sew a blatant policy loophole.
</div>
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal. I think both solutions can work. I do support the idea of the first solution, but the second solution is also a good idea, especially if it concerns a topic that's easy to miss or can easily duck under the radar.
#{{User|Somethingone}} After thinking a bit more, I might've misinterpreted what solution 1 would do.
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} Per. Also, yes, I do feel that the four-week moratorium rule need only be applied to proposals that have several votes but remain without a clear majority.


====Apply problem #1's solution====
Once the proposal ends with Option 1, we'll be able to merge these templates and then replace the <code><nowiki>{{more images</nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki>{{more media</nowiki></code>, and <code><nowiki>{{more refs needed</nowiki></code> syntax with the <code><nowiki>{{image|more=yes</nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki>{{media missing|more=yes</nowiki></code>, and <code><nowiki>{{unreferenced|more=yes</nowiki></code> syntax respectively. However, once the proposal ends with Option 2, we'll only be able to merge the {{tem|more refs needed}} template and then replace the <code><nowiki>{{more refs needed</nowiki></code> syntax with the <code><nowiki>{{unreferenced|more=yes</nowiki></code> syntax. Once the proposal ends with Option 3, we'll keep the <code><nowiki>{{more refs needed</nowiki></code> template and protect it.
#{{User|7feetunder}} Second option.


====Apply problem #2's solution====
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
#{{User|7feetunder}} Better than nothing.
'''Deadline''': May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Hewer}} I'm neutral about the other point, but per proposal on this one (I was actually thinking of this problem recently after [[Talk:Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64)#Merge to Crocodile Isle|this proposal]]).
#{{User|Spectrogram}} While I disagree on some points in problem #1, namely the proposed solution, I do believe extending the NQ proposals is better than relisting them.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm not sure if the first proposed solution is great in how it would affect proposals with more than two choices, but the second seems fair enough to me.
<s>#{{User|Somethingone}} I feel like a better solution to problem #1 would be to modify rule 10 so that it applies to all proposals, not just ones with >10 votes, and/or maybe reduce its margin from 3 to 2. That said, I do think solution #2 is a good idea.</s>


====Leave the rule as is====
====Option 1====
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} I'm admittedly working from vague memories at the moment, so I apologize if anything I say is flat-out wrong, but my understanding is the portion of the rule about relisting NQ proposals is there because there isn't always enough information in them for users to make an informed decision and cast a vote. Other times, what information is there might be at odds with the stated goal. Maybe a proposed solution wouldn't adequately address a problem raised. Maybe someone points out (or realizes) the problem itself is larger in scope than originally outlined or an entirely different problem altogether. Since these sorts of discussions tend to happen after the deadline for editing the proposal has passed, it's an opportunity to incorporate whatever comes out of those into the next iteration of the proposal (in part because of rule 5). The initial deadline is usually enough time for those sorts of discussions to take place, and there are ways of getting people to weigh in if the specific issue is a lack of attention (an ever-present one regardless of what the deadline is). That said, sometimes, unfortunately, there aren't a significant number of people concerned about/invested in a particular thing, and I think the proposed more-votes-per-option solution could therefore result in more NQs or failed proposals.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|SmokedChili}} This sounds too convoluted just to get rid of a loophole; I'd prefer keeping NQs and applying the 4-vote minimum condition to rule 9 so that if a proposal with three votes, all for one option, gets the fourth vote for an opposing option, it will be extended until consensus is reached or not.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I like the idea of integrating the functionality of the aforementioned templates.


====Comments====
====Option 2====
Another problem with no quorum is that it also means that the proposal is treated as failed, as if it was a clear opposed result. I disagree; I think it should be treated as if the proposal didn't happen, opening the door for resolution to occur via discussion. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 10:32, April 8, 2022 (EDT)


@Somethingone: I'm not going to say I'm against a rule 10 modification, but such a thing would require a separate proposal, since it would need different options for reducing the voting margin or not reducing it (or only reducing it for proposals with ten votes or less). Additionally, rule 10 only applies to two-option proposals, so it would not solve problem #1 for proposals with more than two options like the one I linked. I would also like the know the issue with implementing my solution so I can improve it or come up with an alternative.
====Option 3====


@Mario4Ever: You completely misunderstand the purpose of NQs. It is merely to prevent proposals from passing with too few votes. That's it. It is not a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals as you seem to be claiming. The proper response to such proposals is inform the proposer in the comments why their proposal is flawed so they can either improve it, or in the event a complete overhaul is needed, cancel it and make a new one (or request an admin cancel it if 3/6 days have already passed). Plenty of proposals that NQ don't have issues at all, they just aren't getting the attention they need, and extending them would help with that. Additionally, proposals with the issues you mentioned don't always fail to obtain votes - depending on what the issue is, voters may just outright oppose it until their problems are addressed. Alternatively, the proposal might gain support ''before'' the issues with it are fully realized ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Stop listing reused artwork as a reference to an older game|example]]), so the idea of NQs as a defense against flawed proposals is a flimsy excuse at best.  {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 13:50, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
====Comments====
:I'm not saying that NQs are a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals. I was just explaining that a lack of attention isn't necessarily why the minimum vote threshold isn't met, since that's one of your main points of contention. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 15:36, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
::The vast majority of proposals that end with no quorum only do so because they don't get enough attention, and there are plenty of poorly written proposals that don't get no quorum. Besides, I don't really see how your argument relates to the proposed rule changes, as waiting for flawed proposals to NQ isn't really how you're meant to deal with them anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:45, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
:::I think part of the disconnect is that the proposal references and directly links to TPPs, which do tend to get less attention than proposals on this page (or at least, they did). Most of the proposals I've weighed in on have been in the latter category, where the things I've mentioned are (were?) more likely to come up. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 00:57, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::Your point? The majority of proposals made nowadays are TPPs, and issue of whether or not the proposal is on a talk page is irrelevant. You have yet to justify your opposition in any way. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::It's relevant to my argument to the extent that it informs my perception of proposals, but getting to the point, I don't see the proposal's problem #1 as such (and don't believe effectively redefining what constitutes a quorum would benefit them if it were). I also don't think more time would necessarily give TPPs more attention because my general approach involved prioritizing things like the scope or the information I had/needed over the deadline. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 14:41, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::How can you possibly think that problem #1 isn't an issue? You're saying that oppose votes actually ''causing'' proposals to pass is entirely logical. It's not. Imagine you oppose a proposal. It has 3 supports and 1 oppose - namely, you - near the deadline. This encourages you to game the system by removing your oppose vote at the last minute to stop the proposal from passing. How is that not completely asinine? {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:44, April 9, 2022 (EDT) 
:::::::Let's say the proposed solution to problem #1 is implemented. You create a proposal that's set to pass with four votes to one. At the last minute, the fourth supporter decides they're ambivalent toward the outcome and removes their vote, or maybe they get blocked for some reason, and their vote is removed.  Now, let's say the extension solution is also in effect, so the proposal doesn't get relisted. In the worst case scenario, another three weeks go by with no additional votes to give either option the four-vote minimum, so at the final deadline, it fails with a 3-1 ratio. Is having your proposal not go into effect at all preferable to the scenario of it getting potentially overturned later? {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 22:09, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::You're missing the point. Let's take your hypothetical proposal, but remove that one oppose vote. What happens under the current rules? It NQs, since it doesn't have enough votes. Meanwhile, your version of the proposal would pass because it does, despite having the ''exact same amount of support''. Why should that happen? Why should it be possible for opposing a proposal be counterproductive to actually stopping a proposal from passing? Like I just said, this encourages the opposer to game the system by removing their oppose vote at the last minute so the proposal will NQ and therefore not pass, which is ridiculous. Simply put, if a 3-0 proposal doesn't pass, then a 3-1 or 3-2 shouldn't pass either. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 22:38, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't think it's counterproductive to vote in opposition to something even if it's not likely to (or doesn't) prevent the proposal from passing. My hypothetical scenario demonstrates that "gaming the system" is technically possible under the proposed new system. Since that's therefore not the problem being solved, I don't think it's a relevant justification. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 23:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::Your hypothetical scenario demonstrates nothing of the sort. A supporter removing their vote because they changed their mind isn't gaming the system, it's normal. An opposer ''removing their oppose vote'' at the last minute to deliberately cause an NQ for a proposal that would otherwise pass is absolutely gaming the system - a form of which my proposed solution would render unnecessary. Opposition not preventing a proposal from passing is ''not'' the problem, it's opposition ''actively causing'' a proposal to pass because of the current NQ rule. Stop misinterpreting my posts. I'm still waiting for you to justify why a 3-0 proposal shouldn't pass, but a 3-1 or 3-2 should. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 13:04, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::Community input is as or more important than a proposal's outcome, the impact of which is neither permanent nor irreparable. Ignoring that I never encountered a single instance of someone doing what you describe in 12 years, I think, depending on the proposal, four or five votes is an adequate reflection of that input. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 14:19, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::That's just flat out wrong. Community input is what ''causes'' a proposal's outcome. You can't just lump supporters and opposers together under the banner of "community input" like they're the same thing. When someone opposes a proposal, it's because they ''don't want it to pass''. Therefore, it should never ''result'' in it passing for any reason, ever. While proposals can be overturned, it requires another successful proposal, which means just one or two people wanting the overturning aren't going to cut it. If a proposal with those one or two opposers should pass, then a proposal without those opposers should also pass. If a proposal with three supporters shouldn't pass, then a proposal with three supporters and one or two opposers shouldn't pass either. I don't get why that's so hard for you to understand. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 15:39, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::I haven't been following the discussion too closely but I think the idea is that a proposal with five votes, even if some of them are opposition, has had adequate community participation to move forward. Honestly, I think you're focusing way too hard on the issue of people potentially "gaming the system" by not opposing to deliberately force a no quorum. I've never seen that happen and it seems like assuming bad faith to me. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:53, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I don't think concern over a potential issue equates with assuming bad faith in the userbase. It's still a loophole and the system's better off without it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:47, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Precisely. It doesn't matter if this loophole isn't exploited regularly, the mere fact that it's possible to exploit it warrants fixing it. It doesn't matter if you've seen it happen, not voting is a non-action, so you can't produce evidence of it happening or not happening. There's no reason ''not'' to fix this; I should never have to consider not voting on a proposal I actively oppose (or removing my existing oppose vote) just because of this loophole. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 17:15, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
@LinkTheLefty: I don't understand what the problem is with how it would affect proposals with more than two choices. Be more specific so I can maybe improve it or come up with a better solution. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:I feel like an issue one might have with solution 1 is that it could result in situations where proposals with many options could have many votes but still NQ because no option has >3 votes. Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that. [[User:Somethingone|Somethingone]] ([[User talk:Somethingone|talk]]) 13:31, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::Basically. It just makes it needlessly harder for multiple-choice proposals to pass, also considering option results sometimes overlap with each other. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:21, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::"Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that." Not necessarily. A proposal with 5 options may have accrued only 4 total votes and still pass, provided all those votes are for one option in particular. If not one option has more than 3 votes, it's a NQ period, regardless of how many available options there are. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:22, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::That still doesn't factor when choices overlap, which more often than not do in multiple-choice proposals. Say this hypothetical proposal: 1) do X only, 2) do Y only, 3) do Z only, 4) do X & Y, 5) do X & Z, 6) do Y & Z, 7) do X, Y & Z, and 8) don't do anything. Let's say the X & Y options are generally unpopular, but votes are accrued for options involving Z. Let's say #3 gets 3 votes, and #s5, 6 & 7 get two votes each. And for the sake of argument, let's say that all the votes are from different users. That's at least nine total, with the remaining options having zero-to-two votes. Under the current system, #3 passes, and everyone walks away somewhat pleased because they at least agreed to do Z. Under the first proposed solution, the proposal becomes a no quorum, despite the fact that virtually everyone had Z in mind, making no one happy. That's another reason why I think no quorums should be considered non-proposals rather than opposed/failed ones. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:50, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::You seem to have forgotten about rule 9, which would force an extension on your hypothetical proposal anyway. If there were nine voters, three votes wouldn't be enough for the option to win. It would need more than half, in other words, at least five. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 17:26, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Then that might be another technicality with the system, but I digress. Fudge the specifics a bit if you like; the bottom line is 100% support on one action minimal (Z) and a lot of multiple-choice proposals are structured this way. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::Are you saying that you oppose rule 9 or want it changed? Because that's what would get in the way of your hypothetical proposal. It doesn't matter how many votes there are, if the voters are spread across four voting options and they're too close, rule 9 won't let it pass. Anyway, a simple solution to the "overlapping options" issue is, once you've established that everyone wants to do Z, make Z a standalone proposal. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:28, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::That seems cumbersome. You could just note in the above proposal that overlapping choices (e.g. "Z", "X&Z", and "X&Y&Z") will count votes together towards the common goal "Z". I agree with LTL insofar as it doesn't make much sense to treat these as mutually exclusive. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:51, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::Is that allowed? There isn't anything about it in the proposal rules, and I've never heard of such a thing happening. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 18:58, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::Rule 14 states: "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation". I assume "rewritten" implies you can bring in any modifications, including additions--I've done it before in my proposals and nobody minded. [[Special:Diff/3595274|It's been 2 days and ~6 hours since the proposal was published]], so I think changing it as of this comment's writing is still ok. ''If'' your question refers to the matter of overlapping options, I'd say that, since the proposal at hand already sets out to amend the rules, you may indeed add any further stipulations if you see it fit. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:18, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::I wasn't talking about my own proposal, I was asking if a rule about the overlapping options thing ''already existed'' (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't). {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 19:32, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::It doesn't, that's why I was suggesting it's offhandedly taken care of in the current proposal. Adding such a rule could and should have been made through a separate proposal, but what the current proposal advocates makes way to the issues described above by LTL (although I still support the amendment per se), so I was thinking you could kill two birds with one stone by taking care of it in the same proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:49, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem with deciding on the addition of such a rule here is that this proposal already has four options, and that would require adding additional variants of those options that include adding the new rule. If there turned out to be disagreement on whether it should be added or not, this would cause division amongst the current options' votes (which are already rather close between two of them), thus increasing the risk of this proposal stalemating. Anyway, I already mentioned that the issue described in LTL's hypothetical proposal ''is already present'' due to rule 9, so as long as rule 9 exists, problem #1's solution doesn't cause any issues that don't already exist. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 20:07, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Yeah, ultimately, it might be better to address that matter in a future proposal. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:19, April 9, 2022 (EDT)


@SmokedChili: If I understand correctly, what you have described is precisely what this proposal is trying to implement. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:12, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
===Create a category for teenagers===
:No, the difference is that with the solution 2 in effect NQs will be null because the rule will be altered from the less-than-4-votes proposals getting cancelled by NQ to them being extended instead; I want to keep the NQ condition as-is. If a proposal can't gather enough votes before the deadline, I see no point to drag it on. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 12:13, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
One thing that feels strange to me on this wiki is the current age categories. We have [[:Category:Children|children]] and [[:Category:Babies|babies]]. However, when it comes to teenagers, it either goes to the children category or doesn't go there at all. Granted, both are underage, but it does not help the average user who wants to find all the teenage characters on this wiki. I mean, if we are okay with creating the categories for the previous underaged characters, a third one one wouldn't hurt. For this to count, I looked for every character that was considered to be a teenager in the ''Super Mario'' franchise at one point. We have enough categories for them to be put in, having about ten ''Super Mario'' characters to count. I'm probably missing a couple and if so, please let me know in the comments. The exact criteria are thirteen to seventeen years old or confirmed to be one. Characters like Tiny Kong wouldn't make it in this category as she was never confirmed to be a teenager in her [[Diddy Kong Racing DS|recent design]].
::Solution 2 will not render NQs null, just make them take longer to happen. I'm only proposing that NQ proposals be extended for up to three weeks, not indefinitely. If a proposal is 3-0 by deadline and just needs that one more vote, there's a good chance it will get that one more vote if it's given that extra time, so yes, there ''is'' a point. Even if it ''isn't'' just on the verge of reaching quorum and never does, there's no ''harm'' in extending it; it's not like we're constantly having a problem with too many ongoing proposals at once. AFAIK, we've never ''once'' had it. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 12:51, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
:::NQ is specifically a proposal not meeting the minimum number of votes required before deadline. You're mixing it up with no consensus. So yes, solution 2 will render NQs full. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 14:45, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
::::I'm not mixing anything up. Solution 2 is specifically applying the same three-week extension rule to NQs that we do proposals with no consensus, as stated right there in the proposal text. Meaning an NQ is still possible if three extensions go by and the proposal still does not have enough votes. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 22:49, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
:::::That's just turning a NQ into a no consensus by another name. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 15:11, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
::::::So? You say that as if NQ and no consensus functioning similarly is an actual problem, which I fail to see how it is. You've also been focusing entirely on solution 2; you have yet to explain what your problem is with solution 1 other than inexplicably calling it "convoluted". The only difference I see between my solution 1 and your proposed alternative is that my version would cause 3-1 and 3-2 proposals to NQ, while yours would treat them like a no consensus and extend them (honestly probably a better idea now that I think about it, but that only matters if we ''don't'' apply solution 2, and a solution 1-only outcome is looking unlikely at this point). If that's your issue, then say so, but that's an entirely different problem from being "convoluted". {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 16:07, April 14, 2022 (EDT)


===''[[Pinball (game)|Pinball]]'' (1984): full coverage or guest appearance?===
Below is a list of Super Mario characters who are or were teenagers.
Should ''Pinball'', an NES game released in 1984, be classified as a guest appearance or a part of the ''Mario'' series? This proposal was created following [[User:Mario jc]]'s comment [[Template_talk:Pinball|here]].
*[[Ashley]]<ref group="a" name="Ashley">[http://ms.nintendo-europe.com/wariowaretouched/enGB/index.html ''WarioWare: Touched!'' European website] She is "fifteen going on 500".</ref>
*[[Axem Rangers]]<ref group="a" name="Axem Rangers">Pelland, Scott, and Kent Miller. Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Player's Guide. Page 4.</ref>
**[[Axem Red]]
**[[Axem Black]]
**[[Axem Green]]
**[[Axem Pink]]
**[[Axem Yellow]]
*[[Mona]]
*[[Muffy]]
*[[Tommy Treehugger]]


I believe this game features enough Mario-related content to justify full coverage of this game on this wiki. 1 out of 3 scenes is dedicated to Mario. In the scene C the player is controlling Mario to save Pauline, Mario is also heavily used in promotional material, including being on the cover-art for this game.  
And here is a list of non-''Super Mario'' characters who would be affected by this proposal. '''This only applies if they were portrayed as teenagers within said game. For example, [[Vector|Vector the Crocodile]] was labeled as one in his earlier appearances but is considered an adult in later games, including all ''Mario & Sonic'' games.'''
*[[Inkling]]
*[[Pac-Man]]<ref group="a" name="pacster">''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP DX]]'' uses the ''Ghostly Adventures'' design of Pacster, who is a teenager in that show.</ref>
*[[Blaze|Blaze the Cat]]
*[[Espio|Espio the Chameleon]]
*[[Jet (Sonic the Hedgehog)|Jet the Hawk]]
*[[Knuckles|Knuckles the Echidna]]
*[[Silver|Silver the Hedgehog]]
*[[Sonic|Sonic the Hedgehog]]
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Ness|Ness]]<ref group="a" name="earthbound"> His age is listed as twelve to thirteen years old.</ref>
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee#Roy|Roy]] from ''Fire Emblem''
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U#Little Mac|Little Mac]]
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate#Sora|Sora]]
*[[List of Assist Trophy characters#Issac|Isaac]]
*[[List of Assist Trophy characters#Jeff|Jeff]]<ref group="a" name="earthbound"></ref>
*[[List of Assist Trophy characters#Lyn|Lyn]]<ref group="a" name="lyn"> Depending on the languages of her games, she is either of teenage age or adult age.</ref>


Alternatively, we can '''only''' allow coverage for the scene C, which features Mario as a playable character and Pauline.
I don't know any potential counterarguments in disfavor of this, because this would be much more helpful and less broad than having any underage character be sent to the children category, especially when that's rare, as some of the above-mentioned characters are not put in that category. Plus, it would be weird to call Little Mac or Mona a child. Yes, I know people sometimes describe teens as kids, but it's a lot more misleading if put in those categories.  


'''Affected pages:'''
'''Proposer''': {{User|TheUndescribableGhost}}<br>
* [[Template:Pinball]]
'''Deadline''': May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
* [[Card (Pinball)]]


'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br>
====Support====
'''Deadline''': April 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} Per proposal


====Allow full coverage====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Spectrogram}} per proposal.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - The main reason we have the "babies" category is the ''Yoshi's Island'' games having the baby counterparts. There's no teen-focused variation of the ''Mario'' cast (knock on wood, there)
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - if [[Alleyway]] can get full coverage, so can this.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} As someone who feels [[:Category:Children]] doesn't have much of a reason to exist, a category for teenagers would have even less of a reason to.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per SolemnStormcloud.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I feel like this is one of the loosest games you can consider part of the franchise (and Mario is not referenced or advertised at all on the Famicom box), but Lady/Pauline is mentioned in the manual's "plot"/objective, so you can say it barely counts.
#{{User|Tails777}} I just don't think this is entirely necessary. At least the Mario series makes the whole babies thing really simple; they are characters designed to be babies and stay that way. The third party examples going by "which design is based on a teenage appearance" just feels unnecessary. I think, in the end, it's just not a necessary category.
#{{User|Jacklavin}} Perhaps this is a crossover between the Mario series and the game of pinball. We have full coverage of the Mario & Sonic series. I'd argue that this game fits into the Donkey Kong/DK Jr./Donkey Kong GB line of games and would suggest adding it in the "related games" section of that series, if it's not already there.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We really don't need this, especially since a lot of characters that are actually concretely teenagers are just kinda like that, and it's not like... a tenet of who they are. When the Child category is already under scrutiny for how it's moreso trivia than actually relevant information, this has even less of a leg to stand on. The closest thing we could think of is basically reworking the Child category to a "Minors" category, but ''even then'', that would succumb to the same issues the current Child category does... And that's not even getting in to the total elephant room that is [[Ashley]], who is '''allegedly''' "15, going on 500", and whether they're on the "teenager" side of this equation or the "adult" side of this equation seems to depend on how funny Nintendo feels like being that day--and more often than not, they do answer "teenager", if not even younger than that.
#{{User|Mustard Machine}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} Per all. Also, to expand on the Ashley thing, in Japan, her age is left ambiguous, but in those Japanese versions for ''Touched'' and ''Gold'' onwards, Ashley sounds remarkably ''younger'' than in Western versions of those games. That makes it seem that Ashley was originally intended to be a preteen child, but the west aged her up to fifteen since she looks older than the kid characters we've had at the time (e.g. [[9-Volt]], who is a 4th-grader). Then again, Ashley looks about as old as Penny Crygor, who is a middle schooler... needless to say, Ashley's true age is a can of worms in itself.
====Classify as a guest appearance (prohibit full coverage)====
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} As I understand it, this removes ''Pinball''-exclusive articles while keeping the main game article intact. If it must be considered a guest appearance, I'd rather go for this approach, since the main article is short enough that I don't feel it's worth trimming. Either way, "penguin" does irk me a bit under the SM64 one.
 
====Allow coverage for the Mario scene (scene C) only (and classify as a guest appearance)====
#{{User|Spectrogram}} Second option.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I do want to add something. I was reminded of pages 238-255 of ''Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.'' earlier which, while "not an exhaustive list", is nonetheless a fairly big one. It contains a bar showing Mario's involvement with each entry: four stars is "Main ''Super Mario'' series games", three stars is "Mario is a major character", two stars is "Mario plays a small part", one star is "Mario's likeness appears", and no star is "A member of the Mario family appears". Obviously, this can vary depending on if it counts ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', or ''Wario'' franchises, or one-off character spinoffs like ''Super Princess Peach'' (two stars), but ''Pinball'' is decidedly none of those (for the record, the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games are two stars, though the wiki deems them a special exception). ''Pinball'' and ''Alleyway'' are given the same two-star status as things like ''Tennis'', ''Tetris'', ''Qix'', and "Famicom Disk System (boot-up screen)". For reference, ''Famicom Grand Prix II: 3D Hot Rally'' has three stars even though ''Famicom Grand Prix: F1 Race'' has two stars, and ''Golf'' isn't mentioned. Granted, this is mainly referring to the involvement of character Mario rather than necessarily being indicative of ''Mario'' games, so make of this what you will. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:14, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
Not sure if I did the references right for this. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 22:54, May 21, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Classify Art Style: PiCTOBiTS as a guest appearance and give it its own page===
The DSiWare game Art Style: PiCTOBiTS is a block-falling game where you try to make various sprites.  A good number of these sprites are from the NES Super Mario Bros., while a couple come from NES Wrecking Crew.  While it's certainly a crossover between different franchises, the main franchise of the game is Mario, since 12 of its 30 stages focus on the franchise.  The game also includes, as part of its main mechanics, coins (using their Super Mario Bros. sprites) and the POW Block; no other franchise is referenced in the main mechanics.  I'd argue that it deserves coverage, just like [[Super Smash Bros.]] and [[NES Remix]].  Let's make a page for it, rather than just including it in the list of Mario references in Nintendo games.  I've written something up in https://www.mariowiki.com/User:Jacklavin/Sandbox.  (I've been playing the game on my 3DS, and I used No$GBA to take the screenshot.)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Jacklavin}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2022, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====References====
#{{User|Jacklavin}} This is my proposal.
<references group="a"/>
#{{User|Spectrogram}} This game has a significant amount of Mario-related content to be classified as a guest appearance.
#{{User|PanchamBro}} Per Spectrogram
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all.
#{{User|Mustard Machine}} Per all.
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
While this game appears on page 250 of the Super Mario Bros. encyclopedia, it's clear from the information provided that the writer only learned about the first stage of the game; its information is actually incorrect. --[[User:Jacklavin|Jacklavin]] ([[User talk:Jacklavin|talk]]) 12:39, April 12, 2022 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 20:57, May 24, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, May 25th, 07:31 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 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

Rules

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)
Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
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)
Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)
Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs, Blinker (ended May 15, 2024)
Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy), Hewer (ended May 20, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing

A writing quirk that seems to pop up everywhere (particularly in the Mario RPG pages/sections) that always drives me nuts is referring to a situation or action as "comical" or "humorous". Generally, these words are used to describe something that is percieved to be amusing, which is obviously subjective and should not be present in encyclopediac writing. However, usage of these words on here seems to follow an improper, "objective" pattern of referring to features intended by the developers as gags or jokes. Examples of blatant misuse:

From the Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser article:

The group runs into Prince Peasley, and after a battle ensues with a few Piranha Beans, Captain Goomba humorously sends out one of them to attack Prince Peasley.

Who says Captain Goomba is trying to make a joke out of sending monsters out to fight an ego-centric prince? In Captain Goomba's eyes, he's practically fighting for his life trying not to be eaten. The only one who could find this humorous is the viewer, and since this is a story synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any viewer.

From Goomba Mask:

In Paper Mario: The Origami King, a different Goomba Mask resembling a Paper Macho Goomba appears in the Shogun Studios storage area. If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, with the humorous appearance making Olivia laugh.

Even though there is actually an in-game audience this time, the wording still implies that the writer thinks it is humorous. In order to emphasize that it's Olivia who thinks it is funny, I changed the last sentence to:

If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, which Olivia finds amusing to the point of laughter.

The article for Kruller has quite possibly the most egregious usage of "humorously" I've ever seen:

When Luigi enters the office afterward, Kruller briefly faints from shock at Luigi entering, before entering the next room to find a suitable weapon to defend himself (humorously getting stuck on his back mid-roll) [...] Gooigi then retrieves the Mezzanine's elevator button, with it being humorously revealed that Luigi slept through the entire battle [...] After defeating Kruller in two-player mode, Luigi, who was watching the battle from outside, takes all the credit saying that he did it, after which Gooigi humorously copies Luigi as he had actually defeated Kruller [...]

All of these are jokes meant for the audience. And once again, because this is a synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be an audience.

And there's way more that I haven't mentioned (just look up the word "humorous" on here and you'll see what I mean). To summarize how I feel this term has been frequently misused, in a form easily copyable for the rules:

Humorous/Comical/etc.
"Humorous", along with other similar words, is used from an observational perspective to describe something one finds amusing or funny, which is, of course, subjective on the part of the writer and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. However, it is commonly misused to refer to anything that is specifically written to be a joke or a gag by the authors of a piece of media. These kinds of words should generally be used only when a character or person relevant to the article finds something amusing. Not to be confused with "comedic", a word that simply means something relates to comedy in general, and is fine to use if a joke is deliberate on the part of a character (or, in case of references to the media's development, a developer).

Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: May 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. DrippingYellow (talk) This whole situation is, dare I say it... "humorous". Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Flowery writing is no laughing matter!
  3. Hewer (talk) I'd add that "comedic" should be used instead to get across that something is meant to be funny while using more objective language, but otherwise, sure, I'll humour this idea.
  4. Ray Trace (talk) We should just get rid of that subjective adjective altogether, let readers decide from the context of the quote if it's humorous or not, we don't need to write an editorial about it (ie sentences such as "Patrick gets caught by Sandy's lasso and dragged back, resulting in a nuclear explosion" already conveys to the reader that it's comedic)
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

"Comical" and "comedic" should be fine, as those simply mean relating to comedy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

"Comedic" is definitely fine, but in multiple dictionary sources I've come across, the definition of "comical" meaning "relating to comedy" is either listed as obsolete and deprecated, or absent altogether. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

@Ray Trace That was a really good example of obvious comedy. SpongeBob itself is comedy, so that was a good idea to use that as an example! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:12, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer I updated the rules blurb, is it good now? DrippingYellow (talk) 11:34, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, that works. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:43, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

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.

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

Decide whether to merge the {{more images}}, {{more media}}, and/or {{more refs needed}}

I may have created the {{more refs needed}} template, but I later saw a discussion for merging it with {{unreferenced}}. That inspired me to plan on merging {{more images}} and {{more media}} with {{image}} and {{media missing}} respectively, so I decided to make a proposal containing three options:

Option 1
Merge {{more images}}, {{more media}}, and {{more refs needed}} with {{image}}, {{media missing}}, and {{unreferenced}} respectively AND create the categories Articles with sections that need more images, Articles with sections that need more images.
Option 2
ONLY merge {{more refs needed}} with {{unreferenced}}.
Option 3
Keep as they are.

Here are some examples:

Template:Image 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FF6;border:1px solid #630">
It has been requested that {{#if:{{{more|}}}|'''more images'''|at least one '''image'''}} be [[Special:Upload|uploaded]] for this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}. Remove this notice only after the {{#if:{{{more|}}}|additional images|image(s)}} have been added. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}}}
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles {{#if:{{{section|}}}|with sections}} that need {{#if:{{{more|}}}|more images|an image}}]]}}</includeonly>

{{image|more=yes|section=yes|Sprites}}

=

It has been requested that more images be uploaded for this section. Remove this notice only after the additional images have been added. Specific(s): Sprites

Template:Media missing 

{| class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#C88AFF;border:1px solid #630"
|style="padding-right:10px"|[[File:Soundx.png|25px|class=invert-dark]]
|style="padding-top:3px"| It has been requested that {{#if:{{{more|}}}|'''more audio and/or video files'''|at least one '''audio and/or video file'''}} related to this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be uploaded. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}<br><small>Please upload all related music, sound effects, voice clips, or any videos for this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}. See the [[Help:Media|help]] page for information on how to get started.</small>
|}<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles {{#if:{{{section|}}}|with sections}} that need {{#if:{{{more|}}}|more media|media}}]]}}</includeonly>

{{media missing|more=yes|section=yes|Voice clips}}

=

Soundx.png It has been requested that more audio and/or video files related to this section be uploaded. Specific(s): Voice clips
Please upload all related music, sound effects, voice clips, or any videos for this section. See the help page for information on how to get started.

{{media missing|more=yes|Videos}}

=

Soundx.png It has been requested that more audio and/or video files related to this article be uploaded. Specific(s): Videos
Please upload all related music, sound effects, voice clips, or any videos for this article. See the help page for information on how to get started.

Template:Unreferenced 

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles {{#if:{{{more|}}}|{{#if:{{{section|}}}|with sections}} that need more citations|with {{#if:{{{section|}}}|unsourced sections|no sources}}}}]]}}</includeonly>

{{unreferenced|more=yes|section=yes|Spanish and German names}}

This section needs additional citations for verification. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Specific(s): Spanish and German names
Please help improve this section by adding citations from reliable sources.

Once the proposal ends with Option 1, we'll be able to merge these templates and then replace the {{more images, {{more media, and {{more refs needed syntax with the {{image|more=yes, {{media missing|more=yes, and {{unreferenced|more=yes syntax respectively. However, once the proposal ends with Option 2, we'll only be able to merge the {{more refs needed}} template and then replace the {{more refs needed syntax with the {{unreferenced|more=yes syntax. Once the proposal ends with Option 3, we'll keep the {{more refs needed template and protect it.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) I like the idea of integrating the functionality of the aforementioned templates.

Option 2

Option 3

Comments

Create a category for teenagers

One thing that feels strange to me on this wiki is the current age categories. We have children and babies. However, when it comes to teenagers, it either goes to the children category or doesn't go there at all. Granted, both are underage, but it does not help the average user who wants to find all the teenage characters on this wiki. I mean, if we are okay with creating the categories for the previous underaged characters, a third one one wouldn't hurt. For this to count, I looked for every character that was considered to be a teenager in the Super Mario franchise at one point. We have enough categories for them to be put in, having about ten Super Mario characters to count. I'm probably missing a couple and if so, please let me know in the comments. The exact criteria are thirteen to seventeen years old or confirmed to be one. Characters like Tiny Kong wouldn't make it in this category as she was never confirmed to be a teenager in her recent design.

Below is a list of Super Mario characters who are or were teenagers.

And here is a list of non-Super Mario characters who would be affected by this proposal. This only applies if they were portrayed as teenagers within said game. For example, Vector the Crocodile was labeled as one in his earlier appearances but is considered an adult in later games, including all Mario & Sonic games.

I don't know any potential counterarguments in disfavor of this, because this would be much more helpful and less broad than having any underage character be sent to the children category, especially when that's rare, as some of the above-mentioned characters are not put in that category. Plus, it would be weird to call Little Mac or Mona a child. Yes, I know people sometimes describe teens as kids, but it's a lot more misleading if put in those categories.

Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk)
Deadline: May 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - The main reason we have the "babies" category is the Yoshi's Island games having the baby counterparts. There's no teen-focused variation of the Mario cast (knock on wood, there)
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) As someone who feels Category:Children doesn't have much of a reason to exist, a category for teenagers would have even less of a reason to.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per SolemnStormcloud.
  4. Tails777 (talk) I just don't think this is entirely necessary. At least the Mario series makes the whole babies thing really simple; they are characters designed to be babies and stay that way. The third party examples going by "which design is based on a teenage appearance" just feels unnecessary. I think, in the end, it's just not a necessary category.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) We really don't need this, especially since a lot of characters that are actually concretely teenagers are just kinda like that, and it's not like... a tenet of who they are. When the Child category is already under scrutiny for how it's moreso trivia than actually relevant information, this has even less of a leg to stand on. The closest thing we could think of is basically reworking the Child category to a "Minors" category, but even then, that would succumb to the same issues the current Child category does... And that's not even getting in to the total elephant room that is Ashley, who is allegedly "15, going on 500", and whether they're on the "teenager" side of this equation or the "adult" side of this equation seems to depend on how funny Nintendo feels like being that day--and more often than not, they do answer "teenager", if not even younger than that.
  6. Arend (talk) Per all. Also, to expand on the Ashley thing, in Japan, her age is left ambiguous, but in those Japanese versions for Touched and Gold onwards, Ashley sounds remarkably younger than in Western versions of those games. That makes it seem that Ashley was originally intended to be a preteen child, but the west aged her up to fifteen since she looks older than the kid characters we've had at the time (e.g. 9-Volt, who is a 4th-grader). Then again, Ashley looks about as old as Penny Crygor, who is a middle schooler... needless to say, Ashley's true age is a can of worms in itself.
  7. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Comments

Not sure if I did the references right for this. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 22:54, May 21, 2024 (EDT)

References

  1. ^ WarioWare: Touched! European website She is "fifteen going on 500".
  2. ^ Pelland, Scott, and Kent Miller. Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Player's Guide. Page 4.
  3. ^ Mario Kart Arcade GP DX uses the Ghostly Adventures design of Pacster, who is a teenager in that show.
  4. ^ a b His age is listed as twelve to thirteen years old.
  5. ^ Depending on the languages of her games, she is either of teenage age or adult age.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4225604"